I seriously doubt players gave a fig about sunset.

Of course players cared - if the game went on too long, the team losing at the time would be batting in low-light conditions, or the game would be called. Players don't want that loss, and both sides wanted to get those at-bats in to add to their stats. I mean, amateur players care to this day about getting the game in, and they don't have their next paycheck riding on whether they can get that extra at-bat to turn an 0-3 into a 1-4.

A stolen base without any threat of an out is not very exciting.

The natural strategy is for the pitcher to throw over at most once, and then keep that last throw-over in reserve for when the runner takes way too big of a lead. There won't be any "no threat of an out", but what will happen is that leads will get bigger on average and hence stolen bases will become a bit easier on average as well. Even if the pitcher does use up his/her second chance, they can still throw over with the threat of a balk if unsuccessful, and we know even this minor threat is still effective in preventing many stolen bases - remember how few bases were stolen against Jon Lester even though the chances of him throwing over to first in normal circumstances were practically non-existent? In any case, the minor leagues have been experimenting with these rule changes and so far the stolen-base apocalypse has yet to appear. It will be fine and welcome change.

In fact, the change is important because it corrects an obvious error in the rule book, there being no penalty whatsoever for throwing to first. From a game-theoretic standpoint, and discounting the possibility of throwing the ball away, a pitcher should throw over to first continually, without ever attempting a pitch, until the runner is picked off, if there is even a slight chance of picking the runner off, there being no penalty in trying. The fact that no pitcher ever did that is more a function of peer- and spectator-pressure (spectators after all typically boo if the pitcher throws over to first too many times) than cold, hard, logic, as is/was also true for batters and pitchers wasting time in general.

I noticed one thing on a deeper reading of The Athletic's coverage.

Because teams can challenge whether a player was in an illegal position before a pitch, players worry that a tiny infraction — an inch over — will lead to the erasure of some major moments, even if it didn’t impact the outcome of the play or pitch

Do away with challenges already. Such a dumb system.

To want fewer "oaf-like" players and yet want a universal DH is contradictory.

I always opposed the DH because it took an element of balance and strategy out of the game. (And yes, I know, nobody wants to see a pitcher hit.)

But there was once a decision to be made: If you wanted a Greg Luzinski or a Willie Stargell or a Frank Howard in the lineup every day, you had to (gulp) play them somewhere in the field. Every day.

I love stolen bases, but I'm not sure I will like guys taking a 15ft lead after the second pickoff move and then jogging down to 2. Feels little league to me. But we shall see

interesting article in the Ringer, where they describe the experimental changes with pickoffs and pitch clocks in the minors and its effect on SBs etc:


https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2021/10/21/22736400/experimental-rules-atlantic-league-robo-umps

lots to digest in High A ball where they used the 2 pickoff limit the SB success rate went from 68% to 77% if Im reading that correctly. This is a league where I think the runs/game is now at 6 so its so hard to extrapolate this to MLB where the scores are lower and presumably the base stealers are better.

heres one quote:

The step-off experiment didn’t go so smoothly. “It was not well thought of in the slightest,” says Jesse Goldberg-Strassler, broadcaster for Oakland’s High-A affiliate, the Lansing Lugnuts. Goldberg-Strassler recounts a conversation with an umpire who told him that players and team personnel were bewildered about what was and wasn’t legal, which led to a lot of balks, ejections, and confused looks. The ump began creating and distributing diagrams and talking things through with teams to convey what was allowed. “Because of this widespread lack of understanding,” Goldberg-Strassler says, “there was a great feeling of relief when the rule was scrapped after the first half.”

just for the sake of completeness: apparently all the reps voted for the larger bases thing.

The one thing that doesn't affect their behavior at all.

I love stolen bases, but I'm not sure I will like guys taking a 15ft lead after the second pickoff move and then jogging down to 2. Feels little league to me. But we shall see

How many times does this need to be restated? If the pitcher's third pickoff throw actually gets the runner, there's no penalty. So a runner can't take a 15ft lead.

Honest question, was there ever talk in the 80s about stolen bases becoming too ubiquitous? You had Henderson and Coleman stealing over 100 bases with 80 percent steal rates and even guys Bill Doran and Gerald Perry could swipe 40 in a season.

I can't remember any complaints about stolen bases. But in that same era I remember a zillion complaints about artificial turf turning Texas League singles into triples. The shift away from plastic grass is one of the better developments that's come along with the retro parks. Some of those multiplexes might as well have been covered in concrete.

From a game-theoretic standpoint, and discounting the possibility of throwing the ball away, a pitcher should throw over to first continually, without ever attempting a pitch, until the runner is picked off, if there is even a slight chance of picking the runner off, there being no penalty in trying.

That's a hell of a discount.

But, if this were a real threat, it would have happened more than once in baseball history.

The shift away from plastic grass is one of the better developments that's come along with the retro parks.

Bite your damn tongue. Turf was an aesthetic abomination, but at least it gave us another way to win baseball games. Now, there's just one.

14. Buck Coats Posted: September 08, 2022 at 08:27 PM (#6095337)
As it is stolen bases are higher than they were at many times in baseball history (including the entire stretch from 1930-1972) whereas caught stealings are at a historically low level.

This made me realize that I don't think I've seen a single pitchout this season. I don't know how to find those types of stats but I can't remember a single one and I pay "kinda" attention to at least 100 Mets games this year. I've seen a lot of stolen bases, but many of them are from pitchers focused more on the strikeout and I think the clock is going to cut down on that kind of mentality.

As for the shift, I've been waiting since the days of Jason Giambi for pull hitters to learn how to bunt to third. It's never going to happen, so hopefully we'll see more singles etc w/o the shift. The one silver lining is that I'll be better able to judge whether a batted balls is going to be a hit when watching on TV. Nowadays, I'm often wrong on ground balls up the middle, etc.

EDIT: Forgot to add that stolen base percentage has probably gone up a bit because catchers' other skills (hitting, framing, etc) have been more valued recently.

So a batter is going to do what? Swing at the first pitch he sees in the second inning because he might or might not be faced with a situation later on with poor visibility?

Humans don't work that way.

The current MLB Rule 2.01 reads in part

The grass lines and dimensions shown on the diagrams are those
used in many fields, but they are not mandatory and each Club shall
determine the size and shape of the grassed and bare areas of its
playing field.

I couldn't find clarification in TFA, but I wonder if 2.01 will be changed to mandate a standard infield-dirt arc. Otherwise teams could get pretty creative with field layouts. Which might be fun.

Forgot to add that stolen base percentage has probably gone up a bit because catchers' other skills (hitting, framing, etc) have been more valued recently.

that doesnt sound right Kronic. Framing and hitting are just as valuable (or just as much an illusion) as they ever were. There's no reason to think that getting a marginal strike call is any better today than in 1930.

I think what we've seen is the number of attempts has gone down some and the success rate has gone up. It seems like just a better informed approach to the game. The historic SB rate seemed to have hovered just above break even (with success at 70% and presumably a break even rate of 67%) so it was barely a good strategy for anyone other than speedsters. So analytics is saying less SB attempts with a better success rate.

I think...

As for the shift, I've been waiting since the days of Jason Giambi for pull hitters to learn how to bunt to third. It's never going to happen

Well, it's never going to happen unless the rules are changed to make it easier. As it is, with the stuff thrown by pitchers these days, the chances of a successful bunt even with the third baseman playing shortstop are pretty low. You have to get it just right down the line, anything within reach of the pitcher and you are out.

Now, if we changed the rules so the pitcher couldn't field a bunt......

Why try for a bunt when you can hit the ball over the fence?

Why try for a bunt when you can hit the ball over the fence?

Because it's way easier?

Did you decide to be a cashier at a grocery store?

I can't remember any complaints about stolen bases.

Me either. If anything, manic basestealing seemed to be celebrated by baseball media since that's playing the game The Right Way™.


But in that same era I remember a zillion complaints about artificial turf turning Texas League singles into triples.

That and for supposedly destroying players' knees and -- by extension -- careers, although Bill James asserted in one of the Abstracts (1988?) that there was no actual evidence to support that position.

#109 As I've said before, Tippy Martinez would still be throwing over if he hadn't picked off the side. He had absolutely no intention of throwing to Sakata with a runner on first.

119. That’s the once.

So a batter is going to do what? Swing at the first pitch he sees in the second inning because he might or might not be faced with a situation later on with poor visibility?

The point is the time between pitches.

I played a lot of games at our Little League field, which didn't have lights, on weekdays. The games started, I cannot remember, something like 5:30. It got dark by 7:30. We played fast because we knew we had to. If you wasted time on the mound or at bat, players on both sides and the umpire got on your case: "get a move on!", "throw the ball!", "get in the box".

MLB average length of 9-inning games:

1980 - 2:33
1990 - 2:47
2000 - 2:57
2015 - 2:56
2021 - 3:10
2022 - 3:07

...........

2nd time this week a key Yankees game (vs Rays !) is only airing locally on Prime Video.
reassuring to presume that the Steinbrenners add 0.00000000001 pct to their personal bottom lines.

119. That’s the once.

We have all been to games where the pitcher throws over to first in a single at-bat, more than 10 times.

Psychologically, few humans could pull off what Tippy Martinez pulled off. The tedium isn't something humans are made for. That doesn't change the logic that, if you can do something that has a small but non-negative chance of a positive result, without any chance of a negative result, and all other options (e.g. throwing a pitch) have a chance of a negative result, you should keep doing the something that only has a chance of a positive result indefinitely.

Yes the umpire got on your case. That's my point.

IMO, the best reason for the pickoff rule is not necessarily to increase SB attempts (although it may do that to some extent, and I would be pleased to see it). The best reason is that pointless, no-chance pickoff throws are one of the least-interesting plays in baseball, and eliminating them is a good thing that will make the game more interesting. (Pickoff throws with an actual chance to catch the runner are good - but if runners take more aggressive leads in an attempt to induce these, then this category of pickoffs might actually increase.)

As a mild counterpoint...

From a game-theoretic standpoint, and discounting the possibility of throwing the ball away, a pitcher should throw over to first continually, without ever attempting a pitch, until the runner is picked off, if there is even a slight chance of picking the runner off, there being no penalty in trying.

There is actually some level of in-game cost to infinite pickoff throws, which is the fact that eventually either the pitcher will throw the ball away or the first baseman will fail to catch it, resulting in the runner advancing. That doesn't happen often, but it probably happens more often than actually picking off a runner who's half a step off the base.

The best reason is that pointless, no-chance pickoff throws are one of the least-interesting plays in baseball, and eliminating them is a good thing that will make the game more interesting.

Bingo. “Checking on the runner” or “keeping an eye on the runner” shouldn’t be a thing.

If you could get rid of the pointless, no-chance pickoff throws without getting rid of the rest, I'd be all for it. But I find many pitcher/baserunner battles to be quite interesting, which obviously you hardball philistines do not.

if you can do something that has a small but non-negative chance of a positive result, without any chance of a negative result,

The idea there's no chance of a negative result is just wrong. I doubt the number of pickoffs is substantially greater than the number of errors on pickoff attempts, and certainly not enough to describe the situation as you have.

re: #112, I was wondering about that, too. Will teams with good infielders extend the infield dirt so they can play deeper? Can teams tinker with the dimensions of the infield dirt from series to series? Game to game? Seems like such issues should have been addressed before today’s announcement.

If you could get rid of the pointless, no-chance pickoff throws without getting rid of the rest, I'd be all for it. But I find many pitcher/baserunner battles to be quite interesting, which obviously you hardball philistines do not.

My take on this (as someone who admittedly watches very little baseball these days) is that the interesting version of these battles is likely a lot less common than it once was, in part because so many of them at this point are likely to involve fungible AAAA relievers who aren't likely to have spent a ton of time on their pickoff moves.

Per B-R, total pickoffs (including pickoff/caught stealing plays) in 2021 were 275; in 2001, there were 455. That feels like the pitcher/runner battle was already a declining feature of the sport anyway, partly because rallies in general have declined so sharply in comparison to scoring via home run.

Sorry if somebody mentioned this but the other announcement is that MLB accepted the MLBPA as the collective bargaining rep for the minors. That's good news ... I sorta assumed they (or any other employer) would reject just out of principle. I'm sure the MLBPA would have eventually been approved by the NLRB (or whoever gets to do so) but MLB could have slowed down the process.

I couldn't find clarification in TFA, but I wonder if 2.01 will be changed to mandate a standard infield-dirt arc. Otherwise teams could get pretty creative with field layouts. Which might be fun.

Sounds like teams don’t have full discretion about their infield dirt:

Teams still have some discretion, with these requirements:
• 95-foot radius from center of pitcher's plate
• avg distance of grass line of outer boundary of infield dirt has to be less than 96 feet, more than 94
• no individual measurement more than 96 feet or less than 94

https://mobile.twitter.com/EvanDrellich/status/1567983222461448192

Thanks, Tony. That of course makes sense if they're going to use the dirt to regulate positioning, but takes a tiny bit of fun/quirkiness out of the sport.

Doesn't it add quirkiness/fun if you have to position yourself slightly differently, with different outer bounds, in different parks?

The old Boston Garden had a shorter ice rink, for example, so I guess where you come down on this is whether you would have gotten fussy with the old non-standard NHL rinks. And of course, even in baseball the same flyball could be a home run in one park, and an out in another.

Per B-R, total pickoffs (including pickoff/caught stealing plays) in 2021 were 275; in 2001, there were 455. That feels like the pitcher/runner battle was already a declining feature of the sport anyway, partly because rallies in general have declined so sharply in comparison to scoring via home run.


Yeah, I would bet a part of that is that there are fewer men on base these days, and particularly fewer men on first.

Another, much older one for #109:
I remember listening to a 1957 Yankee-Tiger game while riding home from a grandparents visit. LHP Billy Hoeft walked Mantle with one out, bottom of the 15th, with Bill Skowron next. Mantle didn't try to steal often his knees meant a short leash from Stengel, but everyone expected Mick to try in this situation. We listened as Hoeft threw to first over and over, 15+ times IIRC (from reading the account later - I wasn't keeping count at the time), then finally dealt to Moose, who lined it to right-center, easily scoring mantle to end the game. (Hoeft was the starter, and with 8 hits and 4 walks allowed by that time, must've tossed 200+ pitches plus all those pickoff attempts. Between arm fatigue and distraction from Mantle dancing off first, that initial/only pitch to Skowron probably didn't have much on it.)

133, I agree. Part of baseball's appeal (to me) is that it isn't/hasn't been cookie cutter. Quirkiness equals charm IMO. Different outfields require different positioning and test different skillsets of the fielders, as well as encourage different tactics on the part of hitters. Eliminating the shift and brings baseball closer to being cookie cutter, rather than allowing for flexibility/creativity in defensive tactics. The idea of expanding or shrinking the infield dirt is along the lines of "long grass to slow the bunt/watering the basepaths to slow the runners" shenanigans that I consider in the spirit of the game.

Bigger bases. Only two throw-overs per AB...

Rickey pockets... what? 200 bags in a season under these rules?

#137 Wouldn't be a heck of a lot more opportunities to run than than in 1982. Basically if the next base was open in 1982 he tried to steal. He'd just pretty much always make it.

The real question is how easy does it make it to steal home? If steals of home explode under the new rules (they should) all bets are off.

One subtle game. Heavy base stealing causes wear and tear. A lot of the best base runners miss the odd game hear and there with scrapes and bruises. They're going to cruise in standing up more often, likely leading to fewer minor owies.

One thing I would like to see -- you couldn't enforce it with rules, because of the hallowed status of places like Fenway and Wrigley, but there would have to be some way to encourage it -- is just way bigger outfields. Like, what happens if CF is at 420 feet? How about 480? What if you pushed the power alleys way back? We can guess at what it would be like, but I don't think we know. There used to be stadiums like that. Yankee Stadium originally had the entirety of its left field power alley at well over 400 feet.

Unless you make it much, much harder to hit home runs, it will remain the case that guys have basically solved the game, and reduced it to its least interesting version.

Unless you make it much, much harder to hit home runs, it will remain the case that guys have basically solved the game, and reduced it to its least interesting version.

This is the point I made earlier in the thread.

For those who rail against the jump in TTOs, the incentive for even the eighth and ninth-place hitters to swing for the fences, not the shift, is what's killing the game.

95-foot radius from center of pitcher's plate
• avg distance of grass line of outer boundary of infield dirt has to be less than 96 feet, more than 94
• no individual measurement more than 96 feet or less than 94

That's basically no room for variation. It's like the signs on the highway that say Speed Limit 55, Minimum Speed 45.

Yes, and then – I really have never noticed if there's much difference in the size of the infield arc in current fields. It just hasn't come up as a factor in play before – or has it? I am sometimes so ignorant of baseball despite 55 years of supposedly following it. The infield arc always seemed decorative to me. And of course the classic Astroturf fields just had the dirt cutouts; the larger arc was drawn on the turf.

The arc doesn't matter to the infield fly; that is a matter of the infielders, not of the infield. Is there an aspect of play that (before 2023) involved the arc or the dirt/grass distinction?

#139"
There's more than just the "hallowed status" involved with Fenway (maybe Wrigley as well - I'm less familiar with its surroundings). Significant expansion of Fenway's lawn would involve many megabucks in urban renewal.

Doesn't it add quirkiness/fun if you have to position yourself slightly differently, with different outer bounds, in different parks?

I mean, I guess? I feel like unless you have visibly enormous variation in infield dirt dimensions, the differences aren't going to be noticeable unless you're specifically looking for them, and maybe not even then. Park dimensions and wall height seem like a much better source of stadium-specific outcomes, because the effects are obvious to a casual observer.

or those who rail against the jump in TTOs, the incentive for even the eighth and ninth-place hitters to swing for the fences, not the shift, is what's killing the game.

I would argue that it's that this is part of it, but that some of that is a reaction to the prevalence of fungible flame-throwing relievers, for which the only viable solution is to swing hard and hope you hit it out. The fact that players/teams can still have success, even with batting averages hovering at the Mendoza line, is testament to the skill of modern hitters.

You can easily make home runs harder to hit with a deader ball and/or one with lower seams. The latter might help batters because it would reduce movement. The pitch clock will also help because pitchers won't be able to rest so much between pitches. But even so, if you make the ball deader my prediction would be that offense would collapse to levels not seen since the deadest of the dead-ball era, or worse. To fix things one has to do something to both sides - make it more difficult to use relievers for just 1 inning at a time as well as doing stuff to the ball to make it harder to hit home runs. You don't have to change the outfield dimensions for that.

Unless you make it much, much harder to hit home runs, it will remain the case that guys have basically solved the game, and reduced it to its least interesting version.

Fans love home runs. Been that way since Babe Ruth.

Fans love home runs. Been that way since Babe Ruth.

Fans love big sluggers hitting 50+ HRs. No one gives a rats ass about an anonymous SS hitting 15 instead of 5.

• avg distance of grass line of outer boundary of infield dirt has to be less than 96 feet, more than 94
• no individual measurement more than 96 feet or less than 94

If the second bullet point is satisfied, then the first bullet point is automatically satisfied since the mean of any data set must be between its minimum and its maximum.

f the second bullet point is satisfied, then the first bullet point is automatically satisfied since the mean of any data set must be between its minimum and its maximum.

Manfred is a lawyer not a mathematician. But it's telling that they must have not even have had a statistician on the rules committee.

Fans love home runs. Been that way since Babe Ruth.

Fans love offense. Arguably, more important than just the home runs, Babe Ruth opened the door to a game with a lot more offense than the run-poor dead ball era. Runs/game bottomed out at 3.56 in 1916 (3.54 in 1909), was up to 5.49 in 1930, more than 1.5 times as many. People don't really remember, but Babe Ruth had a lifetime BA of 0.342, with a peak of 0.378 in 1924. He was about a whole lot more than just home runs.

At 8.19 H/g, 2022 is near the bottom of the historical list, all the seasons worse than it are from the 2020's, 1900's, 1910's, or 1967/68.

Fans have always loved the top few home-run hitters. I wonder if the situation we reached in 2019, where 130 different guys hit 20 home runs, is particularly appealing, though. It not only turns games into home-run derbies, but it also makes the guys who can hit 40 home runs less remarkable by contrast. Is a feat interesting to watch in itself, or because the player with the talent to do it often is remarkable?

Same with strikeouts. In 1969 there were 24 pitchers who struck out a batter per inning or more. Most were guys who got to pitch two innings all year and struck out two guys. Plus several Astros, Jim Brewer, and Nolan Ryan. Sam McDowell struck out 8.8 per nine. He was really famous for doing that.

In 2019, there were 347 guys who struck out at least a batter per inning. Of course, as in 1969, this includes numerous lightly-used relievers and guys who barely pitched at all. Ben Zobrist is listed at 347th thanks to the alphabet. But 347 gets to the point we've sometimes discussed here: when everybody's a strikeout pitcher, nobody's a "strikeout pitcher."

The O's moved their LF wall way back this year. Balt games, both sides combined, R/G/team, HR%, K%, SB/G/team, BA, ISO

2022 4.14 2.60 21.0 0.41 250 144
2021 5.36 4.48 21.7 0.35 264 206

I'm too lazy to calculate the combined BABIPS but approximately 296 this year and 299 last year.

So a massive decrease in HRs and therefore ISO ... the 1.8 percentage point decrease in HR% is roughly equivalent to the 1.4 percentage point decrease in BA (different denominators) ... EDIT on second thought, scratch that, the impact on HR% is substantially larger than on BA. Quick eyeball suggests walk rates are about the same. Runs dropped by 1.2 per team per game while strikeouts went up slightly.

It's just one year, maybe pitchers and batters will make further adjustments. The O's pitching has been a lot better this year and supposedly so has their defense. Obviously we shouldn't ascribe all of that decline to the park configuration. But one data point suggesting that making it harder to hit HRs without decreasing Ks is not gonna create more action.

A stolen base without any threat of an out is not very exciting. It's the possibility a runner will get gunned down, the risk, that makes the play - any baserunning play - the best part of the game. I don't know how anyone can possibly believe otherwise.

I just don't agree that this is going to be the effect. It's not going to increase the ease of stolen bases to the point where catchers aren't going throw a significant portion of the time. Maybe they'll refrain from throwing a little bit more, but it's not like half the time someone takes off will be uncontested.

But in truth, I would still enjoy uncontested stolen bases more than guys staying glued to first base. I'm not saying that particular play is "the best part of the game," but it's still fun to me.

If you could get rid of the pointless, no-chance pickoff throws without getting rid of the rest, I'd be all for it. But I find many pitcher/baserunner battles to be quite interesting, which obviously you hardball philistines do not.

I think the percentage of pitcher/baserunner battles that are interesting are roughly the same as the percentage of pitcher at bats that are interesting. That percentage is not quite high enough for me to be willing to keep the few that might qualify, but your mileage may vary.

I like more runners sprinting to second. You like more runners diving back to first. We might have to agree to disagree on this one.

How many times does this need to be restated? If the pitcher's third pickoff throw actually gets the runner, there's no penalty. So a runner can't take a 15ft lead.

that's Post 107 - is this not accurate or something?

I like more runners sprinting to second. You like more runners diving back to first.

It's not just that I appreciate runners diving back to first (though a close pickoff play, safe or out, is fun. I appreciate the skill of being able to control the running game in pitchers. I think this is stripping (or seriously diluting) the game from that skill.

And for what that's worth, the guys who tend to be good at controlling the running game, guys like Mark Buehrle and Chris Carpenter, tend to be pitchers who rely less on raw velocity. In contrast, those nameless fireballing relievers we all claim to hate aren't often good at it. As with outlawing the shift, it will likely reward the wrong pitchers.

And for what that's worth, the guys who tend to be good at controlling the running game, guys like Mark Buehrle and Chris Carpenter, tend to be pitchers who rely less on raw velocity. In contrast, those nameless fireballing relievers we all claim to hate aren't often good at it. As with outlawing the shift, it will likely reward the wrong pitchers.

How often did Buehrle actually step off/throw over more than twice in a PA? (Genuine question - I didn't see much of him, but his fast-moving reputation would seem to suggest that he was able to control the running game without wasting everyone's time.)

How often did Buehrle actually step off/throw over more than twice in a PA? (Genuine question - I didn't see much of him, but his fast-moving reputation would seem to suggest that he was able to control the running game without wasting everyone's time.)

Presumably more than once.

This limits the ability of pitchers who care about controlling the running game from fully using that skill. I don't like taking skill out of the game.

#157 Cy Young was known to not like throwing over -- he'd only actually throw over if there was a realistic chance of getting the runner.

Unless the clock is strictly enforced we'll be seeing a lot of his preferred method. He'd simply look the runner back.

Jim Kaat might be the ideal in terms of the running game. He had a good move and he worked very quickly -- to the point of getting a lot of complaints over the years for quick pitching batters. At its best well he was successfully putting the ball in play and cut off the running game almost completely (he had two years where he had over 200 IP with only 2 stolen bases allowed).

Didn't always work for him though. For some reason from 1969-73 he was reasonably easy to run on. Never heard anything about it at the time so I'm not sure what was up.

This limits the ability of pitchers who care about controlling the running game from fully using that skill. I don't like taking skill out of the game.

Pitchers don't control the running game by throwing over 5 times while the guys has a 5 foot lead. They control it mostly by being difficult to time, while having a reasonable move.

They control the running game by getting the ball to the catcher quickly. It's the number one factor on deciding whether to go or not.

Pitchers don't control the running game by throwing over 5 times while the guys has a 5 foot lead. They control it mostly by being difficult to time, while having a reasonable move.

And if you could get rid of the pointless tosses to first without getting rid of the ones that are part of a healthy run control diet, I'd be all for it. You can't.

This limits the ability of pitchers who care about controlling the running game from fully using that skill. I don't like taking skill out of the game.

I tend to think that sufficiently skilled pitchers will find ways to work within the limitations. But obviously we'll see how it plays out next year.

#158: Steve Carlton was the pitcher I remember as being most obsessed with the runner, constantly tinkering with his move, playing mind games. Carlton's stats make an interesting contrast to Kaat's. Carlton allowed far more SB (314 to Kaat's 168) but at a lower percentage (58% to Kaat's 66%); Carlton had far more "pure" pickoffs (those not also counted as CS: 53 to Kaat's 13). But Carlton, with all the fussing around, also had 90 career balks. Kaat made six, which is in line with some other long-career contemporaries (Gaylord Perry also had 6 career balks, Tom Seaver had 8).

Very different approaches, anyway.

Out of curiosity, has anyone taken over Buehrle's unofficial title as best current pitcher at controlling the running game? It's not something I can recall hearing much about lately, but then it's not something I focus on much anyway.

Out of curiosity, has anyone taken over Buehrle's unofficial title as best current pitcher at controlling the running game? It's not something I can recall hearing much about lately, but then it's not something I focus on much anyway.

I mean, is there a running game anymore, really?

On the subject of "chicks dig the long ball," there's some truth to that. But, at the risk of sounding like 2004-era Furman Bisher or something, I didn't really mind the scoring bonanza that was the sillyball era. More runs, higher batting averages, and still plenty of dingers. As long as we're going to have 4-hour games, we might as well go back to that, if there's a way.

I mean, is there a running game anymore, really?

There were about 2213 steals in the 2021 regular season (roughly 74 per team); there were 2767 (92 per team) in 2006, right in the middle of Buehrle's prime. That's a drop of about 20%; noteworthy, but not a complete disappearance. There's still significantly more of a running game than there was in, say, 1948 (812 total steals, about 51 per team).

But I think we're both kind of getting at the same point - I would be (admittedly slightly) more concerned about the loss of pitchers who put effort into the skill of holding runners if I thought there were many who did that now to begin with.

I'm always optimistic when the MLB attempts to speed up the game, and so far always disappointed in both the methods and results.

I'm a big believer in making rules as simple as possible to follow and administer, that way you have a much better chance of them actually being followed fairly. These seem a bit too complex and legalistic and rife with unintended consequences.

Instead of making umpires keep track of more counts (times stepped off, number of throws to first, etc) and more times (when pitcher has to be on rubber, when batter has to be facing pitcher, etc), how bout we don't limit times stepping off, we just don't stop the clock for them. Pitcher gets 20 seconds with runner on. If they throw to a base its called a ball just as if they threw to the plate and missed, with the only exception if they catch someone off base and get an out. Runners will take a slightly bigger lead, pitchers will take bigger risks trying to throw them out when the batter has no balls than when he has three.

And if batter isn't ready, that's on the batter. Only give them timeouts for broken equipment or injury.

And if stealing gets easier, thats more runners on second base which means much less shifting naturally. Don't force the umpire to figure out if infielders are too close to the center line of the field or not.

And I'm all for eliminating mound visits. Or give them one per game.

Ban gloves bigger than the fielders hands, that would increase batting averages and make great fielding plays even more amazing.

Finally, replacing any pitcher who hasn't faced at least two batters should be a balk. It's a huge disruption to the flow of the game along thats a big cause of longer game times. No more single batter matchups means relievers lose value, starters gain value and batting averages increase.