15 ms·

They’re trying to change the rules in ways that don’t change how the game is played. This results in weird unintuitive rules that only apply in specific edge ca

They’re trying to change the rules in ways that don’t change how the game is played. This results in weird unintuitive rules that only apply in specific edge cases. I’d rather they attempt more bold changes to how the game is played to keep the simplicity rather than the rules just being however the referees feel like interpreting them on any given day.

nonethewiser 4y ago
It’s been a while since I followed baseball. I’m trying to think through the implications of simply removing the infield fly rule. Is the following thinking correct? If the rule is removed, runners would be unsure if they need to stay on base or advance. It would depend on if the infielder caught the fly ball (which is like 99% in their control). The batter would wait just before first base. The fielder would catch the ball if runners were far from their base. But what should the batters do? It seems like the lead runner should always stay, but the man on first should advance if he’s a worse runner than the batter. I actually really like your idea. It introduces a lot of complexity that might lead to some convention that simplifies the situation, but also leaves room for good playmaking from the fielders and runners. Makes me think of a run down. Although I also wonder if it’s too complicated in which case it would result in strictly following a convention or pure chaos (which might sound cool but players, coaches, umps, mlb would hate it).
- bombcar 4y ago
  The infield fly rule actually is one of the "better" ones as it makes sense once you realize that it's basically penalizing "intentionally playing bad for a benefit" - and the umpire calls it BEFORE the ball hits the ground. The problem are rules that are judgement cases called AFTER the play is done. The biggest ones I can think of that are in baseball are the balk rule and the baseline path rule.

nonethewiser 4y ago

It’s been a while since I followed baseball. I’m trying to think through the implications of simply removing the infield fly rule. Is the following thinking correct? If the rule is removed, runners would be unsure if they need to stay on base or advance. It would depend on if the infielder caught the fly ball (which is like 99% in their control). The batter would wait just before first base. The fielder would catch the ball if runners were far from their base. But what should the batters do? It seems like the lead runner should always stay, but the man on first should advance if he’s a worse runner than the batter. I actually really like your idea. It introduces a lot of complexity that might lead to some convention that simplifies the situation, but also leaves room for good playmaking from the fielders and runners. Makes me think of a run down. Although I also wonder if it’s too complicated in which case it would result in strictly following a convention or pure chaos (which might sound cool but players, coaches, umps, mlb would hate it).

bombcar 4y ago
The infield fly rule actually is one of the "better" ones as it makes sense once you realize that it's basically penalizing "intentionally playing bad for a benefit" - and the umpire calls it BEFORE the ball hits the ground. The problem are rules that are judgement cases called AFTER the play is done. The biggest ones I can think of that are in baseball are the balk rule and the baseline path rule.