An Idiot Asks: Baseball Edition

[San Bernardhinault]

Rather than derail the main baseball thread, which is full of fantastic deep-dive stuff from the likes of Ursus and Flynnie and Reed, people who've spent their lives immersed in the sport and understand all the subtleties of the culture that surrounds it, I thought I'd start a separate thread where I can just ask questions that seem stupid, but which I have no answer to yet.

(A while back Ursus answered a key question of mine - which was what happens to balls after they're used: it turns out that they generally just get a single outing in the major leagues, regardless of the insane cost of getting through what must be 200-300 balls per game)

My guess is that most of the questions will be referenced through cricket, because that's a sport I (better) understand.

Anyway, first up is this:

Is there such a thing as "caught behind"? I understand that if a batter hits the ball way up in the air, the catcher can run and catch it. But is there a "thin edge", where the ball doesn't deviate much despite hitting the bat? Is that out?

[Amor de Cosmos]

Isn't it a foul and the catcher has to tag the batter?

[San Bernardhinault]

And a second one, straight away thanks to what's happening in the current wild-card game.

I am utterly baffled by the bullpen.

It appears that there are loads of reserve pitchers on any one team. Does the bullpen also contain all the starting pitchers who are mostly having a rest that day? Can you bring one of your other starters out, if your first starting pitcher is utter dross and needs to be pulled early? Or do the non-starting starters take the day off completely?

If so, why is that? Is there a limit to how many relief pitchers you're allowed?

And if there is a limit, does that become problematic if a match stretches into a 14th or 15th inning?

(There are many more nagging questions about the bull pen and relief pitchers to come, I'm sure).

[ursus arctos]

Caught behinds only exist on third strikes.

If the catcher catches a foul tip on the full on what would have been a third strike, the batter is out.

Bullpen usage has become bizarre even to those of us who have been obsessed with the sport for 50+ years.

Yes, the starters will be sitting in the bullpen (though some might not be during the regular season). Yes, they are eligible to pitch. No, there are no limits on how many pitchers may be used in a single game. Some club used at least 11 in an extra inning game this season.

All of this has changed dramatically during my lifetime, but it doesn't really matter what the prior reality was.

[San Bernardhinault]

Thank you.

Just to check, and this is why my thread is called "An Idiot Asks":

- Have I just missed it all along, and you can't be caught off a foul ball on first or second strikes?
- Also, is there a reason I've never seen someone out off what cricketers would call a thin edge? Is it just too hard to catch these?

[ursus arctos]

Not an idiot question.

You can’t be out on a first or second strike off what we call a “foul tip”, which is roughly the same as a thin edge. You can, however, be out off of a “foul pop”, which is more like a thick edge that goes up in the air and would be taken by the keeper. Obviously, the absence of slip fielders makes all of these dismissals less likely than they are in cricket.

[San Bernardhinault]

And - continuing to ask - how is the difference between a "tip" and a "pop" determined?

[ursus arctos]

To quote Justice Stevens, you know it when you see it.

That said, a tip is only airborne for an instant, whereas a pop is in the air for seconds.

The number of balls that are on the margins is extremely small, largely because there are no slips to catch anything that gets by the catcher

[San Bernardhinault]

Interesting. That has to be one of the very few sports laws anywhere that's not fully codified.

[ursus arctos]

It really almost never comes up.

Essentially, a tip is something that the catcher can take on the fly without taking a step. A pop is anything else.

The very different profiles of the bats also adds to this.

[tee rex]

I wouldn't want San B to be the only idiot here, so ...

Players are usually referred to by fielding position, aren't they? So how important is that, compared with batting ability (ignoring pitchers)? Again, the cricket comparison: there are a few specialists (Jonty Rhodes) but generally you are an "opener" or "spinner" first, and you work on your fielding. So, in baseball can you be a rubbish fielder who is hidden somewhere, as long as you clout the home runs?

I like the idea of Middlesex trading a gully for a Sussex mid-on, though.

[ursus arctos]

Traditionally one hides one’s worst fielders at first base and in left field, while shortstop is the position at which a team can carry a poor hitter who is a wizard with the glove.

Obviously, the A erican League’s embrace of the Designated Hitter has created a full time position that never requires taking the field (the DH bats in place of a team’s wiporst hitter, virtually always the pitcher).

[jefe]

Players are usually referred to by fielding position, aren't they? So how important is that, compared with batting ability (ignoring pitchers)? Again, the cricket comparison: there are a few specialists (Jonty Rhodes) but generally you are an "opener" or "spinner" first, and you work on your fielding. So, in baseball can you be a rubbish fielder who is hidden somewhere, as long as you clout the home runs?

First base, sometimes right field are where you put huge bulky guys who can't run, can't field, but hit the shit out of the ball.

[Hot Pepsi]

UA has explained the foul-tip well. On the first two strikes, it's no different from a swinging strike. On the third strike, if the catcher catches it, it's strike three. If he drops it, it's a foul.

Otherwise, if a catcher doesn't cleanly catch strike three, the batter can run to first and the defense has to tag or throw him out at first, otherwise it's not an out (though it counts as a strike out for the pitcher's stats) and he becomes a runner on first. It happens sometimes when the batter misses on a big curve ball that also gets past the catcher.


Defense:

The right-fielder has to have a better arm than the left-fielder because they often have to try to get runners out at third-base.

Nobody, except a DH, can really be a bad fielder. As statistics has become more advanced, the importance of defense has become more important. There are some big-hitting left-handed klutzes who play first-base, but that becomes a liability eventually.

Still, it doesn't require much throwing, so it's the easiest defensive position (though still extremely hard).

After first-base, third-base is probably the next "easiest" infield position, followed by second-base, and then shortstop.

Catcher is unique. Very occasionally an organization will convert a player from another position into a catcher, but usually it goes the other way. Catchers get hurt a lot and usually take longer to develop into big league starters, so very good hitting high school catchers - like Bryce Harper - will be converted to an easier position to get them to the big leagues faster.

Infield is about agility and quickness, but outfield requires running speed, with centerfield requiring the most.

[San Bernardhinault]

Is there anyone who bats like a drain who plays as an outfielder? Is fielding ever that important, or is it really secondary to batting ability?

[Hot Pepsi]

It's becoming more important as statisticians are figuring out how to quantify it.

There are some not-so-great hitters who are very good defensively in center field. They can also supplement their weak offense by stealing a lot of bases. The Reds Billy Hamilton is like that, but his on-base percentage this year was only .299, which isn't helpful for a lead-off batter.

[San Bernardhinault]

Also, I understand that my perspective is coming to this from a paradigm where substitutions are rare, and have a massive premium and high cost, so perhaps it's not a fair question but:

Designated Hitter seems like a massively, spectacularly terrible thing. Is there any sporting defence of it at all, or is it just (as it looks to me) a trite way of getting a few more runs scored at the expense of actual sporting contest?

[ad hoc]

The "right" in right-fielder is as seen from the catcher's/umpires perspective then? Not looking towards home plate from the outfield/pitching mound? I realise that's something I've never really thought about either.

[Hot Pepsi]

On the DH...

The defense of it is that pitchers are usually so bad at hitting that it's more interesting for fans and more challenging for opposing pitchers to face a better hitter.

[Hot Pepsi]

The "right" in right-fielder is as seen from the catcher's/umpires perspective then? Not looking towards home plate from the outfield/pitching mound? I realise that's something I've never really thought about either.

Yes, it's from the perspective of the batter/umpire/catcher and most of the fans. Right field is behind first base and left field is behind third base.

[San Bernardhinault]

Thanks again, everyone. Very helpful, so far. I'll understand this sport properly once I've lived here for about 30 years.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Yes. (To ad hoc)

Designated Hitter seems like a massively, spectacularly terrible thing. Is there any sporting defence of it at all, or is it just (as it looks to me) a trite way of getting a few more runs scored at the expense of actual sporting contest?

UA and HP will correct me on this, but the DH was the brainchild of A's owner Charlie Finley. He was very much a carny who loved gimmicks to keep bums on seats — once hiring a circus midget because his strike zone was so small you could count on him getting on base. The idea of the the DH was to create more runs, as the pitcher was almost always a "wasted" at bat. During the late 60s I believe runs were down, and so were crowds, as teams began moving into large multi-purpose stadiums without baseball configurations. The American League bought the idea, and have stuck with it, perhaps because it gives them a separate identity from the NL. Purists hate it naturally

[Flynnie]

Yes. (To ad hoc)

Designated Hitter seems like a massively, spectacularly terrible thing. Is there any sporting defence of it at all, or is it just (as it looks to me) a trite way of getting a few more runs scored at the expense of actual sporting contest?

UA and HP will correct me on this, but the DH was the brainchild of A's owner Charlie Finley. He was very much a carny who loved gimmicks to keep bums on seats — once hiring a circus midget because his strike zone was so small you could count on him getting on base. The idea of the the DH was to create more runs, as the pitcher was almost always a "wasted" at bat. During the late 60s I believe runs were down, and so were crowds, as teams began moving into large multi-purpose stadiums without baseball configurations. The American League bought the idea, and have stuck with it, perhaps because it gives them a separate identity from the NL. Purists hate it naturally

Yep, if you're a fan of a National League team, you hate the DH pretty much without exception. It's weird and rare when you meet an NL fan who likes it.

The 1960s were the era of the pitcher for the reason you mentioned - teams would build new stadiums with exceptionally deep power alleys, mounds weren't regulated and teams would build them well above the 18 inch maximum (the Dodger Stadium mound was compared to the White Cliffs of Dover). They finally cracked down on mounds after 1968, when the American League hit .230 for a season and Carl Yastrzemski won the batting title with .301. Just as importantly, they shrank the strike zone from the shoulders to the letters on the uniform. The American League was notorious for the high strike then.

Now here's where the fun begins.

After a brief boost in offense, the AL began to regress starting in 1971 (the National League did not). By 1972, their hitters hit just .239. I don't entirely know why. Perhaps the high strike made a comeback, aided by the bulky chest protectors AL umpires wore then (the leagues had different umpiring practices, since the leagues were much more independent then and would remain so into the 90s). AL ballparks did seem to be more spacious than National League ones, lots of teams with 380-390 foot power alleys versus the NL.

The AL was generally the weaker league then with lower attendance. They were still getting over the hangover of the Yankees pounding them into submission year after year after year. They had been slower to integrate than the NL. They probably had more bad owners - Finley* certainly, but also Bob Short of the Senators/Rangers, the Indians were bounced around and should have been sold to George Steinbrenner, CBS was screwing up the Yankees then, Tom Yawkey with the Red Sox, etc.

I suspect they panicked and decided to bring in the DH to help boost offense and therefore attendance. They all hated Finley to a man, but who wanted to see the pitcher hit anyway?


* Finley was a baseball operations savant; he never had a general manager and basically built the 1970s A's (who won the World Series three straight years, and won the AL West five years in a row) and the early 1980s A's (the Billyball team) himself. But he was a dreadful promoter, mostly due to being a cheapskate but I think also due to being, essentially, a contrarian who had to zig left while everyone else zagged right.

[Ginger Yellow]

And - continuing to ask - how is the difference between a "tip" and a "pop" determined?

Technically:

"A FOUL TIP is a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the catchers hands and is legally caught.

[WOM]

Two of Toronto's best fielders (Pillar in Centre, Bautista in Right) are also two of our best hitters. Whoever's in Left is usually a mess in position, but can generally hit.

Our best slugger ever, Encarnacion, was hidden safely at first. When they do the traditional 'post-out throw around', they never included Edwin because he genuinely couldn't throw the ball.