From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Stupidest rule in baseball (perhaps a new one)
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:42:13 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <1992Dec16.164753.16848@walter.cray.com> mb@cray.com (Maynard Brandt) writes:
>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

I'm having trouble following you.  Do you mean "regardless"
or "irrespective"? :-)

>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.

Well, I was just claiming that all strikes are not created equal.  The
idea (in the rulebook) that the pitcher who gets strike three should
get credit is debatable, and I'm certainly not prepared to defend it.

What is true, though, is that batting, slugging, and on-base averages
are *way* higher if the hitter gets ahead in the count than if he gets
behind.  And changing this rule would radically affect how the
counts unfold.

Making all fouls non-events would result in far more 2-0 and 3-1
counts, leading to *much* more offense.  Good batters today can often
foul off on-the-corner 2-strike pitches.  Imagine if they could foul
off every pitch in the strikezone that wasn't what they were sitting
on: Wade Boggs would hit .480.

Making a 2-strike foul a strikeout would result in a hell of a lot of
strikeouts, depressing offense.  It would probably lead to batters'
swinging more early in the count, too, out of fear that they might
not see a better pitch.  Nowadays, with an 1-2 count, a pitcher can
throw to the corner or just off the plate.  The batter, though, can
foul off borderline pitches and stay up.  But if he has to either lay
off (and hope the umpire calls it a ball) or swing and put this pitch
into fair play out of all fielders' reaches, he's got a hell of a task.
Look for a lot of strikeouts, a lot of weak grounders to the thirdbaseman,
and a lot of 2-1 ballgames.

>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.

Well, it's certainly easier to throw strike three starting at 0-2 than
it is to strike out a hitter starting at 0-0.  I don't know if it's
easier to get the third strike than the first two though.  This is all
tangential, though: my argument was certainly not based on thinking
that the third strike is the hardest.  That was just an aside.  (Note
that one reason it might be harder is the rule in question: fouls
don't count.)

>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.

You don't know that this is the reason.  Gee, I say that there would
be effects other than 15 minute at-bats.  Like, with today's lively
ball teams would score eight runs a game because the pitchers would
always be behind in the count.

>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.

Wouldn't have an "big impact"?  That's preposterous.  You can't make
a major overhaul to ball/strike counts without radically affecting
the game.  Just changing the strikezone a little makes a big difference.

"The original problem"?  You've postulated what that problem was; I'm
not sure that you've done so accurately.  The main reason for tinkering
with balls and strikes and mound heighth and strikezones, etc., is to
achieve a desired balance between hitting and pitching.  After the
depolarably low offensive levels in 1968, baseball lowered the mound
and shrunk the strikezone.  This is done for pragramtic (and perhaps
sometimes stupid) reasons, not to achieve some kind of internal
consistency in the rules.

Limiting a batter to ten pitches would fix the alleged problem of
taking too long for one plate appearance, but it would give the
batter a monster advantage.  Consider the following:

foul, ball, called strike, ball

Under current rules it's now 2-2.  Under your rule is 2-1.  That's
a real difference.  Consider

foul, ball, foul, foul, ball, ball

In baseball this is 2-2.  Under your rules its 3-0 and there are
five more pitches for the batter to sit on waiting for the perfect
pitch or a walk.

A batter has to foul off at least five 3-2 pitches, more if he's not
at a full count, before a pitcher has to throw ten pitches under
current rules.

Your ten-pitch rule would inflate offense more than aluminum bats.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball