MLB implementing "stealing first base" rule to Atlantic League

[SteveA]

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?

[SteveA]

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?

[Can_of_corn]

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.

[jabba72]

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".

[El Gordo]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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."

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[Can_of_corn]

Counts as a fielders choice.

[jabba72]

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.

[makoman]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[tntoriole]

On 7/11/2019 at 7:34 PM, Can_of_corn said:

It sounds like a rule from the 1870's that they killed off.

I like it.  Doesn't do any harm and I want to see a guy take off for first while a teammate is already there.

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

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

 

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[tntoriole]

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.,

 

[Frobby]

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.