THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Excuse me, but doesn’t the official sanctioning body of a sport have the right to control the equipment used to play it? What if baseball stopped enforcing the rule to keep unscuffed baseballs in play? Wouldn’t that change the game? What if players were allowed to use any size fielding glove they wanted, use any bat they wanted, etc.?

I realize that for most of us (and especially for me) golf is a difficult sport, and anything making it easier would solve some problems. But it would also reduce the challenge of the game. At higher levels of competition this can have unexpected and possibly detrimental effects.

I am not an expert at golf, but am a very good bowler. I have seen that game “advance” through technology to the point where there is a huge gulf between the high average players and the typical players. “Back in the day” a 200 average was very good indeed, almost professional caliber. Today the top league players average in excess of 220, 240 is not unheard of, and the record for a season is over 260. This in a game where the maximum score is 300. Meanwhile, the “average” bowler has not advanced much at all, still being in the mid 160s. Better players are much more adept at making use of technological advantages. The balance between strikes and spares has tilted heavily in favor of strikes, so that developing an effective strike ball is rewarded much more than learning how to cover spares. Tinkering with the rules and the technology of a sport is not something to be taken lightly. Even at the “lower levels” of a sport you need rules to play by.

Steve, did you miss my analogy, and the conditional statement?

Let me be clearer then.  I have zero problems with street hockey and lower-level hockey using plastic blades on a wooden shaft.  Have you ever played street hockey?  Wood breaks very easy on asphalt streets.  Plastic was our saviour.

I have zero problems with using an orange ball to play street hockey.  Have you ever played with a puck on the street?  It’s not fun.

I have zero problems with kids having smaller basketballs, footballs, baseballs, or pucks.  It’s important to keep things in proportion.

I have zero problems with the height of a basketball hoop to be 7 feet or 8 feet or 9 feet, depending on the height of the kids.  Do we need to have it 10 feet for some overweight adults looking to play a pickup game?  Don’t they have the right to dunk a ball?

I have zero problems with rec leagues using aluminum bats.  Have you ever played baseball or softball?  Wooden bats are expensive to replace.  I’ve had the same aluminum bat for 15 years.  Those suckers are hard to break.  Not to mention that it’s way easier for me to find the right weight balance for my kid to use with aluminum than with wood.

I have zero problems with a rec baseball league that has the CF fence out to 300 feet.  Do you know how far 400 feet is?  It’s about 100 feet more than 300 feet.  It’s damn far.  Hitting HR is fun, and not just for strong guys who face weak pitching.

I have zero problems with rec leagues using 8, 10, 12, 14 lb bowling balls.  Have you ever bowled?  Those suckers are heavy, if all you want is a bit of fun with the company outing.  And even with an 8lb ball, my kid has to hold the ball with two hands.  (I have no idea what the rule is on holding a bowling ball, and I don’t care.)

The USGA technical director should only speak about competitive leagues, those leagues that take their sports so seriously that they aspire to be pros, or think of themselves as playing a pro game.

To not have the thought that perhaps some of us are trying out there having fun, being Sunday athletes, and making up rules that are consistent for that ("ahhh… mulligan!… that’s blasphemy!") is beyond ridiculous.  It’s a self-righteous sanctification that is unneeded for the issue at hand.

Let’s look at baseball, and which rules are untouchable.  Ready?

1. four bases
2. at start of inning, bases are empty (i.e., bases at end of inning are cleared)
3. force outs

Uh, that’s it.  EVERYTHING else is in play.

a. 4 balls, 3 strikes?  I’ve played in no-walk games, so all you had were strikes.

b. 3 outs?  I’ve played in games where each side goes through the whole batting order.  Or, you stick to 3 outs, and then you bat through the rest of the order just for fun.

c. 9 innings?  I’ve played in games with 7 innings, or mercy rules.

d. pitcher?  I’ve played where you pitch to your own batter.  And kids of course have t-balls.

e. safety bases, lines?  I’ve played where first base is double-sized, with one base actually in foul territory, because there’s no reason that the firstbaseman and runner need to have their feet so close to each other potentially.  And when trying to score, once you cross the commit line, it’s a force play at home, so we don’t have to worry about crashing the catcher.

f. nine fielders? I’ve played with 5 to 12 fielders.

g. two teams?  I’ve played where you have a 4-player team batting, a 4-player team in the infield, and a 4-player team in the OF/P.

And you know what, through it all, it was still baseball.  We LOVED it. Because what makes baseball baseball was that you have bases where you are safe, and you score when you touch all 4 bases.

I’d hate to have the baseball-police come and tell us to stop having fun or stop calling it baseball, just because it’s not approved by the baseball technical director.

Thoughts:

- does it work?  So far, I am only hearing the company’s reps say so.  Are they suggesting that I couldn’t slice their ball into the woods?  That’s a bold statement there…

- duffers (i.e. most of us) can go ahead and use whatever they want, and do whatever they want, regardless of what the USGA says.  Carry an extra club?  Sure.  Drop a ball next to a hazard rather than walking 250 yards back to the tee box?  Makes sense.  But if you’re in a sanctioned tournament, you play by the rules: you use the right equipment, penalize yourself if a pine needle moves in the breeze while you’re within 10 feet of it, and disqualify yourself if you make an arithmetic error on the most nerve-wracking day of your life.

- equipment standards help keep the focus on the players, not the engineers.  Because, as the USGA likes to say during the U.S. Open and other big tourneys, , “We’re not trying to humiliate the best players in the world, we’re trying to identify them.”

"But if you’re in a sanctioned tournament, you play by the rules”.

But what rules?  Do you know that the NHL and IIHF have different rules regarding fighting and ice size?  And, at some point or other, different rules as to whether the center line means anything or not, how to cancel an offside.  And if the NHL wants no-touch icing, they are not going to need the IIHF’s blessing.

The USGA technical director is acting like Moses with his 20 (er, 10) commandments.

No one is talking about anarchy here.  You follow the rules of the tournament, but those rules don’t have to be approved by a higher body.

One point brought up in the comments section of the article: What about the second shot?

If the dimple pattern needs to be precisely aligned to fly straight wouldn’t misalignment introduce a hook or slice? Unless you lift the ball from the fairway (or rough) and realign the ball the second shot could go anywhere.

Anyway, I don’t have any problem with bumper bowling for kids, or not forcing beginners to obey every single rule, and if the buddies in your weekend foursome don’t care if you improve your lie then who am I to care. But when a member of the governing body says that something is illegal under the rules that applies not just to the pros and the wannabees, but to people in any sanctioned competition including golf leagues. If you care enough about the game to commit to a league you should follow the rules. But if you want to use a nonconforming driver or wedge in a casual round that’s entirely up to you.

Steve/6: I’m not arguing about those points.

I’m just taking exception to Moses handing out his decree that he has to make the point he did by really going out on that plank.  It’s disingenuous to characterize the argument as he did.

I’d use those balls if I had them.  No sort of tournament rules apply to me and the type of recreational golf I rarely do.  But for $30?  Probably not worth it.  I’d still find a way to lose the ball.  Now if you invented a ball that was water repellant, that would skip over a water trap and land in the fairway, that might be worth the investment.

I agree that his comments were a little over the top, especially for an official.  But I agree with the sentiment here.  Recreational players can do or use what they want. In sanctioned tournaments and “official” play, all sports have equipment conforming rules for obvious reasons.  And different level tournaments often have different rules.  Even in golf, the PGA has some rules that the USGA does not. Now, golf tends to have more uniform rules for all levels of play than does other sports…

Tango -

You analogy of 7-8-9-10 foot hoop height doesn’t apply here.  Nor does 300 vs 400 foot fences.  Because golf already takes that into account with different tee boxes, making each hole play to a length that takes your age/sex/strength/skill into account.

Same with the 8-10-12-14 lb bowling balls or smaller footballs and basketballs for kids.  Because at 1.62 ounces and 1.68 inches in diameter, a golf ball isn’t too big or heavy for anyone to handle.  And this new ball isn’t being marketed to kids anyways.  It’s aimed at adult hackers.

A better analogy would be a baseball for rec leagues that when gripped a certain way would always result in a slider.  No skill on behalf of the thrower required.

Would you be in favor of that ?  Basically giving a skill away as opposed to players having to earn it ?

95% of the golf I play is recreational.  And during those rounds, I bend the USGA rules plenty.  But I’d never play a ball like this, other than maybe once out of curiosity.

There’s no such thing as “always”. 

But, let’s say that it was hugely disproportionate, I’d be ok with a “trick ball”. Have you ever played in an all-dirt infield with a “rubber” type baseball?  Extremely challenging for a fielder (not only for the bounces on the ground, but to also be able to control it in the glove).

I have zero problems with just about anything you can conceive.  Even in a tournament setting, as long as everyone was aware of the rules beforehand, so they could leverage it if they wanted to.

Everyone who’s involved in the game has to agree to the rules. If you don’t agree, don’t play, or create another game with different rules. (And I mean that in the most basic sense—find another ball field where people want to use the auto-slider baseball, or another gold league where they want to use the auto-straight gold ball.)

It follows that if you’re the only participant in the game (you vs. yourself via the golf course), you can create your own rules (as long as you aren’t violating non-game rules, like taking too much time or divoting the green.)

"I have zero problems with just about anything you can conceive.  Even in a tournament setting, as long as everyone was aware of the rules beforehand, so they could leverage it if they wanted to.”

Would this principle include, say, PED usage ?  Make ‘em all legal, and each player could decide for themself whether to use them or not ?

If you always keep your own score and never play in any kind of match (no matter how informal) except against those who also use the auto correcting ball, I say go for it.  But just giving others the option to play with the auto correcting ball isn’t enough.  Not everyone wants to cheat.

Mike/13: I have countless times made my position clear on PED.  But, in case you missed it: PED is a workplace safety issue.  It’s up to the players to decide how they want their workplace setup.  If the majority remain silent, and let the inmates run the asylum, then they made their choices.  If the players want strict controls, they can put it in themselves (without even including the commissioner’s office!).

Now, if the commissioner’s office wants to include PED testing as well, then they can negotiate that, because part of the product is the brand called MLB.

I’m not much of a golfer, but to me it seems like there is a flaw in the marketing plan.  I’m looking at this thinking “The only people willing to pay the $30 are the people who hate the idea of it.” Then again, aluminum bats were/are going for upwards of $350 before limits starting being put in place at lower levels.

I fall on Tango’s side of the discussion at hand though.  Some of the most fun I’ve had playing sports have been with unsanctioned or spur of the moment rules.  I’ve heard of major league hitters taking bp with aluminum bats just to see what they could do with it.  Doesn’t make them hate pure baseball, just makes them want to see what they could do.  Nobody is going to try and use the ball in a USGA event, so why does he care?

Tangotiger/14: My apologies.  While I’m a semi-regular reader (and occasional contributor) here I must confess that I don’t know your position on every subject.

It’s up to the players ?  Crazy talk.  Common sense says that management/ownership should have a say in that, too.

Mike/16: Uh, the second paragraph of Tango/14 said that the commissioner’s office CAN have a say as well.  So, when you say this:

“Common sense says that management/ownership should have a say in that, too. “

Then I have already pre-said this:
“Now, if the commissioner’s office wants to include PED testing as well, then they can negotiate that, because part of the product is the brand called MLB.”

So, you don’t necessarily have to be aware of what I’ve said in the past threads, but at least be aware of what I said in the post you are responding to!