Substitution Rules
In September of 2013, Billy Hamilton made his MLB debut. As a pinch runner. It’s wonderful to see Billy Hamilton be a pinch runner. A few days before his 20th birthday, Tim Raines made his MLB debut as a pinch runner, and all six games in his September callup was as a pinch runner. He played 15 games the next season, 7 of which was as a pinch runner. (The season after that, 1981, is when he established his star.)
I see nothing but positive about this kind of development. The only reason we see it in September is because of the loosening of the roster rules. Now, rather than expanding the rosters during the season, or declaring a 15- or 20-man roster on a game-by-game basis, what would happen if we changed the substitution rules?
Say you bring in Hamilton to pinch-run for the catcher. At the end of the half-inning, the manager currently has two choices: (a) choose whether to bring in a new catcher and knock Hamilton out of the game or (b) double-switch Hamilton into the game, with a new catcher. In either case, the original catcher is knocked out of the game. But, what if we add a third option: (c) allow the manager to keep the original catcher while knocking Hamilton out of the game. The substitution still knocks one player out of the game, but now the manager gets to decide which of the players involved gets the boot.
And you can extend that to pinch hitting as well. And if you do that, you can also do away with the DH. You can now bring in a pinch hitter for your starting pitcher in the second inning, without knocking out the pitcher (but you do lose the PH): You simply let the PH hit, and then that guy is out of the game, while the pitcher remains. And the same applies for a defensive substitution: at the end of the half-inning, you decide which of the two players is knocked out of the game.
You still have to worry about your bench and when to allow your pitcher to bat or not. But, you now give the manager a bit more flexibility. And if he wants to have a speedster on the roster, without thinking he’s burning through two roster spots (i.e., knocking out both the original catcher and Hamilton), he’s only burning through one.
What we have here is a rule that:
a. has no roster impact (you always lose a player)
b. is unobtrusive (no one is really going to notice anything)
c. allows the DH to disappear from the rulebook
d. gives the manager great flexibility
Downside? You tell me.
UPDATE: Based on one or two comments, I don’t think I was clear enough: at the end of the half inning, the manager chooses which player he loses for the game. In the above situation, if he goes for option c, he’d knock Hamilton out for the game, and the original catcher is allowed to stay. The same applies for a fielding sub: Hamilton could have come in as a defensive sub in the 8th inning in CF. At the end of the half-inning, the manager decides whether to knock Hamilton out of the game, or knock the guy he had replaced out of the game. There is NO “re-entry”. Someone will get knocked out of the game, just like it is today.
I like the DH and see no compelling reason to change rules to abolish it. In fact, with offense down as it is losing the DH makes no sense to me.
I do like the option to keep the player being pinch run for in the game to give more flexibility, but why not just expand the rosters to 27-28. It was not too long ago that early season rosters were at 28, and with expanded rosters in September, why not just expand the rosters the first 5 months and eliminate some of the shuttling of players back and forth like a yoyo every time a manager stresses his bullpen or a player tweaks something but the team does not want to DL him
If the roster limit were increased, every team would just add additional relievers, probably loogy’s and roogy’s. Then we would have even more boring pitching changes than we do today.
I agree and no question that is what would happen.
If we eliminated the DH, that would further depress offense, which it seems many (most?) people don’t want to do now. Other than, that, I don’t see a downside.
Not necessarily. This rule change would apply to the NL as well. The increased flexibility of allowing batters to hit on behalf of pitchers could offset the increase in pitchers batting in the AL.
I love this idea. However, I’m not exactly sure it would suffice to eliminate the DH. As you’ve currently described it, you could PH for the pitcher without losing him, losing the PH instead. For this to replicate the DH in effect, you’d have to PH for the pitcher each time he came to bat, which would mean using 3 or 4 players as PH throughout the course of the game.
I still think it’s a great idea, getting more PA in the hands of hitters without the silly situation of a guy who only hits, but I don’t think teams would see it as sufficient to replace the DH. Because they would now have the choice, managers would face the dilemma of burning through their bench or letting the starting pitcher hit to save a guy for later. It creates more opportunities for being second guessed and for the reason alone I could see many people being against it.
A quick follow-up thought — do this while also adding another spot to the 25 man roster and you might have something.
RMR – you summed up what I would have said. The idea is great both in terms of improving the quality of product and adding a new strategy element.
I think the players union might be the biggest hold-up out of concern for guys who are full-time DHs right now. Maybe MLB could offer AL teams the option over the next 2-3 years to decide before each game whether they want to use the DH or the Tango Substitution Rule. This, plus the 2-man roster, might get the ball rolling.
First off — whoa, a Tango post!
Second — I agree with others that the DH shouldn’t go away at this time. But I do think that it would be a great idea to at least implement this rule in the NL to increase offense a little. I wonder if Tango or Dave or someone could do a study to determine the rough increase in R/G this rule would bring about.
You add about .12 runs each time the PH takes over from the pitcher.
If a pitcher normally bat 2.5 times per game, but let’s say with this new rule he might bat 1 time per game, that’ll increase runs (in the NL parks) by 1.5 x .12 = 0.18 runs per game.
Ah yes, of course. You make it look easy.
You didn’t factor in the Billy Hamilton situation, but I suppose that has much less of an impact on runs/game than the PH does.
The effect is probably more complex than that. Given the common current roster construction with 12 or 13 hitters, one of whom is the backup C teams are reluctant to lose early in a game, and another of whom teams are reluctant to lose because an injury would then force them to put a pitcher in the field. It is unlikely (with current roster construction) that a team will want to substitute the hitter for the pitcher more than twice over the course of a game, unless the third time is an especially high-leverage situation. The pitcher’s spot will typically come up 4 times a game, and so having this rule probably only adds 0.5 non-pitcher PA’s, ceteris paribus.
Given that late-game PA’s are generally higher leverage, managers will want to set some threshold for leverage early in the game for which they’d burn one of the PA’s (essentially it’s an option model). No one on and 1 out in the 3rd? Pitcher bats. 2nd & 3rd with 1 out in the 4th? PH hits.
However I would expect that this rule would change roster construction (also assuming the DH goes away), in particular that it would be the end of the 8-man bullpen. To get the most value out of this, teams at the margin will probably want to carry 1 more hitter and 1 less pitcher, in order to try to get 3 non-pitcher PA’s per game. 0.12 runs/game over 162 games is worth way, way more than the worst guy in a typical bullpen, even granting that the 3rd PA is in expectation going to be below-average leverage (and thus probably worth less than 0.12). Heck, I could easily see that 4th PA being more valuable than the 2nd worst guy in the bullpen, who for most teams is a 0.2ish WAR guy.
I’m more than OK with a rule that results in smaller pitching staffs, since it would reduce the number of interminable mid-inning pitching changes since pitching changes would be less frequent in general.
Here’s the problem with getting a rule like this implemented: there’s no way the MLBPA will like it, because of the implications for roster construction. It will more or less destroy whole categories of roles (DH’s and LOOGYs), and result in 50-70 pitchers pushed off of 40-man rosters (MLB staffs + AAA). Sure, the overall number of players wouldn’t change, but no union thinks that way. Those pitchers are current, dues-paying members, and their would-be replacements are not. Furthermore, the MLBPA would probably also consider spreading the same number of innings over fewer pitchers to be something that increases injury risks.
Plucky – I think if you go with RMR’s suggestion above and expand the roster to 26 or even 27 players you can keep the LOOGYs around. But the impact on guys who currently only DH would be the stumbling block for implementing this right away – you’d probably have to grandfather something in to protect their jobs over the next few years.
tz- With 26 or 27 people on the roster, all it means is that no pitcher will ever bat unless the game goes 11-12 innings. Teams will have enough room for hitters that they will want to PH for the pitcher every time. Despite all the potential for interesting uses of this rule, the run value of swapping out a pitcher PA for a hitter’s PA is going to dominate all others 95% of the time. The practical effect of this rule with larger rosters will be to replace 1 DH with what amounts to a 4- or 5-way platoon DH, with pitchers batting extremely infrequently. I don’t see how that’s an improvement.
I dislike the DH because I like the principle of expecting players to both hit and field. The main argument for the DH is that the pitcher is a wasted PA and that it’s better for someone who is actually good at it to hit instead. The problem with this proposed rule + larger rosters means that you will replace 4 PA’s from a DH with 4 PA’s from different hitters, 3 of whom are presumably inferior to the hitter who would otherwise be the DH. Anti-DH people won’t be happy because pitchers will still never be expected to hit, and pro-DH people won’t be happy because the average quality of PA from the pitcher/DH spot will go down
I think this would increase the number of specialist LOOGY and ROOGY’s, not decrease them. Starting pitcher faces 1st batter of inning who is a righty. LOOGY is brought in to face 2nd batter who is a lefty. Starter is brought back in to face the 3rd batter, who is a righty.
You could do this throughout the whole game and would probably stack up on 5 lefties in the bullpen if your starter that day is a righty. Needless to say, the length of game would be significantly longer too.
That is a good point, thanks for thinking it through.
We could do two things:
1. I posted at the bottom in these comments that we could exempt the pitcher-as-fielder from the sub rule. So, once a pitcher is swapped out for a reliever (as a defensive sub), then he’s out.
2. Allow the “option c” only once per player. Suddenly, you couldn’t PH for the pitcher each time he came to bat and allow the pitcher to remain in the game. You could only do it once. This is the same for any player on the field or at bat. You couldn’t always protect say Adam Dunn in LF or John MacDonald at bat. They get just one freebie per game of being replaced without being knocked out.
Just a couple of ideas so that the rule itself doesn’t become too central to the strategy.
This would mean therefore that a pitcher, who normally comes to bat 2.5 times per game, will come to bat 1.5 times per game.
This puts pressure on the manager to decide when he gets the freebie of PH for the pitcher, while letting the pitcher remain in the game.
you can also leave a pitcher in if it’s a bunting situation and you could leave the pitcher in with two outs and none on if you need to save a htiter
Right, that’s why I figure you’d still see the batter at the plate once a game. If they are up by 3+ runs, pitcher might still bat, etc.
This is a great idea!
Well played.
this could lead to some interesting late-game scenarios. It would be funny to watch a team that burned all its PH options early send a reliever out to hit in a crucial spot. I like the strategic implications of this.
Downsides:
a. Does not do the same thing as the DH as the PH would only get to have one at bat whereas the DH gets at bats for the whole game.
b. Instead of having 8 guys contributing all that they can with the bat, glove, and on the bases the whole game, we would have something like 20 guys contributing a fraction of their overall baseball talent to the game in smaller intervals.
c. How long would the pinch runner/fielder/hitter be allowed to stay in the game for the original player to still be able to re-enter?
d. Would eliminate the downsides of many players. A great fielder that can’t hit can play half the game without an at-bat. Miguel Cabrera could have a fielder play first in the innings inbetween at bats with losing at bats. Slow runners could have pinch runners and stay in the game.
e. Devalues well rounded players. What’s the point of a Ben Zobrist, Buster Posey, Alex Gordon, or Josh Donaldson, players that are great hitters and fielders, when you can create the same thing with multiple players without losing anything?
It would give the manager too much flexibility. He would be able to do almost anything. The game would become 25 vs. 25 including pitchers and the star players would have a lot less impact.
You need to re read the post.
What did I miss? Could the pinch player only stay in for half an inning for the original player to still be able to re-enter? My points still stand. You could have an entirely different team in the field in the 7 inning and then bring all your hitters back for the 8 inning. You could bring in a lefty specialist reliever for one batter, then a righty specialist for the next, then THE SAME lefty specialist back in for the next batter, then the SAME righty specialist for the next batter.
You actually missed a lot if that’s your interpretation of what tangotiger said..
Spenser: whenever a replacement happens, at the end of that half-inning, either the replacement or the original player is out of the game.
Presumably this doesn’t apply to defensive replacements or pitcher changes.
I updated the post. Hopefully that clears it up for you.
Ok, I understand the rule change a lot clearer now with the update. It would give the manager a lot more flexibility. I just think it would give the manager too much flexibility. I think that being able to turn any starting player’s weakness into a strength for half an inning while still keeping him in the game would cause a lot of unforeseen problems.
“b. Instead of having 8 guys contributing all that they can with the bat, glove, and on the bases the whole game, we would have something like 20 guys contributing a fraction of their overall baseball talent to the game in smaller intervals.”
That’s not a downside, that’s personal preference. Which is fine, you don’t have to like that, but you can’t suggest that one is the right way for a game to be played and one is wrong.
well, all of the “upside” is personal preference as well…
fwiw, I think all of Spenser’s points are good – and it’s annoying to see a bunch posters so enamored by the author that they jump on a dissenter.
setting the DH aside, this is a huge fundamental change to the rules of baseball. with the exception of the DH, the rules have always been you participate in all aspects of baseball or you are out of the game. this changes that fundamental pillar – and changes it in a way that is far more dramatic than the DH did.
further, dragging the DH into the equation only further muddies the waters – it is a straw man. if you want to fix the DH, fine – but this is going further away from pre-DH baseball, not closer.
I updated the post for clarity. Hopefully it makes more sense.
Please Please don’t get rid of the DH. In fact, mandate the NL add it! Pitchers had a collective BA of .122 with 13 strikeouts for every walk when batting in 2014. Pathetic. I don’t need to see it. Its plain bad baseball.
If you don’t want to see it, be a fan of an AL team. I enjoy the strategy component and also I think it’s awesome/entertaining to see guys paid $15 million a year utterly suck at one (small) component of their job.
I’m sorry, but the having a terrible hitter bunt in every situation is hardly a “strategy component.” This “strategy” thing is so overplayed by opponents of the DH. There’s no more strategy to the SAC bunt “decision” than exists in the AL and there’s little that’s more boring in the game than watching a pitcher sacrifice a runner to 2nd with 1 out…except for watching him bat with no one on base.
The strategy isn’t in what happens when the pitcher actually bats, it’s in deciding whether to pinch-hit for them.
I tend the rare instances where a pitcher does something interesting (Zito single RBI vs Verlander in The WS being the prime example of something “interesting”) to be worth the trade off of a pitcher hitting vs the 9th other worst guy hitting on another team, particularly since it’s only in half the games played.
I’d much rather see the strike zone fixed for left handers.
The idea that the DH is the 9th-best hitter in any AL lineup is a prime fallacy. You just think that because it’s true for NL teams when they play in AL parks.
I LOVE the NL DH argument and totally agree (or enact some other way for pitchers to avoid batting.) There is a mountain of evidence that suggests that the value of NL pitchers has nothing to do with their batting abilities and therefore the actual game of baseball has moved past the point of pitchers hitting.
I get that this is all a paradigm issue and the argument is intractable, but it it hard to argue FOR pitchers hitting on any other basis than tradition. if you want to raise tradition as a flag, so be it – it’s a fine argument.
Yeah and “traditionally” black people couldn’t play in the big leagues so maybe it’s time to move past tradition. Pitchers shouldn’t hit. It’s not their job. It’s not what they were drafted to do and it’s not what they work on for hours upon hours every week
A pitcher’s job is to be a baseball player. Part of that is having to hit.
Its a personal preferance for sure but I find it absurd that a baseball allows people to not participate in half the game simply because they arent good at it.
No a pitchers job is to pitch. Pitchers aren’t forced to hit in college. When you are putting together a scouting report for a draft, no where on that report does it mention the pitchers ability to hit a baseball. No pitcher has been drafted higher because of his hitting prowess, and no pitcher has fallen in a draft because he couldn’t hit. Therefore, pitchers aren’t perceived to be hitters so they should not hit. When giving a pitcher scouting grades, no where on their chart is “hit tool” and “power tool” listed.
^^^ yes, this ^^^
Try to find me a pitching prospect who is ranked highly because of his hitting, fielding or baserunning. M Jones’ argument is 100% false.
None of that changes the fact that playing baseball is supposed to consist of both hitting and playing the field. If you are a baseball player, its your job to do both.
You are basically saying they shouldnt have to hit because we have told them they dont have to hit . Which is kind of a circular argument.
Playing football consists of throwing, running, catching and tackling but that doesn’t mean an offensive lineman has to throw the ball once a game.
No, they shouldn’t have to hit because that’s not the roll they play on the team. Just as a quarterback doesn’t play running back. Just like a goalie doesn’t play center. Just like a Center doesn’t have to bring the ball up the court and run the offense.
Every sport has different roles for different people. A pitchers role is to throw the baseball and try and get the hitters out.
Playing baseball does consist of hitting baseballs and fielding them, but that doesn’t mean every player should be responsible for every task; that’s not how it works in any other sport. Everyone is not responsible for the same duties.
I’d liken pitching to being a goalie in hockey. ALL other skaters have to do similar jobs (skate, pass, shoot), but the goalie is very different.
And it’s clear the pitcher is very different. Among the nine players playing: He’s by far the best guy to have on the mound, and he’s by far the last guy you want at bat. And you can’t say that for every other player. Your catcher might be the best hitter on the team… or the worst.
The pitcher stands out like a goalie for special treatment.
Agree Tango – I feel goalie is the best example and better than some of the others I listed alongside.
It is a professional sport so you expect to watch professionals perform. Pitchers are not professional hitters – they’re far from it. Therefore they have no place in professional baseball as hitters.
I am not asking for the NL to add the DH because I don’t think it’ll happen; but I am asking people to stop pandering for the AL to eliminate the DH. In my opinion, the AL does it correct. Professionals are the only people out there – professional hitters and professional pitchers.
If position players aren’t expected to pitch, why are pitchers expected to perform the tasks of position players?
All in all, a solid discussion and much appreciated. Now let’s have some pitchers and catchers report already.
“None of that changes the fact that playing baseball is supposed to consist of both…”
Ahh, there’s the issue — you’re prescribing what the game should be in your perfect world, and presenting it as fact.
Even hockey goalie isnt really that great of a comparison because they are burdened with specialized equipment that physically prevents them from being able to play the game the same as the other 5 players even if they wanted too. Plus there are actually rules in place that prevent them from doing so (they cant play the puck in certain areas of their own zone and its actually illegal for them to play the puck in the offensive zone). With pitchers there are no such limitations. They dont hit because the majority has accepted that they dont need too.
I get the argument that they are being paid hundreds of millions to be pitchers so that should be their main/only focus. But realisticly, there is no reason they couldnt also become better hitters as well. Many of them even were good hitters in high school and even college.
In this day and age were are all obsessed with a players value, well how much more valuable would a pitcher be if he could also be a competant pinch hitter on off days?
“Ahh, there’s the issue — you’re prescribing what the game should be in your perfect world, and presenting it as fact”
If by “my perfect world” you mean “the actual rules of baseball for over a century” then yes, I guess you are right.
It’s a pretty significant change. Option b) loses you not one but two players – the original catcher and whatever OF you drop to keep hamilton in the game.
it would be interesting. My guess is that it would tend to have interesting effects on the bench, plus there would obviously be more PH. If you can have an OF hit without losing your starter when it’s 2-1 in the 6th or 7th, you’ll obviously do it.
I could the PR coming back and a rise in bench players that can play every position in case of injury, along with more offensive specialists for the bench.
I don’t see how thus eliminates the need for a dh in the AL as it would actually require the pitcher to hit once a game in most games. As we’ve seen in recent years a 4 man bench is often short, especially when there’s an injury. I also doubt players would want to PH in the third inning in a low leverage situation and then be done for the day, it would seem odd. You’re probably going to magnify the effect of removing the dh because the same pinch hitter wouldn’t seem the same pitcher twice like a dh would. This would have to be a league wide change as it would be absurd to further differentiate nl and AL teams. Its just easier to add a dh in nl and add at least 1 non-pitching roster spot to allow for more in game substitutions.
While I’m all for improving the game, I think this would be hard to sell, mainly to the players. Removing the DH removes opportunity for older players to lengthen the career. Its ok to keep a defensive liability for 3-4 ABs a game, not just one. While I would love to see an influx of younger stars, this may actually hurt run scoring, as more inexperienced hitters who can at least field are stockpiled over older veterans who are closer to mastering the art of hitting. Secondly, and this really just comes down to manager strategy, but burning a player in the second or third inning of the game seems counter productive. No player wants to be a one AB guy when there’s no leverage to a situation. Having a Matt Stairs/Jack Cust to come in the end makes sense, but with only 25 players theres no room to keep for an early/middle inning AB.
I think there are couple alternatives that could also be introduced.
A) allow a PH used before the 4th inning to return to the game, but only in another PH situation. So after a PH AB, he can stay in the game, or remain on the bench, eligible for another AB later on. Now you get even more use out of one player, and the manager has more freedom to be aggressive.
B)Force a Manager to select one player pregame to be the “Return Guy”. It must be a Fielder/Batter, and he can only return as a PH. Very similar to the previous idea, but now the manager can choose either a starter or a bench guy to fill the role, meaning the manger has know his personnel, and be able to play match ups.
C) Allow a Manager to choose a fan to come down and take hacks. While this would kill offensive production, it would a whole lot of fun to watch.
The downside here is that you’d now have multiple players filling the role of the DH instead of one, basically. It allows for some flexibility but might also knock players out of their regular routines, which the DH penalty shows us might be an actual immeasurable effect of these things. I don’t dislike the pinch-runner idea but I think it’d be better if the decision of who stayed/who left the game had to be made retroactive to the end of the inning at the point the pinch runner/hitter enters the game. Kind of like a set substitution; Terry Collins would enter the field and say Ruben Tejada is pinch running for Wilmer Flores for this turn around the bases but Flores will remain in the game afterward. I’d like that a little more than this proposed idea because it involves more strategy IMO. Your proposal would allow managers to maximize optimal results which isn’t always about the best strategy.
Isn’t this a slippery slope though? At what point do you simply have separate groups of pitchers, fielders, hitters, and runners?
So basically MLB will adopt the high school rule where players can re-enter the game.
I must admit though, typically when I see rule changes proposed, they’re either absurd or too different from the original rules. This one is something that I actually find reasonable, as in it doesn’t feel like we’re significantly changing the game of baseball.
I believe this was one of the suggested rule changes to increase pace of play; at least, the designated runner for catchers was. I like that idea a lot; it would save catchers’ knees, provide speedy yet otherwise useless players (Ben revere) with an outlet or their speed, and it would give the catcher time to suit up for next inning. The only issue is you’d need a dedicated roster spot for the position.
I’m not so sold on the pinch hitting for pitchers while keeping them in the game. As others have noted, there’s really no need to do away with the DH; while I’m an NL guy at heart, it seems that the NL adopting the DH would be the more prudent move.
I don’t like this idea at all. Talk about a game of too much specialization now, what would it be like with this rule? Theoretically, a guy would never have to improve his defensive skills if all he would ever have to do is PH without ever having to play the field. Also, a guy would never have to improve his offensive skills if all he did was pinch run.
I guess I’m a fan of the well rounded player and coaching a player up. I feel this rule would pigeon hole too many players into one specific role and coaches wouldnt have the urgency to coach a player up to become good in all areas.
Tom Tango posts here?
Somewhat rarely I believe. Would love it if he did more often– his insights are concise and clean. The man wields an analytic razor matched by few.
Thanks Tom!
Thanks, that makes for a great bumper sticker!
Even I’ve learned a thing or two from Tango.
Needs more blades. Because razors ALWAYS. NEED. MORE. BLADES.
He posts all the time on his own website. He has fascinating ideas on replacing hockey sticks with snow shovels and the pucks with an under inflated NFL ball in order to yield an extra 0.17 points per possession in cricket.
Damn, wish I’d come up with this!
Brilliant idea.
Right along with my idea to eliminate ground rule doubles.
I say make ’em ground rule triples.
Nah, leave them as doubles, but they’re base clearing doubles.
Every time there’s a runner on first who’s not a catcher or David Ortiz it feels like a ground rule double leaving the park cost a run compared to it staying in.
good point
consider the excitement of having that runner on third.
Just getting in the head of the pitcher, etc
Does any stat service keep track of ‘ground rule doubles’ over a season?
Of course I’m curious the number of additional runs ‘ground rule triples’ would produce. I’m guessing .60 per game. So that calculates to….
1458 runs over the season, MLB wide.
Yowser!!
This reminds me of the SNL skit with Christopher Walken and the Census. Census person: “How many people live here?” Walken: “I’m not good with numbers. 13?”
Where’d you get .6 from Chuck? That said, I really like the idea of base-clearing ground-rule doubles.
‘Can I speak with your wife?’
‘No. She’s a bobcat.’
An educated quess I’d say. that works to .3 average per team over the course of a season. When you think of the average three game series… it’s not unusual to see both teams lose a run over the ground rule double.
I don’t mind the difference.. .6 vs .4
and I do like the added tension of that runner on third base.
In honor of Tango, lets use the run expectancy matrix:
Bases empty [with a run scored] vs a runner on third:
0 outs 1.544 vs 1.433 = +.111 runs
1 out 1.291 vs 0.989 = +.302 runs
2 outs 1.112 vs 0.385 = +.727 runs
Assuming that each out state is about as likely as another, then on average 0.38 extra runs for each occurrence.
I don’t think they are that common– maybe once per every two games, max? That would put it at an extra 462 runs total, 15 per team per season. A bump of something like 0.1 RPG
—
That said, I have 2002-2004 retro sheet data handy and looks like the runner on first scores on a double [albeit including ground rule doubles] about 43% of the time. If on legitimate doubles the runner on first scores less than half the time, I can’t see making it a gimme…
Baseball-reference has data on this as well [how base runners advance based on the type of hit]
2014: 42%
2013: 41%
2012: 42%
2011: 43%
2010: 41%
So close to the middle that it doesn’t seem fair either way. I vote for a pre-game coin toss to determine whether ground-rule doubles score the runner from first or not. At least 50% is much closer to the actual rates than 0% or 100%.
I feel like a lot of ground rule doubles are struck better than your average double though. Usually the ball has to land on the track.
Maybe if a fielder touches it before it goes out the runner on first has to hold, but otherwise he scores? So you’re not rewarded for a 3B deflecting a line drive into the stands while jumping and the RF at Fenway who can’t quite glove the ball on a short hop but you are for blasting one so deep no one can get there.
Now there is a fair result.
Part of my idea is the added element of that runner on third. How will the pitcher handle this tension… a balk, that scoes him too. will the runner influence a walk, error, more possible outcomes that are just not there with the runner sitting on second.
once per every two games…
81 * 15 that works out to 1215 runs I calculate.
we can go back and forth on numbers. I like this change just as much for the increased tension/strategy involving that runner on third.
ANARCHY!!!
Now, how about posting some of the comments against the stupid DH rule. This rule is the worst thing to happen to baseball. And, now, you want to take it even further. That’s as bad as the new commish wanting to do away with the defensive shift. Leave baseball alone. It is, or was, a great game until a few dickheads want to get there name in the history books for changing it.
Larry got into the liquor cabinet again. I tell his father to lock it, he just mumbles incoherently about the Jews and pours another cognac. Larry really is a good boy.
Hamilton is perfect for the strategy. Start him for defence, the pinch hit for Hamilton at first at bat and sub him back in for base running. Hamilton can go through a whole year without an at bat and get all his value from base running and defense
He would be an amazing player then.
You couldn’t sub him back in. I updated the post for clarity. At the end of the half-inning, you have to decide which player is knocked out of the game and which player can stay in the game as one of the nine.
I was hoping it was you can sub him back in anytime before the end of inning or at end of inning
I don’t think that is how Tango’s proposal would work. Presumably you could pinch hit for Hamilton every time he comes up, but then the pinch hitter would have to run for himself or another pinch runner (not Hamilton) would be needed. Hamilton could return to the field after the half inning.
Or perhaps that is a loophole that would need to be closed.
I don’t know that it’s a “loophole”.
But I did offer an amendment to one of the commenters, that you can only let a player have this option once per game.
It doesn’t REALLY address the main issues we have with the game now but it is an idea and a not absurd one. Interesting.
To me the game issues can be solved with 5 transparent non intrusive changes.
1) Any pitcher who enters a game must face at least 3 batters unless injured.
2) Pitching teams are limited to 3 pick off attempts per inning.
3) Relief pitchers get 3 ON field warm up pitches only
4). Rosters are expanded to 27.
5). The ball needs to be very slightly juiced. Not 1920/1987/2014 KBO juiced.
Just like %4 juiced.
These small changes decrease things that annoy the casual fan the most (pitching changes, four minute sequences of pick off attempts), they increase things we like (stolen bases, home runs, pace of play). And all are pretty invisible.
The pick off limit even adds another strategy layer to the game.
And hopefully the increased roster size is unneeded as lefty and right specialists would disappear when it became mandatory to face 3 batters.
Obviously it would need to be codified that faking an injury has draconian punishments.
Obviously you could just say that if a pitcher leaves for an injury he must go on a 7 day DL.
I should also add i would eliminate the pick off and minimum battery faced requirements for playoff baseball.
If teams want to keep loogys in AAA and stash then to use in October that’s fine but the 6th inning with four pitching changes and two loogys in mid may must die soon.
I like your #1, and you could even say that an “injured” player has to rest for 4 games or something before being able to pitch again. This way a starter with a legit injury wouldn’t miss playing time and could come back for their next start, but they couldn’t parade 3 guys out in an inning with “injuries” as a way to make substitutions.
You realize rule #1 could cause some hilarious situations. Let’s say the pitching team is down 4-2 in the top of the 9th. The pitcher who started the inning for them allows two base hits so he is replaced by a pitcher who comes in and immediately gets a double play and a strike out.
We go to the bottom of the 9th the team cuts it to a 1 run game and has two outs and bases loaded and up to bat comes the relief pitcher. The manager would obviously like to pinch hit for him but he can’t as the pitcher has only faced two batters and must by rule stay in the game.
I think your changes need a little more thought.
“Pitcher must face 3 batters or complete the last out of an inning” would work.
That’s only WITHIN the half inning. It doesn’t need more thought. It just needed to be explained more clearly.
Obviously, i thought, this ONLY applies WITHIN an inning. The purpose of the rule isn’t too cut down on pitchers. It’s too cute down on in inning pitching changes.
Very very very few things bother my wife more than thirty minutes of television to watch 3 plate appearances.
So no. This only applies to pitching changes within an inning.
#2 would never work, and pick-offs really have no baring on the length of a baseball game.
#2 would make it so the runner would just have to bait you into 3 throw overs, and then he knows for a fact you can’t throw over again.
I updated the main entry with an UPDATE.
I find it interesting that this post is almost exactly five years after a pair of posts on a very similar topic.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-anti-let-the-pitcher-hit-thread/
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-pro-let-the-pitcher-hit-thread/
Pure coincidence.
But thanks for bringing those threads forward. I found those two threads a good way to have a debate, without the two sides shouting each other down.
Why not just have a DR (designated runner) in addition to a DH? Lets young, speedy guys get into the game and avoids all of this shuffling around and PH-burning.
Heck, you could even make the DR an NL-only feature so that both sides would have a fun little wrinkle.
There’s certainly an argument to be made that this is a less radical departure from tradition than the DH, though less simple. A perfect fit for a more technological age? My memory is failing me, but wasn’t the All-Star game played this year with the option for a designated fielder or pinch runner who wouldn’t replace the starter in the lineup spot?
Would this rule apply to pitchers as well? You state a team could bring in a defensive substitution and at the end of an inning decide whether to drop him or the guy he replaced. Could a team bring in a left handed specialist for an inning and then decide to drop him or the pitcher he replaced?
Excellent question. The rule as I’ve stated would indeed allow for that, since this would just be a defensive sub.
Obviously, you wouldn’t see that in practice with a starting pitcher, but I can certainly see that with a relief pitcher. Say for example you bring in your regular setup guy in the top of the 8th, and he gets the first two hitters out.
Then you bring in your LOOGY to face Ortiz. He gets Ortiz out. End of inning. At the end of the inning, the manager has to choose which of the two pitchers to knock out of the game. He’ll knock out the LOOGY.
At all times though, it’s always a choice of the last two players. In the above example, when the setup guy replaced the starting pitcher, it was those two guys that the manager would have had to make a choice. Once the LOOGY came in, it became between the LOOGY and the setup guy.
The danger for the manager is if the LOOGY lets Ortiz get on base, and there’s a RHH now at the plate. The manager would then replace the LOOGY with yet another reliever, thereby automatically knocking the original setup guy out of the game.
Having said all that: if you want to exempt the pitcher-as-fielder from this rule, I’d be ok with that. I’d prefer not having an exemption, but I also wouldn’t want this rule to become a focal point of strategy every time a pitcher gets relieved.
I don’t like this idea. I like the simplicity of “you’re either in the game, available to be used in the game or out of the game.”
And long live the DH.
Further, the umps have enough to worry about as it is rather than having to remember all of these pairs and making sure everyone who’s in is still eligible.
I think this is a really neat idea.
One question: What happens if you pinch run Billy Hamilton for the catcher, and then the team bats around? Who bats when that spot gets up again?
Obviously, not the biggest issue, but I’m just curious. If the rule is “replacement stay in until the end of the half-inning, then manager gets to choose,” then Hamilton would get the at-bat, yes?
I ahte the DH, so anything to get rid of it is good. Would it make the game longer?? More switches, more time?
Hate the DH.
A simpler suggestion for a rule that has a similar effect: allow re-entry. So, in the example given, Hamilton stays in via the double-switch. But the original catcher can still re-enter the game via re-entry at any point. If/when re-entry is used, Hamilton is permanently out. If the catcher is removed again, he, too, is permanently out.
It’s been mentioned a few times, so just to expand on those comments:
MLBPA would reject this outright. You could get every owner enthusiastically on board, and it dies the first time it’s brought up in negotiations.
Not only would current players (DH) be out a job, by spreading those at bats over a handful of pinch hitters, you are effectively replacing one high-paying job with a couple role players. The union is absolutely committed to supporting a few big contracts over more smaller ones. On the surface it’s roster-neutral, but contract-wise, I don’t think it would play out that way.
I hate you.
Downside: pitchers will still hit sometimes. When pitchers hit, fans are cheated.
Another reason to like this rule: It allows the back-up catcher to PH more often, at least in later innings.
If the manager knows that his pitcher (reliever or gassed starter) isn’t going back out to the mound for the next inning, and the pitcher’s spot is coming up in the order, the back-up catcher could be the pinch-hitter. Allows that back-up catcher to see more than just Sunday afternoon at-bats.
Argh, not sure I am interpreting the rule change correctly.
Unfortunately, I didn’t explain it well enough, if that’s your interpretation.
Once a player enters the game as a substitute, nothing changes for him: he either stays in the game, or he’s knocked out by the end of the half-inning.
What does change is for the “sub-ee”, the guy being replaced: if you want him to come back at the end of the half-inning, then he can. There’s a cost: the guy that replaced him is knocked out of the game.
So, in EVERY substitution, SOMEONE is knocked out of the game.
Thanks; the fault was mine (I’ve been thinking of other “lose the DH” rules changes before today and confused myself).
In that vein, perhaps I’d like to suggest a twist on the rule you state in your reply above (although it does not really help my backup catcher example): Managers each have a “resurrection” card that may be played to get a knocked-out player back in the game. This would allow an Ortiz to bat twice for the starting pitcher (not just once); or he may bat for the pitcher in one high leverage spot in the early innings, PLUS he may PH later in the game. (Maybe two “resurrection” cards could be better.)
I was trying to keep it as unobtrusive as possible. I think the logistics of the umpire tracking the number of re-entrances is too much for him.
At the end of the day, you are arguing to allow managers more FLEXIBILITY in the use of their rosters — that seems to be your only affirmative argument for the change as everything else you mention seems more defensive argument against those who might oppose the change (has no roster impact, is unobtrusive). Perhaps you hope also to eliminate the DH, which also served to reduce managerial flexibility, but you aren’t clear about that.
I’m not a fan of the DH because it eliminate a managerial decision that to me so compelling: When do you pinch hit for a pitcher who is throwing effectively when your team is trailing? That strategic choice was lost so that American league teams could produce more offense.
But not every managerial decision is equally compelling or has as much impact on the outcomes of games.
And more managerial flexibility is almost certainly not always a good thing. Imagine a universe in which managers can freely sub in and out players on every pitch and the bench becomes a revolving door in which fastball hitters are brought in for hitters counts and LOOGY slider specialists come in for a for 9 separate single pitches. At a certain point, too much flexibility dilutes the importance of each decision and delays the progression of the game.
So I don’t favor more managerial flexibility just for its own sake. What I want is for managers to have to make difficult choices when the game is at its most leveraged — those are the choices that become fun to debate and analyze.
I can see where more managerial flexibility would benefit sabremetrically-inclined analysts, whose services and expertise would presumable be needed to address discrete choices that are not currently part of the games.
But for fans, I think we should be more selective about how managers have the flexibility to make choices. Your post is a fun way to start the conversation.
I came on here to take a break from math and here I see a post titled “Substitution Rules”, ugh.
You suspected this would be a bad party, you confirmed it WAS a bad party, and you decided to… leave quickly and quietly? Nope! Gotta make sure to let everyone know this was a lame party, and you knew it was going to be lame.
No. I like your idea. It makes a lot of sense. However the odds of a) finding a title of an article that makes for a decent math joke, and b) has an audience in which people are likely to understand the reference, is not good. Therefore I seized the opportunity.
I actually sent a very similar idea to Bud Selig a couple years ago (alas no call back). The idea was to put a rule in place for the NL where you can PH for a pitcher at any time without pulling them (but you burn the batter). The quick change would be NL teams would put more bats on the bench at the expense of loogies/roogies (no change to 25 man roster limit). The net would be more offense and less pitching changes. The positive change in valuation you outlined for SPs who go deep and RPs who can pitch multiple innings applies.
There’s so many positives to doing this, especially in the NL. Pitchers don’t even hit in the minors anymore so they are mostly helpless (and ugly to watch). I think the management strategies it would introduce would make the NL game more fun for fans to watch than the AL/DH to the point that eventually the AL might adopt it.
Certain teams would be very opposed to TT’s proposal. The Tigers, for example, have just invested a lot of $ and years into VMart’s new contract. They’re not going to be fans of a rule change that will make it substantially more difficult for Victor to get >550 PA/season
The rule would take effect say in two years, or some other transition kind of rules.
Why not allow any player re-entry into play anytime, like all other sports?
Then you’d have the scenario of a player only playing the field and/or only coming to bat.
That happens in football, but not in the other sports.