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

[Fman99]

=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?

[seawolf17]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Guest

[Ceetar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

=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.

[batmagadanleadoff]

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.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Guest

[roger_that]

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]

=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.

[seawolf17]

=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.

[Ceetar]

=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.

[roger_that]

=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.

[Ceetar]

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]

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.