User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5757 seconds
45 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Wednesday, May 19, 2021Did new rules cause big spike in MiLB steals?
RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)
Posted: May 19, 2021 at 11:07 AM | 45 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: minor leagues, rules experiments |
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: Yankees, White Sox benches clear after Josh Donaldson calls Tim Anderson 'Jackie' Robinson
(54 - 7:21pm, May 23) Last: Lars6788 Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - Crowning Champions and Pro-Rel (163 - 7:10pm, May 23) Last: The_Ex Newsblog: 2022 NBA Playoffs thread (1743 - 6:55pm, May 23) Last: asinwreck Newsblog: These 5 MLB Breakouts Are (Probably) For Real (11 - 6:19pm, May 23) Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Newsblog: Zach Davies’ estranged wife says MLB pitcher ghosted her for a year (64 - 6:03pm, May 23) Last: Hombre Brotani Newsblog: JOEY VOTTO IS THE GREATEST REDS PLAYER OF ALL TIME (27 - 5:27pm, May 23) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Look Good, Feel Good, Play Good. Smell Good? (6 - 5:11pm, May 23) Last: Walt Davis Hall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1899 Ballot (1 - 5:02pm, May 23) Last: DL from MN Newsblog: Roger Angell, Who Wrote About Baseball With Passion, Dies at 101 (54 - 12:51pm, May 23) Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Newsblog: Adley Rutschman, MLB's No. 1 prospect, called up to O's (29 - 12:40pm, May 23) Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave) Newsblog: Former Giants fan-favorite infielder Joe Panik retires from MLB (16 - 12:05pm, May 23) Last: jingoist Sox Therapy: One Step Forward (19 - 11:57am, May 23) Last: villageidiom Newsblog: Juan Soto trade rumors: Nationals may be 'motivated' to trade outfielder (58 - 11:06am, May 23) Last: bfan Newsblog: WEEKEND OMNICHATTER for May 20-22, 2022 (120 - 9:59am, May 23) Last: The Duke Newsblog: Sports teams love crypto. What happens when their sponsor strikes out? (12 - 8:35am, May 23) Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.5757 seconds |
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. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: May 19, 2021 at 01:26 PM (#6019656)Also, caught stealings are even more exciting than stolen bases.
I was talking about caught stealing from the catcher. But holding runners on is part of the game.
Taking skill out of the game is not a fix for the game.
But even saying, for the sake of argument, that there is skill there, that doesn’t give it a free pass if it’s bad entertainment. Which it is.
That's ridiculous. Of course there's skill there. Mark Buehrle, Andy Pettitte, Terry Mulholland, Chris Carpenter and many other pitchers have developed outstanding moves to keep runners close. Nolan Ryan, Greg Maddux and many others were indifferent to that part of the job. Much of the job of keeping CS rates low is on the pitcher, not the catcher. There are no arguments to be saked.
That's an opinion, and one I don't share (and as Steve notes, it seems there are fewer throws over now than the past). But I find a good pitcher/baserunner matchup to be quite interesting.
Well, judging from fans' reactions, visiting pitchers are routinely balking when they don't throw to second.
All we need are dingers.
You're almost certainly right, but data doesn't go back that far.
https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-research-stats-questions-inbox-february-2020
The matchup between the pitcher and a good baserunner is often quite entertaining. Does that result in some less-entertaining stuff? Sure, it does, just as the matchup between the pitcher and batter results in some less-entertaining stuff and pretty much everything else in the game.
But the successful pickoff, however rare, is one of the game's best plays, particularly when it's been done by a master of the craft. You want to eliminate that because you're borrrrred.
I would love to see more SBs in the game. But I don't want to do it by making it too easy for the baserunner. And I sure as hell don't want to do it by removing the good pickoff move from those pitchers who have developed them, particularly as those guys tend to be the less dominant types.
And SBs are only exciting if there is risk attached to them. If half of the successful SB attempts result in no throw, you haven't created a more entertaining game.
I'm good with tinkering. I think it's good MLB is using the minor leagues for this stuff.
I just loathe this particular approach, as it removes the good pickoff move from the game entirely. There has to be a better way to get movement on the bases than this.
2019: 14971 throws / 3112 SBA = 4.81 throws per SBA
1998: 23781 throws / 4789 SBA = 4.96 throws per SBA
Triple-A has larger bases this year, which slightly reduces the distance between them, will be interesting to see if there is any effect there.
That's the tinkering I've been yammering about for five years now. Not just bigger bases, but shorter distances between the bases. I think that would accomplish two things: make putting the ball in play more valuable (and, thus, swinging and missing more costly), and also encourage more chances on the bases but not in the skill-neutering way this method does. Couple that with some homer-suppression tactics (deader ball, bigger fields, thicker bat handles, etc.) and you've got a healthy run environment but through more active means.
That's the same argument that's often used for the pitcher hitting - 99% of the time it's a snooze, but 1% of the time you get some fluke home run, and "keep the far more common bad thing because of the rare good thing" isn't a great argument to me. With pickoffs, the pitcher holding the ball, waiting forever, and then throwing to first, repeat ad nauseum, is frustrating as heck, and as a bonus, sometimes it leads him to make some twitch that's imperceptible from the stands but which has the umpire awarding everyone a base. Or even a run! FANTASTIC entertainment, that. Nothing better than sitting in the bleachers and seeing the game change because of something invisible!
Which isn't to say I'm not skeptical of these rules - the stolen base is fun in large part because it feels daring, and shifting that too far in the direction of the baserunner would take that away, even if I'm not sure how you tweak the rules without making it completely unbalanced one way or the other.
I don't find the other 99 percent of the time a snooze.
Limits on the # of pickoff moves make sense from a tactical balance standpoint. If the pitcher is allowed to throw over as many times as he/she wants, then the pitcher has an advantage, limited only by the tolerance the pitcher (and his team) have for tedium - not a great enforcement mechanism if one is trying to create a spectator sport.
It should be noted that the rules regarding pickoff attempts have ALWAYS been a flaw in the rules of baseball, only hidden to some extent by convention and peer pressure, which of course modern analytics would naturally target and take advantage of. The issue it seems to me is "what should the limit be" and "what should the penalty be for exceeding it". Crediting a ball to the count might be a better penalty than calling a balk, though in some sense the runner "earned" the base rather than the batter "earning" the ball. It might also make sense that making the penalty extra severe (e.g. a balk) would help limit the violations, as in the case of offensive holding in football, where if they changed the penalty to 5 yards, well then probably everyone would hold on every play (don't they do that now, though?).
Larger bases or a softball style double first base seem like minor tweaks (and any change to the bases that reduces collisions is a good idea).
If you want to encourage steals, you've got to give the baserunner some durable advantages, or they're just going to stand there and wait for a dinger.
So sure, you want to get rid of pointless, perfunctory throws to first to keep Yadier Molina honest. But if there's a real SB threat at first, the pitcher needs a weapon. If the guy is so freaking fast (Hamilton?) or the pitcher so slow to the plate (and C so slow, etc.) that he can easily steal with a lead shorter than X feet then good on him.
But none of it makes a damn bit of difference. Fans boo pickoff attempts -- by the opposition.** Those 6 pickoff throws per game (I really can't believe it's that many, I've got some doubts about those cited numbers) add a couple of minutes to game time.
** I can imagine home fans might have occasionally booed the home team if Rickey was on first.
I don't know if the cure is better than the disease or not. I do know that we can't look at it strictly from the point of view of just more SBs.
I'm curious what everyone thinks the consequences on the hitter/pitcher match-up, if any, will be from this change.
I've certainly seen fans lose patience when the pitcher appears to be stalling, even if it's the home team.
You keep calling it that ...
C'mon, Cleveland, this is almost 3.5 pickoff throws per team per game. Who cares about unintended consequences when we're talking all that time wasted?
I like the idea of a pickoff throw being a ball. It's a throw and it doesn't cross the plate, thus: Ball.
Make a successful pickoff throw a strike so there is some balance.
You won't get many pickoffs on the first pitch of an AB - advantage batter and runner. But if a pitcher gets ahead, the runner has to watch out. And, obviously, no pickoff throws on 3-2 counts. I freaking hate those. Basically, I've no problem with pickoff attempts. But the pitcher should be trying to retire the runner, not just going through the motions.
This is an area that requires a careful review of potential unintended consequences.
An excellent point and one we should all keep in mind. It's easy for us to throw out a rule change and say "X will happen". But we don't even know that X will definitely happen. We certainly don't know what Y and Z will be. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try stuff but everything in the game is interconnected.
It's not pickoff attempts dragging things out.
As every one of these threads does, it eventually comes to: ENFORCE THE PITCH CLOCK
If there were ten seconds between pitches, pretty much everything else we gripe about becomes a minor nuisance, if that. We only get annoyed by pickoffs and shifts because we have ten minutes to contemplate it from every direction.
That could lead to more problems. Lets say the line is 10 ft. So Pujols and other slow pokes can now safely take a ten foot lead whereas before it was too dangerous. Giving a better jump to slower runners. Kind of interesting I guess, but also leading to some issues
Remember, the idea is to give more advantage to the runners. If the SB% in a season is 90% or something, we can move it back a few inches.
Would love to see this tried out. No violation if you pick the guy off, obviously, but if not...better hope you can get the ball back quick!
Edit: I would potentially pair this with the elimination (or at least radical curtailment) of the balk rule. It feels like the time pressure would accomplish almost everything the balk rule is supposed to achieve?
Meh, we've already seen terrible umpire calls on runners in baselines and interference, that's just another thing to screw up. I like the limit of 2 pickoffs, and you can only try a third time if you get him. This isn't really about reducing overall game time - that has a negligible effect. It's about reducing dead time, and I think more importantly, juicing up SB numbers, which it has in early results.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main