Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Agent Scott Boras says Kendrys Morales, Stephen Drew willing to wait for long-term deals - ESPN

Until the CBA expires Boras has to deal with things as they are, not how he wants them to be. Drew *might* be able to get a decent contract in June. I can’t see how Morales can make up for the $14.1 million he passed up this year.

In the two years under the current landscape, all 22 players who have received qualifying offers have declined and decided to take their chances on the open market. Boras, an outspoken critic of the system, said that’s no surprise.

“I started preparing these guys in November for what I knew was going to happen,” Boras said. “Everybody talks about these players turning down these [one-year] qualifying offers like they’re village idiots. The reason is, they don’t want to be in the same position again next year. If I’m a good player, I’m going to take the prospect of free agency.

“If I’m one of these players, I’m not on the train to free agency—I’m on the Ferris wheel of multiple qualifying offers. It is circular. There is no escape hatch to the system.”

Jim Furtado Posted: March 15, 2014 at 08:08 AM | 37 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: draft pick compensation, free agency, kendry morales, scott boras, stephen drew

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 15, 2014 at 09:03 AM (#4672030)
I think there should be an escalating clause in the QOs. If a player accepts a QO, then the next year QO for that player should be 120% of the new QO amount.

   2. SoCalDemon Posted: March 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4672040)
I don't really buy this argument. Out of the 22 players, most of them are worth so much more than the QO that it doesnt really negatively influence their chances of getting a long term contract (They probably get 1 million less/year than otherwise, is my guess); for players like Cruz, Drew, Morales; I think 14M and the chance to try again next year is not so bad a deal, it is pretty far off from the reserve clause (they do in fact have to ability to reject it; its just a bad idea for some players). I am having a hard time coming up with a lot of sympathy for these players.I think in the next few years, so borderline players will take the QO, so teams will get burned by them accepting, they will slightly increase the quality of player they are giving them too, and it will reach an equilibrium. If we are going to have some system like this, this is so much better than the Elias method.
   3. donlock Posted: March 15, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4672059)
I thought Scott Boras was going to say that he miscalculated the market and the two players would be available at reduced cost to any club that had patiently waited over the winter.
   4. DL from MN Posted: March 15, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4672060)
Maybe they can loosen the sign-and-trade rules so the players can sign with a team that only gives up a 3rd rounder and is traded to a team that is willing to give up a prospect equivalent to a third rounder.
   5. villageidiom Posted: March 15, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4672142)
Drew will get off the Ferris wheel. All he needs to do is demonstrate he can stay healthy for a full season, or demonstrate that he cannot. If the former, he rejects the QO and gets a multi-year deal. If the latter, he doesn't get a QO. Seasons like 2013, where he was more healthy than prior years but not healthy enough to warrant a multi-year deal, won't help.
   6. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: March 15, 2014 at 04:02 PM (#4672153)
Drew will get off the Ferris wheel. All he needs to do is demonstrate he can stay healthy for a full season, or demonstrate that he cannot. If the former, he rejects the QO and gets a multi-year deal. If the latter, he doesn't get a QO. Seasons like 2013, where he was more healthy than prior years but not healthy enough to warrant a multi-year deal, won't help.


You think it's really the health part that has kept teams from signing Drew? I mean, that's probably part of it, but I'd guess it's more that they just don't think he's that much better than other options that don't cost as much money. That and Boras is really sticking to his guns about a big multiyear deal. I bet some contending team eventually caves, maybe after June. I'm surprised the Yankees haven't signed him yet, unless he's being really adamant about staying at SS (which might be the case).
   7. Jim Wisinski Posted: March 15, 2014 at 04:30 PM (#4672166)
Quoting myself from the Ruben Tejada thread.

Personally I think the issue for players like Drew and Santana* lies more with them demanding contracts in line with their 2013 performance while ignoring recent volatility/sucking. The draft pick factors in somewhat but I really wonder if the biggest effect might be causing them to think "If it wasn't for that darned draft pick compensation I would have any problem getting 5/75 (or whatever it is they were asking)". Without the QO they'd have to face reality about the willingness of teams to pay them but with it they can convince themselves otherwise. These guys are potentially significant upgrades to teams with holes, there's no way that GMs across baseball are going to let a late first round draft pick change their bidding strategy drastically. Santana of course ended up taking essentially the QO value with the Braves but I don't believe for a second that in a market where Jason Vargas and Phil Huges get 3-4 years and $8 million per year a late first round pick will be the deciding factor against giving Santana 3/36 or something like that. He and Drew just wanted more.


Looking at Morales' BBRef page he has been a better hitter than I thought but even so he's a 31 year old 1B/DH who might give you a SLG heavy 120 OPS+; there are certainly teams that could use him but he's pretty unattractive on a 4-5 year contract.
   8. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: March 15, 2014 at 05:22 PM (#4672184)
Looking at Morales' BBRef page he has been a better hitter than I thought but even so he's a 31 year old 1B/DH who might give you a SLG heavy 120 OPS+; there are certainly teams that could use him but he's pretty unattractive on a 4-5 year contract.


Yeah, I know there's a lot of talk about the picks and stuff this year, but I think these guys might be facing more of an old fashioned, 'wanting too much money over too many years' problem than a QO problem.
   9. Walt Davis Posted: March 15, 2014 at 06:06 PM (#4672195)
Morales definitely made a mistake in declining the QO for the reasons already mentioned. It's not even clear he can be an adequate 1B anymore. At best, he'd have gotten a contract like LaRoche at 2/$24 -- yes, better than 1/$14 but hardly an offer he could count on receiving. And if he waits until June, I can't imagine anybody giving him more than 1.5 years and I'm not sure he'll get that.

Drew on the other hand -- I didn't think he'd beat $14 AAV but I thought for sure he'd get 2/$24 or 3/$33 or something along those lines.

I don't have a particular problem with the QO idea but it probably should be (and will be) tweaked a bit. The 120% idea would probably work or a rule saying you can't be subject to a QO in consecutive offseasons.

No, the QO isn't the reserve clause but it does push a small class of player into the "one year, paid as you played" scenario. Maybe it's contract demands but it makes no sense that Hughes and Vargas get multi-year contracts while Santana (and Drew and even Morales, the Vargas of 1B/DH) don't. Even Bloomquist got two years for crying out loud. Santana is in a crazy position where he might be better off next year by pitching worse this year. The QO incentivizes average performance over above-average but not excellent.
   10. steagles Posted: March 15, 2014 at 06:37 PM (#4672199)
how about you just get rid of the drop-dead date, and let players sign their qualifying offers as late as they need to. they'll be able to negotiate through spring training knowing they have a guaranteed 14MM on the table anytime they wanted it.

and as a corollary to that, you could allow teams to rescind their qualifying offers, which means they're not tied to it if they can't afford it. and if they do rescind it, that would remove the draft pick compensation, meaning that players like drew wouldn't have to sign in an artificially depressed market.


both those things would be concessions by the owners, but on the other hand, considering that draft pick compensation only exists as a fig leaf for the owners to pretend like the draft is collectively bargained with the union, i don't think they'd want to draw too much attention to it because of the potential downside of draft related antitrust lawsuits.
   11. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: March 15, 2014 at 08:12 PM (#4672215)
how about you just get rid of the drop-dead date, and let players sign their qualifying offers as late as they need to. they'll be able to negotiate through spring training knowing they have a guaranteed 14MM on the table anytime they wanted it.


That won't work. If Team A gives a player a qualifying offer and the player balks, the team may decide to sign a different player for that position. I don't see why Team A should end up with two players at the same position because the player with the qualifying offer waited until the end of spring training to figure out he overvalued his services.
   12. puck Posted: March 15, 2014 at 09:00 PM (#4672232)
That won't work. If Team A gives a player a qualifying offer and the player balks, the team may decide to sign a different player for that position. I don't see why Team A should end up with two players at the same position because the player with the qualifying offer waited until the end of spring training to figure out he overvalued his services.


What about his next paragraph?
   13. Jose Canusee Posted: March 15, 2014 at 09:45 PM (#4672237)
I was expecting a Heyman byline, but should have known better since Boras was named.
   14. billyshears Posted: March 15, 2014 at 10:53 PM (#4672242)
#10 is clearly the right answer.
   15. Zach Posted: March 15, 2014 at 11:04 PM (#4672247)
#10 would get you into all sorts of situations with perverse incentives and standoffs.

Consider: the Royals would like to sign either Santana or Vargas for 3/36 at most. Team X would like to sign Santana for a similar amount of money, but doesn't want to lose a draft pick. The Royals can't risk having two offers outstanding, so they can't make an offer to Vargas until Santana has signed. Santana doesn't want to sign, because he thinks he's better than Vargas and he wants Vargas to set the market. Any actor except for Vargas loses the equivalent of a first round pick by moving first, but Vargas can't go first because the Royals can't extend him an offer without losing a pick.
   16. Walt Davis Posted: March 15, 2014 at 11:08 PM (#4672250)
What about his next paragraph?

Yeah, I almost got caught like #11. Probably shouldn't bury that part as a "corollary" it would be integral to the system working.

I think that could work. The teams then would extend the offer only if they really were interested in having the player back at that price and, if they fill the hole before the player accepts, they're under no obligation. Need to put in some safeguards around timing issues.

I suppose it still potentially puts some small- and mid-market teams in a bit of a jam. They have some player clearly worth more than the QO and want to get the pick for losing him (David Price say) but still have to make some hedge against him eventually accepting it.

I think the Red Sox played this just right. All were reasonably close enough to worth $14 M or more; all except maybe Ellsbury were reasonably replaceable at that price or less and they had an in-house option for Ellsbury; all were reasonably attractive to other teams on multi-year contracts at about that price too (or more for Ellsbury).

The Rays on the other hand probably couldn't have afforded to take the risk of QOs on all of Drew, Ellsbury, Napoli (and Salty? I don't recall).
   17. steagles Posted: March 15, 2014 at 11:49 PM (#4672260)
#10 would get you into all sorts of situations with perverse incentives and standoffs.

Consider: the Royals would like to sign either Santana or Vargas for 3/36 at most. Team X would like to sign Santana for a similar amount of money, but doesn't want to lose a draft pick. The Royals can't risk having two offers outstanding, so they can't make an offer to Vargas until Santana has signed. Santana doesn't want to sign, because he thinks he's better than Vargas and he wants Vargas to set the market. Any actor except for Vargas loses the equivalent of a first round pick by moving first, but Vargas can't go first because the Royals can't extend him an offer without losing a pick.
i agree that there would be issues like this that pop up, but i also think those issues would resolve themselves through the course of free agency, rather than dragging on through a month of spring training....and counting.
   18. billyshears Posted: March 16, 2014 at 12:20 AM (#4672263)
Consider: the Royals would like to sign either Santana or Vargas for 3/36 at most. Team X would like to sign Santana for a similar amount of money, but doesn't want to lose a draft pick. The Royals can't risk having two offers outstanding, so they can't make an offer to Vargas until Santana has signed. Santana doesn't want to sign, because he thinks he's better than Vargas and he wants Vargas to set the market. Any actor except for Vargas loses the equivalent of a first round pick by moving first, but Vargas can't go first because the Royals can't extend him an offer without losing a pick.


I don't see the issue. For one, this scenario only presents a problem if no team besides the Royals is interested in Vargas. If Vargas has another suitor, he can force the Royals to make a call, and all of the dominoes fall. Additionally, there is no risk to the Royals of having two offers outstanding - under the proposal, the Royals can withdraw the QO to Santana contemporaneously with signing Vargas. They can choose to leave the QO open if they think the chance to get an extra first round pick is worth the risk of Santana accepting the QO, or they can withdraw the QO if they don't think it's worth the risk, but they always get to pick their poison.
   19. Walt Davis Posted: March 16, 2014 at 01:41 AM (#4672271)
I suppose one drawback to #10 is the other teams might not like it. You're negotiating with Santana at 3/$33, then the Royals withdraw their QO and now he's asking 3/$39 because you won't be losing a pick. So you've been wasting time closing the deal on Santana and have to reopen negotiations, maybe with the other 3/$33 guys already off the market.

Still I like the basic idea although I think the one that could be most feasibly enacted is the 120% rule.

I would still like to know who made the call in the Santana deal. Did the Braves decide they'd rather have him at 1/$14 than 2/$26 (or whatever) or was Santana refusing any multi-year deal below $14 per?

Anyway, the QO is a massive improvement over the old Elias-based system, especially for relievers and guys like Vargas/Hughes. The main problem with that old system though was the moronic Elias rankings (only doing what they were told as near as I can tell, certainly agreed to by both parties). If they were designing that system from scratch right now, it would surely be more saber-based, probably something close to WAR and the whole system would have been much more rational and maybe better than QO. My thinking there being that right now teams have an easy decision on whether to offer a QO to somebody like Cano or Ellsbury. But if teams ran the risk of an arbitrator awarding them $20 M, they'd be a bit more squeamish. Well, not the Yanks with Cano but you get my drift -- you know there's no chance a star player is accepting the QO but they could possibly get Madduxed under the old system.
   20. steagles Posted: March 16, 2014 at 02:09 AM (#4672272)
since people seem to like my proposal in #10, here's another one that i've been thinking over:

after 2 pickoff attempts of a runner at 1st base, no defender can be within 5 feet of 1st base until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. this means the threat of a pickoff attempt is still present, but a successful one becomes much more difficult and the odds of a backbreaking error becomes much more likely.


(also, the proposal in #10 is based on franchise tags in the NFL)
   21. cardsfanboy Posted: March 16, 2014 at 02:26 AM (#4672275)
after 2 pickoff attempts of a runner at 1st base, no defender can be within 5 feet of 1st base until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. this means the threat of a pickoff attempt is still present, but a successful one becomes much more difficult and the odds of a backbreaking error becomes much more likely.


Hate it.

sorry, but I hate any proposal that changes the rules on how the game is allowed to be played. Whitey Herzog and Bill James(I think) proposed similar "solutions" to something that isn't really a problem. (Their solution was to limit the number of pick off attempts)
   22. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 16, 2014 at 08:37 AM (#4672293)
after 2 pickoff attempts of a runner at 1st base, no defender can be within 5 feet of 1st base until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.


Why are people always trying to speed up the game by proposing rule changes that favor the offense? More offense means longer games. You want to cut down pickoff throws? Instead of rules compromising the defense's ability to control the running game, why not rules compromising the offense's ability to run? Why not "a baserunner who does not attempt to steal in the first two pitches of a PA may not attempt to steal for the rest of that PA or take a lead of more than six feet."

I'll tell you why not... because it would be ridiculous. Just like this.
   23. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: March 16, 2014 at 08:50 AM (#4672297)
Why are people always trying to speed up the game by proposing rule changes that favor the offense? More offense means longer games.


The 1920s and 1930s were the highest-scoring period in major league history and games were routinely played in two hours or less. A 10-7 game is going to take longer to play than a 2-1 game all other things being equaled--but the effect of run scoring on game time is a drop in a bucket compared to the effect of players dicking around and managers changing pitchers over and over.

Bill James got the right answer to limiting pickoff throws 15 years ago: After two free pickoff attempts in an inning, each unsuccessful one after that is a ball for the batter. That way the pitcher isn't allowed to waste time without doing anything; it keeps the at-bat moving along. It will somewhat increase stolen base attempts, which is fine. Stolen base attempts are exciting, throws over to first are not, and that's a substitution any baseball fan should appreciate. (Plus even that effect is dubious; it assumes major league baserunners who are thinking about stealing do not already take absolutely as long a lead as they believe they can get away with. Under this rule the pitcher is still allowed to throw to first for free if he succeeds in picking the runner off.)
   24. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 16, 2014 at 09:03 AM (#4672298)
The 1920s and 1930s were the highest-scoring period in major league history and games were routinely played in two hours or less. A 10-7 game is going to take longer to play than a 2-1 game all other things being equaled--but the effect of run scoring on game time is a drop in a bucket compared to the effect of players dicking around and managers changing pitchers over and over.


True, but we're talking about the effect of run-scoring in an environment where players dicking around and mangers changing pitchers over and over is on a constant upward trend.

Bill James got the right answer to limiting pickoff throws 15 years ago: After two free pickoff attempts in an inning, each unsuccessful one after that is a ball for the batter. That way the pitcher isn't allowed to waste time without doing anything; it keeps the at-bat moving along. It will somewhat increase stolen base attempts, which is fine. Stolen base attempts are exciting, throws over to first are not, and that's a substitution any baseball fan should appreciate


Sorry, but this too is wrong-headed. Stolen base attempts will largely stop being exciting when the defense can't fairly contest them.
   25. Howie Menckel Posted: March 16, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4672311)
A lot of you guys have never been to a game that Steve Trachsel pitched, apparently. He used to get booed by his own Mets fans!

If a bunch of people want to set up a private contest, then by all means allow up to hundreds of throws to first base. But if you want people to pay to watch, you have to be a little more flexible.

Fortunately, this is a rare problem.

   26. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: March 16, 2014 at 10:15 AM (#4672312)
Sorry, but this too is wrong-headed. Stolen base attempts will largely stop being exciting when the defense can't fairly contest them.


Do you really believe this? Have you thought about the issue longer than it takes to twitch your knee when hit with a little hammer? Do you think major league runners are going to take a lead two steps longer because the pitcher has used up his two free pickoff attempts for the inning, and the pitcher won't pick him off if he does?

True, but we're talking about the effect of run-scoring in an environment where players dicking around and mangers changing pitchers over and over is on a constant upward trend.


This is nonsense. I think we agree that players dicking around and managers changing pitchers over and over is the problem, and fixing those two things will essentially solve the length-of-games problem without having to worry about pickoff attempts at all.

Pickoff attempts are a problem in their own right, though. They are not fun to watch, and a significant number of them happen for the same reason batters step out of the box just as the pitcher is about to begin his delivery: because the batter "just doesn't feel right" or outright wants to annoy the pitcher. Pitchers throw over primarily to keep the runner close, but secondarily and significantly just to slow the game down and/or annoy the batter. That's great for them, but it's boring as hell to watch. Neither batters nor pitchers should be allowed to waste thousands of people's time.
   27. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 16, 2014 at 10:41 AM (#4672316)
PASTE, with all due respect, #### off.

I have thought about this quite a bit. You apparently, have thought about it only long enough to decide to insult anyone who expresses a different POV.

Since you clearly believe that most, if not all, of the problem, is that players are dicking around, why don't we start by enforcing existing rules against players dicking around before we make changes that will affect the balance between offense and defense?
   28. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: March 16, 2014 at 10:47 AM (#4672318)
Couldn't agree more, sir.

Also I'm sorry you feel insulted; I intended no insult. I hear the "oh my god, if you start charging pitchers a ball for unsuccessful pickoff attempts the batters will take a lead halfway to second base and just take the base as they please and baseball will be changed forever!" argument all the time. There was a long thread in which like 20 people bought into this argument and it boggles my mind that anyone who watches a lot of baseball could seriously believe that. Runners who are interested in stealing already take as long of a lead as they can without getting picked off. Making the pitcher reluctant to throw over via a lightweight penalty might make that runner edge off first an extra, tops, six inches.

In practice it won't make a lot of difference to runners who are actually a threat to steal. What it will do is cut out all of the pointless throws pitchers make just because they don't feel like throwing a pitch just then. If we're going to tell the batters they're not allowed to waste time just to make sure they feel totally comfortable (by stepping out), we ought to tell the pitchers they're not allowed to do it either (by throwing over).
   29. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: March 16, 2014 at 11:10 AM (#4672326)
Clearly the answer is to make 1B wear SS gloves. The risk of dropped throws and the sheer pain of catching 85 mph pickoff throws would reduce the number of throws over.
   30. Tom Nawrocki Posted: March 16, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4672379)
Has anyone done a count of pickoff throws per game? It seems to me like people are trying to solve a problem from 25 years ago that has since largely dissipated on its own.

If I had to guess, the dead time from pickoff throws is maybe 10 percent of the dead time overall, including batters stepping out of the box after every pitch and pitchers stepping off the rubber constantly. I wouldn't change the rules to solve 10 percent of a problem.
   31. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 16, 2014 at 01:55 PM (#4672387)
The dead time issue is dead simple to fix.

1) The batter can't leave the batter's box without calling time. If he does, an automatic strike is called. Time shall be granted no more than once per PA. If a 2nd timeout is needed for medical reasons, the batter must be removed from the game.

2) The pitcher must deliver the pitch within 10 seconds (15 seconds with men on base) of receiving the ball, or an automatic ball is called.

3) The C may visit the mound no more than twice per game. The manager or pitching coach may visit the mound once per game without changing pitcher. The second, and all subsequent visits must involve changing pitchers.

4) Each pitcher must face a minimum of three batters, instead of the current one. If a pitcher is injured, he can be removed sooner, but must be placed on the disabled list, or not be allowed to pitch for 7 days.
   32. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: March 16, 2014 at 02:00 PM (#4672391)
I see no reason to allow a nonplayer on the field for any reason whatsoever, except to change pitchers/players.

I would tweak #4 to "once a pitcher enters the game or starts an inning, he can't be removed until the inning ends or he's allowed a run chargeable to himself."

Otherwise I think your proposals are spot on. (I'd also like to see measures taken to reduce the frequency of the Three True Outcomes, which will also make games go by at a crisper pace.)

Has anyone done a count of pickoff throws per game? It seems to me like people are trying to solve a problem from 25 years ago that has since largely dissipated on its own.


I'm only one man, but I'm only old enough to have paid serious attention to baseball since the late 1990s, and I perceive it as a problem in damn near every game I watch. Watching a pitcher make a lazy toss to first just pisses me off because it interrupts the baseball game I want to be watching.
   33. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: March 16, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4672398)
The dead time issue is dead simple to fix.

1) The batter can't leave the batter's box without calling time. If he does, an automatic strike is called. Time shall be granted no more than once per PA. If a 2nd timeout is needed for medical reasons, the batter must be removed from the game.

2) The pitcher must deliver the pitch within 10 seconds (15 seconds with men on base) of receiving the ball, or an automatic ball is called.

3) The C may visit the mound no more than twice per game. The manager or pitching coach may visit the mound once per game without changing pitcher. The second, and all subsequent visits must involve changing pitchers.

4) Each pitcher must face a minimum of three batters, instead of the current one. If a pitcher is injured, he can be removed sooner, but must be placed on the disabled list, or not be allowed to pitch for 7 days.


I umpire HS baseball and softball, and a lot of these issues are addressed by the HS rulebook.

A batter may not step out of the box if he doesn't swing on the previous pitch. If he does, the pitcher is allowed to pitch, and the pitch, wherever it ends up is to be called a strike. I rang a kid up yesterday on just such a play, and his coach yelled at him, not me.

In softball, a new batter has 10 seconds from the end of the previous play to get into the box. If she doesn't, the pitcher is free to pitch and it willl be a strike. if the pitcher doesn't pitch within 20 seconds of receiving the ball, a ball will be called.

Coaches have 2 free mound visits per game. Can even be in the same inning to the same pitcher. All subsequent visits will result in the removal of the pitcher.

   34. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 16, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4672402)
I umpire HS baseball and softball, and a lot of these issues are addressed by the HS rulebook.

A batter may not step out of the box if he doesn't swing on the previous pitch. If he does, the pitcher is allowed to pitch, and the pitch, wherever it ends up is to be called a strike. I rang a kid up yesterday on just such a play, and his coach yelled at him, not me.

In softball, a new batter has 10 seconds from the end of the previous play to get into the box. If she doesn't, the pitcher is free to pitch and it willl be a strike. if the pitcher doesn't pitch within 20 seconds of receiving the ball, a ball will be called.

Coaches have 2 free mound visits per game. Can even be in the same inning to the same pitcher. All subsequent visits will result in the removal of the pitcher.


Amazing that High Schools have managed to create a much better rule book than the multi-billion $ MLB can muster.
   35. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: March 16, 2014 at 02:23 PM (#4672407)
We also use courtesy runners for the pitcher and catcher, so they are rarely, if ever, on base when the inning ends. Thus, they are usually ready to get out there and start warming up when the last out is recorded. this is important, because they have just one minute from the third out of the previous half inning before play resumes.
   36. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: March 16, 2014 at 03:26 PM (#4672420)
Amazing that High Schools have managed to create a much better rule book than the multi-billion $ MLB can muster.


MLB has very similar rules. They just quit enforcing them 30-40 years ago.

In my opinion a rule limiting mid-inning pitching changes is sorely needed and would be the second change I'd implement if appointed Dictator of Baseball (the first being instructing the umpires to enforce the rule keeping the batters in the box).
   37. The Ghost's Tryin' to Reason with Hurricane Season Posted: March 16, 2014 at 06:26 PM (#4672499)
In my softball leagues, I am irritated by batters in the hole who don't get out on deck right away. We frequently have a delay while somebody who should have been on deck gets up to the plate.

We had one ump with a great plan - he told us to have TWO guys on deck. We didn't always get the second guy there, and the ump didn't try to enforce it, but the second guy knew he should be getting ready, and that alone sped things up.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robinred
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-29-2014
(1 - 8:08am, Aug 29)
Last: The Robby Hammock District (Dan Lee)

NewsblogAfter awkward attempt at game-saving catch, Yankees' Ichiro Suzuki gets testy with reporters
(8 - 7:58am, Aug 29)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogMets call up Dilson Herrera, have "talked about" d'Arnaud to LF
(16 - 7:52am, Aug 29)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(777 - 7:49am, Aug 29)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogJack White, Eddie Vedder, and Paul Simon take in a Seattle Mariners game
(149 - 7:47am, Aug 29)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogJesus Montero gets heckled by Mariners cross checker during rehab stint
(3 - 7:42am, Aug 29)
Last: The Robby Hammock District (Dan Lee)

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6033 - 7:14am, Aug 29)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogDavid Justice Says Put Barry Bonds in Baseball Hall of Fame Despite Steroid Use Late In Career
(146 - 6:46am, Aug 29)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-28-2014
(109 - 4:41am, Aug 29)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogSimmons' run-saving stop
(35 - 4:11am, Aug 29)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogCalcaterra | John Rocker to join the cast of “Survivor”
(2 - 3:56am, Aug 29)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(45 - 3:40am, Aug 29)
Last: zonk

NewsblogPosnanski: Alex Gordon and the M-V-P chants
(26 - 2:29am, Aug 29)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogRingolsby: Pete Incaviglia paying dues as independent league manager
(12 - 1:20am, Aug 29)
Last: zonk

NewsblogBusiness Week: Houston Astros' Jeff Luhnow Lets Data Reign
(3 - 1:13am, Aug 29)
Last: Weratych

Page rendered in 0.3127 seconds
52 querie(s) executed