Something goofy and pretty pointless...

[Walewander]

While watching the game last night, I was thinking about wild pitches and passed balls. The way that these two events are just shrugged off when no one is on base has always irked me. The pitcher needs to make sure the ball is catchable or stoppable and the catcher needs to do his job - I wish that they could be penalized for first pitch junk offerings, you know? How about letting the batter run on a wild pitch at all times? The catchers would get used to it quickly and the batter actually reaching base would be a very rare occurence - he'd be thrown out most times - but it might take care of the indifference that comes when these events happen with no one on.

Sorry, just something I wanted to get off of my chest...

[DaYooperASBDT]

According to Joe Morgan, if the ball strikes the dirt within 19.765 centimeters of the catcher's glove, at a maximum angle of 11.65 degrees, with a velocity under 99.265 MPH, and the catcher misses it, then that play should be scored as a passed ball.

[Walewander]

I'm not sure if you're lumping me in with Mr. Morgan here or what... But yeah, he's a hoot.

And as for my little idea, well... That would leave it open to exploitation - faked "wild" pitches to throw the batter out. May the batter doesn't have to run but he has the option... I just want to see the catcher actually scramble for the ball andnot let it go like he's catch batting practice or something.

[chasfh]

While watching the game last night, I was thinking about wild pitches and passed balls. The way that these two events are just shrugged off when no one is on base has always irked me. The pitcher needs to make sure the ball is catchable or stoppable and the catcher needs to do his job - I wish that they could be penalized for first pitch junk offerings, you know? How about letting the batter run on a wild pitch at all times? The catchers would get used to it quickly and the batter actually reaching base would be a very rare occurence - he'd be thrown out most times - but it might take care of the indifference that comes when these events happen with no one on.

Sorry, just something I wanted to get off of my chest...

This is not a bad idea, if you want teams to average 8 or 9 runs per game. Because if batters are allowed to run on pitches that get back the catcher -- and you'd have to let them do that with both men on and bases empty, as you suggest -- then there would be much less incentive for pitchers to throw off the plate, for fear of losing the hitter to a WP or PB. That means pitchers would need to be around the strike zone more, giving hitters more balls to hit.

Walks and strikeouts would decrease, and hits and runs would increase. The amount of time added to a game through increased baserunners and scoring might be offset by the decrease in walks and strikeouts.

I think what it might do is render the pitcher less important than he is now, since he would essentially be more like a pitching machine, throwing around the plate to avoid the WP or PB. So what kind of pitcher would succeed in this environment? I'm thinking guys more like Bonderman and Zumaya, who have stuff and late movement, and guys like Verlander, who throws straighter stuff, would be less so. Nate Robertson, Kenny Rogers and Mike Maroth probably would not do so well, since they live off the plate. Todd Jones wouldn't be affected very much.

It's an interesting thought to consider.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I'm not sure if you're lumping me in with Mr. Morgan here or what... But yeah, he's a hoot.

And as for my little idea, well... That would leave it open to exploitation - faked "wild" pitches to throw the batter out. May the batter doesn't have to run but he has the option... I just want to see the catcher actually scramble for the ball andnot let it go like he's catch batting practice or something.No sir, just had to jump on the chance to rag on Joe some more! :wink:

As for the catchers, I figure they take enough abuse from foul tips, 220-pound baserunners, and the occasional bat upside the head, so I would say cut the poor guys a little slack there. Your idea was interesting, though.

[chasfh]

I'm not sure if you're lumping me in with Mr. Morgan here or what... But yeah, he's a hoot.

And as for my little idea, well... That would leave it open to exploitation - faked "wild" pitches to throw the batter out. May the batter doesn't have to run but he has the option... I just want to see the catcher actually scramble for the ball andnot let it go like he's catch batting practice or something.

You just made me think of something that might make this rule a little less practical: at what point is the batter a live runner? When he moves out of the box? What if he takes off, goes a few steps, decides he can't make it and comes back into the box? Is he still a live runner? After all, bases are safe havens for baserunners, and they can always come back if they change their mind. Would the plate serve as a similar safe haven? Might we see a WP that doesn't go very far, the hitter runs about 15 feet, decides he can't make it, and runs back and slides into the plate under the tag of the pitcher covering or the catcher running back to tag him? And if he makes it, he has to get up, dust himself off and hit, right?

Interesting thought.

[Lbh24]

I'm not sure if you're lumping me in with Mr. Morgan here or what... But yeah, he's a hoot.

And as for my little idea, well... That would leave it open to exploitation - faked "wild" pitches to throw the batter out. May the batter doesn't have to run but he has the option... I just want to see the catcher actually scramble for the ball andnot let it go like he's catch batting practice or something.

Then here's my issue -- what constitutes "running"? If I'm in there, see the ball get by the catcher and take a half-step to first, did I run? What if the ball gets by the catcher and he THINKS I'm running even though I never took off, and throws it wild to first? Can I then take first base?

Also, with the exploitation.. As Chas pointed out, you'd have to do it with runners on base, which would cause a HUGE problem with the bases loaded. Let's say Guillen is up with 2 outs the bases juiced, and Casey is on 3rd. You could have a hard thrower pelt one off the backstop in hopes that Guillen takes off. In that case, Casey would have to wait to see what Guillen did. If Guillen flinched and became a "runner", that would create an easy force-out at home.

EDIT: And while I was replying, Chas beat me to my first point.

[Walewander]

I think I was just upset about wild pitches and someone needed to pay, so I went with the idea of punishing everyone... Thanks for entertaining my ideas though - that means a lot... Hehehe...

[ToledoTigerFan]

While watching the game last night, I was thinking about wild pitches and passed balls. The way that these two events are just shrugged off when no one is on base has always irked me. The pitcher needs to make sure the ball is catchable or stoppable and the catcher needs to do his job - I wish that they could be penalized for first pitch junk offerings, you know? How about letting the batter run on a wild pitch at all times? The catchers would get used to it quickly and the batter actually reaching base would be a very rare occurence - he'd be thrown out most times - but it might take care of the indifference that comes when these events happen with no one on.

Sorry, just something I wanted to get off of my chest...

That sounds a whole lot like a rule my Mom thinks should become the law in baseball land. She has always stated that if a batter hits a pop-up or fly ball and reaches first base before the fielder catches the ball, the batter should be safe at first.

I imagine we could call them "technical hits". Jason Thompson is probably the all-time leader in technical hits.

[djb6]

hehe, my mother has always said the same thing about popups! Maybe it's just a mom thing :)

[Euphdude]

According to Joe Morgan, if the ball strikes the dirt within 19.765 centimeters of the catcher's glove, at a maximum angle of 11.65 degrees, with a velocity under 99.265 MPH, and the catcher misses it, then that play should be scored as a passed ball.

Yeah I think I'm gonna need a link to verify your suspicious claim...

[ToledoTigerFan]

hehe, my mother has always said the same thing about popups! Maybe it's just a mom thing :)

Could be. I forgot what my Dad used to say about Mom's idea. He would say "Christ, if that happened, Willie Horton would bat .750." Willie hit man-sized pop-ups and a lot of 'em.

[ewsieg]

Walks and strikeouts would decrease, and hits and runs would increase. The amount of time added to a game through increased baserunners and scoring might be offset by the decrease in walks and strikeouts.

Actually I think it would be quite the opposite. In fact, i'm confident I could throw a no-hitter with this rule.

Have the right fielder playing short right, basically backing up 1st from a throw from behind the plate.

Have one of your infielders playing the backstop. Then the pitcher throws everything over the hitter to your backstop player who throws to first for the out.

As for your other fielder, position them the best you can for the occasional Vlad like swing where he actually jumps and swings to make contact.

[Corky]

I thought this would be another Luis Pujols thread when I saw the title. :angry: :surprise:

[Blue Square Thing]

Actually I think it would be quite the opposite. In fact, i'm confident I could throw a no-hitter with this rule.

Have the right fielder playing short right, basically backing up 1st from a throw from behind the plate.

Have one of your infielders playing the backstop. Then the pitcher throws everything over the hitter to your backstop player who throws to first for the out.

As for your other fielder, position them the best you can for the occasional Vlad like swing where he actually jumps and swings to make contact.

I read the point as being "could" run rather than "must" run. IN which case you'd walk lots of runners!

Do you throw 103mph and have flame tatoos, out of interest? :-)

Ian

[chasfh]

Actually I think it would be quite the opposite. In fact, i'm confident I could throw a no-hitter with this rule.

Have the right fielder playing short right, basically backing up 1st from a throw from behind the plate.

Have one of your infielders playing the backstop. Then the pitcher throws everything over the hitter to your backstop player who throws to first for the out.

As for your other fielder, position them the best you can for the occasional Vlad like swing where he actually jumps and swings to make contact.

How would the backstopper throw the batter out at first if the batter did not elect to run? That would be a wasted ball, leading closer to a walk. Then the pitcher would have to throw it near the plate to avoid the walk. Then the batter hits it through the backstopper's regular position. No-hitter gone.

[ewsieg]

How would the backstopper throw the batter out at first if the batter did not elect to run? That would be a wasted ball, leading closer to a walk. Then the pitcher would have to throw it near the plate to avoid the walk. Then the batter hits it through the backstopper's regular position. No-hitter gone.

Ahh, I took it as the runner was forced to run on a passed ball.

[Lbh24]

Actually I think it would be quite the opposite. In fact, i'm confident I could throw a no-hitter with this rule.

Have the right fielder playing short right, basically backing up 1st from a throw from behind the plate.

Have one of your infielders playing the backstop. Then the pitcher throws everything over the hitter to your backstop player who throws to first for the out.

As for your other fielder, position them the best you can for the occasional Vlad like swing where he actually jumps and swings to make contact.

I think the 8 players other than the catcher need to be in fair territory, too. Other than that, I'm going to spend the rest of my night trying to devise a way to beat your strategy!

[PuNk42AE]

Good luck "Coach".