New Strategy in Baseball: Drop the ball on purpose

[walkoff93]

A ball is now ruled "not caught" if you drop it during the transfer to your throwing hand. Causing all kinds of confusion.

Sounds like this can be exploited by outfielders. Similar to why they have the infield fly rule.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/baseballs-new-strategy-drop-the-ball-on-purpose/

[Dylan]

Baseball is a f***ing mess right now. lol

[Stangstag]

Lol, what a circus. Baseball is a f***ing joke with all these stupid new rules.

[Stangstag]

MLB giving the umps EVEN MORE power to sway the outcome of a ballgame with these stupid rules. Its all up to the ump's discretion.

[G-Snarls]

MLB giving the umps EVEN MORE power to sway the outcome of a ballgame with these stupid rules. Its all up to the ump's discretion.

 

Farrell not happy about it either!

 

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/content/dam/fsdigital/fscom/mlb/images/2014/04/13/041314-MLB-RED-SOX-JOHN-FARRELL-DC-PI.vadapt.955.medium.63.jpg

[G-Snarls]

This rule is dumb... Stop ruining the game!?

 

 

Transfer rule

Home plate blocking rule

Instant replay

 

Too much for one off season perhaps?

[baseballsss]

Mostly all you fools wanted replay and this is what you get. Baseball trying to go "modern" is ruining the sport that I grew up loving. Enough with these stupid replays, the umps are still right almost all the time.

[o2cui2i]

Transfer rule

Home plate blocking rule

Instant replay

 

Too much for one off season perhaps?

 

add in the neighborhood rule at second base on DP turn. they WONT review that one. ??? so we know guys have been cheating on the foot drag at second for as long as the game has been played and now we are not only saying it's ok to break that rule, they wont even look at it in a replay. close enough is the standing rule now??

[KingKat]

Transfer rule

Home plate blocking rule

Instant replay

 

Too much for one off season perhaps?

 

Leagues like the NFL makes tweaks to rules and interpretatins every year. Baseball has been much more conservative which is why we're seeing too many changes implemented at once. A lot of this stuff should have been experimented with many moons ago and refined by now. The NFL once had a completely different replay system than the one they have now. That was scrapped and they went without replay for a few years before coming back with the current system that now seems entrenched.

 

Hopefully, the MLB will roll with the punches and continue to make changes to improve the game and refine rules and interpretations as they go along rather than retreat into an entrenched resistance to change. That could be the worst consequence of introducing so many untested changes at once.

[o2cui2i]

for example if you approach the ump on a challengeable play, you have to challenge.

 

 

dont be naive. if they do that then players will suddenly get something in their eye, or have equipment problems and just call for time so they video gets it looked at. the stop in play in inherent to the rule. there is no way to have one without the other. it's already better than hockey where a team in Toronto has to look at every goal and lots of other plays that the refs are to afraid to call. those take forever. letting the teams figure out in 15-20 seconds that they shouldn't challenge takes less time than one 5 minute fight

 

besides. as long as it's less than 10 times a game, it's still losing less time than one temper tantrum that is followed by an ejection and then a hissy fit for getting ejected. this is saving time even if you dont feel it is.

[KingKat]

It's a giant step forward IMO, just some advancement and tweaking still needed. I'd prefer this than nothing at all. I'd prefer on the fly challenges though, for example if you approach the ump on a challengeable play, you have to challenge.

 

Agree with this. Make the manager go with his gut. Even when they wait around for the internal review, managers get a lot of challenges wrong. That time would be better spent going directly to the official review. It would pretty much eliminate all reviews on low leverage plays which I think is a fair sacrifice for a well paced game (I haven't sen any evidence that game times are actually longer on average this year and I would suspect the difference is negligable, it's more about how it makes the game feel slower regardless of whether or not it's actually longer).

[KingKat]

dont be naive. if they do that then players will suddenly get something in their eye, or have equipment problems and just call for time so they video gets it looked at. the stop in play in inherent to the rule. there is no way to have one without the other. it's already better than hockey where a team in Toronto has to look at every goal and lots of other plays that the refs are to afraid to call. those take forever. letting the teams figure out in 15-20 seconds that they shouldn't challenge takes less time than one 5 minute fight

 

besides. as long as it's less than 10 times a game, it's still losing less time than one temper tantrum that is followed by an ejection and then a hissy fit for getting ejected. this is saving time even if you dont feel it is.

 

But how did this job of looking at the video for internal review start? Is this a role that has been created as part of the rule or is it just something teams do because it's not explicitely forbidden? If it's the former than just get rid of it. If it's the latter than yeah it might be a lot harder to take out and may lead to other abuses.

 

I guess another approach would be to find a way take the manager's right out of the process. The manager's themselves have been quoted numerous times saying they would prefer not to be burdened with this responsibility. I think they prefered to just be completely biased and always argue for their side. That's been the culture of the game for years. It's what feels natural to them.

[Sammy225]

I kind of like the way of football. You got till next pitch to challenge the play, if you leave the dugout to discuss the play it is an automatic challenge. The only thing is your going to have the pitcher doing up his laces visiting with the catcher anything to give the team time to review the play. I just don't see a real way to keep the game flowing.

[NorthOf49]

Nice to see they're finally calling the transfer as part of the catch. It is.

 

I assume the umps can use the intentional drop rule (which is part of the infield fly rules) to legislate against this exploitation.

 

Edit: This is part of the rule: "the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional."

 

If you intentionally and voluntarily drop the ball, it's a catch. If the umpires are paying attention, this clarification by MLB will not be an issue.

[Atothe]

Really guys? You thought this was gonna be a smooth transition. Get your heads out of your asses. Its bad now but it will better down the line. Just suck it up

[NorthOf49]

This rule is dumb... Stop ruining the game!?

It's only been a rule for 150 years...

[KingKat]

I kind of like the way of football. You got till next pitch to challenge the play, if you leave the dugout to discuss the play it is an automatic challenge. The only thing is your going to have the pitcher doing up his laces visiting with the catcher anything to give the team time to review the play. I just don't see a real way to keep the game flowing.

 

Yeah but football is a timed sport, baseball isn't. There aren't set windows of time between plays in baseball like their is in baseball.

[John_Havok]

Yeah but football is a timed sport, baseball isn't. There aren't set windows of time between plays in baseball like their is in baseball.

 

What I dont get about the new catch/transfer rule... What prompted the need for change?

 

It's not like there was multiple times every game like umps getting calls horribly wrong.

There's wasn't multiple injuries to act as a catalyst for the new catcher/blocking rule.

[NorthOf49]

If you voluntarily and intentionally drop the ball, you are voluntarily and intentionally releasing it.

 

If the ball squirts out of your glove as you try to transfer it to your hand, you are not intentionally releasing it. You've made an involuntary error and have not succeeded in releasing it with intention.

[o2cui2i]

But how did this job of looking at the video for internal review start? Is this a role that has been created as part of the rule or is it just something teams do because it's not explicitely forbidden? If it's the former than just get rid of it. If it's the latter than yeah it might be a lot harder to take out and may lead to other abuses.

 

I guess another approach would be to find a way take the manager's right out of the process. The manager's themselves have been quoted numerous times saying they would prefer not to be burdened with this responsibility. I think they prefered to just be completely biased and always argue for their side. That's been the culture of the game for years. It's what feels natural to them.

 

I'd rather see an argument instead of two grown men holding hands while they both wait for the video guy to get to the replay. I think they do this to save time in the long run. making the teams run their own review first will stop a lot of meaningless arguments and save having to review every call.

 

the teams have to be in the loop. you cant let the umps ump the umps.... it's not taking long to figure out not to challenge. people are bored, not unhappy with the rule. screaming, dirt kicking and base tossing is much more entertaining than the manager saying "uh, golling, gee,dang, it's nothing, I'll go sit down again."

[o2cui2i]

What I dont get about the new catch/transfer rule... What prompted the need for change?

 

I think it's really odd that they want to challenge the transfer and bring that into play, yet refuse to even review that neighborhood play at second base where we ALL KNOW guys have been cheating since the game started.

[John_Havok]

If you voluntarily and intentionally drop the ball, you are voluntarily and intentionally releasing it.

 

If the ball squirts out of your glove as you try to transfer it to your hand, you are not intentionally releasing it. You've made an involuntary error and have not succeeded in releasing it with intention.

 

IMO catching the ball, and then taking it out of your glove are two different things. Why they need to be combined to record an out is beyond me.

 

Cameron is right though, on fly balls that are just deep enough not to be IF flies, you could easily f*** over baser nerd by just catching it and taking a step or two and intentionally flubbing the transfer

[John_Havok]

You'd need to spend a couple seconds flubbing it to convince the umps though, and if it's not deep enough for an IF fly, you wouldn't be able to get a DP. I don't think this is a viable strategy.

 

Sure you could, if you had runners on 1st and 2nd with say 1 out and a fly was hit to shallow RF, you could just catch it, take your 1 or two steps to ensure the runners have take a few steps back to their bases, then flub the transfer and gun it to 2b first, getting the force out from the runner on first, and the guy that was on second would only have had enough time to take maybe 3 or 4 strides and the 2b could just throw it to third and start a rundown. There's your second out on the play and third out overall... Or if the same scenario happened with none out, you'd now have two outs and a runner on first, unless he moved up in the rundown to second. Either way, the run scoring expectation would decrease as a result.

[o2cui2i]

Sure you could, if you had runners on 1st and 2nd with say 1 out and a fly was hit to shallow RF, you could just catch it, take your 1 or two steps to ensure the runners have take a few steps back to their bases, then flub the transfer and gun it to 2b first, getting the force out from the runner on first, and the guy that was on second would only have had enough time to take maybe 3 or 4 strides and the 2b could just throw it to third and start a rundown. There's your second out on the play and third out overall... Or if the same scenario happened with none out, you'd now have two outs and a runner on first, unless he moved up in the rundown to second. Either way, the run scoring expectation would decrease as a result.

 

I think that would turn out badly more often then it would be good for the D.

 

K.I.S.S. KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID.

[Abomination]

You'd need to spend a couple seconds flubbing it to convince the umps though, and if it's not deep enough for an IF fly, you wouldn't be able to get a DP. I don't think this is a viable strategy.

 

Yeah, really how many times would it actually be viable strategy, except to MAYBE swap a fast runner for a slower one (at the expense of a LOT of added risk in messing the play up). Bases loaded or runners first and second with a shallow fly to left or center are really the only scenarios where it might have a chance, and by the time the fielder picked up the ball it seems unlikely they'd turn it unless the runners have a brain cramp.

[S33n]

Baseball sure went full retard this year. Address this now, what a joke.

[John_Havok]

I think that would turn out badly more often then it would be good for the D.

 

K.I.S.S. KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID.

 

Well of course, it's not like it would become some routine type of play for a defense to try, but it could still work occasionally. The point is, the rule change actually created a real potential problem that teams could exploit in the right scenario.

[G-Snarls]

And what do you know... None other than JP Arencibia involved in a play just like this tonight!

[G-Snarls]

Here it is:

 

[Eragon]

And what do you know... None other than JP Arencibia involved in a play just like this tonight!

 

Holy f***... guy does not belong in a baseball uniform, how do you bobble a routine play like that. Catch ball and throw it, game doesn't get any more basic. Good god.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Eragon