RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Stupid Baseball Rules

Posted by: Chuck
- Sustainer [169212110] Wed, May 26, 2004, 23:24

I have 2 rules that bug me:

1. Starting pitcher must go 5 innings to get the win.

Why? First off, most of the time, if the starter doesn't go 5 innings, he's not in line for the win anyway. So we can throw out all those examples.

In tonight's Astros game, Brad Lidge gets credit for the win. He pitched 1 inning. Granted he struck out the side, but did he contribute more to an Astros win than Pettitte's 4 innings giving up 1 ER? It would take 9 of Lidge's performances to win that game. It would take less than 3 of Pettitte's performances to win the same game. Who contributed more? Pettitte. Who gets the win? Lidge.

2. Player does not get credit for a stolen base due to "defensive indifference"

I was trying to come up with a comparable analogy for this one. Simply put, it would be like not giving a player credit for a walk because it was an intentional walk. The reality is, the player got a base that he didn't deserve. When catchers choose not to throw b/c they don't have a shot at the runner, they still get credit for a SB. So what's the difference? Is it because "that run doesn't count" (don't get me started on that phrase...)?

If a player accomplishes it, he should get credit for it. Let's keep scorekeepers out of this as much as possible.



Truth be told, there are a lot of things that bug me from time to time, but these two are some of the most illogical things in the world. Feel free to add more or show me the error of my thoughts.
1PermDude
      ID: 2343587
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 00:15
Usually, a player has to almost walk down to second not to get the SB. If a catcher even jumps up with the ball without throwing it, it's almost always a SB. So it doesn't really happen that often--when it does, it's scored a fielder's choice (fielding team decides not to challenge an advance with a play).

Remember, though, that if the runner starts going before the pitcher delivers and it results in a wild pitch, he still gets credit for a SB.
2Khahan
      ID: 364131722
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 02:06
I agree with Chuck 100% on both of these. In fact, a few weeks ago, we were discussing issue 1 in the one of the daily action threads.

As for issue two, PD may be right, it does not happen often. However, even that is too often.
If a pitcher/catcher could care less about stopping a guy from running, the runner still has to put effort into his attempt. He still has to realize that they don't care and make use of it. It still takes some measure of skill.

Over the past 3 years, I've seen it in about 3 different games per season. 3 out of the hundreds of SB per year is not a lot, relatively speaking. But even 3 per year is way too many. It just should not happen.

Also, isn't there a rule along the lines that if you ground into a DP and a run scores you do not get credit for the rbi?

That would fall under this discussion, too.
3beebop
      ID: 38421265
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 03:55
I think it happens more often than people think. Whenever im home watching the box scores live on the internet, i see it at least once a day. I never knew what it meant by fielder indifference, so now i know. I think it sux....pretty much coz of whats already been said
4holt
      ID: 5444876
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 06:03
not crediting a sb based on indifference makes perfect sense to me. 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth in a lop-sided game - the winning team doesn't care one iota what a baserunner does. why give credit?

I think football should make use of the indifference rule when it comes to interceptions - such as in end-of-the-half situations where a QB is asked to throw a hail-mary. in that situation a turnover is a non-issue and the pass is usually a completely random shot in the dark. counting it in the same way as a normal INT skews the stats and gives misleading info as to how much skill a QB has.

actually - football presents a lot of situations that make it difficult to judge players by stats. it's very common for a losing QB to rack up 300 yards - because of indifference of the defense and the all-or-nothing nature strategy of a losing team.

a team win is the most important stat of them all. the most respectable individual stat categories are the ones that tend to go along with winning. categories like runs, rbi, ERA. if a SB was awarded in indifference situations it would slightly diminish the honor of the SB stat.
5Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 217351118
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 06:46
Agree with Holt. When a player takes 2nd base because of indifference, it has nothing to do with that player's ability to steal a base. For the most part, only good hitters get intentionally walked, but anyone can advance on def. indif.
6Chuck
      Sustainer
      ID: 169212110
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 12:11
not crediting a sb based on indifference makes perfect sense to me. 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth in a lop-sided game - the winning team doesn't care one iota what a baserunner does. why give credit?

I'm not sure about you, but I'll often see defensive indifference awarded on a play like this.

Team X is in the field, up by 2 runs
Team Y is batting, runner on first w/ 1 out.

Player A on first "takes" (he doesn't steal) second base to avoid the double play.

Team X doesn't throw b/c that runner "doesn't matter."

First off, that runner does matter. Without him, the tying run is still on deck, not at the plate.

Additionally, if Team X didn't care, why didn't the guy get a double or triple or inside the park home run in the first place? Or, if he was walked, why didn't he just round the bag and head to second base. There was a reason he ended up on first base and not second base in the first place.
7beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 3531815
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 12:25
Chuck, I've never seen a player not get credited with a SB in that situation because 99.9% of the time the defensive team will not give the player 2nd base.
8j o s h
      ID: 594502710
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 12:26
3 beebop - if your watching sportsline. On a double steal it always says "so and so stole 3rd" and so and so "to second". But they always correct it later and give both credit for steals. Most recently happened last night when Jeter and A-Rod did it.
9Deadeyes
      ID: 18115269
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 12:28
It tends to happen a lot when the pitcher goes into the full wind up rather than the stretch. Basically, it says run on me but my pitch will be better from the wind up and i will get the hitter out.
10Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 12:31
The 5 inning rule has been around a longwhile. Changing that rule would ahve huge ramifications to all those pitchers before. The Fielder's indifference hasn't been around that long and would be easier to change. Point is, they put the rule in for a reason and I don't see why they'd go about changing it now.
11Chuck
      Sustainer
      ID: 169212110
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 12:43
The 5 inning rule has been around a longwhile. Changing that rule would ahve huge ramifications to all those pitchers before.

Point is, they put the rule in for a reason and I don't see why they'd go about changing it now.

I'm sure there have been rules in the past that were added and then removed. To say it would change things from the past just seems like a weak excuse.

You can always qualify later on with "minimum 5 IP era" like they use "pre shot-clock era" in basketball. Does that take away accomplishments of prior pitchers? No, but it makes the game better today.

Ref- Who deserved the win in the Astros game last night? Do you honestly think Lidge contributed more toward a win than Pettitte?

Chuck, I've never seen a player not get credited with a SB in that situation because 99.9% of the time the defensive team will not give the player 2nd base.

The times in my mind that stick out about defensive indifference are like those. I saw it just recently on a Twins game. They let the runner go so the pitcher will just focus on the batter, and not worry about the runner. If that happens in the 5th inning, it's an SB. If it happens in the 9th inning, it's DI.

12Deadeyes
      ID: 18115269
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 12:52
it doesnt matter who is more deserving of a win.
For instance if a guy pitches 8 2/3 innings of 1 hit ball then gets injured or relieved for and the game is 0-0. Then the scrub who comes in for 1/3 of an inning is the guy eligible to get the win. So who is more deserving and who gets the win are 2 different things. That's why they are called starting pitchers and they are supposed to pitch more than 4 innings.
13Chuck
      Sustainer
      ID: 169212110
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 12:58
Deadeyes-- not in this situation.

The scorekeeper decides who is most helpful in attaining the win (you'd have to check the rulebook for the exact wording). Shouldn't, then, one of the scorekeepers options be to give it to the starting pitcher as well? If the determination is really based on who contributed most to the win, the starting pitcher should get as much consideration if he pitched well, as a reliever who went 1 inning.
14Nerfherders
      ID: 308512415
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 15:29
Re: 13

Exactly the point I was going to make. The starter gets the win automatically if he pitches 5 innings with the lead. However, if he pitches less than that with the lead then it is up to the official scorer to determine which pitcher deserves the win, and the starter should be considered in that determination. That would be the change I would propose.

In many many cases he wouldnt deserve it. Example: In a Braves win over the Brewers two weeks ago Ortiz was given a 5-0 lead, but was awful, and was taken out after 1 2/3 innings. However, the Braves never trailed, but Ortiz does not deserve that win under the current rule, nor the way I'd like to change it.
15Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 1629107
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 16:06
The fact that a starter has to go 5 innings to qualify for a win is not an outdated abberation or oversight. Starting pitchers are held to different standards than releif pitchers, one of those standards being game longevity.

Jose Rincon is tied for 5th in MLB in wins with 6. But since we know that he is exclusively a releif pitcher, we don't really consider those wins when assessing his value (in real life baseball terms, not fantasy, of course). In fact, two of those wins came in games in which he blew a save. We know that releivers frequently 'earn' the win by pitching poorly, giving up runs and effectively stealing the win from the starter or another previous releiver, only to be lucky enough to stay in the game while the offense takes the lead back.

By lowering the longevity standards for starters to qualify for the win, you cheapen the value of wins by starting pitchers, and I'm not so sure if this is a good idea. Under the current system, for every win that a pitcher earns as a starter, you know that 5 innings were pitched for it. We keep stats for the purpose of assessing the performance of players. Why change a stat to have it mean less? To accomplish what? Having some pitchers who leave the game early have their stat lines look a little better?
16Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 1629107
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 16:16
er... Juan Rincon
17Trip
      ID: 14417218
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 20:07
My pet peeve...when they quit counting game winning RBI as a stat.

Also, you (khahan) are right that they don't award an RBI when a run scores on a DP. However, FWIW, I agree with that ruling.
18MadDOG
      ID: 74592719
      Thu, May 27, 2004, 22:40
Call me stupid but one of the most annoying things about baseball to me is "flyouts" and line drives that are caught by the outfielders.

These are some of the hardest hit balls in the game and they end up as outs.

I would like to see a baseball league where every body had to be thrown out. Which would mean that batters could not leave home plate until the flyouts and line drives were caught by the outfielders. Similar to a sacrifice fly.

If the games become too long because of this, reduce it to 2 outs per side per inning.

I know this will never happen but might be an idea for a city league or something. A "No Flyout" league.

Peace.
19Bond, James Bond
      ID: 444202722
      Fri, May 28, 2004, 00:11
I despise the intentional walk rule requiring the pitcher to actually throw 4 balls. Yes, on maybe 0.00001% of the time he may throw a wild one but rarely does he do it. Meanwhile, the four balls are added to the pitcher's total pitch count (are you kidding me?) and the game is dragged on for a few minutes more. Madness I tell ya, simply madness!
20Johnny Sue
      ID: 6452812
      Fri, May 28, 2004, 13:14
I'm with ya 007! The 4-pitch walk is certainly way past its usefulness. Why not just have the catcher or pitcher declare to the ump that they intend to walk the next guy and just get on with the game? Ought to shave a couple minutes off of MLB's ridiculously long games.
Rate this thread:
5 (top notch)
4 (even better)
3 (good stuff)
2 (lightweight)
1 (no value)
If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time.

If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating.

If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here.

RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a random spelling of Mientkiewicz
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days44
Last 30 days77
Since Mar 1, 2007889461