Half-baked ideas, Vol. 1

I’m a fan of the Bill Simmons and Kevin Wildes podcasts in which they discuss “half-baked ideas.” For those unfamiliar with this feature: Wildes usually takes the lead in bringing up a variety of pitches for services, products or businesses. These ideas seem good to Wildes (they are often, but not always, pretty clever), but they haven’t been substantially vetted. Through the conversation, Wildes and Simmons kick the tires a bit and get a better sense of the viability of the idea.

So, I thought it would be fun to do a similar column here focusing exclusively on changes to the game of baseball.

As in the podcast, I plan to write this column as a recurring feature with no predetermined schedule. Your job is simple—read and react. Tell me if these are good ideas. Tell me if they are bad. Can we make them better? Am I overlooking something obvious (or not so obvious) that would preclude the idea from being feasible?

Remember, these are just ideas. I haven’t done extensive research relating to them; they’re half-baked—springboards for discussion. I think this should be fun. So let’s get into the first of three ideas for discussion today.

The Joe Girardi rule
This is the first of two rule proposals I’ll be offering today. This one is named after Joe Girardi because it attempts to foreclose a tactic I often see him use. When he needs to make a pitching change, but the pitcher set to come in has had minimal time to warm up, I often observe Yankee pitchers making a few throws to first base to give the pitcher warming up a few more throws. (I know other managers do this, too.) I find this annoying, and more importantly a loophole that allows a team to get away with not getting its relievers up promptly enough. It’s a way to mitigate poor planning.

So, here’s my proposal. For every pick-off attempt a pitcher makes, he must throw an equal number of pitches to the batter (or complete the at-bat) before being removed for a reliever. To cover the possibility of a pitcher suffering an injury (or a team claiming a pitcher suffered an injury), the alternative would be that if the pitcher is removed without having thrown an equal number of pitches to the batter, the batter is awarded a number of automatic balls equal to the disparity between pitches thrown and pick-off attempts.

So, if a pitcher makes two pick-off attempts without throwing a pitch to the batter and is then taken out of the game, the batter begins the at-bat against the new pitcher in a 2-0 count.

The impetus behind this rule has nothing to do with a desire to speed up the game. I just want to block a disingenuous stall tactic managers use to buy time for their relievers to warm up. One can theoretically make pick-off throws forever; this should not a substitute for proper bullpen management and planning.

Conquering batting order determinism
Last week, in a minor league game between the Augusta GreenJackets and the Greenville Drive, there were numerous instances of a team batting out of order, including instances of batting out of during the first time through the line-up. This struck me as strange.

How can you violate an order that has not even directly established?

I know a team must declare its starting lineup to the umpires prior to the game. But why need this be the case? Is there anything inherent to the game that benefits from a team committing to the order in which its players hit befoe their first trip to the batter’s box?

It seems to me, and I’ve done no research on this—half-baked, remember—that this rule is a concession to the media and not rooted in any practical benefit to the game itself. It’s surely in the interest of broadcasters, official scorers, statkeepers, etc. to know the batting orders before the game begins. But, doesn’t it sort of hurt the team? Wouldn’t it be interesting if a team didn’t have to declare the order, but could rather send up its players in whatever order the manager felt most beneficial? Of course, after everybody hits once, the order is then formally established and must be followed going forward.

Think about all the strategies would open up by taking the handcuffs off managers here. Would they bat players in different orders depending on how the early innings are shaping up in terms of base/out states? Would they rather go with a set line-up regardless? How would players react to the idea of not knowing exactly where in the order they were going to hit?

A question this idea begs is whether the team that’s batting first would even have to declare which players are its starters. Of course, once a player goes into the field, he’s “in the game.” So, the home team’s starters would be established in the top of the first, even if its batting order was still to be decided. But one could argue that you needn’t even declare who is “in the game” until they have to do something related to being in the game, and therefore the visitor would get the advantage of being able to bring its batters out as surprises to the opposing pitcher.

This would be jarring, as it would confer an advantage to the visiting team, which counters the established dynamic of the sport. So, perhaps the visitors do have to declare their nine, but don’t have to state the order in advance.

Oh, and here’s a strategic cousin to this idea. If you are the away team, why not announce your best-hitting starter as your starting pitcher every day and then take him out before he throws a single pitch if you do not get to his spot in the order in the first inning. If he’s not going to pitch in the game, you might as well give yourself the potential marginal edge you’d gain if he did get to bat in the top of the first instead of your actual starter.

A Hardball Times Update
Goodbye for now.

This rule proposal was prompted by the notion that it seems oxymoronic to be able to bat out of order in your first time through the order.

Discounted concessions during rain delays

This is not a rule change, but a prospective ballpark policy.

I’ve been spending more and more time in Washington, D.C. recently. Damn day job. This means that I’ve been attending a good number of Nationals games. Did you know that they have a Happy Hour prior to the game? On weekdays, beers are $5 at the scoreboard pavilion beginning 90 minutes before the first pitch. On weekends, the deal starts an hour earlier. And, how about this: If the game begins in rain delay, the deal runs 2.5 hours from when the ballpark gates open. Not bad, huh?

Once you get out of the premium seats, teams are making their money by having their patrons spend at the concession stands. (Frankly, once the game starts, they should just give out unpurchased tickets for free and hope the people coming in buy a dog and a brew.) But, when a game goes into a rain delay, people often leave. This means a major loss on expected revenue for the team. So, the question becomes how to keep people in the ballpark during rain delays.

Enter half-priced food and drinks!

The mark-up at the concessions is so exorbitant that the team is certainly not taking anything on the arm to give the discount. Meanwhile, you likely retain more fans. I think it’s a clear win-win here. As the team, you’d keep butts in your seats and win some PR points from your fans by doing it. As a fan, you get a bit of an economic incentive to stick out some bad weather.

One potential snag with this plan involves beer, which is really the core of my personal stake in this proposal. I know that some states have laws against drink promotions like happy hours. While many local bars will skirt them, it’s probably less viable for a major sports arena (that likely received public funding) to do so. I’m not sure if this policy would be in violation of those kinds of laws, but I assume we could find a workaround in certain markets if needed.

This proposal was inspired by my desire to increase my consumption of beer at games while simultaneously decreasing the amount of money I spend on beer.

So, there we are, the first three half-baked ideas for the wise commentariat of THT to stew up, pretty up, or rip apart. Have at it.


14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mando3b
11 years ago

I don’t think it is out of line to have managers set their batting order before the game; that’s been a rule for ‘way longer than media have been as involved in the game as they are now. Both teams get to strategize a bit when the opponent announces who’s starting, then have to adjust as players are replaced for whatever reason. Sorry, but the “non-determinism” approach outlined here feels suspiciously related to the Joe Girardi Infinite Pick-Off “strategy” you touch upon first—I can imagine all kinds of strategical abuse coming out of it! All the same, I like your idea of vetting “half-baked ideas—this is going to be fun!

Tom B
11 years ago

The Girardi rule sounds a lot like the “every manager in the NL” rule.

bucdaddy
11 years ago

Several years ago, when Oliver Perez was a phenom for the Pirates, we attended a Sunday afternoon game (Pirates-Reds) that featured a three-hour rain delay at the start. The Pirates were good about letting fans know what was going on, because the weather was fine at the scheduled start of the game, but there was a storm rolling in a half-hour later, and they made the IMO wise decision not to start the game only to play one inning.

Right on schedule, the storm hit, and it rained for two hours. Then the sun came out and the rest of the day was beautiful, and Perez shut out the Reds, and all was right with the world.

Oh, and the Pirates announced that all the fans (maybe 3,000 or 4,000) who had stuck it out could use their “rain” checks on a future game. I had my own and a pair I hadn’t been able to get rid of, so I saw two more games for free thanks to the rain delay.

That wouldn’t be a bad idea for team or MLB policy either. Rain delays longer than 2 hours, everyone who stays is entitled to another game free. That might solve the lost concessions issue.

I cotton to your half-priced beers, too, though in PNC that would only bring the prices down from outrageous to absurd. What they DO do at PNC is, after every game all beers are $2.50 at the Hall of Fame Club behind the left field bleachers. That’s ALL beers, including a fairly good selection of micros, not just the swill. Good place to plant while the postgame traffic subsides.

Speaking of beer at the ballpark, Budweiser is “the official beer of Major League Baseball.” But A-B has long financially supported the Cardinals. Hell, the name is on the stadium. Why should the rest of MLB be forced to support the Cardinals by making Bud more generally available, more prominent in ballparks than any other brand? There’s a “Budweiser Bowtie Bar” at PNC, for instance.

Or Miller, for that matter. Or Coors. I’m all for beer at the ballpark, but I usually try to talk fans out of buying Bud, Miller or Coors. “Don’t you know, 10 cents of every Bud you buy goes to pay Matt Holladay to kick our ass? (A slight exaggeration, perhaps.) There’s a word for people who give aid and comfort to the enemy.”

Derek Ambrosino
11 years ago

“Or Miller, for that matter. Or Coors. I’m all for beer at the ballpark, but I usually try to talk fans out of buying Bud, Miller or Coors. “Don’t you know, 10 cents of every Bud you buy goes to pay Matt Holladay to kick our ass? (A slight exaggeration, perhaps.)

You know, that’s a damn good point. I’ve thought about this idea from a conflict of interest perspective before, but more so from a self-interest PoV. Like, they should preclude AB from being the official beer of MLB because of their relationship with several times just so there would be a better, wider selection of (good) beer at more parks. But, coerced support of competitive imbalance is a good point. I suspect that the principle is more offensive than the effect is potent, but it’s a good point even if it is just largely academic.

…This would also promote local business, BTW, as stadiums would be free to secure their own “official” beer sponsors. And with the rise of micros, you might actually get some really nice selections. Hell, Colorado has one of the best beer scenes in country, and their ballpark is sponsors by a purveyor of swill. That’s be like an Argentine soccer stadium being sponsored by McDonalds.

Jim G.
11 years ago

The game related ideas ARE pretty half baked. I’ll take the batting order one step further, though. How about each time through the lineup the manager can send batters up in any order. All nine would have to bat again before the lineup recycles. That would make for high strategy. Also, probably an increase in runs.

I have one called the “Buster Posey rule”. After Posey broke his leg in a collision at home plate, there was much discussion about how to protect catchers. The rule is, (assuming the bases aren’t loaded) after a runner crosses a certain point after rounding third, possibly 1/3 the way home, a force situation is automatically in effect. A catcher would receive the ball like a 1st baseman. He could toe the plate, stretch, or generally do what they needed to avoid injury without the pressure of having to block the plate. So many of these collisions at home plate happen to a runner who would be out by a mile; their only chance is to knock the ball out of the catcher’s mitt. This rule would eliminate that. If protecting catchers is really important, I think this rule is needed.

Derek Ambrosino
11 years ago

Another way, Buster Posey could have protected himself would have been to block the plate correctly as trained or to concede the run.

…There’s a clear definition of what a force play is and what is not a force play. Being that a play at the plate that requires a tag is – by nature – not a force play, I don’t know what the rationale would be implementing the set of rules specifically tailored to a force play.

I’m not against the idea of protecting catchers, but if that’s the idea, I’d much rather see something like limiting the way in which a runner can hit a catcher – you know, the way certain kinds of contact are not permitted in football. Or, even more conservatively, use the Little League/rec softball rule where you force runners to slide. They can still get in if the ball beats them, but they have to do it by creativity vs. violence. At the end of the day, the catcher had protective equipment and the runner doesn’t. A few anecdotal injuries don’t really bother me. Now, if we can establish a clear pattern and evidence base, then we have a compelling need to switch things.

Your batting order question seems either naive or disingenuously mocking. Actually messing with the idea of an order is a very slippery slope. It’s only a small leap from your idea to then say that a team could just send whoever they want whenever they want, i.e. hit Miguel Cabrera everytime he’s not on base and hit half of the guys in their current line-up not at all.

My proposal does not trounce on the concept of having a batting order or the equality of opportunity at all. It’s simply an extension of the well-established legal principle that one can’t break a law that doesn’t yet exist. The order, even if it is announced beforehand, isn’t real until the players actually bat. It’s just a theoretical construct, only when the players step to the plate, does it actually become codified. We’re still preserving equal opportunity for players, but aren’t confusing the map for the territory.

Yehoshua Friedman
11 years ago

I propose a solution to the DH problem. Have a coin-toss for DH or no-DH. A team with a good hitting pitcher could opt for no-DH. This would apply in both leagues. The phenomenon of the aging DH-only hitter who can do nothing but hit would pretty much come to an end. Using DH as a way to semi-rest starters by not having them play the field is the best use of DH. This would finally eliminate the asymmetry between the leagues. A team with a roster built for a DH-only player meeting an NL team in interleague or WS play makes things messy.

gdc
11 years ago

Think I heard about the pickoff deal in a Satchel Paige story, something like he was unsatisfied with the amount of warmups he was allowed (maybe after a rain delay) so he intentionally walked a batter and threw pickoff warmups until he was “ready”.

Paul G.
11 years ago

The Joe Girardi Rule
It would probably be easier to disallow pitching changes once the at bat has started, unless the pitcher is injured or the batter is pinch hit for mid-AB.  The at bat starts as soon as the pitcher takes the rubber.  Perhaps there could be a weird exception if the pitcher proves to be ineffective – say falls behind 2-0 – which would allow a mid-AB change, but mid-AB changes are so rare now that it would not matter much.

The problem is any version of the rule is aimed at a symptom – the gratuitous pick offs – and not the bigger problem of stalling.  There are lots and lots of ways to stall – the pitcher could get himself ejected, for instance – and all this rule would do is cut off one avenue.  I sense that all this would accomplish is to bring the Road Runner once again nearly into the grasp of Wile E. Coyote, only for the bird to accelerate into the horizon followed by the obligatory splat.  Well, assuming the Road Runner wanted to stall.  He doesn’t seem the type.  Then again if he wanted to be truly fast he would only “meep” once.

Batting Order Determinism
According to the The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, in the 1870s the concept of a fixed batting order was established, but it did not have to be declared ahead of time, essentially the rule that you a proposing.  Apparently, that was done away in the 1880s sometime.  Why?  I have no idea.  I have yet to find anything more on the rule change beyond the relatively scant details in the Abstract which is really strange.  Assuming Bill has his facts straight, I’m sure there were reasons to make the change, but what those were remain a mystery.  Perhaps they still make sense, maybe not.  I would love to know more.

I did find a discussion on the concept here:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/rule-change-friday-batting-order-on-the-fly/

For the record, I’m not a big fan of the idea of the flexible lineup at this time.  Batting out of order penalties have their uses, if only as a stupidity penalty for the offending team, or a failed spot check penalty for the offended team if they do not notice.

bucdaddy
11 years ago

Apparently, that was done away in the 1880s sometime.  Why?  I have no idea.
—-
Probably because John McGraw figured out a way to use the rule/nonrule to his advantage. Most of the rules of the game had to be created because someone found a way to sort of mildly cheat.

bucdaddy
11 years ago

Derek,

Thank you. I have been posting that at Bucs Dugout for a couple years under the title “Bucdaddy’s Annual Beer Manifesto.” I am quite pleased that PNC has a good array of micros. I am not pleased that they are in the $7.50-$9 price range, so I generally wait until after the fame to imbibe at the aforementioned Hall of Fame Club.

But yeah, can you imagine if Iron City were a Pirates sponsor and all MLB parks were forced to serve it?

Wait … that’s actually the germ of a good idea: What if there were a kiosk at every ballpark that had one micro from all … what, 27 MLB cities? I guess we could allow NYC/Chicago/L.A. to put up two each, so there’d be 30 beers from 30 teams. That would be a bonanza (though probably logistically difficult, if not impossible) for some smaller brewers. But imagine if you could try a Penn Pilsner in San Francisco and a Great Lakes Dortmunder Gold at PNC.

Paul G.
11 years ago

bucdaddy: It would be a little early for Little Napoleon to be abusing the system, given he debutted in 1891.  But it is likely someone was.  Bill James notes that Cap Anson’s RBI totals may have been inflated because he would bat in the first inning if there were runners to drive in, or wait until the second frame if not.  However, that sounds like a valid strategy to me, not “cheating” that would require a rule change.  *shrug*

David P Stokes
11 years ago

RE:  protecting the catcher—the rules already say that players, including the catcher, can’t block a plate unless they actually have the ball.  In other words, the catcher has no more right under the rules to block home plate than a middle infielder has to block 2nd base when a batter is trying to stretch a single into a double.  Want to protect catchers (and, actually, the baserunners) from collisions at home plate?  Just enforce the existing rule.

Jeff A.
11 years ago

With regard to the plays at the plate: keep it as a tag play (no force) but simply apply the same rules at the plate as are applied at the other bases. The catcher should be prevented from blocking the plate and must allow the runner access to it, just as they must have at the other bases. Catchers can make a sweep tag as easily as infielders can. Then, if they still block the plate, it’s at their own peril, just as it might be for an infielder trying to block off second or third on a tag play. At the very least, serious collisions would be virtually eradicated, and I don’t think that’d take away from the game at all.