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

[nymr83]

the autorunner is still lame.

[roger_that]

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]

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]

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]

I don't like the infield fly rule either.

[roger_that]

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

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't like the infield fly rule either.

What would you change?

[Edgy MD]

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]

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]

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]

=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.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=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.

[Edgy MD]

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]

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

[batmagadanleadoff]

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]

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]

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]

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]

=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.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=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.

[Benjamin Grimm]

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]

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.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Guest

[roger_that]

=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.

[Edgy MD]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

=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.