Jump to content

Stealing First Base? Say It Ain't So!!


Principled Man
 Share

Recommended Posts

For the first time in baseball history, a batter has "stolen" first base. :o

 

On Saturday, an Atlantic League batter took first base on a wild pitch, marking the first time the feat has ever been accomplished. During the Southern Maryland Blue Crabs’ game against the Lancaster Barnstormers, Tony Thomas became the first player to ever "steal" first.

 

This is how "stealing" first base works. Any pitch on any count not caught in flight will be considered a live ball, and a batter may run to first base, similar to when a third strike is dropped.

 

So, when Alejandro Chacin’s 0-1 pitch went to the backstop, it became a live ball, giving Thomas the opportunity to dash to first base. Under normal circumstances, the count would be 1-1. Instead, Thomas was ruled safe at first with no outs.

 

Statistically, it is not a stolen base. Per the official scoring sheet, Thomas’ steal of first is recorded as a fielder’s choice because of the ability for the catcher to make a throw.

 

https://www.sporting...s4171upx5k5r5oi

Edited by Principled Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like it. I'm all for little tweaks and updates to the rules to keep the game moving or to help solve a problem, but this is a fundamental change in how baseball has been played for well over a century, just for the sake adding more excitement and offense (I guess juicing the ball isn't enough?). It's gimmicky, and I hate it.

 

A batter should earn first base because he/she put the ball in play and didn't get thrown out, or because the pitcher walked him or hit him with the pitch, or if he/she strikes out but the catcher couldn't complete the strikeout. Getting to first on a wild pitch isn't earning it -- the at-bat isn't over yet.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like it. I'm all for little tweaks and updates to the rules to keep the game moving or to help solve a problem, but this is a fundamental change in how baseball has been played for well over a century, just for the sake adding more excitement and offense (I guess juicing the ball isn't enough?). It's gimmicky, and I hate it.

 

A batter should earn first base because he/she put the ball in play and didn't get thrown out, or because the pitcher walked him or hit him with the pitch, or if he/she strikes out but the catcher couldn't complete the strikeout. Getting to first on a wild pitch isn't earning it -- the at-bat isn't over yet.

 

Amen, brother! We are of the same mind. :haz: I've used virtually the same words when arguing against this change. The hitter must earn his way on base.

 

The pitcher/hitter contest is the ultimate game within a game. The two adversaries spend their entire careers mastering the art of defeating each other. The rule change severely taints this contest.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juicing the ball works fine (apparently) for sending balls out of the park if the batter makes decent contact, but strikeouts are up not because the pitchers are so awesome but because the batters are swinging away, so somebody must think it's a good way to create more base-runners and therefore more strategy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it.

 

It's the job of the pitcher and the catcher (the battery) to prevent that batter from becoming a runner. The catcher has dual responsibility of helping to protect the bases from runner advancement when he has or should have control of the ball after a pitch is completed.

 

It's the batter's job to become a runner. By defeating the system that the battery has established.

 

If the battery creates an exploitable mistake, out of control of their system, then why shouldn't the batter take advantage and try to become a runner?

 

Myself, I don't think hitting the ball should be the only barrier to entry. I think that getting to base on a mistake, being faster than the catcher in that case is also valid. Much the same way that a baserunner can advance by stealing, exploiting those same kind of mistakes or the natural physics of the game. How fast the ball can be recovered, thrown, etc.

 

Again, it's about defeating the battery. Whose responsibility it is to keep batters from becoming runners, and runners from advancing.

 

I agree however that on a 3rd strike, that's it. If the 3rd strike happens to be on a wild pitch, then the batter should be out. He's had his swings.

 

EDIT: When I was a kid, I used to wonder why I wasn't allowed to steal first when a catcher screwed up. This was with me having played both as a catcher and first base most often.

Edited by grep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the 3rd strike happens to be on a wild pitch, then the batter should be out. He's had his swings.

 

I'm glad that you mentioned this. One of the fundamental rules of baseball is that in order for a batter or base runner to be called Out, a fielder must catch the ball securely. He cannot bobble or drop it. The fielder is then credited with the putout. If the ball is not secured, then the batter/runner has the option to stay where he is or try to advance to the next base.

 

The only valid reason for a batter running to 1st base is that the catcher did not secure the putout during Strike 3.

 

This new rule goes completely against the fundamental rule of getting a hitter out.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the 3rd strike happens to be on a wild pitch, then the batter should be out. He's had his swings.

 

I'm glad that you mentioned this. One of the fundamental rules of baseball is that in order for a batter or base runner to be called Out, a fielder must catch the ball securely. He cannot bobble or drop it. The fielder is then credited with the putout. If the ball is not secured, then the batter/runner has the option to stay where he is or try to advance to the next base.

 

The only valid reason for a batter running to 1st base is that the catcher did not secure the putout during Strike 3.

 

This new rule goes completely against the fundamental rule of getting a hitter out.

It's as if stepping up to the plate is now defined as being on base. If so, can the batter now steal first on a bad pickoff throw? Edited by goose
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the 3rd strike happens to be on a wild pitch, then the batter should be out. He's had his swings.

 

I'm glad that you mentioned this. One of the fundamental rules of baseball is that in order for a batter or base runner to be called Out, a fielder must catch the ball securely. He cannot bobble or drop it. The fielder is then credited with the putout. If the ball is not secured, then the batter/runner has the option to stay where he is or try to advance to the next base.

 

The only valid reason for a batter running to 1st base is that the catcher did not secure the putout during Strike 3.

 

This new rule goes completely against the fundamental rule of getting a hitter out.

It's as if stepping up to the plate is now defined as being on base. If so, can the batter now steal first on a bad pickoff throw?

 

Can he get to first base fast enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the 3rd strike happens to be on a wild pitch, then the batter should be out. He's had his swings.

 

I'm glad that you mentioned this. One of the fundamental rules of baseball is that in order for a batter or base runner to be called Out, a fielder must catch the ball securely. He cannot bobble or drop it. The fielder is then credited with the putout. If the ball is not secured, then the batter/runner has the option to stay where he is or try to advance to the next base.

 

The only valid reason for a batter running to 1st base is that the catcher did not secure the putout during Strike 3.

 

This new rule goes completely against the fundamental rule of getting a hitter out.

It's as if stepping up to the plate is now defined as being on base. If so, can the batter now steal first on a bad pickoff throw?

 

Can he get to first base fast enough?

A ball into the dugout or stands...or deep foul territory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a joke plain and simple. The game I used to love I now find to be a bore fest. I volunteer and work concessions at our local class A team the Myrtle Beach Pelicans. The games routinely even without much scoring are 3 hours plus. To much putzing around between pitches, delays after completed half innings etc. This suggested rule change while creative just seems another attempt to help offense and lengthen games even more...smh Edited by Narps
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a joke plain and simple. The game I used to love I now find to be a bore fest. I volunteer and work concessions at our local class A team the Myrtle Beach Pelicans. The games routinely even without much scoring are 3 hours plus. To much putzing around between pitches, delays after completed half innings etc.

To your point... https://www.sportsrec.com/7301658/the-average-length-of-major-league-baseball-games

 

During the 1970s, the average time of a Major League Baseball game was approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes. The [current] increase is related to several factors, including increased time between innings for TV and radio commercials. However, players also take longer between at bats and between pitches. Major league officials are concerned particularly about games that last more than three hours...

 

During the 2000 season, the average length of a Major League Baseball game was 2 hours and 58 minutes, according to MLB.com. Major league officials thought this was too long and told the umpires to speed things up. To speed the pace of the game, the league mandated such changes as not granting time when batters wanted to step out of the batter's box without a valid reason and demanding that pitchers throw the ball in more rapid succession.

 

Major League Baseball got the results it wanted in ensuing years. The average time of a Major League Baseball game was 2 hours and 54 minutes 2001; 2 hours and 52 minutes in in 2002 and 2 hours and 46 minutes in 2003. The figures remained similar through the 2006 season. However, in 2007, the average length of the game increased to 2 hours and 51 minutes...[and it's been increasing ever since]

 

According to the league, through Friday of last week, the average length for 9-innings was 3:00:58, that's down from the final average of 3:05:11 for games last season, but still about six minutes shy of the mark set by the league to keep the pitch clock from being implemented.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a joke plain and simple. The game I used to love I now find to be a bore fest. I volunteer and work concessions at our local class A team the Myrtle Beach Pelicans. The games routinely even without much scoring are 3 hours plus. To much putzing around between pitches, delays after completed half innings etc.

To your point... https://www.sportsre...-baseball-games

 

During the 1970s, the average time of a Major League Baseball game was approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes. The [current] increase is related to several factors, including increased time between innings for TV and radio commercials. However, players also take longer between at bats and between pitches. Major league officials are concerned particularly about games that last more than three hours...

 

During the 2000 season, the average length of a Major League Baseball game was 2 hours and 58 minutes, according to MLB.com. Major league officials thought this was too long and told the umpires to speed things up. To speed the pace of the game, the league mandated such changes as not granting time when batters wanted to step out of the batter's box without a valid reason and demanding that pitchers throw the ball in more rapid succession.

 

Major League Baseball got the results it wanted in ensuing years. The average time of a Major League Baseball game was 2 hours and 54 minutes 2001; 2 hours and 52 minutes in in 2002 and 2 hours and 46 minutes in 2003. The figures remained similar through the 2006 season. However, in 2007, the average length of the game increased to 2 hours and 51 minutes...[and it's been increasing ever since]

 

According to the league, through Friday of last week, the average length for 9-innings was 3:00:58, that's down from the final average of 3:05:11 for games last season, but still about six minutes shy of the mark set by the league to keep the pitch clock from being implemented.

 

Ban the use of batting gloves, and games will shorten by at least 10 minutes.

 

After every freaking pitch, the batter has to tend to his precious freaking gloves.....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a joke plain and simple. The game I used to love I now find to be a bore fest. I volunteer and work concessions at our local class A team the Myrtle Beach Pelicans. The games routinely even without much scoring are 3 hours plus. To much putzing around between pitches, delays after completed half innings etc.

To your point... https://www.sportsrec.com/7301658/the-average-length-of-major-league-baseball-games

 

During the 1970s, the average time of a Major League Baseball game was approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes. The [current] increase is related to several factors, including increased time between innings for TV and radio commercials. However, players also take longer between at bats and between pitches. Major league officials are concerned particularly about games that last more than three hours...

 

During the 2000 season, the average length of a Major League Baseball game was 2 hours and 58 minutes, according to MLB.com. Major league officials thought this was too long and told the umpires to speed things up. To speed the pace of the game, the league mandated such changes as not granting time when batters wanted to step out of the batter's box without a valid reason and demanding that pitchers throw the ball in more rapid succession.

 

Major League Baseball got the results it wanted in ensuing years. The average time of a Major League Baseball game was 2 hours and 54 minutes 2001; 2 hours and 52 minutes in in 2002 and 2 hours and 46 minutes in 2003. The figures remained similar through the 2006 season. However, in 2007, the average length of the game increased to 2 hours and 51 minutes...[and it's been increasing ever since]

 

According to the league, through Friday of last week, the average length for 9-innings was 3:00:58, that's down from the final average of 3:05:11 for games last season, but still about six minutes shy of the mark set by the league to keep the pitch clock from being implemented.

20 or 30 minutes when you think about seems insignificant but it really is significant. It seems an eternity at times. When working games we occasionally check the status of the game and almost like clockwork it's 1 hour per 3 innings. I'm convinced the dicking around between pitches is mostly the culprit. I remember like it was yesterday when Mike Hargrove came into the league and the old school announcers being flabbergasted about him stepping out after every pitch and adjusting everything. I really don't recall anyone doing it quite to that level before him. You get 18 guys doing the same and there you have it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pitch clocks, no repeated stepping out of the box, no warmups for relief pitchers, shorter commercial breaks.

 

Problem solved

 

Your third one is the only one I disagree with. I think you have to give the pitcher at least a few throws from the actual diamond mound to get the feel for the footing around the rubber.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a joke plain and simple. The game I used to love I now find to be a bore fest. I volunteer and work concessions at our local class A team the Myrtle Beach Pelicans. The games routinely even without much scoring are 3 hours plus. To much putzing around between pitches, delays after completed half innings etc.

To your point... https://www.sportsre...-baseball-games

 

During the 1970s, the average time of a Major League Baseball game was approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes. The [current] increase is related to several factors, including increased time between innings for TV and radio commercials. However, players also take longer between at bats and between pitches. Major league officials are concerned particularly about games that last more than three hours...

 

During the 2000 season, the average length of a Major League Baseball game was 2 hours and 58 minutes, according to MLB.com. Major league officials thought this was too long and told the umpires to speed things up. To speed the pace of the game, the league mandated such changes as not granting time when batters wanted to step out of the batter's box without a valid reason and demanding that pitchers throw the ball in more rapid succession.

 

Major League Baseball got the results it wanted in ensuing years. The average time of a Major League Baseball game was 2 hours and 54 minutes 2001; 2 hours and 52 minutes in in 2002 and 2 hours and 46 minutes in 2003. The figures remained similar through the 2006 season. However, in 2007, the average length of the game increased to 2 hours and 51 minutes...[and it's been increasing ever since]

 

According to the league, through Friday of last week, the average length for 9-innings was 3:00:58, that's down from the final average of 3:05:11 for games last season, but still about six minutes shy of the mark set by the league to keep the pitch clock from being implemented.

 

Ban the use of batting gloves, and games will shorten by at least 10 minutes.

 

After every freaking pitch, the batter has to tend to his precious freaking gloves.....

Stupid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pitch clocks, no repeated stepping out of the box, no warmups for relief pitchers, shorter commercial breaks.

 

Problem solved

 

Your third one is the only one I disagree with. I think you have to give the pitcher at least a few throws from the actual diamond mound to get the feel for the footing around the rubber.

Agreed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing...any and all fighting or leaving the dugout should be an automatic fine or even suspension. Enough already.

 

Not leaving the dugout can be really tough if your teammate is out there all alone .... against nine guys. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the first time in baseball history, a batter has "stolen" first base. :o

 

On Saturday, an Atlantic League batter took first base on a wild pitch, marking the first time the feat has ever been accomplished. During the Southern Maryland Blue Crabs’ game against the Lancaster Barnstormers, Tony Thomas became the first player to ever "steal" first.

 

This is how "stealing" first base works. Any pitch on any count not caught in flight will be considered a live ball, and a batter may run to first base, similar to when a third strike is dropped.

 

So, when Alejandro Chacin’s 0-1 pitch went to the backstop, it became a live ball, giving Thomas the opportunity to dash to first base. Under normal circumstances, the count would be 1-1. Instead, Thomas was ruled safe at first with no outs.

 

Statistically, it is not a stolen base. Per the official scoring sheet, Thomas’ steal of first is recorded as a fielder’s choice because of the ability for the catcher to make a throw.

 

https://www.sporting...s4171upx5k5r5oi

 

Incredible.

 

I would always make the joke that "you can't steal first base." I'm surprised Rickey Henderson never did it. MY MAN!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...