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

[Centerfield]

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]

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]

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

[Edgy MD]

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]

Edgy's arguments are kicking butt here.



Just saying.

[seawolf17]

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]

I dinna follow.

[seawolf17]

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]

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]

Edgy MD wrote: I dinna follow.

I follow seawolf perfectly.

[Edgy MD]

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]

=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.

[batmagadanleadoff]

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]

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]

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]

I'm with Batmags and CF and Seawolf on this

[seawolf17]

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]

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

[Edgy MD]

=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.

[batmagadanleadoff]

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]

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]

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.

[roger_that]

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

[batmagadanleadoff]

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

[Ceetar]

=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?

[roger_that]

=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?

[batmagadanleadoff]

=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?

[RealityChuck]

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]

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

[Edgy MD]

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.