But any idea how it compares with your average Feb spring training game? Are there full 2-2.5 minute commercial breaks between innings for spring games for example?

Regardless the length of the commercial breaks, spring training games thus far are 22 minutes shorter than last spring (via Jayson Stark).

But any idea how it compares with your average Feb spring training game? Are there full 2-2.5 minute commercial breaks between innings for spring games for example?

No idea.

I was more interested in his belief that base stealing is going to skyrocket. Will the six inch reduction in the distance between 1st and 2nd (and 2nd and 3rd) actually make that big of a difference?

I'd wait to see regular season games before coming to definitive conclusions.

But at least in theory, it seems like the rule changes will produce a livelier version of baseball than what we've seen in years.

#2 thanks.

I was more interested in his belief that base stealing is going to skyrocket. Will the six inch reduction in the distance between 1st and 2nd (and 2nd and 3rd) actually make that big of a difference?

I believe this would be more due to the limiting of pickoff throws, although the distance reduction doesn't hurt.

I believe this would be more due to the limiting of pickoff throws

Theoretically you'd think SB attempts would rise, but Lester couldn't even throw over to 1B and no one ran rampant on him so I'm going to give it half a season to see what happens.

The faster game pace is a wonderful change though.

Theoretically you'd think SB attempts would rise, but Lester couldn't even throw over to 1B and no one ran rampant on him so I'm going to give it half a season to see what happens.

I can't remember the pitcher, but Lou Brock once commented that it was nearly impossible to steal on a particular famous pitcher because the guy never threw over.

I once spent an afternoon on BBREF looking at stolen base against and Steve Carlton was a famous pitcher whose lifetime success against was 58 percent

That is the one I remember because except for one season runners were basically running into outs 40-45 percent of the time.

That is the one I remember because except for one season runners were basically running into outs 40-45 percent of the time.

Or you could be Buehrle, in a 16 year career gave up only 59 SB with 81 CS, for a CS % of 58%.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if the attempts go up, it does make for a more exciting brand of baseball.

10–. Was just trying to see if Carlton might be the pitcher referenced by Brock

Or you could be Buehrle, in a 16 year career gave up only 59 SB with 81 CS, for a CS % of 58%.

The one that most impressed me was Chris Carpenter. Career CS percentage of 62 percent - as a righthanded pitcher. Obviously, pitching to Yadi helps, but that's still insane.

10–. Was just trying to see if Carlton might be the pitcher referenced by Brock

I tried searching for the quote and couldn't find it, but I don't think it would be Carlton, my gut tells me it was Marichal or Seaver. Although my brain is telling me it's a lesser pitcher that was still known in the baseball community.

Mulholland had nearly 2600 IP and just 85 steal attempts with a 35/50 ration. He had 49 POs which includes 7 of those CS ... so that's 92 bases erased for 35 gained ... oops. B-R says they had 4,151 SB opps so they tried one only about 1 per 50 opps. To my knowledge that had very little to do with his catchers (who were numerous throughout his career).

Hendricks is quite good for a RHP but it has still worked out to a 70% success rate although you can add 17 POs to drop that, with an attempt about every 17-18 opps. And Contreras has a good arm so he's probably part of that.

Lester not only didn't throw over, for all practical purposes he couldn't throw over. If you could get back to 1B before he could get there, you could probably take that big of a lead. Still, only a 69% success rate but an attempt about every 12 opportunities. He only managed two genuine pickoffs in his career but 26 PCSs -- their lead was so big they just took off. In his couple of years with the Cubs, I was genuinely impressed with everything David Ross did to limit the running game when Lester was on the mound but obviously he wasn't back there for much of Lester's career.

The bases are bigger, jumping from 15 inches by 15 inches to 18 by 18

You wouldn't think three inches would make that much difference, but the new bases are 324 square inches vs. 225 for the old -- a whopping 44% bigger! (If you made them just three more inches larger, 21x21, they'd be nearly twice the size!)

Unrelated to anything else, I was thinking about how MLB has been shaping the game the past few years via ball changes, and that made me wonder if the spring training ball was the same as the regular season ball. That is, were the 2019 superballs or the 2022 ragballs used in spring training? Is there any correlation between the ST run env and regular season?

I can't remember the pitcher, but Lou Brock once commented that it was nearly impossible to steal on a particular famous pitcher because the guy never threw over.

I think you're thinking of when Brock was asked who the hardest pitcher to steal on was and he said Koufax. The interviewer reacted with surprise, because despite being a lefty Koufax wasn't known for having a great pickoff move. "I wouldn't know," Brock responded.

Brock vs Koufax: .185/.235/.246 in 70 plate appearances 65 at bats

I think the larger bases may end up having several indirect consequences:

- Obviously, the space between bases is a little shorter. Think of all the bang-bang SB attempts/tags. That has to increase the SB% at least a few points.
- It should make a small difference in how often a player is safe going for extra bases on non-SB attempts - going 1st-to-3rd on a base hit; going for a double instead of pulling up for a long single; being able to take slightly larger leads at second base so that you are a little more likely to go for home on a base hit; slightly easier to tag up on a sacrifice fly attempt; a little bit tougher to turn a double play on some grounders to the left side. I don't think any of these scenarios will become, say, 5% more prevalent or successful. I could see a lot of little things like this become a few percent more successful on the side of offense, and on the side of being aggressive. If you add all of these scenarios together, we might notice the net difference.

I work in public policy, and regardless of your political views, one universally-held tenet of public administrators is that the best changes in tax policy are ones that are relatively small and broad in scope, rather than narrow but steep. The reasons for that include:
- There are always some unintended consequences of changes in tax policy, and you definitely don't want such surprises to disproportionately hit one small segment of Americas (no matter who they are). It makes for really economically disruptive policy.
- Relatively small but broad changes to tax policy are more difficult to game or circumvent. If you start seeing accountants and lawyers getting really busy from a change in tax law, it probably means you've unwittingly created a loophole.

I believe Theo Epstein is at the center of a lot of these recommendations, and he is a very data-driven, analytical guy who genuinely loves the sport. That makes him an ideal fit for leading the charge on improving the experience of watching the game (on TV or in person). It looks like he has proposed a lot of relatively small changes, rather than a few huge changes, which would be very consistent with his getting a law degree and growing up a fan of sabermetrics. The bases being bigger; the pickoff throw limit; the pitch clock; the defensive shift restriction; required number of pitchers vs position players.

Before this latest group of changes, it seems like baseball was nibbling so far on the edges that it was having a counterproductive PR effect ("Let's get rid of the four pitches thrown on an intentional walk!"). I think Epstein and his team have come up with a very thoughtful combination of tweaks that collectively will make a pretty big difference.

Re: Bases being bigger.

I really think the "hidden" reason for the bases being bigger, and also notably flatter, is to minimize the number of "runner steals a base but then his foot bounces and may leave the bag temporarily as he's sliding in and we watch 25,000 replays to decide whether his foot actually left the bag while the tag was being applied." If that is all the effect this has, it would be a welcome improvement.

Originally the "bags" were just that, bags, so if you slid into the bag you took the bag with you. No bouncing.

BREAKING NEWS: ESPN added the Pitch Clock to its on-screen score bug display for today’s Nationals @ Yankees game. First time I’ve seen that this spring, but others will surely follow.

Will the six inch reduction in the distance between 1st and 2nd (and 2nd and 3rd) actually make that big of a difference?

I think it is 5.5 inches, and it will make a small difference. Anyone who was within that distance of the base when tagged out would now be safe. How often was that?

Will the six inch reduction in the distance between 1st and 2nd (and 2nd and 3rd) actually make that big of a difference?
I think it is 5.5 inches, and it will make a small difference. Anyone who was within that distance of the base when tagged out would now be safe. How often was that?

I suppose the runner also has a few more inches to work with for his fadeaway slide and swim moves, etc. Runners get 3 (2.5!) extra inches on their lead. It likely won't make much of a difference but it pretty much has to make it easier. It doesn't change the fundamental issue which is that it is so much more costly to give up a runner for an out than it is to acquire an extra base. The rule change should increase the success rate but it's still the case that if the break-even point is around 70-75%, an 80% success rate is only a tiny advantage.

Playing one of the MLB video games many, many years ago -- not a remotely realistic one -- I got Lance Johnson over 200 steals with something well over a 90% success rate (he also had an OBP of about 450, maybe even 500) and I think my actually slow-footed Cub team must have had over 500 total. Now that team did score a lot of runs. :-) I also recall Mike Mussina's 92 MPH knuckleball (supposed to be a 90 MPH knuckle curve) was damn hard to hit.

I think it is 5.5 inches . . .

4.5 inches between 1st & 2nd bases is what I’ve seen. Same for 2nd & 3rd, of course. The limits on pick-offs & step-offs should also lengthen leads, at least for better base-runners. They should also be able to use the pitch clock in some cases to get a better idea of when the pitcher is going home. Lots of things helping the runner if they can put it to use. Not sure how much we’ll see in Spring Training, where injury avoidance is a concern, but the regular season could be quite interesting.

check

4.5 inches between 1st & 2nd bases is what I’ve seen.

I guess I've never really known where they measure the bases from. I assume that first and third will still line up with the line, so the baserunner on first will start 3 inches closer to second. But where is second base actually placed? I know that there's 90 feet between the bases, but I've never actually thought in great detail about where that 90 feet is.

Before now, was it 90 feet from the center of first base to the center of second base? Or is it something like the center of second base is 90 feet from the base line?

I guess I've never really known where they measure the bases from. I assume that first and third will still line up with the line, so the baserunner on first will start 3 inches closer to second. But where is second base actually placed? I know that there's 90 feet between the bases, but I've never actually thought in great detail about where that 90 feet is.

See the graphic accompanying section 3 "Bigger Bases" of this MLB overview of the new rules.

SB should rise a bit, but I dont think its going to be all that dramatic. I think one reason is the silly "one millimeter for a split second off the bag" calls on replay that result in outs. Even giving the runner a bit of an advantage you still have this more or less random factor that is still getting a percentage of outs.

That graphic (thanks) still doesn't quite answer #27's question. But we can use it to clarify the question.

Is 90 feet the length of the line from the bottom corner of HP to the back right corner of 1B? (i.e. the full length of the line from home to first? Or was it the distance between the bottom corner of home to the front right corner of 1B? Or was it from the back corner of home to the (old) middle of the right edge of 1B? Or did the 90 feet start at the lower right corner of home?

It is helpful on the 4.5" question. I hadn't considered but the extra 3" for 1B are towards home and towards 2B, rather than 1.5" on all sides. Same with third. But, for reasons I don't think are obvious, the 2B expansion is 1.5" on all sides. Granted (d'oh!) I was thinking 3" on all sides for all bases which, among other issues, would be an increase to 21 sq inches not 18.

Is 90 feet the length of the line from the bottom corner of HP to the back right corner of 1B?

Correct. Overall, here's the measuring system:

From home to corner base: Back corner of home to back (on the line, toward the OF) corner of 1B and 3B.

Corner base to 2B: Measure from the back corner to the middle of 2B.

This is how the bases are bigger but it's still 90 feet between bases.

OK, thanks.

So there was never actually 90 feet between bases, if between is defined as edge-to-edge. Before this, a runner going from first to second had to run 90 ft minus 15 in minus 7.5 in, or 88 ft 1.5 in. Now they have to run 87 ft 9 in.

And the placing of second base seems weird to me. But then it looks like it always had been. I would have guessed that the back corner of second base lined up with back corners of both first and third. But I suppose it never did.

That diagram is helpful. I also thought the 90' was from center to center.

I was also in the "center-to-center" camp. Great graphic!

The 13% reduction in injuries is great to read about as well. More room to share the bag without stepping on someone else's foot and rolling an ankle, I presume.

SBPT very interesting points re: Theo Epstein driving these changes. I like them a lot.

I think one reason is the silly "one millimeter for a split second off the bag" calls on replay that result in outs.

Because the bases are larger, and also (at least in the pictures) flatter, I think that the frequency of these kind of calls will be reduced. There will be less "bounce". Maybe that was actually part of the plan as well.

I'm sure others have noted but my slow brain just realized that the 1B is also 3 inches closer to the iF on the throw which will turn a few bang-bang plays in the defense's favor. 3 inches on a 90 MPH throw is not a lot of time so I assume it will be a tiny handful.

I hadn't ever really given it any thought but had assumed that 90 feet was the distance from "home" (which bit of home?) to the front of the 1B bag -- i.e. you had to run 90 feet like Jack Brickhouse always said. But then I'd have to think through how that might affect the dimensions of the diamond. Once you really look at it, it's pretty obvious that the simplest way to do it is to draw a square/diamond that's 90 feet on all four sides and stick the bases in the corners. I suppose 9-yo me probably saw exactly such a diagram. Still, I can't believe Jack Brickhouse lied to me!!!

So I was thinking of modifying the pickoff limit rule. I'm not a fan of it, I think it potentially introduces annoying game theory shenanigans, etc. or ridiculous situations where the runner has a 25-foot lead or some such. I doubt my idea is all that feasible/enforceable but I like the concept.

Draw lines at (I dunno) 7, 9, and 11 feet from 1B towards 2B. (First impracticality is these lines get wiped out all the time.) If the batter's lead foot is not past the first line, you can't throw over. If it's past the first line, you get one throw per PA. If he's out past the 2nd line, you get 2 throws (includes if your first throw was when he was past just the first line so now he's taken more). Out past 11 feet, you can throw over as many times as you want (not really) until he shortens his lead. Basically no more pointless throws over there (the new rule should take care of this) but still allowing throws over there when the runner is really abusing the privilege (where I fear the new rule might fail). Replay not allowed on whether a millimeter of the runner's shoe is over the line, let the ump decide in real time. (In case it's not obvious, I don't know how long leads tend to be -- I intend the unlimited line to be where the runner has nobody to blame but himself)

So if you've got Herb Washington who doesn't need more than a 7-foot lead, then cool. Heck, I suppose he can get into a sprinter's stance if he wants as long as he's not over the line.

General rule question I should know the answer to: if the pitcher balks, is the ball live or dead? If the pitcher balks but also fires the ball towards RF, can the runner potentially advance 1st to 3rd or is the ball dead and he only gets the automatic advance to 2B?

General rule question I should know the answer to: if the pitcher balks, is the ball live or dead? If the pitcher balks but also fires the ball towards RF, can the runner potentially advance 1st to 3rd or is the ball dead and he only gets the automatic advance to 2B?

As you described it—specifically, that the pitcher "fires the ball towards RF"—runners only advance one base. Generally, the rule is that a balk means a dead ball. However, the rules also state:

In cases where a pitcher balks and throws wild, either to a base or to home plate, a runner or runners may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled at his own risk.

Also, if the balk is an illegally pitched ball and it goes into play, the offense can either take the balk or the result of the play, whichever is better (like accepting or declining a penalty).

The other rule factor is that "when a batter is in position," the pitcher can only throw to the catcher unless a throw is to a fielder in an attempt to retire a runner. So a throw to RF would count as intentionally delaying the game, at which point the umpires can issue a warning and, if another such delay occurs, the pitcher would be ejected.

I suspect any throw into right field would be interpreted as a poorly executed attempt to pick the runner off first.

ridiculous situations where the runner has a 25-foot lead

Why do people keep saying this?? If the runner is that far off, a third pickoff throw is virtually guaranteed to be successful, thus no penalty.

I'm sure others have noted but my slow brain just realized that the 1B is also 3 inches closer to the iF on the throw which will turn a few bang-bang plays in the defense's favor.

Assuming the base is slightly closer to home, no it won't. The throw moves much, much faster than any runner, so any distance gain by the runner more than offsets any distance gain by the fielders.

Perhaps the pickoff rules have a major effect, but my suspicion is the only way we see SBs increasing dramatically is if CS become so difficult that the SB itself is not particularly exciting (such as many SBs being completed without a throw). I just don't see teams risking the outs.

From the article above:

And because the pickoff limitation lasts for the entirety of the plate appearance, Ferguson felt comfortable taking another big lead at second.

I most certainly did NOT know that. Wonder why they didn't let the pitcher get his 3 throws back. This will lead to a ton of successive steals.

Once you really look at it, it's pretty obvious that the simplest way to do it is to draw a square/diamond that's 90 feet on all four sides and stick the bases in the corners.

But apparently this isn't quite how it works. First and third are like you said, but at the second base corner, the center of the bag is placed at the corner. Which still seems weird to me.

Oh, read farther down:

(This same rule will be in place in MLB in 2023. However, in the big leagues, the “disengagement limit” will reset if a runner advances during the plate appearance.)

But apparently this isn't quite how it works. First and third are like you said, but at the second base corner, the center of the bag is placed at the corner. Which still seems weird to me.

The MLB rules explaining how to lay out a field and demonstrating the above:

When location of home base is determined, with a steel tape measure 127 feet, 33⁄8 inches in desired direction to establish second base. From home base, measure 90 feet toward first base; from second base, measure 90 feet toward first base; the intersection of these lines establishes first base. From home base, measure 90 feet toward third base; from second base, measure 90 feet toward third base; the intersection of these lines establishes third base. The distance between first base and third base is 127 feet, 33⁄8 inches. All measurements from home base shall be taken from the point where the first and third base lines intersect.

There's a heck of a diagram in this PDF, Appendix 1 on page 158.

So I was thinking of modifying the pickoff limit rule. I'm not a fan of it, I think it potentially introduces annoying game theory shenanigans, etc. or ridiculous situations where the runner has a 25-foot lead or some such

They can throw more than two pickoffs, it just has to lead to an out, otherwise runner moves up a base. A runner with that big of a lead is getting picked off most of the time

I most certainly did NOT know that. Wonder why they didn't let the pitcher get his 3 throws back. This will lead to a ton of successive steals.

Good! Steals are fun. There should be more of them. And there should be more fast baseball players and fewer slow baseball players.

But apparently this isn't quite how it works. First and third are like you said, but at the second base corner, the center of the bag is placed at the corner. Which still seems weird to me.

That's correct. Regarding the 90-foot square: the outer tips of home plate and first and third base are at the corners, but the center of second base is at that corner.

It used to be that first and third were also centered on the 90-foot-corners, but that made it difficult to adjudicate foul calls when the ball hit the bag, since half the bag is in foul territory. So (in the early 1900's) the bags were moved to be in fair territory entirely inside the 90-foot-square. Second base doesn't have that problem so it was never moved.

That all said... I read somewhere that part of the bigger-bases rule is indeed to move second base inside the 90-foot-square to match the others. If that's true, then that's what gets you the 5.5 inch reduction between bases instead of 4.5 inches.