Jump to content
jabba72

MLB implementing "stealing first base" rule to Atlantic League

Recommended Posts

So how does the rule work EXACTLY?   The catcher drops the ball and it starts rolling away from him.   At that point a lefty batter takes two darting steps towards first base.   Is he committed?   If he sees the catcher get to the ball much more quickly than he expected, can he give up and come back?   Does he have to touch home plate to be safe?

Or is he committed the second he takes a step?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, El Gordo said:

Oh why not.? It would rarely happen, like stealing home, and it would be fun when it did.. But how would it effect one's BA?

Yeah, hat to make it like a ROE and you are 0 for 1.   Maybe call it a fielders choice and you are 0 for 0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SteveA said:

So how does the rule work EXACTLY?   The catcher drops the ball and it starts rolling away from him.   At that point a lefty batter takes two darting steps towards first base.   Is he committed?   If he sees the catcher get to the ball much more quickly than he expected, can he give up and come back?   Does he have to touch home plate to be safe?

Or is he committed the second he takes a step?

I'd say once he leaves the batters box he's committed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd say once he leaves the batters box he's committed.

I would give the batter two steps before he is committed and then he can turn around. Mostly because of the Skynard song "give me two steps".

  • Upvote 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SteveA said:

Yeah, hat to make it like a ROE and you are 0 for 1.   Maybe call it a fielders choice and you are 0 for 0?

I'd subtract it as an AB but add to OBP.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LookinUp said:

All I know is electronic in/out pretty much shut down arguing in tennis. 

By the way, this rule would suck for little league. 

Electronic strike zone would be fine for little league, as long as you can set the strike zone to "Anything the batter can plausibly reach.  And that plus 18" when it's the 5th inning, it's 22-3, and the kid on the mound has hit the backstop on sixteen straight pitches."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd say once he leaves the batters box he's committed.

I say he can get in a rundown and as long as he comes back and safely touches the plate he can continue his at bat.

Which brings up another question... do you modify the rule to be able to steal home from first, and then shift the order back one and have the guy previously on first hit again?  Probably not, the Germany Schaefer incident and rules change kind of precludes that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 12:56 PM, Can_of_corn said:

Counts as a fielders choice.

How many batters are going to run knowing this doesn't raise their OBP? Dumb rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah fielder's choice is a head scratcher. That implies that the batter should have been retired if the fielder had attempted to make a play on him. That's not at all what this is. 

It seems clear that it should be equivalent to a HBP, guy gets on base due to a single bad pitch, but I guess they don't want to make a new stat for something that may only exist during half a season in a single league.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

How many batters are going to run knowing this doesn't raise their OBP? Dumb rule.

If I were in the Atlantic League I know all I'm thinking about is how OBPing .319 instead of .322 is what's keeping me from starting for the Giants.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

Link to rule changes since 1850s...didn’t see this one in particular.,

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml

 

He said "sounds like", not that it really was.  And you used to be able to steal first, but only from second.  Until they made that illegal because baseball doesn't take to silliness.

If they're bringing back 1870s rules the one I want is the fair-foul rule.  Used to be that if a ball hit in fair territory is was a fair ball, even if it subsequently rolled foul before it reached 1B/3B.  I think someone could get good at this and pretty regularly bunt a double.  The fielders still have to stand in fair territory, but you could bunt one that rolls over by the dugout.  Would make Ross Barnes proud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

He said "sounds like", not that it really was.  And you used to be able to steal first, but only from second.  Until they made that illegal because baseball doesn't take to silliness.

If they're bringing back 1870s rules the one I want is the fair-foul rule.  Used to be that if a ball hit in fair territory is was a fair ball, even if it subsequently rolled foul before it reached 1B/3B.  I think someone could get good at this and pretty regularly bunt a double.  The fielders still have to stand in fair territory, but you could bunt one that rolls over by the dugout.  Would make Ross Barnes proud.

I will take the one where throwing the ball at and hitting a runner made him out...protective armor would explode....lol.,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jabba72 said:

How many batters are going to run knowing this doesn't raise their OBP? Dumb rule.

Ones who want to win games?    I doubt they are thinking about their OBP in that moment.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







  • Posts

    • I'm multitasking.
    • I'm here too, logged in as DJ Stewart's number one fan on the board. I like the guys who don't look like athletes.
    • Here's bad news: I'm watching. 
    • Looks like it's just me and you here, @eddie83
    • So I had a grand theory all ready to explain modern baseball, based on the impact of the information revolution on defense.  According to the theory, better data has allowed teams to better measure individual defense and the contribution of defense to run prevention, which has led to increased emphasis on defensive ability in personnel decisions.  Better data has also led to shifts and other improvements in defensive positioning.  All of these factors have led in theory to improved defensive efficiency--an increase in the percentage of balls in play that are converted into outs.  In turn, this has led to a change in optimal offensive strategies.  If it's harder to get hits on balls in play, then it is less likely that you will be able to score runs by stringing a bunch of singles together, or by using small ball tactics like base stealing, the hit and run and the sacrifice.  Teams thus optimally put more emphasis on power in personnel decisions, because a home run is the one way to score runs that can't be stopped by good defense. Great theory, huh?  Then I looked at the data.  Here are the numbers for aggregate defensive efficiency for MLB since 2001: 2001:  0.691     2002:  0.695   2003:  0.694   2004:  0.691   2005:  0.693   2006:  0.687   2007:  0.686   2008:  0.689 2009:  0.690   2010:  0.691   2011:  0.694    2012:  0.691   2013:  0.692   2014:  0.690    2015:  0.689    2016: 0.688 2017:  0.688    2018:  0.691 So twenty years into the defensive revolution, we have...the same defensive efficiency that we had in 2001.  Teams on the whole are doing no better today at converting balls in play into outs than they were in 2001, despite all of the shifts and all of the zone ratings and other defensive measures that are now available.   So much for my theory.  Some earlier posts suggest another theory--improved pitch design and velocity have made it harder to hit for contact, which increases strikeouts and reduces batting average.  In turn this leads to a greater emphasis on power at the expense of contact, increasing home runs, further increasing strikeouts and further reducing batting average.  That theory may be correct, but it's less obvious to me that the correct strategic response to improved pitch design and velocity is to sacrifice contact for power. It could go the other way--in response to better pitching, it is even more important to hit for contact, to put the ball in play, to sustain an offense.  It would take a model simulation to determine whether the optimal response to power pitching is to emphasize power hitting.   Or it could just be a juiced ball!  
    • Two out walk no damage. I say Orioles win 8-2 tonight.  
    • Holy hell Soler is having himself a season.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...