Proposed Hit-By-Pitch Reforms

[Edgy MD]

These are changes I've been bouncing through my head for a while. I've been meaning to propose them, and then the Mets booth started shooting similar ideas around yesterday after Alonso was hit but wasn't awarded the base because he failed to attempt to elude the pitch. So I thought the time was right.

PROPOSED NEW HBP RULES PROTECTING PITCHERS:

1. While a better is welcome to come to the plate wearing any reinforced armor that they might choose, if the batter gets hit on any armored part of the body, apart from the neck or head, they are not ruled as hit by the pitch, they do not get a base, and the pitch counts as a ball or strike as called by the umpire. The play is called dead, and runners are returned to their bases.

2. A ball that nicks the batter on the body or uniform but is caught on the fly by the catcher is not ruled as a hit batter, the batter does not get a base, and the pitch counts as called by the umpire. The play is live, and runners may attempt to advance. Much as a foul tip into the catcher’s mitt is counted in all ways as a swing and a miss.

3. A ball that nicks the batter on the body or uniform that the catcher fails to catch shall, as before, be ruled as the batter being hit by the pitch, with the batter awarded first base, and the runners advancing as forced.

PROPOSED NEW HBP RULES PROTECTING BATTERS:

1. A batter who is judged to have been officially hit by a pitch with ball four shall be awarded two bases, with runners advancing as forced.

2. A batter who is judged to have been officially hit by a pitch in the head or neck shall be awarded two bases, with runners advancing as forced.

3. When a batter is officially judged to have been hit by a pitch in the head or neck, the pitcher shall be removed from the game, regardless of any apparent intent or lack thereof.

[Benjamin Grimm]

1. While a better is welcome to come to the plate wearing any reinforced armor that they might choose, if the batter gets hit on any armored part of the body, apart from the neck or head, they are not ruled as hit by the pitch, they do not get a base, and the pitch counts as a ball or strike as called by the umpire. The play is called dead, and runners are returned to their bases.

I think there should be an exception to this. If the ball is coming right at the hitter and he makes a clear effort to get out of the way and it happens to hit him on a padded area, it should count as a HBP. Your rule should apply in the (many) cases we see where the batter stands still and lets the ball hit him.

2. A ball that nicks the batter on the body or uniform but is caught on the fly by the catcher is not ruled as a hit batter, the batter does not get a base, and the pitch counts as called by the umpire. The play is live, and runners may attempt to advance. Much as a foul tip into the catcher’s mitt is counted in all ways as a swing and a miss.

"Nicks" is kind of subjective. I can see this making sense if the path of the ball isn't affected by the impact with the batter, but if a batter is plunked squarely in the ribs and the catcher catches the rebound, I think it should be a HBP.

1. A batter who is judged to have been officially hit by a pitch with ball four shall be awarded two bases, with runners advancing as forced.

So it's a BB and a HBP? Interesting.

2. A batter who is judged to have been officially hit by a pitch in the head or neck shall be awarded two bases, with runners advancing as forced.

I kinda like this.

3. When a batter is officially judged to have been hit by a pitch in the head or neck, the pitcher shall be removed from the game, regardless of any apparent intent or lack thereof.

I don't think I like this.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

This is really interesting! And, as throwing in the upper 90s and hitting 100 mph becomes more common, something is needed.

2. A batter who is judged to have been officially hit by a pitch in the head or neck shall be awarded two bases, with runners advancing as forced.

3. When a batter is officially judged to have been hit by a pitch in the head or neck, the pitcher shall be removed from the game, regardless of any apparent intent or lack thereof.

I like the first part. Seems like pitchers would be extra cautious if it essentially meant giving up a double. Something doesn't feel right about the second part. Ejection, in my mind, should be an extreme action and can change the course of a game. Would be curious to hear from a retired pitcher to know how often beanings are intentional and how many are honestly pitches that got away from them.

One thing missing in this list is improving the helmet. David Wright got mocked for the Great Gazoo helmet. But if everyone was required to wear it...

I know those are all related to the head shots and not the rest of the body.

[Edgy MD]

2. A ball that nicks the batter on the body or uniform but is caught on the fly by the catcher is not ruled as a hit batter, the batter does not get a base, and the pitch counts as called by the umpire. The play is live, and runners may attempt to advance. Much as a foul tip into the catcher’s mitt is counted in all ways as a swing and a miss.

"Nicks" is kind of subjective. I can see this making sense if the path of the ball isn't affected by the impact with the batter, but if a batter is plunked squarely in the ribs and the catcher catches the rebound, I think it should be a HBP.

"Nicks" is subjective, but so is the word "tip" in "foul tip." But the act of the catcher making the catch makes it objective. In both cases, the principle remains that if the ball's trajectory isn't altered enough to foul up the reception of the pitch, the contact was negligible, inconsequential, and insignificant.

I don't anticipate a ball bouncing squarely off the batter's ribs and being caught by a quickly adusitng catcher. I've never seen this happen before. But sure, allow for an exception in cases where the umpire judges such an event to have taken place.

[Edgy MD]

This is really interesting! And, as throwing in the upper 90s and hitting 100 mph becomes more common, something is needed.

2. A batter who is judged to have been officially hit by a pitch in the head or neck shall be awarded two bases, with runners advancing as forced.

3. When a batter is officially judged to have been hit by a pitch in the head or neck, the pitcher shall be removed from the game, regardless of any apparent intent or lack thereof.

I like the first part. Seems like pitchers would be extra cautious if it essentially meant giving up a double. Something doesn't feel right about the second part. Ejection, in my mind, should be an extreme action and can change the course of a game. Would be curious to hear from a retired pitcher to know how often beanings are intentional and how many are honestly pitches that got away from them.

This rule number three is largely in response to the notion promoted by Tony LaRussa, who one time angrily pulled his pitcher after he had hit Mike Piazza in the head. When asked if he believed his pitcher was throwing at Piazza, he said the question of intent was irrelevant. If he couldn't keep from hitting a batter in the head and threatening the life and livelihood of the batter, he had no place on a Major League mound. Rhys Hoskins said more or less the same thing last week when Yohan Ramírez threw behind him.

Let's stop trying to read pitchers' (and managers') minds and hearts, and just say that you're responsible for the batters' lives up there, no matter your intent.

[nymr83]

I don't think we need ejections absent intent, but 2nd base for HBO to the head seems fair. Nobody is ever going to let them self get hit in the head for two bases, unlike the folks who don't get out of the way when it hits the arm.

It's hard to define, but a ball that grazes the (loosely fitting) uniform only should be a ball, not a free base.

[Edgy MD]

It's hard to define, but a ball that grazes the (loosely fitting) uniform only should be a ball, not a free base.

I therefore hope to use the notion that the precedent of the foul tip into the catcher's mitt as making it easy to define. It's in the same spirit. If the alleged contact is so theoretical and so ticky-tack that it doesn't interfere with the trajectory enough to prevent the catch, then let's not waste time and energy getting out cameras and microscopes to examine if there was a foul when there was no harm and the game-play wasn't otherwise impeded.

[Fman99]

I'm in favor of guys getting hit by pitches.

[Centerfield]

I like the armored rule in theory, but I wonder if it's something that can be enforced without replay. You'd have to determine that not only did the guy get hit, but he got hit only on the body armor.

I'm guessing the intent of the rule is the elbow guard. The elbow guard allows players to hang over the plate, and half-heartedly move to avoid an inside pitch. So I'd be in favor or that rule right away. Wear an elbow guard. If you get hit in the guard and no where else, no base.

By contract, if you wear a shin guard and get hit there, I'm fine with getting the base. No one is sticking their shin close to home.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Maybe they can have the elbow guards light up like a restaurant beeper if it gets hit by a baseball. Or buzz like when you touch the edges while playing Operation. Or it can have a WiFi connection so it can loudly play Mary Had a Little Lamb* over the stadium PA system upon impact.



* Why that song? Why not?

[metirish]

When did players start wearing the body armor ? I remember Barry Bonds with the bigger elbow guard .

Anyway, Pete got called for not trying to get out of the way last night. Good call too , subjective of course, but I think if they called him out then and there it would put a stop to that