Master Index of Archived Threads


Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

nymr83 Jun 05 2022 10:20 PM

the autorunner is still lame.

roger_that Jun 06 2022 06:25 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

the autorunner is still lame. I see no purpose to it at this point. I never did, honestly, but now it makes zero sense. If they want to do away with extra innings, there are many more fan-pleasing scenarios for doing that (which I'll be glad to discuss at length in a separate thread). But talk about destroying a traditional part of the game--and to what end? As Clipton said at the end of River Kwai, "This is madness. Madness!"

Edgy MD Jun 06 2022 07:07 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

I think the end of is obvious — extra innings mean added costs, they interrupt teams as they obsessively control pitcher usage, and they add to game length. But bad leadership tends to only look at one side of the ledger when instituting reforms. I imagine the Lords of Baseball are delighted with the outcomes of this rule, and will come up with any pretext to keep it going.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 07:56 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

Edgy MD wrote: I think the end of is obvious — extra innings mean added costs, they interrupt teams as they obsessively control pitcher usage, and they add to game length. But bad leadership tends to only look at one side of the ledger when instituting reforms. I imagine the Lords of Baseball are delighted with the outcomes of this rule, and will come up with any pretext to keep it going. I hate it, too, but I agree with you: it'd be very simple for MLB to extend the rule or make it permanent. Besides, if this rule were instituted, say, 100 years ago, for example, no one today would be griping about it or pointing out how absurd it is. It wouldnt be scrutinized at all and would seem as logical as the infield fly or the two strike foul not counting as a strike. All this, even though despite being 100 years old, it'd be the exact same relatively new rule we're complaining about today.

Edgy MD Jun 06 2022 08:01 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

I don't like the infield fly rule either.

roger_that Jun 06 2022 08:05 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

I've opened a separate thread to discuss such rules outside the IGT if anyone is interested.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 08:25 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

Edgy MD wrote: I don't like the infield fly rule either. What would you change?

Edgy MD Jun 06 2022 08:40 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

I'd remove the rule. I don't particularly see why a guy who hits a grounder with a guy on first should be exposed to the potential for two outs while the guy who hits a pop-up with two guys on base shouldn't. If the fielders are more sophisticated than the runners, they can let the ball drop and get two outs. If the runners are more sophisticated than the fielders, they won't. Game action ensues, rather than an automatic call and an effective stoppage of play. Automatic rulings are boring. Game play is exciting.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 09:02 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

That's an interesting take. Your way, I think that virtually every infield pop up with a man on first would result in a double play. Nothing wrong with that, either, if that's what the higher-ups want.

Ceetar Jun 06 2022 09:20 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

It's because it takes away the agency of the runner in play. It's not because the defense is more sophisticated. Whether the runner on first during the infield fly is safe or out is completely out of his control. If the fielder can just let the ball fall, he has to be able to get to second, which is basically impossible if it's sitting in the grass 20 feet from second base at the feet of the shortstop. The only smart play to make if the rule didn't exist would be for the runner to stay at first.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 09:23 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

=Ceetar post_id=94953 time=1654528854 user_id=102] It's because it takes away the agency of the runner in play. It's not because the defense is more sophisticated. Whether the runner on first during the infield fly is safe or out is completely out of his control. If the fielder can just let the ball fall, he has to be able to get to second, which is basically impossible if it's sitting in the grass 20 feet from second base at the feet of the shortstop. The only smart play to make if the rule didn't exist would be for the runner to stay at first.

Exactly!

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 09:29 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=94955 time=1654529014 user_id=68] =Ceetar post_id=94953 time=1654528854 user_id=102] It's because it takes away the agency of the runner in play. It's not because the defense is more sophisticated. Whether the runner on first during the infield fly is safe or out is completely out of his control. If the fielder can just let the ball fall, he has to be able to get to second, which is basically impossible if it's sitting in the grass 20 feet from second base at the feet of the shortstop. The only smart play to make if the rule didn't exist would be for the runner to stay at first.

Exactly!


Edgy's way would reduce offense drastically without some countervailing rule change or adjustment. Not only by increasing double plays that the infield fly rule would have eliminated, but by discouraging batters from even hitting the ball in the air with a runner on first, thus reducing extra base hits and increasing double plays even more so.

Edgy MD Jun 06 2022 10:10 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

Infield fly rule doesn't come into effect with a single runner on. There has to be two or three runners on and less than two out. With a single runner on, there's no real potential to trade one out for a chance at two by letting a popup fall, only to trade an out on the batter with an out instead on the runner at fisrt. This occasionally happens, when there's a notable difference in baserunning speed, and the infielder is able to think fast, and it's perfectly legal. Runners first on second getting consecutively forced at third and second after letting the ball drop would be a far less-than-automatic play, I think. But even if it's routine, it's action. Balls drop in often enough as it is.

roger_that Jun 06 2022 10:19 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

can you split the infield-fly rule into its own thread? IGTs tend to get lost easily.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 10:20 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

Edgy MD wrote: Infield fly rule doesn't come into effect with a single runner on. There has to be two or three runners on. With a single runner on, there's no real potential to trade one out for a chance at two by letting a popup fall, only to trade an out for the batter with an out instead for the lead runner. This occasionally happens, when there's a notable difference in baserunning speed, and it's perfectly legal. Yes. My bad. I know the rule extremely well but simply forgot. Otherwise, there'd be double figure infield fly rules called every game. But what I wrote still holds for when the rule does apply.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 11:14 AM Re: IGT 6/5/2022: NYM@LAD — Confuse Dave Roberts Further

Edgy MD wrote: Infield fly rule doesn't come into effect with a single runner on. There has to be two or three runners on. With a single runner on, there's no real potential to trade one out for a chance at two by letting a popup fall, only to trade an out for the batter with an out instead for the lead runner. This occasionally happens, when there's a notable difference in baserunning speed, and it's perfectly legal. Yes. My bad. I know the rule extremely well but simply forgot. Otherwise, there'd be double figure infield fly rules called every game. But what I wrote still holds for when the rule does apply. Even worse: your way, with runners on first and second, you might be practically guaranteeing triple plays.

roger_that Jun 06 2022 11:22 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

I'm with Edgy on this one. It just makes for more exciting baseball if, to hit into a pop-up with 2 or more men on base, is to run a serious risk of hitting into a tripleplay. Far as I'm concerned, the infield fly rule just mandates duller baseball.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 11:26 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

You'd have a game almost unrecognizable. Triple plays would become common enough that players would intentionally hit grounders. Fine, if that's what you want.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 11:34 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=94985 time=1654536377 user_id=68] You'd have a game almost unrecognizable. Triple plays would become common enough that players would intentionally hit grounders. Fine, if that's what you want.

The thing about eliminating the infield fly rule is that it would give the defense an enormous advantage. The risks and benefits wouldn't be spread evenly, not even close.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 11:38 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=94986 time=1654536875 user_id=68] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=94985 time=1654536377 user_id=68] You'd have a game almost unrecognizable. Triple plays would become common enough that players would intentionally hit grounders. Fine, if that's what you want.

The thing about eliminating the infield fly rule is that it would give the defense an enormous advantage. The risks and benefits wouldn't be spread evenly, not even close.


But again, fine if that's what you want. A batter who strikes out also gives the defense an enormous advantage. There's no particular kind of game that baseball must generate. MLB could tinker with the rules in infinite ways and combinations to produce any kind or style of game imaginable.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 06 2022 11:38 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

How about this? (Offered without a great deal of thought...) For the infield fly rule, instead of saying the batter is automatically out, the batter is only out if the ball is caught. If it's not caught, the runner gets first base and any runners that would have been subject to a force play advance one and only one base.

Frayed Knot Jun 06 2022 11:46 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022) Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 06 2022 12:06 PM

Over the years in various softball teams I was on we'd occasionally allow IFR-elgible pop-ups to drop just to see how well the runners knew the rules. The rule of course states that the batter is automatically out and the runners can advance at their own risk. Some however, seeing the ball hit the dirt, would think that they had to run and so we'd get a DP that way (don't think we ever scammed a TP) since the batter was already the first out. oe: and considering the misunderstanding of rules we've seen just in the last week [balls his past fielders hitting runners, relief pitcher eligibility] it wouldn't be surprising to see runners fooled during dropped IFR calls at the ML level on occasion.

roger_that Jun 06 2022 11:56 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=94986 time=1654536875 user_id=68] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=94985 time=1654536377 user_id=68] You'd have a game almost unrecognizable. Triple plays would become common enough that players would intentionally hit grounders. Fine, if that's what you want.The thing about eliminating the infield fly rule is that it would give the defense an enormous advantage. The risks and benefits wouldn't be spread evenly, not even close.

They would be equal, in the sense that they would occur equally to both sides.



It's a horseshit rule, acceptable to you only because you've accepted it as an inherent part of the game. But horseshit is still horseshit, no matter how much whipped cream you squirt on it.



Strangely enough, in recent years, we've come to think of popups, and the batters who hit them, as being an unusually weak part of the offensive game, so there would be an added virtue to making them carry an additional penalty for hitting them, especially with men on base.

Edgy MD Jun 06 2022 12:03 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

I feel healthily certain that triple plays would not become routine. How often does the rule come into play now? Once every four games?

Ceetar Jun 06 2022 12:09 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

10.4% of balls in play have been IFFB. not perfect, but there have been 15500 PA with less than two outs and runners on. About 10000 of those are balls in play, which means roughly 1000 are infield fly balls potentially eligible for the rule. about 675 games so far. So probably close to one a game?

roger_that Jun 06 2022 12:11 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Huh. Somefing's off there with your numbers. Eyeballing baseball games since the 1960s, I'd estimate it was MUCH less than one a game.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 12:19 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Edgy MD wrote: I feel healthily certain that triple plays would not become routine. How often does the rule come into play now? Once every four games? And teams are turning over triple plays every four games? Or every week? Or every month?

roger_that Jun 06 2022 12:23 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Alert baserunners would wriggle out of TPs much of the time. It would turn a boooooooring part of the game into an exciting part.

Centerfield Jun 06 2022 12:25 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: How about this? (Offered without a great deal of thought...) For the infield fly rule, instead of saying the batter is automatically out, the batter is only out if the ball is caught. If it's not caught, the runner gets first base and any runners that would have been subject to a force play advance one and only one base. This rule makes a ton of sense.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 12:26 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=roger_that post_id=94993 time=1654538216 user_id=128] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=94986 time=1654536875 user_id=68] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=94985 time=1654536377 user_id=68] You'd have a game almost unrecognizable. Triple plays would become common enough that players would intentionally hit grounders. Fine, if that's what you want.The thing about eliminating the infield fly rule is that it would give the defense an enormous advantage. The risks and benefits wouldn't be spread evenly, not even close.

They would be equal, in the sense that they would occur equally to both sides.



It's a horseshit rule, acceptable to you only because you've accepted it as an inherent part of the game. But horseshit is still horseshit, no matter how much whipped cream you squirt on it.




I never said that. I never said that I accept the IFR because it's an inherent part of the rule. I think it's a mostly fair rule. I have no problem with calling a batter automatically out when he hits what is deemed to be an infield fly because the batted ball will be caught more than 99% of the time anyways. What the defense is capable of without the IFR strikes me as cheating. But I'm not married to the rule and there is no right answer here.. I am convinced, though, that eliminating the IFR will reduce offense significantly. On this, you can't persuade me otherwise.

Centerfield Jun 06 2022 12:30 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

I think the Infield Fly Rule makes sense. The dropped pop-up double play is a strange quirk of the game, and the infield fly helps eliminate that. In essence you shouldn't be rewarded for failing (or refusing) to catch a ball. Ground ball double plays are earned. Fielders must go above and beyond the routine in order to secure two outs (that's why no error is given for failure to turn). Awarding two outs after a dropped pop-up is counterintuitive. You shouldn't be rewarded for incompetence (missing a ball) or deception (intentionally letting it fall). I like Ben's proposal. It's the best compromise. Besides, in Little League, I'd say Infield Flies are caught less than half the time.

seawolf17 Jun 06 2022 12:31 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

I'm with batmags and CF on this. And there's no way it's an average of once a game. A few times a day, across all games? Maybe. Either way, it's a logical rule and I don't see any compelling reason to change it. *Could* it be changed? Sure. As others have said, nothing is immutable. But there's no compelling reason to do so.

roger_that Jun 06 2022 12:38 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=95004 time=1654539989 user_id=68] eliminating the IFR will reduce offense significantly. On this, you can't persuade me otherwise.

Great. So the door is open for some rules that would INCREASE offense, and are cool as hell, without disrupting the traditional balance of runs scored and runs prevented.

Edgy MD Jun 06 2022 12:39 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Edgy MD wrote: I feel healthily certain that triple plays would not become routine. How often does the rule come into play now? Once every four games? And teams are turning over triple plays every four games? Or every week? Or every month? Once every four game or every week or every month would not be routine. But none of that would happen as such. Beyond the infrequency of the rule's application, it's there more to prevent double plays than triple plays, and there are already multiple double-plays per game, so one more every four games would not be a radical change statistically. The infield fly rule comes into play with one out or no out — more frequently, in fact, with one out. Less than (and probably significantly less than) one in four IFR applications are even be in circumstances where a triple play is even logically possible. And if it does so occur, the combination of all those things to make it possible, along with the providentially perfect placement of where the ball comes down, the perfect non-verbal coordination by the defense, clean dextrous execution by the defense, and failure to anticipate and read what they are up to by the offense, would still make it damn rare. I suspect that we'd more typically to see a ball thrown away by a team attempting a triple play, than we'd see actual triple plays, along with groaning fans crying, "Why didn't you just catch it?!" The elimination of the infield fly rule would not reduce offense significantly. It would reduce no-action baseball.

roger_that Jun 06 2022 12:45 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Edgy's arguments are kicking butt here. Just saying.

seawolf17 Jun 06 2022 12:48 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

When you start doing things like eliminating the IFR, you might as well just blow the doors wide open. Why make runners tag up at all? The ball's hit, everybody runs until the play is over.

Edgy MD Jun 06 2022 12:53 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

I dinna follow.

seawolf17 Jun 06 2022 12:54 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Edgy MD wrote: The elimination of the infield fly rule would not reduce offense significantly. It would reduce no-action baseball. If "reducing no-action baseball" is what you want, then why not just let the runners run as soon as the ball is hit?

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 01:03 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I feel healthily certain that triple plays would not become routine. How often does the rule come into play now? Once every four games? And teams are turning over triple plays every four games? Or every week? Or every month? But none of that would happen as such. Beyond the infrequency of the rule's application, it's there more to prevent double plays than triple plays, and there are already multiple double-plays per game, so one more every four games would not be a radical change statistically. This doesnt sound right. One extra DP could easily be the tipping point. One extra DP could have huge consequences. Teams rarely have more than one big inning in a game, if even that. But that one big inning usually decides the game.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 01:05 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Edgy MD wrote: I dinna follow. I follow seawolf perfectly.

Edgy MD Jun 06 2022 01:05 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Tagging up isn't no-action baseball. A batter hitting the ball in the air and being called out without the fielders having to make a play is no-action baseball.

Edgy MD Jun 06 2022 01:10 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=95017 time=1654542236 user_id=68]This doesnt sound right. One extra DP could easily be the tipping point. One extra DP could have huge consequences. Teams rarely have more than one big inning in a game, if even that. But that one big inning usually decides the game.

I didn't write that one occasional extra double play would be inconsequential. I wrote that triple plays would not become routine. I also wrote that even additional double plays would be less frequent than suggested.



When they occur, they will certainly be consequential. They already are for batters that ground into them, and I don't think that players who pop out should be protected from potential consequences.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 01:13 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Edgy MD wrote: I dinna follow. I follow seawolf perfectly. It would also make the game easier to administrate. If a runner could advance whenever the hell he felt like advancing, thatd be one less thing an ump could screw up and there'd no longer be a need for appeal plays. Eliminate the balk, too, while you're at it. Why cant a pitcher pitch with any motion he wants to? Why does his pickoff form have to be constrained? More strategy. And let fielders throw their gloves at the batted ball. There's a new skill to develop!

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 01:16 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Edgy MD wrote: This doesnt sound right. One extra DP could easily be the tipping point. One extra DP could have huge consequences. Teams rarely have more than one big inning in a game, if even that. But that one big inning usually decides the game. I didn't write that one occasional extra double play would be inconsequential. I wrote that triple plays would not become routine. I also wrote that even additional double plays would be less frequent than suggested. When they occur, they will certainly be consequential. They already are for batters that ground into them, and I don't think that players who pop out should be protected from potential consequences. What do you call "routine"? If every team pulls of four TP's. a year ( and they will), that would reduce offense significantly.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 01:17 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Edgy MD wrote: I dinna follow. I follow seawolf perfectly. It would also make the game easier to administrate. If a runner could advance whenever the hell he felt like advancing, thatd be one less thing an ump could screw up and there'd no longer be a need for appeal plays. Eliminate the balk, too, while you're at it. Why cant a pitcher pitch with any motion he wants to? Why does his pickoff form have to be constrained? More strategy. And let fielders throw their gloves at the batted ball. There's a new skill to develop! Why must a batter be called out when his fly ball is caught on the fly? Let's bring back soaking.

Johnny Lunchbucket Jun 06 2022 01:18 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

I'm with Batmags and CF and Seawolf on this

seawolf17 Jun 06 2022 01:18 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Yes! This is wonderful! A new era of baseball dawns. Eliminating appeal plays will cut down on replay calls, too, which is another timesaver. Plus, how exciting when you've got a fast guy on first and a high fly ball deep in the gap! Dude's going to score easily. Can't wait. MORE OFFENSE!

Ceetar Jun 06 2022 01:19 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

the balk is a good comp. It's core purpose is to eliminate the same thing the infield fly does.

Edgy MD Jun 06 2022 01:27 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=95023 time=1654543057 user_id=68] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=95021 time=1654542811 user_id=68] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=95018 time=1654542319 user_id=68] I follow seawolf perfectly.

It would also make the game easier to administrate. If a runner could advance whenever the hell he felt like advancing, thatd be one less thing an ump could screw up and there'd no longer be a need for appeal plays. Eliminate the balk, too, while you're at it. Why cant a pitcher pitch with any motion he wants to? Why does his pickoff form have to be constrained? More strategy. And let fielders throw their gloves at the batted ball. There's a new skill to develop!


Why must a batter be called out when his fly ball is caught on the fly? Let's bring back soaking.


If you want to talk to yourself, that's fine. It's not as entertaining for me.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 01:29 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

And let players steroid it up all they want. Who the fuck decides what's fair? Aaron Judge is a combo giant and cyclops monster and Bud Harrelson was a toothpick who couldn't crack 160 pounds if he ate a whole horse. That's fair?

Ceetar Jun 06 2022 01:31 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

okay, real numbers. roughly 230 a year, give or take a dozen or two. So most days of the year have one. It's roughly one every 10 games of the season, most days having at least that many.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 01:32 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Edgy MD wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=95023 time=1654543057 user_id=68] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=95021 time=1654542811 user_id=68] It would also make the game easier to administrate. If a runner could advance whenever the hell he felt like advancing, thatd be one less thing an ump could screw up and there'd no longer be a need for appeal plays. Eliminate the balk, too, while you're at it. Why cant a pitcher pitch with any motion he wants to? Why does his pickoff form have to be constrained? More strategy. And let fielders throw their gloves at the batted ball. There's a new skill to develop! Why must a batter be called out when his fly ball is caught on the fly? Let's bring back soaking.

If you want to talk to yourself, that's fine. It's not as entertaining for me.


Why? No one's reading those posts?

roger_that Jun 06 2022 01:35 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

You get a little boring sometimes. Anyone ever tell you that?

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 01:44 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=roger_that post_id=95032 time=1654544141 user_id=128] You get a little boring sometimes. Anyone ever tell you that?

No. They told me that you're a bore.

Ceetar Jun 06 2022 01:45 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=95034 time=1654544672 user_id=68] =roger_that post_id=95032 time=1654544141 user_id=128] You get a little boring sometimes. Anyone ever tell you that?

No. They told me that you're a bore.


the Mets just voided your contract.

roger_that Jun 06 2022 01:48 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=95034 time=1654544672 user_id=68] =roger_that post_id=95032 time=1654544141 user_id=128] You get a little boring sometimes. Anyone ever tell you that?

No. They told me that you're a bore.


Oooh, burn! Good one!

batmagadanleadoff Jun 06 2022 01:51 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=roger_that post_id=95036 time=1654544921 user_id=128] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=95034 time=1654544672 user_id=68] =roger_that post_id=95032 time=1654544141 user_id=128] You get a little boring sometimes. Anyone ever tell you that?

No. They told me that you're a bore.


Oooh, burn! Good one!


No. Yours was the good one!

RealityChuck Jun 06 2022 02:13 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

The IF rule makes sense. Why do you think it was instituted? Because fielders would intentionally drop fly balls to get double plays. The runner has no shot at breaking it up, since they had to stay near their base. So it led to automatic double plays in IF situations. Too easy for the defense. The rule was instituted in the name of fairness.

roger_that Jun 06 2022 02:45 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=RealityChuck post_id=95042 time=1654546432 user_id=82] The IF rule makes sense. Why do you think it was instituted?

[YOUTUBE]lc7dmu4G8oc[/YOUTUBE]



God save Donald Duck, vaudeville, and variety!

Edgy MD Jun 06 2022 03:04 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

The IF rule makes sense. Why do you think it was instituted? Because fielders would intentionally drop fly balls to get double plays. The runner has no shot at breaking it up, since they had to stay near their base. So it led to automatic double plays in IF situations. Too easy for the defense. The rule was instituted in the name of fairness. I know why the infield fly was instituted. As written earlier, I disagree that runners have no shot at breaking up the double play in such situations, and certainly disagree that turning a popup into a double-play would be automatic. What's automatic is declaring a hitter out when the ball has been put into play and nobody yet has fielded it. As also stated earlier, I think what's unfair is that batters who hit grounders with men on base are exposed to the risk of two outs while batters who hit less well-struck popups with runners on base are not. There's no evidence for or against such plays being too easy for the defense, or the runners having no chance, because the rule has been in place a good long while. And how easy "too easy" might be is a deeper discussion still. But an experimental withdrawing of the rule in a minor league or a fall or winter league could certainly give us some information. It's not something that keeps me up at night or anything, but it came up.

Fman99 Jun 06 2022 07:23 PM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=roger_that post_id=95043 time=1654548322 user_id=128] =RealityChuck post_id=95042 time=1654546432 user_id=82] The IF rule makes sense. Why do you think it was instituted?

[YOUTUBE]lc7dmu4G8oc[/YOUTUBE]



God save Donald Duck, vaudeville, and variety!


Peak era Kinks, there. This album, forward, all the way through Muswell Hillbillies in '71 are eminently listenable, even 50 years later.

seawolf17 Jun 07 2022 06:19 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Right, but you can't do anything about the ground ball DPs because if the ball's on the ground, forced runners have to run. All our zaniness -- and the guts of the IFR -- stemmed from why runners need to tag up when the ball is in the air. Unless you're going to change that rule too, then you kinda have to keep the infield fly rule the way it is.

roger_that Jun 07 2022 06:36 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

you kinda have to keep the infield fly rule the way it is. You'd be amazed how violently you'd feel otherwise if the IF rule had never been written into the books. It would simply be an exciting play to watch, as the runners tried to gauge the safest spot to stand in when a dreaded popup was hit, tried to avoid getting doubled- or tripled-up, and as innings turned instantly from "threatening" to "deadly." It would be people's favorite play, and players with a tendency to pop up with men on base would be (rightly) reviled. "Oh, man, I was SO jazzed when we got our first two runners on base, but then that fucker Ordonez hit another of his weak rally-killing popups again, and hit into his sixth triple-play this season. Ya need to find someone who doesn't pop up so much!" But because the IF rule WAS written into the books, the more hidebound among us mistake it for Holy Writ. It's a stupid rule, and the balk rule is even more ill-conceived, both relics of a bad day for whoever invented the rules way back when in the 19th century. It's stupid shit, but we really don't got to live with it.

Edgy MD Jun 07 2022 07:16 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

I think a big part of both the balk rule and infield fly rule stem from a general distaste with deception. Deception is all over baseball, and most sports, but it tends to be at a private, nuanced level among the players. The sort of deception that leaves a guy pantsed in front of the audience was perhaps seen as more distasteful.

roger_that Jun 07 2022 07:35 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

True, but we kinda love it, don't we, when, say, an OFer dekes the runner into leaving the base too soon on a sac fly (the other day, some OFer--Yaz, I think--tried catching a fly ball in a squatting position to do just that), we say "How clever! Brilliant! Bravo!" It's all a matter of what's considered traditional trickery and in accordance with the way it's always been done.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 07 2022 07:38 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022) Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 07 2022 07:43 AM

Edgy MD wrote: I think a big part of both the balk rule and infield fly rule stem from a general distaste with deception. Deception is all over baseball, and most sports, but it tends to be at a private, nuanced level among the players. The sort of deception that leaves a guy pantsed in front of the audience was perhaps seen as more distasteful. True. If you go back far enough, there was a time when curve ball pitchers were once seen as cheaters. -- an obviously quaint thought today. The game is cutthroat and should be . And the whole point of pitching is obviously to prevent scoring. The IFR doesnt have to exist. It's simply a matter of preference. There are infinite ways of tinkering with the rules to produce the level of run scoring in an average game that MLB desires. Pitching may be cutthroat but still, there are limits. A pitcher may curve the pitch but he may not immerse the baseball in vaseline. Me, I dont see the IFR-less game as an exciting play because without the rule, the advantage to the fielding team is enormously lopsided.

Ceetar Jun 07 2022 07:41 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

yes, because it's meant to be a battle of talent, not manipulating rules so you have an advantage. This isn't US Elections. There's plenty of deception. Every single pitch is a game of deception (which is part of the reason what the Astros, and literally everyone, did wasn't a big deal, they merely won that game of deception) If you got rid of the balk rule you'd almost never have stolen bases. You wouldn't be able to take off until you saw the ball in flight, and at that point even I could probably throw out runners at second. Stolen bases are already barely valuable in the aggregate sense.

Fman99 Jun 07 2022 08:24 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

I don't know that the infield fly rule is any more or less arbitrary than the stupid extra runner. Maybe it's just been a thing for so long that I don't question it. The stupid extra runner, and the DH and the 6 run lead requirement for a position player to pitch, and potentially banning the shift, and a 3 batter minimum per pitcher, that's all just the worst crap.

Johnny Lunchbucket Jun 07 2022 08:40 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

What's automatic is declaring a hitter out when the ball has been put into play and nobody yet has fielded it. Almost--but not quite--as automatic, is the rate at which professional MLB athletes catch pop flies. Especially when you limit them to an area where there are 6 professional MLB athletes. Forget about the baserunners--Is any play made successfully at a greater rate in the game than a hit ball that would qualify in a professional's judgment of the IFR? The rate at which infield popups of that description are made successfully in MLB must be 99% or greater. I get that sneaky advantages are a long tradition in baseball, and I CELEBRATE them, but this to me just seems too exploitable under normal circumstances--iow, legal deception wouldn't be a clever way to take advantage but the "right" play. We still get thrills from time to time of the clever infielder with the presence of mind to "drop" a line drive. It's a harder play generally, it calls for quick reaction, it often surprises the runner and teammates and it could go wrong--ball bounces away, etc. That's the kinda risky sneaky deception that adds to the game

roger_that Jun 07 2022 08:47 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: [this to me just seems too exploitable under normal circumstances--iow, legal deception wouldn't be a clever way to take advantage but the "right" play. You could modify the IF rule, though. You could make it so when the ump calls "Infield Fly" that means the ball is in play whether the fielder catches the ball or drops it BUT runners trying to advance must be tagged out, not forced out. With runners on first and third, for example, that becomes a tricky play: the guy on first tries to get himself into a pickle, while the guy on third takes a long lead but breaks for home at the right moment, or not at all, depending on his reading of the play on the other runner. That's a good play, one I love to watch, and it takes only a small modification of the current IF rule. This would also reduce the number of triple-plays on IF plays.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 07 2022 08:57 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: [this to me just seems too exploitable under normal circumstances--iow, legal deception wouldn't be a clever way to take advantage but the "right" play. You could modify the IF rule, though. You could make it so when the ump calls "Infield Fly" that means the ball is in play whether the fielder catches the ball or drops it BUT runners trying to advance must be tagged out, not forced out. With runners on first and third, for example, that becomes a tricky play: the guy on first tries to get himself into a pickle, while the guy on third takes a long lead but breaks for home at the right moment, or not at all, depending on his reading of the play on the other runner. That's a good play, one I love to watch, and it takes only a small modification of the current IF rule. This would also reduce the number of triple-plays on IF plays. It's not necessary to modify the IFR that way because the rule already is written like that. Force plays are removed when the infield fly is called. Without the rule, the force play, obviously, remains in effect. Without the rule, those runners are dead ducks.

roger_that Jun 07 2022 09:01 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

No, what I'm calling for is allowing the fielder to drop the popup, or not, as he chooses, and if he chooses to drop it, THEN a runner on first who must run to 2B would no longer be forced at 2B, as he currently would be.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 07 2022 09:05 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: [this to me just seems too exploitable under normal circumstances--iow, legal deception wouldn't be a clever way to take advantage but the "right" play. You could modify the IF rule, though. You could make it so when the ump calls "Infield Fly" that means the ball is in play whether the fielder catches the ball or drops it BUT runners trying to advance must be tagged out, not forced out. With runners on first and third, for example, that becomes a tricky play: the guy on first tries to get himself into a pickle, while the guy on third takes a long lead but breaks for home at the right moment, or not at all, depending on his reading of the play on the other runner. That's a good play, one I love to watch, and it takes only a small modification of the current IF rule. This would also reduce the number of triple-plays on IF plays. It's not necessary to modify the IFR that way because the rule already is written like that. Force plays are removed when the infield fly is called. Without the rule, the force play, obviously, remains in effect. Without the rule, those runners are dead ducks. Example: with runners on first and second and nobody out, the batter hits a pop up and an ump calls the infield fly rule. If the runner on second tries to advance to third on the play, he must be tagged out, just the same as if there was no runner on first.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 07 2022 09:07 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=roger_that post_id=95143 time=1654614067 user_id=128] No, what I'm calling for is allowing the fielder to drop the popup, or not, as he chooses, and if he chooses to drop it, THEN a runner on first who must run to 2B would no longer be forced at 2B, as he currently would be.

He wouldnt be forced at second either, currently. It's not a force play the way the rule currently works.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 07 2022 09:10 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022) Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 07 2022 09:15 AM

I think that the only change you're now proposing in your "modification" is the fielder's option to retire the batter, or not -- the batter isn't automatically out.

roger_that Jun 07 2022 09:13 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Currently, it doesn't matter if the fielder drops it. Batter is still out. My way the ball would be in play, but instead of the runner being out if the bag is stepped on, he would have to be tagged out. So he could get into a pickle, and the fielder would need to decide whether to try to tag out himself, or to throw to another fielder, or what. The fielder would be creating problems for himself, IOW, by intentionally dropping the ball.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 07 2022 09:17 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=roger_that post_id=95147 time=1654614782 user_id=128] Currently, it doesn't matter if the fielder drops it. Batter is still out. My way the ball would be in play, but instead of the runner being out if the bag is stepped on, he would have to be tagged out.

But that's the way the rule is right now with respect to the baserunners. There are no force plays on an IFR.

seawolf17 Jun 07 2022 09:20 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=95148 time=1654615078 user_id=68] =roger_that post_id=95147 time=1654614782 user_id=128] Currently, it doesn't matter if the fielder drops it. Batter is still out. My way the ball would be in play, but instead of the runner being out if the bag is stepped on, he would have to be tagged out.

But that's the way the rule is right now with respect to the baserunners. There are no force plays on an IFR.


Right, because the batter being out eliminates the force. The runners can do whatever the heck they want - and, as someone mentioned earlier, you could very easily trick guys who don't see it happen much by letting the ball drop, making them THINK they have to run, and then making a play on them. You're describing the infield fly rule as it's written, which is why it works.

Ceetar Jun 07 2022 09:23 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=roger_that post_id=95147 time=1654614782 user_id=128] Currently, it doesn't matter if the fielder drops it. Batter is still out. My way the ball would be in play, but instead of the runner being out if the bag is stepped on, he would have to be tagged out. So he could get into a pickle, and the fielder would need to decide whether to try to tag out himself, or to throw to another fielder, or what. The fielder would be creating problems for himself, IOW, by intentionally dropping the ball.

how..that doesn't work? first and second infield fly, the third basemen let's it drop and now he has to tag the runner from second at third instead of touching the base? why? that doesn't do anything.



or do you mean if he catches it, and the runner now has to get back, you have to actually tag him? but again..why? Just to make him slide back into the bag where the guy is holding the ball to try to get around a tag and have a 90 second review?





You know what happens if we try to get this nonsense fielding deception thing? It's probably not the ground ball thing batmags is pondering, it's basically the same thing as now. Batters will prioritize DRIVING the ball hard, or missing. three true outcomes. infield pop-ups are super bad. We know that. They're worse than striking out. removing this rule would only make that disparity greater, meaning SWING HARD and don't pop it up. Missing is better.

roger_that Jun 07 2022 09:26 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

=seawolf17 post_id=95149 time=1654615248 user_id=91] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=95148 time=1654615078 user_id=68] =roger_that post_id=95147 time=1654614782 user_id=128] Currently, it doesn't matter if the fielder drops it. Batter is still out. My way the ball would be in play, but instead of the runner being out if the bag is stepped on, he would have to be tagged out.

But that's the way the rule is right now with respect to the baserunners. There are no force plays on an IFR.


Right, because the batter being out eliminates the force. The runners can do whatever the heck they want - and, as someone mentioned earlier, you could very easily trick guys who don't see it happen much by letting the ball drop, making them THINK they have to run, and then making a play on them. You're describing the infield fly rule as it's written, which is why it works.


And THAT's not underhanded trickery?

Ceetar Jun 07 2022 10:32 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

THAT is inducing a mistake on the offense. There's no mistake involved with letting the infield fly drop without the rule, there's no good answer for the runner, which you might say isn't "good sport"

batmagadanleadoff Jun 07 2022 10:54 AM Re: Autorunners and Eliminating the Infield Fly (spllit from IGT 6/5/2022)

Exactly. His way, the only change he's now recommending is that the batter isnt automatically out. But the rule, as it exists already, removes all force plays and doesnt require any of the runners to try and advance. His way, what's the point? There's no real difference between what he advocated for yesterday and his "modification " of today. Either way, the runners would be forced to run on a ball that drops in and they'd be dead ducks. The only other possibility with this "modification " is that the play would evolve where when the batted ball drops in, all runners nevertheless stay put. Then what? Eventually, either the batter or the runner on first is declared out. And what would be the point of all that? The IFR is the best, if not a perfect solution.