THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I’m not your average fan, but I like the cat and mouse games managers play late in a close ballgame with their relievers.  I’d hate to take that away.

WTF is up with this part of it? “he has to stay in the game until he’s charged with a run allowed.”

How is that fair at all? That would just make injuries skyrocket. Let’s say Carlos Marmol throws 10 pitches in the 9th inning of a blowout on Monday, then the Cubs need him in the 7th inning on Tuesday. He comes in and shuts them down in the 7th as usual, but he is then required to come out for the 8th. He walks the bases loaded, then strikes out the next 3 in order. Using Tango’s pitch count estimator, that’s 31 pitches in the 8th inning, plus 10 in the 7th, making it 41 total, a night after throwing 10. He then must come out for the 9th because he didn’t give up any runs. Before you know it, he’s throwing 55 pitches out of the ‘pen when his arm isn’t conditioned to do so.

dan, I think it’s only intra-inning changes that would have the “run allowed” restriction.  I suspect Bill’s just throwing the idea out there, I’m sure it could be tinkered with.

I understand where he’s coming from.  The late-game LaRussaisms make for a maddening viewing experience.  It’s not optimal from an entertainment point of view.  Not that all rules should be bent in that direction, but it is something to take into account.

Of course, basketball has never been able to fix the late-game fouling, which can kill the fun of the sport.

As Tango (I think) said in a previous post, why not speed up the game by eliminating warm-up pitches for intra-inning changes?  Just have the reliever warm up in the bullpen so he’s ready to come out and pitch.  (It might take one or two warmup pitches from the mound to get used to the conditions, or whatever—that would probably be OK.)

The pitching changes are actually not a problem.  It’s just that they take too long.

Here’s another idea: if it’s your second trip to the mound, you don’t make the trip.  You signal the umpire.  The new pitcher comes in, and you slap the old pitcher’s butt in the dugout instead of on the mound.  Unless we’re too wedded to the tradition of the manager taking the ball and giving it to the reliever.  Or you really think the manager needs to give specific instructions to the new guy.

If you ask a hundred fans, even smart, hard core sabermetric fans, even smart, hard-core, sensible sabermetric analysts, what changes they would make, you get around 687 answers.  That’s because everyone’s a genius.

None of them seem any good to me, as compared to just leaving the game alone.  Pretty much.  Maybe instant replay.  That’s about it.  I think that will come soon, or at least eventually.

All these other suggestions?  They each have around a .1% chance of occurring within the next 20 years.  OK, maybe I missed a good one.  One.

MGL, I feel the same way. The enforcing of the 12-second rule would be good, and it already exists so it’s a possibility (someone mentioned it either on a previous thread or on that round table thing). Some of you guys might remember everyone at Shea Stadium chanting “Throw the ball!” when Steve Trachsel took over a full minute between pitches.

It is practically impossible to limit pick-off throws to first otherwise whenever the limit is reached, the runner takes an 85 foot lead and then steps over to second.  How do you get around that?

It might be my imagination, but it seems like pitchers don’t throw to first as much anymore.  Maybe that just goes along with the decline in SB attempts (as well it should).

OK, now that I realize you meant taking too much time with no runners on base…

I’ve never had a problem with pitchers taking too long in between pitches.  Plus, I don’t have a problem with either not enforcing written rules or having unwritten ones.  Unenforced rules and unwritten rules are a part of life, and (often) a good one at that.  OTOH, if they want to enforce it (as with Betancourt last year), and notify the managers in advance, I have no problem with that either.  No big deal to me either way.

--Imposing significantly more severe limits, or eliminating entirely, on-field warm-up tosses would distort relief pitching far more than Bill’s suggesation, because it would force relievers to over- or under-prepare.  Game conditions would change while the reliever is taking his final warm ups, leaving relievers either unused despite full warmup or utilized timely but without proper prep.
--Bill’s suggestion would not only speed the game appropriately but it would limit the unfortunate “platoonization” of pitching, with pitching staffs now seemingly expanding without limit to accomodate “OOGYs” at the expense of useful bench guys and pitchers who can actually throw a full innning.
--If the penalty for throwing over to first an excessive number of times is to add one ball to the count on the batter, runners could not take 85-foot leads, but there would be a reasonably measured penalty for throwing futilely to first; no penalty at all exists now, which is a logical flaw in the game rules—in theory a picher can throw over infinitely without any penalty and that makes no sense.
--Basketball could and should fix the late game foul nonsense with a simple rule giving (either always or after some number of fouls or after some time point in the game) fouled teams the option to take one foul shot and retain the ball in lieu of taking two foul shots.  Teams should never or rarely have an incentive to foul and unfortunately in modern basketall the trailing team has an incentive to foul near the end of almost every game.

I defer to others’ expertise on the warm-up throws issue.  Nobody wants to see pitchers get hurt because they weren’t sure if they should warm up properly in the bullpen.

But I see no reason to second-guess managers on the OOGY issue.  If they want to spend a roster spot on those guys, who am I to argue?  I certainly don’t want to say that my judgement is so much better than Tony LaRussa’s that I want his strategy effectively banned from the game.

It would be nice if there were some way to preserve the OOGY option without slowing the game down so much.

MGL:

The pickoff penalty would be an extra ball to the batter if the runner is not picked off.  So, if he takes a 25 foot lead, the pitcher can try to pick him off, and he’ll get his out.  If he doesn’t, the batter gets a ball (akin to a pitchout).

Or, as Phil had proposed in the other thread, the pickoff constraint is that the pitcher can only attempt a pickoff if the runner “crosses the line”.  So, you have a line some 10 or 15 feet (or whatever you determine) from the base, and if the runner keeps his feet inside the line, the pitcher can’t throw to first.  Kinda like “offsides” in hockey or soccer.

You could just consider a throw to first base to be a pitch, in the same way a pitchout is. If the team doesn’t get an out (or, alternatively, force the runner forward), the pitcher is charged with a ball. That way the option is never taken away but always has a cost. Such a change also might let you quit worrying about the balk rule.

How about we just merge MLB and the Barnum and Bailey Circus?  You guys can’t be serious.

Let me ask you this: if you were to create this new game called “Base Ball”, how would you handle the “runner on 1B, pitcher continually tries to pick him off with no cost” situation?

Are you suggesting that you would create a rule that is exactly as it is in MLB: no cost?

And would you create a “balk” rule in your game called “Base Ball”?

I prefer the pickoff rule we are creating here, and that does away with the balk rule.

Leave the whole thing alone, I say.  A serious throw to first does indeed have cost: it costs the pitcher the fatigue of a hard-thrown ball, and maybe a chance of catching a spike and hurting himself, and it costs the team the risk of throwing the ball away and allowing runners to advance.

If a pitcher repeatedly throws half-heartedly to first against a runner who is hardly off the bag (which I don’t think happens very often), the opposing team can buzz the pitcher or a suitable substitute later in the game, and things will work out just fine.  Or they can laugh it off, or hurl insults, etc.

All of these fixes are way worse than the problem, IMO.

I’m looking at it from the fan’s perspective.  We used to boo the pitcher mercilessly, what with 4, 5, 6 pickoff throws on Raines.  They actually kept count on the scoreboard (with chickens).

It seems quite reasonable to me: An unsuccessful pickoff attempt is a ball. If the runner takes off toward second on a pickoff attempt, I’d say the pickoff attempt is successful and therefore not a ball, even if the infielders don’t convert the out.

If the rule had been written that way from the beginning, no one would want to change it to allow unlimited throws to first.

I don’t think you guys are thinking this through and considering the next order ramifications of these proposed changes. 

If throws over cost a ball, then throws over with 3 balls are practically ruled out, and thus when 3 balls happens, runners are going to increase their leads and get huge jumps most of the time, which means that when batters get two balls, they are going to have a strong incentive to take pitches to get to 3 balls, so their runner can get a huge jump or take the base.  Plus, the runner knows he will get a big advantage at 3 balls, so at 2 balls he can also take a huge lead, knowing a throw over then would probably fail and push the count to 3 balls, etc.

Do you really want the primary confrontation on the field to be pitcher-runner, instead of pitcher-hitter?

In addition to that undesirable outcome, this idea would also drastically shift the balance of power towards the runners, which I don’t think is your intention.  With basestealing hugely increased, and leads from all bases increased significantly, scoring will go way up.  Do we need that?  Also, if it becomes a lot easier to walk and steal second (and third, and home), you’ll see a lot more players milking walks, rather than hacking.  Do we need that?

If you intend to speed up the game, this sort of thing won’t do it, it will complicate things with all the new contextual rules, and there will be a lot more thinking three-pitches ahead required than there is already (which will manifest as delay between pitches, either before or after toeing the rubber).  Also, a lot of stepping off the rubber, unless you propose to outlaw that, too, in which case the pitchers won’t have a chance of stopping the running game.  Then we’ll be playing something very different from baseball.

Looking for serious replies here: what do you think the *complete* impact of charging a ball for throws over will be?  How do you think it will change the dynamics of the game?

I agree with Greg 100% and think the penalty thing for a pick-off throw is ridiculous.  But it is not worth discussing, IMO, so I’ll gracefully bow out and let you guys hash it out.  Setting up a rule in the first place and changing it in mid-stream are two different animals for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the potential impact on some of our hallowed records.

Greg, ok good point. 

But first, let me say that the goal is NOT to shorten the games.  Running time for the Godfather is over 200 minutes and the movie is too short.  On the other hand, there are plenty of 90 minute movies that are too long.

What you want to reduce is dead time, like useless pickoff throws, mid-inning relief changes.  Basically, the non-action and non-events.

Should baseball have more or less run scoring?  I don’t know yet.  I do know that the % of PA with an LI of 0.70 and below is around 40%, while the similar LI in the NHL is half that.  There are alot of useless PA in MLB, compared to the NHL.  At the same time, MLB has 10% of its PA at 2.0 and above, while the NHL doesn’t (there are no 3-run goals in the NHL).  It’s all a matter of the pace.

Now, let’s get into the nitty gritty, and let’s look at the 3-0 count with the runner on 1B.  A pitcher will obviously not “pitchout” to the 1B here unless he’s guaranteed of getting the runner out.  So, the runner will take an extra step toward 2B.  Maybe two.  Not much more, since the runner knows that he doesn’t want to risk it too much. 

Now, at 2-0, the runner might want to draw the throw, so he might take an extra step.  And if he doesn’t get the throw over, he tries to steal.  Maybe his SB% goes from 67% to 77%.  Good.  I like that.

I don’t mind that the balance of power moves toward the runner.  When I grew up, we used to see the split screen pitcher/runner *all* the time.  It was fascinating.  I’m not sure how old you are Greg, but to me, baseball was Rickey, Raines, and the Cardinals.  A game where both a powerman like Mike Schmidt, and superspeedster like Tim Raines could be equals.  And where Otis Nixon and Miguel Dilone can find a home.

I prefer a guy who can run and field, to a guy who can only hit.

Baseball should have more scoring that women’s collegiate softball and less scoring than men’s slow pitch softball. 

I agree, dead time is what we want to get rid of, so let’s try to get pitchers to throw the ball, and hitters to stay in the batter’s box between pitches.  For that matter, let’s cut the time between innings …

I do recall the days of Raines & Ricky and Vince Coleman, the guys who got the asterisk on their Statis Pro cards, indicating the automatic steal of 2nd if they got a hit off their own card.  Even though I analyze homers, I do regret that the game has shifted a bit too far towards power.  In HS ball, I never hit one over the fence, but I did steal lots of bases, knocked over a lot of catchers, and scored from second on a sac bunt once (that was fun!)

As for changes, I think the game is pretty finely balanced, and most changes to it are likely to throw things far out of whack.  So I’m skeptical on these ideas, even though I agree with the need to some extent…

It’s already out of whack.  When the run environment is 4.0 runs per game, the sb breakeven rate is at 64%.  At 5.0, it’s at 69%.

Playoff baseball has 4.0 runs per game.

I don’t see why we want a regular season game where there’s 5.0 runs per game per team, when the playoffs is 4.0.  It’s not even the same game.  But, the regular season of the 80s will give you that.

Tom, a question for you.  Is the regular season vs. playoff scoring environment as different in most ML sports as it is in baseball (as percent of base)? Maybe not in soccer. What’s the situation in hockey, American football, or the NBA and NCAA basketball? 

In any case, don’t you have to correct for the quality of the teams or competition in the playoffs (i.e., selectivity or survival, especially the further along you go in the playoffs, say from first to second to third rounds), and not only look at aggregate differences between regular season and playoffs?  Maybe the playoffs in baseball are more selective for quality because 8 of 30 teams qualify, while in other sports a larger proportion of teams qualify?

I’m not in favor of a ball-added-to-the-count penalty for every throw over to first—but I would be for every second throw, or perhaps third throw, over during a plate appearance.  That would put a cost on each throw over (because the pitcher would be using up his limited chances), where there is zero cost today, without disturbing the balance of the game too much.  What small re-balancing would result would I think be positive in the direction of a small push for the running game, which is an exciting but currently underutilized part of the game.  As Bill James has pointed out, subtle adjustments such as thinner-handled bats have re-balanced the game already, and helping the running game might counteract some of the less exciting aspects of that change in the game’s emphasis.

Regardless of how much dead time we experience throughout the course of the game, if it isn’t truly causing a severe decline in attendance or TV ratings then there is no possible way any of these types of rules will be considered.

Not to say I disagree, because I’d love to see a game where Andy Pettitte only has a previously determined number of times to pick a runner off, but being realistic is an attribute often lost when discussing rule changes.

It’s going to take a good three or so years before people even realize the Devil Rays are not the Devil Rays, let alone the amount of time it would take for everyone to get accustomed to a new rule.

And then what do you do when it comes to players extremely used to these rules?  I remember in hockey, and maybe Tom can back me up with more details, but they didn’t wear helmets for a while, and when they were introduced, there was the Grandfather Clause that players whose careers began prior to the rule had the right to choose; and Craig MacTavish, I believe, chose to continue without.

This enabled players accustomed to certain rules to continue with what they were used to.

A guy like Jamie Moyer, for instance, who I’ve watched intently since joining my Phillies, derives most of success (recently, at least) from constant pickoff attempts and slow, methodical, routines; the batters are so antsy that, especially against young teams, Moyer just toys with them and they loft popups that might otherwise leave the stadium.  A rule enforcing a sped up game might alleviate the concerns of a small group of fans but then enrage the majority of others when a guy like Moyer, with these new rules, would have to leave in the 3rd inning after surrendering 8 runs.

Fargo: in MLB, it’s not necessarily a percentage of base.  The runs per game is 4.0, regardless of the time period.  So, whether it’s 70s/80s, or 90s/now, I’m pretty sure it was 4.0 runs per game.

The regular seasons RS+RA of the teams in the regular season matches that of the league average, so it has nothing to do with the quality of the teams.  They have the same run environment.

Playoff baseball, with 2-inning outings for Rivera, and all the small ball is nothing like the regular season baseball, especially these days. 

As for the reality of introducing new rules, who cares what’s possible?  There’s alot of old men on charge of baseball, and they’ll go away at some point.  The NHL changes rules all the time.  No reason to think MLB will stay the same, even if it’s hard to see that at the moment.

Certainly, when MLB finally expands into Japan, they’re going to do something different.

***

In the NHL, there is less scoring in the playoffs, and we accept that as playoff hockey. The NHL is constantly tinkering with rules every year to get a better product.  Their problem is they think they need more scoring, when in fact what they need in the regular season is to make it more like the playoffs.  In the playoffs, goonery is barely prevalent.

In your estimation, is the tinkering of rules in the NHL done because those in charge are realistic and understand that their sport isn’t perfect and needs to make changes, or does it have more to do with changes to increase ratings?

These old baseball men generally seem to think that nothing is wrong with their sport and that the “old-timey” way of baseball is the right approach to everything.  I mean, there are still people who treat sabermetrics and statistical analysis as if they are completely useless evaluative methods.

I guess you’re right in that it all depends when these types of baseball men are gone, and whether or not the influx of new minds feels as we do or not.