Football games last just as long and have no more time of actual action. Hockey, obviously, has a noteworthy problem with rage and violence. Most of this unwritten rule nonsense started when games were shorter. The pace of the game has nothing to do with this.
Many of them are babies. If a pitcher is in a contract year the last thing they want is being shown up with a grand slam.
Sounds like a good reason to pitch better, to me.
In no other professional US sport is it anything but verboten to respond to being outplayed with blatant attempts to harm or injure opposing players. Yet we still have people in this thread attempting to not only defend such actions, but place the blame on the guy that played better.
Personally, i think unintentionally hitting the batter should be a home run, and intentionally hurting the batter should be a firing offense. In how many jobs can you assault your coworkers and business associates and keep your job?
Agree with the first half.
As to the second, determining intent is difficult. I’d start with he’s ejected from the game and if a starter, sits out his next 3 spots in the rotation. For relievers it’s have to be something proportionate that’s also predetermined.
The point is to make it so expensive that no sensible player would do it and no sensible management would tolerate a player doing it. At least not more than once.
Fair.
I once had a co-worker who threw a punch at another co-worker, and he wasn’t immediately fired. He was fired several months later when he threatened someone with bodily harm. I wasn’t present, and it might have been hyperbole, but due to his prior (and some other issues) he was fired on the spot.
This is just dumb. Show me the distinction between a “clean” and an “unclean” hit. A bunt is a legitimate hit like any other. Otherwise it would be against the rules.
Right. By RealityChuck’s logic, a lucky broken-bat single that bloops over the infield should be ruled an out for being an unclean hit. And an absolute rocket off the bat that goes straight into the glove of the center fielder should be ruled a single, and the hitter allowed to walk to first base, because he hit the ball so cleanly.
There are, at bottom, two possibilities in any given plate appearance: the batter gets out, or the batter does not get out. The fundamental aim, the main task, the central and defining job of the batter in any given plate appearance is not to get out, and if a bunt seems like the best way to do that in a given situation, then it’s a perfectly legitimate tactic.
Depending on where the bunt goes, it can be far more successful than swinging. (From 2011)
Batting Average by Zone, 2011
Non-Sacrifice Situations
|Zone 1 |.246|
|Zone 2 |.412|
|Zone 3 |.164|
|Zone 4 |.139|
|Zone 5 |.520|
|Zone 6 |.720|
|Overall |.438|
So bunting to break up a no-hitter is more likely to succeed than going mano-a-mano and swinging away.
Why should a team be punished to that degree for an unintended action? And then on top of that you want it to be able to immediately change the outcome of a game? In the bottom of the 9th hitting a batter unintentionally could end a game. In other sports the defense can’t run out the clock on defensive fouls or penalties, but neither can those offensives give the game to a team behind on the scorecard.
Eject a pitcher for hitting a batter. If you can actually determine it was intentional then penalize the pitcher. In the game of baseball taking first base has a sufficient effect on the game itself. As it is the result can change the outcome of the game if the bases are loaded.
What’s this “mano a mano” nonsense? How is bunting not “hand against hand” but swinging is?
Timing a pitch and swinging accurately is far more difficult that sticking the bat in the path of the ball.
Right. So if you want a hit then bunting makes a lot more sense. That’s assuming you want to win games, I can think of a few teams who don’t seem to be interested in that.
Swinging at a pitch is by definition “sticking the bat in the path of the ball.”
A lot of things in games might be more or less difficult. That’s irrelevant. Either something is legal or it isn’t.
But bunting for a hit (instead of a sacrifice) is probably more difficult than swinging for one, which is why only the speediest players and ones who can place the ball accurately even try to do it.
The original complaint was about bunting to break up a no-hitter, that is, with the intention of getting a hit rather than a sacrifice (which doesn’t count as a hit). That’s particularly absurd because it’s quite difficult to do, much more difficult than bunting as a sacrifice just to move the runners over. A hit is a hit, so if you can get a hit on a bunt that’s as good as any other single. You might as well say that if a pitcher has a no-hitter going you shouldn’t try to get a hit.
I mean, any error is unintended, and every team is punished for errors. If the fielder accidentally drops the ball, his team is severely punished, and it can end the game.
I think that committing an assault on another player is a big deal. I am shocked to read that some people think it’s natural for the pitcher to want to hit the batter in the head. I’m sorry, that’s not part of the game, and the punishment for it should be sever enough that everyone is STRONGLY incented to avoid doing it.
Well, as mentioned above, that would hardly be the only kind of error that changes the outcome of the game. And just taking the pitcher out feels like no penalty at all. Now, if it meant the pitcher was taken out of that game, and the next few games, and didn’t get paid for those games, it might be enough of a penalty.
My concern is more that an over-eager batter might intentionally move into the line of the ball if it were too beneficial to his team, honestly. That would be a bad (and unintended consequence.) But basically, I want the rules around the pitcher hitting the batter to be draconian enough that it almost never happens, and when it does, everyone is shocked and the fans on the pitchers’ team are all upset that he screwed up.
While I agree pitchers should take care to not hit a batter, instituting draconian penalties for even unintentional hits would substantially change the game. Pitchers would need to give up the inner part of the strike zone, resulting in way more balls outside and thus more walks.
While I don’t disagree that the penalty for intentionally throwing at a batter should be severe, I think the present penalty for an accidentally hitting a batter is about right. The game has some inherent risks and you can’t eliminate all of them.
Teams aren’t ‘punished’ for dropping the ball. It’s part of the game. We’re not talking about an ‘error’ in the baseball scoring sense, we’re talking about a pitch to an unintended location. If not for the inherent danger and need to dissuade any such accidents sending the batter to first base would be too harsh.
If it’s intentional it is a big deal, I’d suggest pitchers should be ejected, suspended, and charged with assault and battery if the batter or the league requests it. I don’t think it should be scored as a home run though. Mainly that’s because determining intention is a judgement call. If you give a team a home run, which may end the game, and on later review it doesn’t seem like the act was intentional then game result can’t be changed in any fair way. But I have to say that disincentivizing the behavior is important enough than maybe it does take that kind of penalty, but there’s a difference between throwing behind a guy’s head and a brush back pitch that’s too far inside.
That does happen and a batter will be called out for it. Batters have to make an effort to avoid getting hit.
Any part of the uniform is part of the batter, so a ball brushing the fold of a batter’s jersey is being hit by a pitch. That’s not assault. That’s a result of throwing a ball at 100 MPH within 6" of a person. The vast majority of HBP aren’t intentional, nor do they cause any damage. It’s an accepted part of the game.
The majority of intentional HBP aren’t head shots or throws behind a batter. Without bad blood they are painful but accepted as part of the game. Pitchers pick their spots when doing so because giving a team a free baserunner is often too big a price to pay. The penalty works.
Headhunting, BTW, probably can’t be prosecuted as assault in the US.
While I hate the idea of pitchers throwing at batters, too, assigning a four-base award to any example of a batter being struck by a pitch would result in genuine absurdities. Most hit batters are NOT intentional, and are mostly guys getting brushed by a pitch or having it just nick them (a ball that just hits your uniform counts, too.)
Ejecting, and then subsequently suspending pitchers - and their managers - after the fact for hit batters that seem to be intentional is a somewhat more logical strategy in that
-
It allows for the league to distinguish between things like a pitch just nicking a guy’s shoe and a pitcher actually trying to hit someone,
-
It assigns the direct penalty to the people actually responsible, and
-
It doesn’t cause a weirdly disproportional direct impact on the game that might cause an extreme alteration in scoring levels, which the “home run for being hit” thing almost certainly would. I mean DRASTIC. It would totally change the sport, in part because of this:
First of all, the batter isn’t called out for being deliberately hit by the ball. The batter being hit is simply disregarded, and the pitch is called a ball or strike depending on where it was; if the ball is in the strike zone, the batter is never awarded first base; a strike is called and the ball is dead, whether the batter was trying to avoid it or not. If the ball is out of the strike zone, but the batter makes no effort to avoid it, a ball is called, and the ball is dead.
Having said that, this rule is almost never enforced. It’s very hard to judge intent, and quite frankly batters often cannot make any discernible effort to avoid the pitch; they freeze or really don’t have time to do anything before it hits them. If you got a four base award for getting hit… well, guys would freeze a lot more. Pitchers would be unable to pitch inside. It’d screw the whole sport up.