Baseball Digest Daily :: A Response to the Suggested Rule Changes of Tom Tango

So, what you do is allow one mid-inning switch per game. But, the second time you do a mid-inning switch (same inning or not) is start the batter at 1-0. And the third time, the batter starts at 2-0. You may find it hard to believe, but a batter who starts at 2-0 hits as well as Albert Pujols does at 0-0.

Is there any manager in his right mind that would dare make three mid-inning pitching changes in the same game? I don't even see a reason one would do it more than once. Any subsequent mid-inning change puts the batter at 3-0. This is a severe penalty, granted. But, this eliminates the dead time, and continues the tension. This is a rule with no downside.

Baseball is a beautiful game that has, for so long, been heralded for its intellectualism. The relatively new designated hitter rule has been bashed because it prevents the use of strategy. Pitchers who bat in the National League are typically bad hitters, so managers have to find ways to maximize their at-bats, usually done by utilizing the sacrifice bunt if runners are on base.

As great as home runs are to watch, small ball is just as interesting because of the strategy involved (especially now that we have specific data to look at like Run Expectancy Matrices).

Tango’s suggestion to penalize the team making mid-inning pitching changes by adding cumulative balls to the hitter’s count doesn’t do much.

Mid-inning pitching changes are a great part of the game even if it does drag the inning(s) out because it’s rife with strategy. This rule is essentially like restricting moves in a chess game. Could you imagine if a chess player was forced to use his knight two moves in a row if he wanted to use it at all? Granted, that’s an abstract analogy, but penalizing a manger for using strategy in a game that is based on strategy seems unnecessary.

The 4-0 Walk Penalty

The rule is simple: Any 4-0 walk, intentional or not, results in a two-base penalty. If you have a runner on 2B, the 4-0 walk gets you runners on 1B and 3B. If you have a runner on 3B, then it's guys on 2B and 3B. And, with runners on 2B and 3B, the batter goes to 1B, the runner on 2B stays put, and the runner on 3B scores.

This penalizes pitchers who either lack command or are having a bad day. At its base, this penalizes teams with bad players, and teams that have bad players are usually teams with small payrolls. In theory, this rule change benefits richer teams like the New York Yankees because they are able to not only sign big name free agents, but also draft well-rounded pitchers.

The intentional walk, while it prevents the fans from seeing the sluggers hit in big spots in the game, is another example of the game’s beauty: strategy.

Besides, the game is already tilted enough in the hitter’s favor, isn’t it? Smaller strike zones, an allegedly “juiced” baseball, smaller ballparks, games played mostly during warm weather, etc. The pitchers and their managers need some semblance of control in a supposedly hitter-friendly game (I qualify these statements with "allegedly" and "supposedly" because I disagree with some of these claims, but they are opinions held by a lot of other people).

The One-and-Done DH

But, what if the DH can come in for only one at-bat, without the pitcher being removed from the game (as it would be with a PH)? That's the one-and-done DH. The DH can come in for any player, with the manager deciding whether the starting player stays in the game (meaning our one-and-done DH is out of the game), or the starting player is removed (meaning that we have our traditional PH becoming a defensive substitute). And you can have as many one-and-done DH as you want in each game.

Is it me and my faulty comprehension, or do the first and last lines in the paragraph contradict each other?

The rule would be reasonable (I still don’t like it) if it’s a true “one-and-done DH” where the DH comes in for one at-bat for any player and that player doesn’t have to leave the game and you can only use it once per game. It does bring some strategy with it because the manager will have to decide how to use the DH: during the third inning with the bases loaded and one out, or should he be saved in case the team is in need of a run in the ninth inning?

The Floating DH

Tom suggested this as an alternative to the “one-and-done DH.”

As an option to tweaking the existing DH rule, we can continue with our David Ortizes and Travis Hafners, but they can bat for anyone in the lineup, and can come up no quicker than one time per every nine team at-bats. So, if No. 8 hitter Adam Everett is up with men on base, you can bring in your floating DH to bat for him.

But, that means that the next batter, the pitcher, must bat for himself. The floating DH must wait for at least eight more batters to come up, before being brought in. This may drastically increase the value of a guy like Vladimir Guerrero, by taking him off the field of play, and provide the flexibility of floating him to bat in someone's place when you need him the most. This would also imply that the first time he comes to bat would be no earlier than the 9th batter of the game. It's a small tweak with drastic implications.

This suggestion eliminates strategy and really weakens the need for a logical batting order. It might be better if the rule allowed the floating DH to be used at any point in the lineup, but the pitcher must hit immediately after the floating DH. What this means is if there are runners on second and third base in the eighth inning, a team can use the floating DH to replace the #7 hitter (i.e. David Ortiz replaces Jason Varitek). However, the other team must use either the current pitcher or the pitcher they plan to bring in to start the next inning (Jonathan Papelbon, perhaps) once Ortiz’s at-bat is done.

The rule still smells but I think my suggestion is a bit more rational and doesn’t tilt the table against pitchers so much.

The Hit Batter Misconduct

Any pitch that hits a batter in the head is an automatic ejection, regardless of intent. Basically, it's a reckless play to throw the pitch at, or near, the batter's head. And that's not the kind of tension we need.

Any hit batter will move all runners one base. If there are no runners on base, then the hit batter puts the batter at second base. There's really no reason to allow a pitcher to hit the batter.

Like the 4-0 walk penalty, this rule penalizes pitchers who simply lack command, or who are simply having a bad day. And, theoretically, it favors rich teams because they are less likely to have pitchers with poor control due to their payroll flexibility.

Unless I have a poor memory (I do), I believe the current rules allow the umpire to automatically eject a pitcher if he feels that the pitch was intentionally thrown at the hitter. Normally, the umpire will warn both benches and an automatic ejection ensues upon the next hit batter. That rule seems to be working just fine – we haven’t had any Pedro Martinez v. Don Zimmer incidents lately, have we?

The Pickoff Called Ball

The first pickoff throw, per batter, is a freebie. Any other pickoff throw is treated like a pitchout: a called ball, if the runner is not picked off. You can also put a commit line, whereby if a runner takes a lead that crosses that line, the pickoff penalty rule no longer applies. This way, if a guy takes an overly aggressive lead, then the pitcher won't be penalized for trying to pick him off. It's a dare by the runner to pick him off, and in this case, we want to see the pitcher trying to pick him off. This would also have the by-product of eliminating the balk rule. It's a horrible rule that is no longer needed.

I disagree on all counts with Mr. Tango. I’ll start with the balk rule: it is absolutely needed. The problem with calling balks is that it’s hard to accurately call it with all of the borderline moves these pitchers have. Balks are necessary because other wise, the pitcher could wind up entirely towards home plate but not throw the ball, in which case the runner doesn’t have a chance on a cold day in hell because he’ll be 45 feet down the line – exactly in-between first and second base, and the pitcher will have plenty of time to wheel around and fire to second. Balks eliminate bush-league trickery.

Now to his suggestion: I like the idea of a commit line, but how will we practically apply one? Will it be a line that is drawn in chalk, like the baselines? Since it will be on dirt, the commit line will be gone after a few base runners because of all of the dirt kicked up. Will the grounds crew come out every two or three innings to re-draw it? If the goal of the commit line is to cut down on game time due to less pick-off attempts, I don’t think it will accomplish that goal.

The called ball for 2+ pick-off attempts inherently favors the base runner and disfavors the pitcher (seems like all his suggestions are anti-pitchers). Think about this scenario: Michael Bourn on first base, Lance Berkman at the plate. Brett Myers throws over to first base but Bourn gets back safely. Now, knowing Myers has to risk giving the Astros’ best hitter an instant 1-0 count, Bourn takes a bigger lead, thus giving both Bourn and Berkman a huge advantage over the pitcher and catcher. If Myers throws over, it’s not like it will discourage Bourn from stealing or force Bourn to decrease his lead; it will do the exact opposite. Eventually, Bourn will have free reign to go to second base because Myers can’t afford to give Berkman a favorable count.

The Home Plate Commit Line

Of all of the suggestions Tom has, I dislike this one the most.

Why is a catcher at the mercy of the runner, especially since his focus is away from the runner for the key moment in time? The catcher is not a doll to be pummeled, regardless of how much fun it is to see a guy with minimal equipment (compared to hockey and football) be knocked down.

You put a commit line thirty feet from home plate. Once a runner crosses that line, it becomes a force play at home plate. Now, the catcher simply needs to touch the base, and not worry about tagging the runner.

Catchers don’t have “minimal equipment” even if you compare it to hockey and football. It’s relative: baseball players, on the whole, are not as strong and not as big as players of other sports, so a collision between a 5’11” 195-pound runner and a 6’1, 210-pound catcher isn’t as bad as two 300-pound football players going after each other on the line of scrimmage, or two 250-pound players fighting over a puck at the boards in a hockey game.

Secondly, the collisions are rare. It’s not an epidemic that needs to be cured. Even rarer are instances where the catcher is injured. Everyone has the image of Pete Rose barreling into catcher Ray Fosse in the 1970 All-Star Game, but most collisions at home plate result in, at most, minor bruises and scrapes, something baseball players are used to dealing with and is part of the game.

While I like a rule that finally gives a benefit to pitchers and defenders, this is simply an unnecessary change.

My Suggestions

I’m as far away from a traditionalist on any subject as you will find, but overall, the way baseball is played right now is fine. I am not a fan of the DH, but if you either have the DH in both leagues or the DH in neither, I can’t complain.

Personally, I find the suggestion that baseball needs to be played in a shorter amount of time to be unnecessary. I realize that in 21^st-century America, people have tightly-packed schedules and can’t spare 210 minutes of their day for a baseball game, but that’s not the game’s fault. With the economy the way it is, some people are working two jobs; others balance work and a busy family life. Some people would just like to be able to watch an entire baseball game and still be able to attend to all of life’s needs. Regardless, the game doesn’t need to change because 21^st-century America doesn’t have time to watch a baseball game in its entirety anymore.

Anyway, I only have a few rules changes:

Eliminate strikeouts on two-strike bunts that go foul.

There’s no reason why a two-strike foul bunt should result in a strikeout when a two-strike swinging foul does not.

The ball is dead, no runners are out, and no runners may advance when a ball hits a runner; there is no interference.

There are a few scenarios I’d like to run out to help make sense of this:

· Chase Utley recently got in the way of a throw to second base from first baseman Carlos Delgado. Some rule changes would call for interference, but there’s a strategy to what Utley did and it’s great for the game. Utley intentionally took an “outside” path to second base, knowing he’d be in the way of Delgado’s throw.

· In the Phillies’ season opener, catcher Carlos Ruiz tried to pick off Nick Johnson at third base. The throw hit Johnson and bounced into left field. With my rule change, Johnson nor any of the other runners would be allowed to advance. The runner should not be allowed to affect the direction of the throw; he should only be able to get in the way of it. In the above scenario, if Utley had put himself in the throw’s path and it had gone into left field, Utley would have had to stay at second base.

· Base runner interference, such as what was called on Marlon Anderson at the end of a Mets-Phillies game on August 29 last season, is still valid. If the base runner appears to intentionally go out of his way to affect the throw while ignoring his duty of advancing to the next base, he is called for interference. Interference such as running to the inside of the base line going to first base is no longer called.

Managers and players can no longer be ejected from games unless they physically touch an umpire.

It’s rather pointless to eject a manager or player from a game and it only hurts a team further for being on the short end of a questionable call. Umpires should be stoic enough to take the verbal abuse that emanates from dugouts and from the mouths of players and managers ("sticks and stones"). If a player or manager is being disruptive to the flow of the game, an umpire can file a complaint where the situation will be reviewed and fines will be handed out if needed after the game. Similarly, players and managers can file a complaint against an umpire, who may be fined if deemed necessary.

To clarify, when I say “unless they physically touch an umpire,” I’m talking about acts like Lou Piniella kicking dirt on an ump’s shoes, or violent bumping, or jabbing a finger in the chest. This does not cover being touched by the brim of a player or manager’s hat (they’re usually removed anyway) or other minuscule acts.

Those are my suggestions, feel free to skewer them. Again, I say all this with all due respect to Tom, who has really done a lot in the field of Sabermetrics and I have done nothing at all.

Keywords: Sabermetrics, Baseball

Posted to:

Main Page

Bill Baer

Comments