THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Tango, you know that I am one of the traditional golf apologists, but although golf is a VERY traditional sport, there are logical reasons for almost every rule. And when it is found that the logic no longer applies or simply that the logic is tenuous, they DO change the rules.  This one is a good change, although not a slam dunk.  The reason for the rule was that is is often difficult to distinguish between the wind moving the ball and the player accidentally touching the ball and it moving.  The important thing is that there are no officials watching every play as there are in all other sports. So who is going to make the judgment as to whether it was the wind or the club? (Yes, I realize that it is USUALLY obvious.)

Another example of a similar change in golf is this:

It used to be that if you hit a ball from one bunker (say, a fairway bunker) to another one, like a greenside bunker, and you raked the trap after your shot (like you are supposed to), you would incur a 2 stroke penalty for “testing the sand”.  The testing the sand applied to your second bunker shot, since you are not allowed to touch the sand before you hit a bunker shot.

Although that rule makes some sense (even though it is a different bunker, the texture of the sand may be similar or the same), they changed that because the logic was tenuous.

Again, I simply don’t think that you can have much of an opinion on the rules of any sport unless you are an avid follower or player of that sport.

Do you ever listen to what people who don’t follow baseball much say about some of the rules when they watch a game?

No, but I’d love to listen to their opinion!

As for the “testing the sand”, your foot is in the sand when you are walking to the ball.  So, you are already “testing” it.  Are you supposed to gingerly walk over to the ball, or are you allowed to “set yourself” a bit?

In any case, my baseball analogy above has never been disputed by even the most avid of golf or baseball fans.  Therefore, that analogy holds.  Indeed, I think I remember you even agreeing that the analogy is a fair one, that you would have to forfeit the World Series game if the rule was the rule, and everyone was always aware of that rule.

You and I will never see eye to eye when it comes to rules for all sports, I don’t think. Which is fine of course.

For example, I think that changing the IBB rules would be a joke.  I think they are perfectly fine the way they are (although I would not mind seeing an automatic IBB rather than having to throw 4 balls).

Hahaha… I love these posts, and I take no offense to your anti rules of golf propaganda!

I will say though, that for some reason your normally indisputable good judgement seems clouded when you talk about golf. Let me paint a slightly different picture of that analogy you posted.

In your post you jokingly take issue with the crazy rule in golf where you have to sign your scorecard yadayada or it’s not official. I totally understand it sounds strict, to say the least. What happened on the course happened - we all saw it, everyone knows it - it’s literally indisputable. So why should one tiny minor detail cost someone a disqualification? Well, why exactly does the umpire, after every single walk-off homerun, dig into the pile of celebrating players to make sure that the runner touches home? We all saw it go out of the park - it’s indisputable, everyone is cheering, losing fans are walking out of the stadium. But alas, that player has to sign his card by stamping his foot on homeplate. It’s simply not an official score until he does.

Is there logic there? Kind of. It’s just a rule. Your score is not official until your marker and/or opponent has signed your card. You haven’t really hit a homerun until you touch all 4 bases, even though you actually have hit the homerun and there’s literally no drama left.

Here’s a very quick background on the wind rule that has been changed - (formerly) if you “ground your club” and the ball moves, it’s a penalty. The logic is that, if the ball is at rest (and has been at rest for a while) then you happen to put your club behind the ball and it moves… well, there’s a darn good chance you made it move. The trouble is, for the past 10/20 years they cut greens and fairways so finely and “roll” them to achieve such perfect playing conditions, that gusts of wind are able to move balls with much more regularity. And in extreme cases when it’s really effing windy, your ball may never really be COMPLETELY at rest. It’s nuts. In those cases, instead of grounding your club, you would simply hover your club behind it - you’re never actually grounding your club, thus you can not be penalized. Anyone who has been called for this penalty has gotten lazy on a windy day, put their club behind the ball (grounded it) and then the wind moved it - penalty. Smart, careful players can always avoid this penalty, even under the old rules.

However, that doesn’t mean it was a good rule. Since greens and fairways are so well manicured, it became more and more common for balls to move on their own. Slow to change the rule? Yep, definitely. Based in logic before and after - yep.

I challenge you to bring up a golf rule that isn’t based in logic. You just won’t find one. Regardless, I love these posts, and the rules of golf are admittedly hilariously complicated and overbearing… but save a few rules like this where times/technology change and the rules are still catching up, they are all based in sound logic.

Lee, beautiful post. I agree 100% with everything you said. I live your HR analogy. Absolutely love it.

I challenge you to bring up a golf rule that isn’t based in logic.

Failure to sign scorecard = disqualified.

If you don’t mind my shifting the burden of proof momentarily, can you explain the logic behind disqualifying a competitor if they fail to apply ink to a certain spot on a certain sheet of paper at a particular moment in time well after the competition has ended?

Also, can I object to the tag “logical” not on the basis of the absurdity of the rule, but instead on the absolutely ridiculous mismatch between the severity of the offense and the punishment?

Sorry, one more:

On the HR analogy, when Chris Chambliss hit a walkoff homer to win the 1976 ALCS, he was swarmed by fans and could not reach home plate.  He had to come out 20 minutes later to touch it.

If it had been golf, he would not have been declared out; the Yankees would have been disqualified, meaning they not only don’t win the game 7-6, they lose the homer, they lose the game, they lose the series, and the KC Royals advance to the World Series.

Thanks, MGL.

Greg/5

Rules concerning the scorecard are procedural. So it’s not quite as satisfying (but I’ll still attempt it) to apply logic to individual pieces of the procedure, whereas the rules of play are directly driven by cause and effect and equity (a buzz word that gets thrown around a lot in golf rules chatter). However, the idea of having a procedure is logical. They are saying “Here’s how you officially submit your score. If you mess up, we’re going to penalize you because to 100% ensure fairness and accurate scorekeeping, this process has to be perfectly consistent among all players.” There has to be some set procedure, and it’s been decided that a key piece in validating your score is for both the marker and your opponent say “yep, that’s what he shot, I saw it myself” at the end of the round, and they indicate so by physically signing the card before it’s been submitted.

Now, surely this is a bit of a vestige of the old days when there weren’t cameras recording nearly every shot, and crowds counting every stroke. In fact, if they decided to change the rule someday, I wouldn’t be surprised at all. Your score would be kept in real time by OFFICIAL scoreboards (the current scoreboards you see during PGA events are NOT official). The signature rule absolutely falls under the category of “Made perfect sense when they wrote the rule, but with new technology, doesn’t totally need to be in the rule book anymore.

As for the punishment - it’s simply a deterrent. Only recently are we lucky enough to have the volunteers and technology to even contemplate the scenario where every single stroke of every player on the course is recorded for them. Forever in golf has the individual player been forced to take ownership of keeping his own score and the score of his competitor. Then the third party (the marker) is there for an additional, neutral check. If you don’t make the penalty for screwing up this self administered and policed procedure very steep… well, it ensures as close to 100% compliance as you can get.

And that’s the overarching goal of the rules of golf: Equity.

---

Now I’ll flip it around on you, just for fun.

Defend the logic in allowing a hitter to run to first base when the catcher drops a third strike.

Greg/8

Oh, and that’s merely a twist in each of the sports’ procedures. In baseball if the other team simply tags home plate with the ball in hand, they nullify the homerun. The only reason they didn’t lose is because the other team didn’t notice. They leave you a loophole - or more accurately, they make the other team punish you when you don’t follow the procedure.

In golf there is no other team. The rules have to punish you.

Greg/8

I understand why you are trying to make this parallel between the walk-off homer/managers signing a card, but it really does not work. You can not take the rules from a team sport and compare it to an individual sport that is inherently different in every way (save, perhaps, the idea of ball-striking).

One could take many other rules, and use them as a counter argument.

Analogy - If a ball lands in fair territory (past the corner bags of course) and proceeds to enter foul territory afterwards, the ball is still fair. In golf, if a ball lands in bounds, or ‘fair’ and ends out of bounds, or ‘foul,’ thats a penalty.

You can’t directly take rules/punishments from one sport and literally apply them to other sports.

I think Tango is arguing here the logic, specifically to the rules of Golf.

Tango -

I think the idea of signing a card is rooted in a fundamental belief that the rules of golf are enforced primarily by the golfers, as opposed to some governing body. If I accidentally move the ball, touch the dirt in a bunker, carry<14 clubs in my bag etc. it is up to me, first and foremost, to call that penalty.

Certainly, professionally that is no longer the case, as the USGA and R&A are massively staffed institutions that could, and do, enforce every minutiae of the rule book.

However, this is where golf started, and this is where golf is for the vast majority of golfers (you and I). Could this be changed for today’s professionals? Of course. In all likelihood, not a single aspect of the game would be affected by a rules change.

But that doesn’t mean that its illogical, just perhaps, superfluous.

It’s a question of proportionality.

Not touching each base, even for a ball not in play, will only affect THAT PLAY.  Batter will be called out.

Under what conditions do you have a forfeit in baseball?  Well, if one team, or its fans, refuses to allow its opponent to play.  A game forfeit is a drastic action.

In golf?  For not acknowledging in signature what the 1 million TV referees counted.  (And don’t get me started on the 1 million TV referees.)

When they play chess, or tennis, do the competitors simply shake hands, or do they then have to go sign some card?

Tango, I really think you are fighting a losing (and illogical) battle here. 

Lee makes a great point about the HR, and all you can say is that, “Well, it would only cost an out?”

Whether it costs an out, 2 outs, or the whole game, why must the player touch home base?  According to your arguments, that is a ridiculous rule.

There are many rules in golf which don’t require forfeiture, obviously. The reason that not signing your scorecard results in forfeiture is obvious.

The point of signing your scorecard is that you are attesting to your score.  Without signing, you have no score.  There is no way to penalize a player 1 or 2 strokes.  It is simple.  You don’t attest to your score, you have no score.  You have no score, you are DQ.

Obviously signing a scorecard is a vestige, and if they changed that, no one would be the worse on the PGA tour at least.  Yes, at the same time, no one cares to change the rule, because no one cares that you have to sign the card.  Signing is a formality which takes a second or two.

In smaller tournaments without TV and the like, signing the score card is relatively important.  If there is a dispute about a score, which you would be surprised how often there is, you have to be able to say to the player, “You signed for this score, right?” So, do you want no signing if the tournament is on TV, but signing if it isn’t?

As a golfer and even as a logical, (relatively) sane person, I feel silly even arguing this.  I really do.

You (Tango) have some bugaboo about golf.  Maybe in past life, you were hit with a golf ball and severely injured…

Of course the proportionality matters!  There are plenty of ridiculous rules in baseball (and the uncaught third strike could definitely be one), and if it only costs a ball or a strike or a base or an out, then that’s one thing.  If it’s forfeiture, then that’s a whole different ball game.

What about forfeiture for kneeling on your towel, or using too many clubs, or using an electric cart… or whatever leaps of logic Oliver Wendell Holmes would be able to weave if he had control of the revered Rules… I mean {echo} RULES {echo}?  The Fairly Odd Parents also have similar logical rules.

While one issue is if the rule itself is silly, the other issue is if the penalty is proportional.

If the only way to make a silly rule (signing a scorecard) “logical” is that you have to require forfeiture, then more important than logic is proportionality of penalty.

I don’t have any bugaboo… I am just flabbergasted.  I argue this with my golf buddies all the time, and we don’t see eye to eye on these things. There’s a definite divide by those who have been brought up and taught like it was a religion, and the other people like me (and maybe I’m in the minority).

I stand by my entire illustration of Moses/Oprah, the analogy to the long-time practice of baseball managers signing scorecards, and the Orwellian logic of whatever is in the rulebook could only be there because it was logical even if it contradicted itself a week earlier.  And no one is disputing me on any of it. 

The only arguments against me would make politicians proud, as it’s nothing but misdirection! 

I mean, Lee’s equating running around the bases, which is a requirement for every run scored, to signing a scorecard, because the analogy is that “well, everyone can see what happened”?  C’mon dude! 

Running around on a HR is equivalent to a tap-in gimme with a ball at the lip.  It’s a requirement to finish the hole that the ball land in the hole, regardless of how benign the travel of the ball to the hole.  THAT’s the analogy.  Forfeiture for not signing your name as equivalent to being putout for not running around your HR?  Please.

I suspect the rule is designed to create a perjury-like situation.  After all, it’s often not the original offense that carries the big penalty: it’s the cover-up.

What is the penalty for submitting a signed but incorrect score card?  I don’t know the answer, but presumably (if found) this is treated as cheating and punishable by at least forfeiture of the match.

A prospective cheater has five options:
1) Submit a correct, signed card.
2) Submit a correct, unsigned card.
3) Submit an incorrect, signed card.
4) Submit an incorrect, unsigned card.
5) Fail to submit a card.

Option #1 is what the rules ought to encourage.  Option #3 should be harshly punished.  Option #4 is the one that gives them enforcement problems—it is hard to enforce this in the same manner as option #3 unless the rules also crack down on options #2 (almost certainly oversight rather than cheating) and #5 (which could be either oversight or cheating).

Interestingly, tournament bridge also requires competitors from both sides to verify the score card.  However, at moderate levels of competition, this is rarely enforced (un-initialed score slips are pretty common).  Two things make this laxness workable:
* There is a generous correction period after the official scores are posted.
* The culture encourages correcting the score (especially!) when it is against your interest to do so.  At almost any tournament, you will see someone pointing out a scoring error in their favor that the opponents failed to catch.  It only makes news when a pair/team moves themselves out of first place by correcting an error that had been made in their favor (which happens every now and then).

Lee #10:

You wrote:

The only reason they didn’t lose is because the other team didn’t notice.

No, I don’t see it that way.  The umpire could never have called Chambliss out for not touching home plate if he was prevented from doing so by a completely uncontrolled mob.  Not to mention the fact that the catcher would have to touch home plate with a ball in his hand - actually, not just a ball, but THE ball.  Either he retrieves the ball from the RF seats (ha) or the umpire hands him “the next ball” for the next play, which of course (correctly) never happened since there was no next play.

This was an unforeseen situation, which was handled with common sense by the umpiring crew.  It would not happen now, because it happened once and now they make sure of the home plate touch when it is needed…

I have no problem with making the pros play by any arbitrary rule, because it is their job to avoid infractions at all times possible.

I’m constantly amazed that golf allows TV viewers to phone in and report infractions. This has to be the most unfair situation possible, where non-participants actually initiate calls against players. But only players being closely covered on TV. I can see officials reviewing questionable calls, like other sports, but the analogies in other sports of fans initiating calls, and officials listening, boggles the mind. Every NFL play would be hilarious - “Ok, this time we have 3 holding calls, a neutral zone infraction, pass interference and unnecessary roughness. Penalties again offset, still first down on the first drive, but time has expired. Like last week, all games end in a 0-0 tie.”

What always amazes me is how seriously some hackers take the some of the finer points of the rules. Sometimes. Because very few players properly enforce yellow stakes vs. red stakes, often because courses don’t use them properly (I see a lot of yellow stakes on lateral hazrds, where it is impossible to do anything but re-tee by the rules) . Not many will go back to the tee to re-hit upon finding a surprise Out of Bounds, just for practical concerns. A lost ball in unmarked areas isn’t properly enforced - I’ve played all my life and I’m not exactly sure how a lost ball works in some spots on a course. And again, no one goes back to the tee unless it’s an official competition. Lots of players don’t even finish out holes (one thing I do make a point to do), instead picking up putts that weren’t conceded by anyone, just to get a hole over with.

Then the same guys will try to call an infraction when you accidentally graze the sand while preparing a bunker shot. Or a ball-wiggle while addressing a shot (they happen in the fairway and rough too, not just the green). These types of things, which affect nothing whatsoever, are rightfully scorned by types like me (weekend players). I’ve happily played with a guy who teed up every shot except putts (his wedge shots from 30 yards were interesting), a lady who had at least 20 clubs in her cart...strict adherance to rules for recreational players is entirely optional, to me. Sure, you can’t claim a proper handicap, but most players aren’t entering tournaments.

aweb speaks my language.

"I simply don’t think that you can have much of an opinion on the rules of any sport unless you are an avid follower or player of that sport.”

I thought of a number of examples where I don’t agree, and an outsiders perspective helps:

- Fighting in hockey
- Pro hockey players not wearing face protection
- Pitchers intentionally throwing at batters
- Women being forced to wear different uniforms than men in many sports
- Taunting in basketball
- Diving in soccer
- Why do rugby teams recover onside kicks but football teams fail to?

etc…

These are all things that make sense inside the sport but are generally ridiculous...Only outsiders tend to see how ridiculous they are.

With regards to face protection in hockey: the basic argument is that this is a personal choice, so who is anyone to legislate it.

You could try to make a similar argument for seat belts, except when you don’t wear a seat belt, it’s not just you that is affected, but the ambulance, the hospital, and, most important, the insurance company.

So, the quickest way to force facial protection in hockey is to get the insurance companies involved.  Presumably they are involved, and the players simply are content to pay the higher (though invisible to them) premium.

***

I agree that the outsider perspective on fighting is important.  Not in the knee-jerk reaction (we don’t need it), but in the thoughtful manner of a larger comprehensive change (i.e., unintended consequences).  After all, stick fouls are a terrible thing for hockey.

***

In any case, I agree with Hawerchuk’s basic sentiment.

Way off topic now, but, don’t buy into the “removing fighting causes stick fouls to increase” narrative. The NHL had a plague of stick fouls (hooking, obstruction, etc) just killing the game, and it fighting didn’t prevent it from happening or cause it to go away (no matter what people think of the instigator rule) -enforcement of rules (or lack thereof) did. I’m not sure about US college, but Canadian University hockey has a pretty basic no fighting rule - that is, there is no fighting, it’s an automatic ejection and suspension for the most part.

Also, junior hockey at all levels requires a visor, so no NHL player can seriously claim to be held back by something they have had to wear in a game every time since they were 5 years old. If you made hockey helmet rules similar to football helmet rules - that is, excessively penal if they come off on the field of play on purpose, fighting probably goes away except when the players really “mean” it - actual, honest fights instead of staged bouts between pre-agreed combatants. Those fights are the problem, in my opinion.

The only thing stopping the removal of fighting is on the belief that the unintended consequences among all players will be greater than the intended consequence that is limited to the minority.

Chippy or dirty play is that unintended consequence.

The best way to test this is to implement in the AHL.  Then we’ll all know.

The only proven way to stop fighting or reduce chippy play is for a team to be in the playoffs.  The risk of a dumb penalty, or otherwise playing inferior talent, does wonders to stop fighting and chippy play.