Joel Kupfersmid
Jul 10, 2017 · 13 min read

Baseball Heresies: Proposed Changes to the Game

Joel Kupfersmid, PhD

In my previous “Baseball Heresies” articles, seven in all, using the 2015 edition of the Official Rules of Baseball, I criticized many aspects of baseball and offered ways to improve this great game. In this article I summarize my previous proposals and add other suggestions. For those having read my previous articles, you can skip the section “Proposed Changes in the Official Scoring” and go to the section “Proposed Changes to Speed Up the Game.”

I realize many who follow baseball, including fans, players, ex-players, management, and those in the media often resist change. Baseball purist, as they are sometimes called, prefers to maintain the game the way it was played throughout most of their childhood and adolescent years. They love baseball and are fearful change will be detrimental.

Many purists enjoy comparing players and teams based on statistics, such as batting averages, home runs [HRs], or wins and loses. Change risks making comparisons suspect because conditions under which a player or team generated these numbers could be very different. Using statistical formulas to correct for differences in baseball, spanning over 100 years, G. Scott Thomas has written a book Leveling the Field to provide direct comparisons among players and teams across this time span.

In my younger years the number of HRs hit in a season or in a career received special consideration. When Roger Maris hit 61 HRs in 1961 many wanted to put an asterisks next to his HR total in the record book because Babe Ruth hit his 60 HRs in a 154 game season whereas Maris did it in a 162 games. Also, Maris didn’t hit his 61st HR until after the 154th game. A similar complaint was voiced when Hank Aaron needed more plate appearances before breaking Ruth’s career HR record. For the current generation the idea of these records needing an asterisk seems petty. Now the concern is with the records of those who played in the Steroid era. This is especially troubling for the Hall of Fame Committee.

Changes often resisted by the current generation are taken for granted by subsequent ones. Then, of course, a new generation resists changes that are taken for granted by the following generations. Now few complain about comparing records between players who played in a 162 game schedule with those playing a 154 game schedule [Note: in the 1880s it was 126 game schedule, in 1901 140 games, in 1904 a 154 games, and in 1961 it became 162 games]. In 1877 the pitching mound was 50 feet from home plate. This changed to the current 60 feet 6 inches in 1891. In 1969, due to lack of hitting, the mound’s height was lowered by 5 inches. In 1877 it took 9 balls for a walk. Every couple of years the number of balls for a walk was reduced until 4 balls became the standard in 1899. Perhaps the biggest change in recent times is the allowance in the America League of a DH in 1973.

With the possible exception of the DH, most baseball aficionados do not protest any of the above changes. Many do not realize that these changes occurred. No one suggests the mound height or distance should be altered (although, I will) or the number of balls for a walk return to some number above four. So, please keep an open mind to the variety of changes I propose.

In this article I incorporate my suggestions given in previous articles. I often do not provide my reasons for these changes. Rather, I note the article that gives my reasoning. In this article I also give my rationale for changes proposed that are not addressed in past articles.

Proposed Changes in the Official Scoring

Most of the changes presented here are discussed in detail in my three part series on “Baseball Heresies: When an Error is not an Error.” As noted in Part 1 of these articles, there is no definition of the term “error.” The official scorer must intuit the general concept from the examples presented in the Rules.

In Part 1 of my “Baseball Heresies” I defined a defensive error and proposed that balks, wild pitches, and past balls be counted as errors as noted below.

Defensive Errors

Proposal 1: Let’s define an error by the defensive when, in the judgment of the official scorer, the “ordinary effort” of a fielder [i.e., typical effort of that player — not some hypothetical average player at that position] results in [1] a batter continuing to bat when he should be out, [2] a batter making it safely to a base when he should have been out, or (3) a runner advancing safely to a base rather than remaining at his current base or being called out.

Proposal 2: Charge an error for wild pitches.

Proposal 3: Charge an error for balks with runner[s] on base.

Proposal 4: Charge an error for passed balls.

In Part 2, I propose a definition for errors on the offense and occurrences that should result in an error being charged.

Offensive Errors

Proposal 5: Charge an error when, in the judgment of the official scorer, the player’s behavior resulted in an out when, under usual circumstances/ordinary effort, an out would not have occurred.

In Part 2 of “Baseball Heresies I identified five occurrences where a batter causes an out not due to striking out, grounding out, or flying out. In essence, an out would not have occurred if the batter had not engaged in this action.

Proposal 6: Charge an error for batting out of turn.

Proposal 7: Charge an error if caught using an illegal bat or having a disallowed substances on his bat.

Proposal 8: Charge an error if the batter hits a pitch when both his feet are outside of the batter’s box.

Proposal 9: Charge an error to a batter interfering with a fielder attempting to field a ball.

Proposal 10. Charge an error when a batter interferes with the catcher attempting to throw out a runner stealing or tagging a runner advancing to home plate.

Also in Part 2 of “Baseball Heresies” I identified eight situations where a runner creates an out through his misplay.

Proposal 11: Charge an error to a player who is picked off a base.

Proposal 12: Charge an error to a player who is safe at a base but over runs/over slides the base and is tagged out.

Proposal 13: Charge an error to a runner hit by a batted ball.

Proposal 14: Charge an error to a player running out of the base liner.

Proposal 15: Charge an error to a runner interfering with a fielder making a play on a thrown or batted ball.

Proposal 16: Charge an error to a player failing to touch a base before proceeding to the next base or failing to properly tag up.

Proposal 17: Charge an error to a runner who crashes into the catcher.

Proposal 18: When there is more than one runner on base and the second runner passes up the runner in front of him he should be charged with an error.

In Part 2 of “Baseball Heresies” I identified three situations were a non-player’s behavior causes an out when, under usual circumstances/ordinary effort, none would have occurred. In these situations I recommend another category for errors — the team error.

Proposal 19: Charge a team error when their coach assists a runner.

Proposal 20: Charge a team error when their coach interferes with a runner.

Proposal 21: Charge a team error when a fielder, attempting to make a play, is interfered with by any member of the offense [who is not running the bases] including, but not limited to, players, coaches, and bat boy/bat girl.

Mental Errors

In Part 3 of “Baseball Heresies” I discuss “mental mistakes.” In some instances the Rules direct the official scorer to charge an error and sometimes not. Again, the Rules do not define a mental error. Rather, examples are given for events that count as errors and those that do not.

In Part 3 I did not define a mental mistake. I do so here:

Proposal 22: A mental mistake is an error based on a player’s decision [not a physical misplay as described in the definition of a defensive or offensive error] that, in the official score’s judgment, results in: [1] a batter continuing to bat when he should be out, [2] a batter making it safely to a base when he should have been out, or (3) a runner advancing safely to a base rather than remaining at his current base or being called out.

The following are proposed errors for mental mistakes currently not considered mental mistakes in the Rules.

Proposal 23: A fielder is charged with an error when failing to cover a base when, in the scorer’s judgment, under usual circumstances, he would have or should have done so.

Proposal 24: An error is charged when, in the score’s judgment, a fielder throws the ball to the wrong base.

Proposal 25: An error is charged to a fielder who interferes with a second fielder making a play and, in the judgment of the scorer, the second fielder clearly called for the ball or clearly should be making the play when no player called for the ball.

Sacrifices

As noted in my article “Baseball Heresies: When a Sacrifice is Not a Sacrifice,” the Rules do not define the term “sacrifice.” Similar to the error, the Rules provide examples to the official scorer for what is considered and not considered a sacrifice. If a player’s at bat is scored as a sacrifice he is not charged with making an out even though he did.

As discussed in this article, with less than two outs and a bunt advances a runner, the official scorer must read the batter’s mind and intention. Was his primary objective to advance the runner even if he made an out [thus, “sacrificing” his time at bat for a base hit?] Or, was his goal to get a base hit with advancing the runner as a secondary consideration?

However, if the player hits a fly ball that is caught and scores a runner the scorer does not have to mind read. The batter automatically is credited with a sacrifice regardless of his intent. Why must the official scorer mind read on a bunt and not on a fly ball?

I also note in this article that:

With a runner on second and no outs a sacrifice is scored if the batter bunted, but not if he hit a ground out to the right side advancing the runner to third.

With a running on third and less than two outs the batter is credited with a sacrifice if he bunts scoring the runner, but not if he swings hitting a dribbler down the third base line where the only play is at first, thus scoring the runner.

With less than two outs and a runner on third the batter hits a fly ball that is caught but the runner scores thus receiving a sacrifice, whereas he is not credited with a sacrifice if he hits a grounder in the hole that scores the runner and the fielder’s only play is at first base.

Proposal 26: With no outs and a runner on second, any ball advancing the runner with the batter being out at first [or should have been out if an error occurs] is a sacrifice. If there are runners on first and second and both runners advance a base and the batter is out at first [or would have been out if not for an error] this too is scored as a sacrifice.

Proposal 27: With less than two outs and a runner on third, any batted ball that safely advances the runner home and the batter is out at first base [or should have been out at first if an error occurs] is scored as a sacrifice.

Assuming the Double Play

In my article “Baseball Heresies: Assuming the Double Play” I make two arguments.

First, I note the official scorer is given the authority to judge/assume an error has occurred due to the absence of ordinary effort by a player. What makes the scorer incompetent to also judge/assume that a double play would have occurred if all player’s involved made their ordinary effort? Most fans and ball players can recognize when a double play should have been made. This is not a difficult judgment outside the range of a score’s abilities. In borderline situations the doubt should go to the runner and the double play is not assumed.

Second, the Rules automatically assume a double play if, for example, a runner going to second base “willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or fielder … with the obvious intent of breaking up a double play…” It does not matter if the batter is Rickey Henderson, the all-time base stealing leader, and he is resting on first base when the interference occurs, the double play stands. To quote myself:

“Baseball is currently stuck with the contradiction of assuming the double play if there is runner interference regardless of who is running the bases [even if they trip and fall] and denying this assumption, regardless of who is running the bases, when there is no interference.”

Proposal 28: Assign the official scorer the responsibility to assume a double play using the ordinary effort criterion. If there is doubt, give the benefit to the runner and do not assume the double play

Determining a Swing

In my article “Baseball Heresies: When a Swing is Not a Swing” there is no definition, or even examples, to guide umpires on what constitutes a swing and what does not. This leads to gross inconsistencies not only between umpires on determining a swing, but leads to inconsistencies by the same umpire from checked swing [termed ‘half swing” in the Rules] to checked swing by the same batter or different batters.

In this same article I provide a definition of a swing noting this definition applies to checked swings and attempted bunts. In borderline situations, I advise the benefit of doubt goes to the batter and no swing is called.

Proposal 29: When any part of the barrel of a batter’s bat passes the front of home plate this is a swing.

Base Stealing [indifference]

In my article “Baseball Heresies: When Indifference is Not Indifference” I discussed the Rules state a base steal is only recorder if, in the judgment of the official scorer, the defense tries to prevent it. The defense’s apathy to a base runner is termed” indifference.”

I discussed the Rules have a special “indifference” policy if a player, in the judgment of the scorer, advances uncontested from first to second and/ or from second to third. In these instances the runner is not credited with a steal. However, if he advances from home to first base [the most difficult base to advance to] on intentional walk indifference is not in effect. The player is not charged with a time at bat in determining his batting average and is credited with getting on base in calculating his on base percentage. Yet, the intentional walk does not require the scorer to make a judgment — the defense is clearly stating they do not care that the batter is advancing from home to first.

Similarly, if the defense is leading by many runs in the late innings and a grounder is hit to an infielder with less than two outs and a runner on third, the throw will invariably go to first base. The fielders do not care if a run scores. In this situation fielder’s apathy on a runner advancing a base and scoring a run is ignored. The runner gets credit for a run scored and the batter for the RBI.

Proposal 30: Delete the “indifference” policy from the Rules. Players receive credit for a stolen base in all circumstances regardless of the defense’s effort.

The following are proposed changes that have not been discussed in my previous articles.

Proposed Changes to Speed Up the Game

Critics of baseball, and many baseball fans, contend the pace of the game is too slow especially compared to other popular team sports such as basketball, football, and hockey. I believe there is merit to their criticism.

In an effort to speed up the game the Rules state a pitcher must deliver his pitch within 12 seconds after receiving the ball back from the catcher. If the pitcher exceeds this time the umpire is to call a “ball.” I have never seen this rule enforced.

Another way to speed up the game is at the beginning of an inning starting pitchers, or relieve pitchers entering the game, are allowed eight warm up pitches or one minute of warm ups. When watching games on TV there is usually three minutes of commercials during this time so I’m not sure if this is enforced.

The latest way to quicken the game is pitchers no longer have to throw four balls for the intentional walk. The batter simply is waved to go to first base.

Here are other ways to speed up the game, some are very controversial.

Proposal 31: Pitchers, starters and relievers, are allowed a maximum of 5 warm-up pitches except when there is an injury to a pitcher. Then the current Rules apply.

Proposal 32: The catcher or other fielders can only visit the pitcher one time per batter unless there is a change of pitchers for that batter.

Proposal 33: For batters with two strikes and three balls if they foul off more than five consecutive balls they have struck out [Note: pitchers will love this. Also note if Proposal 34 is adopted, then this rule applies to batter’s with a two strike and a two ball count].

Proposal 34: Three balls generates a walk to the batter [Note: batters will love this. Why give pitchers a “wasted” pitch, it is hard enough to get a base hit. The three balls and a walk encourage pitchers to put more pitches in the strike zone.]

Proposed Changes to Create More Excitement

While announcers sometimes spin “this is a good old fashion pitcher’s duel” as an exciting game, I believe fans want to see base hits, not just home runs. The whole idea of moving back the pitcher’s mound in the late 1800s, reducing the height of the mound in 1963, and instituting the DH were all initiated to generate more hits and more runs.

Sportingchart.com. provides a graph of the average number of total runs per game over the years. I have arbitrarily taken the year 2000 as my starting point. In that year the combine runs for both teams in a game averaged 10.28 runs. This average has steadily declined every year. In 2016 it was 8.29. The most likely culprit is that pitcher’s are getting harder to hit primarily because of the increase in speed of their pitches. Hardball Times give the average speed of a pitcher’s fast ball from 2002–2009. In 2002 it was 89.9 mph; in 2009 it was 91.2 mph. I would bet the mortgage this number is above 92 mph now.

I advance several proposals to increase the hitting and scoring without turning baseball into a slow pitch softball game. Proposal 34 [where 3 balls results in a walk] has already been mention. If adopted, this proposal will force pitchers to throw more pitches in the strike zone or risk being behind in the count more often. Three other changes are noted below.

Proposal 35: Allow bigger bats. Currently the barrel of a bat cannot exceed 2.61 inches and the length cannot exceed 42 inches. Increase the barrel maximum to 3 inches and the length to 45 inches.

Proposal 36: Move the pitching rubber back to 65 feet from home plate. This gives the batter slightly more time to swing. [Pitchers will hate this].

Proposal 37: Eliminate the balk. As long as the pitcher is throwing from the rubber he can wind up any way he wants and throw to a base even if his legs are directed towards home plate. [Note: pitchers will love this, runners will hate it. This makes stealing a base much harder. Also note: if this proposal is enacted, then Proposal 3 is unnecessary.]

So, there you have it — enough proposed changes guarantying many will be welcomed and just as many will be hated.