From: mb@cray.com (Maynard Brandt)
Subject: Re: Stupidest rule in baseball (perhaps a new one)
Organization: Cray Research Inc
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:47:52 CST

In article <1992Dec15.214843.26303@holos0.uucp> lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.092848.370@walter.cray.com> mb@cray.com (Maynard Brandt) writes:
>>
>>If it isn't a strike the last time, why should a foul ball ever be included
>>in the ball-strike count?
>
>Your complaint is that that foul balls are not consistently strikes.
>It's not clear to me why it is "dumb" that this rule is inconsistent.
>I don't even think it's inconsistent, since the third strike results
>in a strikeout and is therefore fundamentally different.  (Note that
>a relief pitcher always is credited with the strikeout even if he
>comes in with an 0-2 count: the theory is that the last strike is
>the hardest to get.)
>
In theory, the strike zone is the same for every pitch thrown to the same
batter irregardless of ball-strike count so a called strike 3 is no more
difficult to throw than a called strike 1 or 2.  If strike 3 is really
hardest to get, it must be because it is more difficult to get a batter
to swing at a 2 strike borderline pitch than with fewer strikes.  That is
the exact opposite of what I have seen.  The only advantages the hitter
gets from extending an at bat is to gain familiarity with the pitcher (which
might make throwing strike 3 more difficult than strike 2) and the chance
that the pitcher will make a mistake on the next pitch.  If a relief pitcher
comes in with an 0-2 count, the batter loses the first advantage so I think
it would be easier for the relief pitcher to throw strike 3 than it was for
the other pitcher to throw strike 1 or 2.  I find this "theory" of yours
to be lacking in reality.  Of course, Brian Harper is an exception to the
rule.  He doesn't really get serious about an at bat until he gets 2
strikes.  :)

 [stuff deleted.  The full text is still available on the net.]

>>I remember someone commenting on a TV broadcast that at one time foul
>>balls weren't included in the ball-strike count.  Does anyone on the
>>net know if this is true or false and, if it is true, when the rule
>>changed?
>
>Seems to me that was changed before the turn of the century.  At one
>time they pitched underhanded, it took 8 balls to walk, and the batter
>could request a low or high pitch.  Quite a different game.

So you admit that the rule used to be there.  What I find particularly
"dumb" about the foul-strike rule is that the rules committee enacted
the rule (making some foul balls strikes where none were before) to keep
a batter from (I guess) continuously fouling off pitches until either
the pitcher's arm fell off or he got a walk.  That can still be done
so they changed the rule and didn't accomplish anything.

I think they could have limited the batter to X pitches per at bat, not
called fouls strikes (ah yes, consistency), and declared the batter out
(not a strikeout, just an out) if after X pitches he hadn't hit a fair
ball.  IMO, X could be something like 10 and it wouldn't have a big
impact on the game but it would fix the original problem.

Sorry about the length of my response.
-- 
Regards,

Maynard Brandt
Cray Research, Inc.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball