THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

The NBA’s and NFL’s zero-tolerance policies essentially eliminate fights, and while cheap shots happen, they’re few and far between. It’s perfectly within the leagues’ abilities to exert institutional control and create zero-tolerance policies for certain fouls because EVERY GAME is televised and, as you hint at, can be reviewed after the fact, too.

The NHL has three things that NBA/NFL don’t have:
1 - continuous action, unlike the start-stop of NFL
2 - close proximity via high speed, unlike the low-speed of NBA
3 - sticks

Going zero-tolerance in NFL and NBA could lead to extra cheap shots, but the opportunity for those are so few and far between compared to NHL. Especially since the cheap shots that a fight-free NHL would have would be mostly done with sticks. 

Goalies are a good example.  Goalies rarely fight.  And their teammates may not be aware that they’re being cheap-shotted.  So, goalies self-police, and they use their sticks to avenge themselves when the referees don’t.

Baseball is similar to NHL in #3 above, in that the players have weapons as well (ball and bat).

So, zero-tolerance policies of NBA/NFL, while somewhat relevant, are not highly relevant.

NHL has zero-tolerance on bench-clearing brawls.  Those can be applied to NBA (if it hasn’t already).  In baseball it’s different, because you have 9 fielders and one hitter (and 0-3 runners). 

What you MAY be able to do in MLB is that only the pitcher, catcher, batter, and on-deck hitter can be involved.  This levels the playing field.  Anyone else gets automatic ejection and 10 game suspension.  Manager gets 5 game suspension.  So, bench-clearers are eliminated.

(First off, did Poz screw the names up in that story, or was it just me? Easy to follow along anyway, great story.)

I don’t necessarily think the in-game system needs to be changed. Warnings are given when an ump sees fit - guys are thrown out when an ump sees fit. It’s all kind of grey, and gives the ump leeway to make whatever call he thinks is right.

What needs to change are the repercussions after the fact. It should be a 3 start/18 game suspension for plunking someone on purpose, as deemed by the MLB after the fact (in an NHL type review by a predetermined discipline team), and 10 starts/50 games if you throw at someone’s head intentionally/with malice. Seems simple, but there’s so little traction when it comes to taking the “old school” baseball things out of baseball. This pretty much fits that definition to a T.

The trick would be to implement it the first few times in true no brainer situations. It has to be black and white, ala Weaver the other day. Then people start to say “well, that guy really deserved it and got punished fairly”, and then it slowly becomes an accepted part of the game.

Here’s one idea:

After any altercation, the umpire announces a “yellow alert” to either or (usually) both teams.  After the yellow alert, an HBP results in a larger penalty: maybe two bases instead of one, or the hit batter goes to third base instead of first.

Also, if there is a subsequent HBP, the offending pitcher may not pitch to either of the next two batters.  (The manager can remove him from the game, or move him to another defensive position for two hitters.)

The umpire will still have the right to eject either or both pitchers.  And the league office will still review the play after the game.

The idea is to make a retaliatory HBP a bigger pain in the butt than just one base.  It forces the manager to use up a reliever, and is more likely to hurt the team on the scoreboard.

We couldn’t find a more recent example than something that happened 30 years ago?

I do agree that the suspensions should be number of starts rather than 5 games or just giving the SP an extra day of rest between starts.

The retaliation beanballs seem to be greatly reduced from the BeanBrawl days of the 80s and early 90s.

Even the Jared Weaver scenario included a message pitch instead of a later in the season retaliation beaning. If Weaver faces DET again this year, warnings will likely be issued before the game.

we all don’t like the vigilante brand of justice.

We don’t?

CC: the thread was inspired by Poz, and then I that thought came to my head.

I didn’t come into this thread with an idea of starting a thread about this topic.

Try to enjoy the threads as they come…

For a hit by pitch, the batter gets 2nd base and the subsequent batter is given 1st base. If the umpire believes a player tried to injure a fielder, he is out and the next batter is also out. To make it matter, the at-bat is official for the subsequent batters. Whether we like it or not, batters care about their batting average and if the previous batter does something to give him an automatic 0-1, he won’t be happy.

You could create rules like this for a number of instances. For it to matter, you have to make the penalty strict. If you just gave the hit batter 2nd base, it probably wouldn’t be a big deal, but if you then give the next batter a base, it becomes a much bigger deal. If you wanted, you could even do it by score. If it’s a 6 or 7 run game the pitching team may be more likely to take revenge and hit a batter. Fine. The pitching team has runs taken away and the batting team gets bases.

These double base ideas are crazy to me. You don’t have to change the game at all, it’s just not necessary. Especially since in the heat of the moment umpires have, can, and will make bad judgment calls. The last thing you want to do is to make more IN game controversy around umpires. There just needs to be repercussions, it’s as simple as that. The MLB needs to grow a backbone and protect its players, and forget the notion of the oldschool justice, wild west yadayada. But it’s clear they just don’t really care. I’m sure the Weaver incident got replayed 10000000 times in the 2 days after it happened. It’s exciting.

I agree that I don’t like the umpires using their opinion to judge intent.

***

I don’t like the idea of managers actually arguing with umpires, and being allowed to come on the field.  You don’t see that in NHL, NBA, NFL, soccer.  Is there any sport that allows it?  In those sports, they argue from the bench/sideline, or they call timeout if they have to.

I very much enjoyed this story about the late Jim Bibby. My favorite story involving Bibby had Texas manager Whitey Herzog wanting to send Big Jim to beat the tar out of Bernie Brewer (or whatever that Milwaukee mascot was/is called) for stealing signs—this cf. the recent business in Toronto with Bautista and the guy with the white sleeves. As for brawls et al: I just wonder if a good old-fashioned Canucks-Bruins on-ice dust-up late in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals might have led to less rioting in the Vancouver streets. Not advocacy; just speculation.

"I don’t like the idea of managers actually arguing with umpires, and being allowed to come on the field.  You don’t see that in NHL, NBA, NFL, soccer.  Is there any sport that allows it?  In those sports, they argue from the bench/sideline, or they call timeout if they have to.” The proximity of the officials to the sidelines/coaches is much closer outside of baseball. Besides, the spectacle of the home manager running out to argue with the ump is cathartic for the crowd, which gets a spontaneous opportunity to fight authority vicariously when it happens.

It’s interesting that baseball doesn’t have any game-level penalties for misbehavior.  In soccer, unsportsmanlike conduct gets you a yellow card (or red card).  In hockey, it’s a two-minute penalty.  In football, the team loses yardage.

But in baseball, you can get yourself kicked out of the game, but there are no WPA-level consequences otherwise.

Oh, that’d be cool, right?  A manager is ejected, and the batter starts 0-2 or 3-0 as you need it.

I love that kind of disincentive system.

I would like to see something like the NBA’s system of suspensions for too many flagrant/technical fouls.

For example (all numbers for illustrative purposes):
* HBP above the shoulders -> automatic ejection + 5 pts
* HBP puts batter on the DL -> 5 pts
* other HBP above the strike zone -> 3 pts
* all other HBP -> 1 pt

Accumulate 10 pts in 50 innings -> automatic 15 game suspension

It’s the Motor Vehicle or Car Insurance system.  I like the basic concept of it…

Tom, I enjoy all the posts. My question in my previous comment was sincere, not sarcastic.

That instance seemed like a strange jumping off point for a rule change discussion.

Anyway, in regards to manager ejections ... HS has a decent system of “get ejected, sit out the next game as well”. 2nd ejection, sit the next 2 games, and multiplies from there.

Is the arguing really all that entertaining? If so, then baseball even more boring than I thought. Half the time the manager is just arguing a call that he knows was right so he can “protect a star player” and gain respect and all that (nice try, Quade).

The other day some manager got ejected arguing a home run reversal after it was reviewed via instant replay. The manager still thought he knew better?

The best thing about arguing in baseball is the “can’t argue balls and strikes” thing ... really? You mean you can’t do what every single batter does on a called 3rd strike? You don;t have to be a professional lip reader to read all of th e"no ways” and “bullshits” and “that was down” and “my ass” comments that come from the batter’s mouth as he’s staring the up down upon his exit from the box.

I guess arguing only refers to “going nose to nose”.

"That instance seemed like a strange jumping off point for a rule change discussion. “

I won’t disagree, but that’s how I roll.  I start with the story I find interesting, in this case, Poz’s story.  And THEN I decide if I have something semi-related to it. 

While I could have started a new thread right after the Kuiper thread, to keep them separate, that’s not how I do things.

Basically, I do it the way I do it because that’s how I do it.  That’s the only explanation I can give you.

***

“The other day some manager got ejected arguing a home run reversal after it was reviewed via instant replay. The manager still thought he knew better? “

Bad example!  The argument was what constituted the ground rule, and not where the ball hit the fence.  The ball hit the fence where the ball hit the fence.  No argument there.  The question is how to interpret that as to whether the ground rule says it’s a HR or not.

And the ump, by the admission of MLB office, got it wrong.

Re #15, we know that HBP varies more with the identity of the batter than that of the pitcher.  In English, that means that the batter’s tendency to stand closer to the plate, or lunge towards the plate during his swing, matters more than the pitcher’s poor control. So why is the pitcher given the full responsibility to avoid hitting batters?

Maybe the batter’s box should be moved a bit further from the plate. Maybe there should be a no-foul zone of, say, the first 6 inches off the plate where a HBP is just a called ball.

I’m just tired of seeing a batter get awarded first base on a pitch the brushed his uniform only 3 inches inside, because he was trying to get an advantage on an outside strike.

Dave, excellent point!

I’m just tired of seeing a batter get awarded first base on a pitch the brushed his uniform only 3 inches inside, because he was trying to get an advantage on an outside strike.

That doesn’t happen very often.  You have to get six inches off the plate before you get any significant frequency of hit batters.  There are exceptions (Chase Utley, I’m looking at you), but they are rare.

#21, sorry, I pulled the 3 inches out of my ass. Make it 6 inches, then, or whatever. Make the batter appropriately responsible for a HBP, based on where he was, and where the pitch was.