(written several weeks ago, published today)
Baseball's "dropped third strike" rule (on any third strike not caught on the fly and held by the catcher, the batter is allowed to advance to first base, unless first base is occupied with less than two out) has played a big part in our family over this last year, especially this last weekend. Our 9 year old son was introduced to the rule last year with a travel team he played with, then this year with his 9-10 yr old "house ball" team (regular league). The 9-10 division has the rule as part of regular play.
Now, on his 10U travel team, the "dropped third strike" is a common occurrence. I don't quite like the term "dropped third strike," as it implies that the catcher drops the ball. The majority of these cases at a young age have a batter swinging and missing at a ball that is in the dirt or somehow out of the reach of the catcher.
This weekend, the Mets visited AT&T park. A 9th inning rally was started on a dropped-third strike, as Angel Pagan started running to first. The Mets catcher picked up the ball and threw wide to first, allowing Pagan to reach base. I used the opportunity to explain to him the importance of making the putout on such a play as it could easily lead to a score.
The next morning, he was catching for his team, and the very first batter reached on a "dropped third" that was a wild pitch. We had just talked about it. Later in the game, however, an exciting play took place. With a runner on third and one out, a batter swung and missed at a ball in the dirt for strike three. The ball bounced in front of the plate by about a foot. The batter started running to first, my son picked up the ball, bluffed the runner back to third and threw to first to get the out. But the runner took off for home immediately. The first baseman picked up on the play and instead of covering first with a stretch, he swept across first base like a shortstop would and fired a bullet home, six inches off the ground in front of the plate and just got the foot of the sliding runner. Double play!
It is amazing how a rule I knew my whole life was suddenly intensified to me overnight. I'll never look at the dropped third strike the same way again.
Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts
Monday, July 7, 2014
Sunday, October 28, 2007
All-Star Game Prevents Sox From Winning at Home
The really dumb rule of letting an exhibition game decide who has home field advantage in the World Series has failed again. Miserably. If fact it hasn't worked yet. In 2003, the AL won the ASG, eventually giving the Yankees home field advantage in the WS. It certainly didn't work for them, as the Marlins clinched in the Big Stadium. In 2004, it prevented the Red Sox from clinching their sweep at home. Great gift to fans waiting 86 years to see it. It happened on the road. Same thing in 2005 for the 88 years White Sox fans waited. Their "home field advantage" forced them to win on the road. In 2006, the AL won again, but the Tigers "home field advantage" allowed the NL team to win at home. Now the same thing in 2007 for the Red Sox.
Wonder how long it will take for fans to demand the All-Star game revert to alternating years between leagues for home field advantage so that somebody could see their team win at home?
Wonder how long it will take for fans to demand the All-Star game revert to alternating years between leagues for home field advantage so that somebody could see their team win at home?
Saturday, October 22, 2005
DH Rule Gives AL Team Series Advantage
You read it right. The Designated Hitter Rule gives the advantage to the American League team in the World Series. And in interleague play for that matter. This runs contrary to conventional wisdom, which is wrong, and I'll prove it. Read on...
Conventional wisdom says the NL team has the advantage, but this is only so because it doesn't look at the DH rule from an objective point of view, but from a subjective point of view. Here's how it goes: When a game is played in the NL park, the AL team, which is used to having a DH in the lineup, is penalized by not being allowed to use the DH. This is an AL disadvantage. In the AL park the NL team, which is used to not having the DH, gets to add a bat to its lineup, which is an advantage for them. Some people even carry the argument further by pointing out that in the NL park, where both teams have to bat their pitchers, the NL pitchers have had the benefit of both hitting and taking batting practice during the year, giving the NL team the advantage. Some go even further and suggest that to rid this "unfair" NL advantage the DH rule should be changed to allow each team to use "what it used go get to the World Series." That is, the AL team should be allowed use the DH in all 7 games while the NL team shouldn't.
This view is prevalent throughout baseball. I've heard commentators, broadcasters, fans and even life long baseball people hold this view. But it's wrong. Why is it wrong? Because it looks at the argument in terms of hitting, which is a subjective thing as opposed to looking at it in terms of the designated hitter rule itself, which is an objective thing. It's easy for us Americans to look at things through the rose colored glasses of hitting, because we love offense, and especially the home run. This is so even though we know that pitching is 70% of the game. To show just how skewed the conventional wisdom is, let's now look at the DH rule from a different subjective point of view. The point of view of pitching. The resulting conclusion will be the exact opposite. Here it is:
When a game is played in the NL park, the AL team, which is used to facing a tough lineup with a DH in it, now has an advantage because it gets to face an easier lineup with a pitcher instead of a DH. This is an AL advantage. And in the AL park, the NL team which is used to facing a lineup of 8 position players and one pitcher is now facing a much tougher lineup. This is an NL disadvantage. Plus, in the AL park when both teams can use the DH, the AL team gets to use a specialized player who has spent all year hitting, and who is usually one of its best hitters, while the NL team has to scrape a utility player off the bench to use as a DH. This utility player has spent most of the year on the bench and isn't as good a hitter as any other of the players in its lineup. That's why he's on the bench to begin with! And to carry the argument the same further step as the conventional wisdom argument, maybe each team could have "what it had to get to the World Series." That is, the NL team should get to face a lineup with 8 players and a pitcher, while the AL team should get to face a lineup with a DH. Even with this the AL team would still have the advantage because the hitter an NL team could put in its lineup wouldn't be as good as the quality DH hitters the AL team is used to facing. Maybe to rid us of this "unfair" AL advantage, the NL team could have the option of drafting a player from another team. To be fair, this player could be limited to free agents who have just completed their contract with a non-contending team.
If this last view seems like nonsense to you, it's because it is. But, it's the same argument, point by point, as the argument from the hitting view. It's no more absurd as the conventional view. Now I'll look at the DH rule from an objective point of view and use actual history to prove my point. This view will look at the rule from the view of the DH itself.
In the AL park, both teams get to use the DH. Both of their lineups are made up of the same components. Eight position players plus a DH. In the NL park, both teams again have the same lineup. Eight position players plus a pitcher. Even though it's true that NL pitchers have batting practice and hitting experience during the year which would give them a slight advantage in games played in the NL park, this advantage is nowhere near the advantage the AL team has in using its own DH, while the NL team is limited to choosing bench players to use as a DH. If we look at history, AL teams that make it to the World Series usually have a very good to awesome DH in their lineup. This hitter is usually a huge part of its winning. He bats in the heart of the order. But in the NL, no team ever makes it to the Series because it has good hitting pitchers. They simply don't have the influence. They bat at the bottom of the order, and there's a different pitcher everyday. Collectively they don't hit very well at all. Consider also that in the NL park the AL team can insert their DH into the field to gain his bat or use him as a great pinch hitter off the bench. This is a liberty the NL team doesn't have. And if the NL team uses it's bench player as DH, if the player is a good late inning defensive replacement, the NL team can't use him in the field without losing the DH slot in the lineup.
The easiest way to make my point is to list the DH's that have been used by both leagues in the World Series. The AL teams have had used heavy sluggers, including four current and possibly two future hall of famers. Most of the hitters were at the tops of their careers when they made it to the Series. The NL teams have used nobodies that nobody remembers. Bench jockies that had a hard time even making a starting lineup. Most of the AL DH's are the likes of Lou Piniella, Reggie Jackson (Hall of Fame), Hal McRae, Don Baylor (twice), Dave Parker (twice), Harold Baines, Chili Davis (three times), Dave Winfield (HOF), Paul Molitor (HOF), Eddie Murray (HOF), Cecil Fielder, David Justice (twice), Darryl Strawberry, Jason Giambi and David Ortiz. Wow! These guys are awesome! And what about the NL pine riders? Dan Driessen, Lee Lacy, Vic Davalillo, Lonnie Smith (four times!), Keith Moreland, Garth Iorg, Kurt Bevacqua, Danny Heep, Terry Pendleton (twice), Mike Davis, Ernie Riles, Hal Morris, Brian Jordan, Jim Eisenreich, Jim Leyritz, Jose Hernandez, Keith Lockhart, Lenny Harris, Erubiel Durazo, Tsuyoshi Shinjo, Shawon Dunston, Jeff Conine and Marlon Anderson. Who?
I think you get my point. How could anybody after looking at those lists even consider the NL to have an advantage? If you do you would have to take Lee Lacy over Reggie Jackson, Marlon Anderson over David Ortiz, Jeff Conine over Jason Giambi, Danny Heep over Don Baylor, Ernie Riles over Dave Parker, Lonnie Smith over Dave Winfield, and on and on. If you still think the DH rule gives the advantage to the NL, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. And if you act now, I'll throw in Ebbetts Field.
Conventional wisdom says the NL team has the advantage, but this is only so because it doesn't look at the DH rule from an objective point of view, but from a subjective point of view. Here's how it goes: When a game is played in the NL park, the AL team, which is used to having a DH in the lineup, is penalized by not being allowed to use the DH. This is an AL disadvantage. In the AL park the NL team, which is used to not having the DH, gets to add a bat to its lineup, which is an advantage for them. Some people even carry the argument further by pointing out that in the NL park, where both teams have to bat their pitchers, the NL pitchers have had the benefit of both hitting and taking batting practice during the year, giving the NL team the advantage. Some go even further and suggest that to rid this "unfair" NL advantage the DH rule should be changed to allow each team to use "what it used go get to the World Series." That is, the AL team should be allowed use the DH in all 7 games while the NL team shouldn't.
This view is prevalent throughout baseball. I've heard commentators, broadcasters, fans and even life long baseball people hold this view. But it's wrong. Why is it wrong? Because it looks at the argument in terms of hitting, which is a subjective thing as opposed to looking at it in terms of the designated hitter rule itself, which is an objective thing. It's easy for us Americans to look at things through the rose colored glasses of hitting, because we love offense, and especially the home run. This is so even though we know that pitching is 70% of the game. To show just how skewed the conventional wisdom is, let's now look at the DH rule from a different subjective point of view. The point of view of pitching. The resulting conclusion will be the exact opposite. Here it is:
When a game is played in the NL park, the AL team, which is used to facing a tough lineup with a DH in it, now has an advantage because it gets to face an easier lineup with a pitcher instead of a DH. This is an AL advantage. And in the AL park, the NL team which is used to facing a lineup of 8 position players and one pitcher is now facing a much tougher lineup. This is an NL disadvantage. Plus, in the AL park when both teams can use the DH, the AL team gets to use a specialized player who has spent all year hitting, and who is usually one of its best hitters, while the NL team has to scrape a utility player off the bench to use as a DH. This utility player has spent most of the year on the bench and isn't as good a hitter as any other of the players in its lineup. That's why he's on the bench to begin with! And to carry the argument the same further step as the conventional wisdom argument, maybe each team could have "what it had to get to the World Series." That is, the NL team should get to face a lineup with 8 players and a pitcher, while the AL team should get to face a lineup with a DH. Even with this the AL team would still have the advantage because the hitter an NL team could put in its lineup wouldn't be as good as the quality DH hitters the AL team is used to facing. Maybe to rid us of this "unfair" AL advantage, the NL team could have the option of drafting a player from another team. To be fair, this player could be limited to free agents who have just completed their contract with a non-contending team.
If this last view seems like nonsense to you, it's because it is. But, it's the same argument, point by point, as the argument from the hitting view. It's no more absurd as the conventional view. Now I'll look at the DH rule from an objective point of view and use actual history to prove my point. This view will look at the rule from the view of the DH itself.
In the AL park, both teams get to use the DH. Both of their lineups are made up of the same components. Eight position players plus a DH. In the NL park, both teams again have the same lineup. Eight position players plus a pitcher. Even though it's true that NL pitchers have batting practice and hitting experience during the year which would give them a slight advantage in games played in the NL park, this advantage is nowhere near the advantage the AL team has in using its own DH, while the NL team is limited to choosing bench players to use as a DH. If we look at history, AL teams that make it to the World Series usually have a very good to awesome DH in their lineup. This hitter is usually a huge part of its winning. He bats in the heart of the order. But in the NL, no team ever makes it to the Series because it has good hitting pitchers. They simply don't have the influence. They bat at the bottom of the order, and there's a different pitcher everyday. Collectively they don't hit very well at all. Consider also that in the NL park the AL team can insert their DH into the field to gain his bat or use him as a great pinch hitter off the bench. This is a liberty the NL team doesn't have. And if the NL team uses it's bench player as DH, if the player is a good late inning defensive replacement, the NL team can't use him in the field without losing the DH slot in the lineup.
The easiest way to make my point is to list the DH's that have been used by both leagues in the World Series. The AL teams have had used heavy sluggers, including four current and possibly two future hall of famers. Most of the hitters were at the tops of their careers when they made it to the Series. The NL teams have used nobodies that nobody remembers. Bench jockies that had a hard time even making a starting lineup. Most of the AL DH's are the likes of Lou Piniella, Reggie Jackson (Hall of Fame), Hal McRae, Don Baylor (twice), Dave Parker (twice), Harold Baines, Chili Davis (three times), Dave Winfield (HOF), Paul Molitor (HOF), Eddie Murray (HOF), Cecil Fielder, David Justice (twice), Darryl Strawberry, Jason Giambi and David Ortiz. Wow! These guys are awesome! And what about the NL pine riders? Dan Driessen, Lee Lacy, Vic Davalillo, Lonnie Smith (four times!), Keith Moreland, Garth Iorg, Kurt Bevacqua, Danny Heep, Terry Pendleton (twice), Mike Davis, Ernie Riles, Hal Morris, Brian Jordan, Jim Eisenreich, Jim Leyritz, Jose Hernandez, Keith Lockhart, Lenny Harris, Erubiel Durazo, Tsuyoshi Shinjo, Shawon Dunston, Jeff Conine and Marlon Anderson. Who?
I think you get my point. How could anybody after looking at those lists even consider the NL to have an advantage? If you do you would have to take Lee Lacy over Reggie Jackson, Marlon Anderson over David Ortiz, Jeff Conine over Jason Giambi, Danny Heep over Don Baylor, Ernie Riles over Dave Parker, Lonnie Smith over Dave Winfield, and on and on. If you still think the DH rule gives the advantage to the NL, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. And if you act now, I'll throw in Ebbetts Field.
Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Earth to Selig: Nix the NFL Tie-breaking System
Fenway Green Monster Standings: "Boston 96-66; New York 96-66"
Selig: "Well, actually since New York had the same record that Boston did, it wins the division. Of course the team that has a worse record against inferior teams wins the tie-breaker."
Baseball Fan: "Huh?"
Selig: "That's right. The team with the worst record against inferior teams wins."
Baseball Fan: "I don't get it. Huh?"
Selig: "It works like this. If you have a better head-to-head record against the team you're tied with by x number of games, since you have the same record it logicall follows that you have a worse record against other teams by the same x number of games. And since you're tied for first place, all other teams (which are NOT in first) have a worse record than the two teams that are tied. So, since the Yankees went 10-9 against the Red Sox, they had a 86-57 record against inferior teams, while the Red Sox had a 87-56 record against all other (inferior) teams. Since the Yankees had a worse record against inferior teams, they win the division."
Fan: "This is stupid!"
Selig: "Hey, don't blame me, we got this idea from the NFL. This way we don't have to have a playoff game that will make history, and instead the season finale can fade into a dud."
Fan: "I don't even want to watch football now."
What a waste. The Yankees "clinched" the division only to lose their one game lead on the final day and fall into a real tie with Boston. Baseball has adopted nonsense as rules with the NFL-ization of the national pastime. What's next, an "in-the-grasp" rule for collisions at home plate?
Baseball is the thinking man's game. Football is not, and never will be. Traditionally, baseball has resorted to settling differences (both teams' claim to a title despite having the same record, for example) via the playoff. Since baseball is an every day sport, it has that luxury. Football doesn't so it needs to resort to gimmicks not associated with a final showdown on the field. Instead it relies on a complex system of nonsense tie-breakers. Head-to-head records, records within division, against common opponents, point differentials, yardage differentials, coin tosses. These have nothing to do with who is the better team. One year, I remember the last week had some bizarre playoff spot twists. The Vikings were trying to make the playoffs, and the tie-breaker with another team was down to a point differential. They had to beat a team by 30+/- points more than another team's win. So, with a three touchdown lead and 4 minutes left, they were throwing 80 yard bombs instead of running out the clock, trying, not to beat their opponent, but, to beat the point differential. The opponent on the field was suddenly not the issue. How lame.
Baseball has adopted the wild-card and tie-breaking systems from the NFL and is the worse off for it. There's only one place anything should be settled at all. That's on the field. You listening, Mr. Selig?
Selig: "Well, actually since New York had the same record that Boston did, it wins the division. Of course the team that has a worse record against inferior teams wins the tie-breaker."
Baseball Fan: "Huh?"
Selig: "That's right. The team with the worst record against inferior teams wins."
Baseball Fan: "I don't get it. Huh?"
Selig: "It works like this. If you have a better head-to-head record against the team you're tied with by x number of games, since you have the same record it logicall follows that you have a worse record against other teams by the same x number of games. And since you're tied for first place, all other teams (which are NOT in first) have a worse record than the two teams that are tied. So, since the Yankees went 10-9 against the Red Sox, they had a 86-57 record against inferior teams, while the Red Sox had a 87-56 record against all other (inferior) teams. Since the Yankees had a worse record against inferior teams, they win the division."
Fan: "This is stupid!"
Selig: "Hey, don't blame me, we got this idea from the NFL. This way we don't have to have a playoff game that will make history, and instead the season finale can fade into a dud."
Fan: "I don't even want to watch football now."
What a waste. The Yankees "clinched" the division only to lose their one game lead on the final day and fall into a real tie with Boston. Baseball has adopted nonsense as rules with the NFL-ization of the national pastime. What's next, an "in-the-grasp" rule for collisions at home plate?
Baseball is the thinking man's game. Football is not, and never will be. Traditionally, baseball has resorted to settling differences (both teams' claim to a title despite having the same record, for example) via the playoff. Since baseball is an every day sport, it has that luxury. Football doesn't so it needs to resort to gimmicks not associated with a final showdown on the field. Instead it relies on a complex system of nonsense tie-breakers. Head-to-head records, records within division, against common opponents, point differentials, yardage differentials, coin tosses. These have nothing to do with who is the better team. One year, I remember the last week had some bizarre playoff spot twists. The Vikings were trying to make the playoffs, and the tie-breaker with another team was down to a point differential. They had to beat a team by 30+/- points more than another team's win. So, with a three touchdown lead and 4 minutes left, they were throwing 80 yard bombs instead of running out the clock, trying, not to beat their opponent, but, to beat the point differential. The opponent on the field was suddenly not the issue. How lame.
Baseball has adopted the wild-card and tie-breaking systems from the NFL and is the worse off for it. There's only one place anything should be settled at all. That's on the field. You listening, Mr. Selig?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)