Should dropped third strike rule be changed?

[coxfan]

The ending of Humber's perfect game illustrates what I've thought for my whole 55 years a baseball fan: That the dropped third strike rule should be abolished.

Suppose the plate umpire had called "ball four" on the borderline check swing on the last batter, who had a 3-2 count. Then the White Sox catcher appeals while chasing the ball, and the first-base umpire calls "strike three" on the appeal.

Suddenly the batter-runner, who's trotting to first on the "ball four" call, has to realize he's suddenly become vulnerable and start running like crazy. Maybe the home-plate ump had this in mind when he ruled the check-swing was a swinging strike, so the batter would know right away he had to run.

Usually batters don't bother to run on a dropped third strike if the catcher's holding the ball; or he just trots toward first. Only occasionally is this rule significant. The rule goes back at least to the 1840's. I'm not sure any historian knows why it was created.

[xpress34]

Re: Should dropped third strike rule be changed?

Maybe this will help shed some light on it and it's history.

I agree with the writer that if you want to rescind this rule, you need to look at the infield fly rule as well.

Inside the rules: it’s not a dropped third strike
by David Wade
November 16, 2010

A "dropped" third strike can result in four strikeouts in one inning. That's happened 54 times. It can also dramatically change a game, even a postseason series. That's happened at least a couple of times. The "dropped" third strike can even make people wonder why it exists. That has happened countless times over the years.

First, one minor point of clarity. Many umpires will qualify that it is not the "dropped" third strike rule. Apparently the correct terminology is an uncaught third strike. While a bobble that falls to the ground does violate the rule, the ball doesn't have to be dropped and it certainly doesn't have to be dropped purposely. That's the point of the clarification. In fact, the ball could sail right past the catcher and remain a live ball after a third strike, whether called or swinging.

Here is the relevant rule:

A batter is out when-

6.05 (b) A third strike is legally caught by the catcher;

Rule 6.05(b) Comment: "Legally caught" means in the catcher's glove before the ball touches the ground. It is not legal if the ball lodges in his clothing or paraphernalia; or if it touches the umpire and is caught by the catcher on the rebound. If a foul tip first strikes the catcher's glove and then goes on through and is caught by both hands against his body or protector, before the ball touches the ground, it is a strike, and if third strike, batter is out. If smothered against his body or protector, it is a catch provided the ball struck the catcher's glove or hand first.


6.05 (c) further states that the batter is out if "A third strike is not legally caught by the catcher when first base is occupied before two are out;"

Further, section 6.09 defines situations where the batter becomes a runner and covers the uncaught third strike from the batter's perspective.

The batter becomes a runner when:

6.09 (b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out;

Rule 6.09(b) Comment: A batter who does not realize his situation on a third strike not caught, and who is not in the process of running to first base, shall be declared out once he leaves the dirt circle surrounding home plate.

The original rule about catching the third strike emerged around 1880, about 15 years before players began widespread use of gloves. Some believe the 'dropped' third strike came from devious catchers purposely muffing a pitch to try and get two outs instead of one. For example, with the bases loaded, a dropped third strike could easily lead to a double play, and possibly a triple play. It's a gambit that seems difficult with modern day pitchers and their 100 m.p.h. fastballs and fast-breaking sliders, but pitchers in the early days of baseball didn't have quite the arsenal and a play like that could have been popular.

However, it's doubtful that the purposeful drop was the sole contributor to the rule of a clean catch on strike three. If it were, rule 6.05 (c) would suffice to protect the base runners, just like the Infield Fly Rule. 6.05 (c) is similar to the infield fly and surely would be the lone rule in the matter if deception by the catcher were the only catalyst to the uncaught third strike.

One thing that makes 6.05 (b), and the idea that rules require a clean catch for the out on strikes, mesh with the rest of baseball's rules is that a defender must catch the ball to record an out. With no force and no tag on a batter before the ball is in play, the act of catching the ball cleanly on a pitch must have seemed necessary to early rule makers.

MLB amended the comment after Rule 6.09 (b) in 2007. Previous language allowed the batter-runner to still attempt to reach first base until he reached his dugout or defensive position. One can understand the purpose of this change by imagining a batter that, after striking out and noticing the catcher failing to make a legal catch, acts as if he will return to the dugout, only to try for first base when the defense believes the inning is over. As we will see shortly, the 2005 ALCS may have drawn the attention of MLB to the comment in 6.09 (b) and led to this revision.

Of course, meshing the original rule to the rest of baseball's rules does not make sense to everyone, especially pitchers that work hard to get third strikes. Over at Insidethebook, they link to a John Wetteland interview where the former pitcher makes the fine point that a batter down on strikes has done nothing to deserve first base, and shouldn't reach just because the catcher couldn't make a clean catch.

But, as frustrating as this rule may be for pitchers, the clean catch to finish the strikeout comes from the earliest days of the game. Wetteland wants to repeal the wrong part of the rule, if he's looking to benefit pitchers, and he should feel the same way about the Infield Fly Rule. Pitchers would be better off with 6.05 (c) specifically rescinded, and the clean catch rule left intact. The trade off of double plays, compared to those batters that reach with first base open after an uncaught third strike, would rarely effect pitchers adversely.

Of course, rarely means it would still happen. There are at least two instances where a muffed third strike impacted pitchers, the outcome of the game, and the momentum of a postseason series.

In the 1941 World Series, The Brooklyn Dodgers ended a long stretch of poor baseball by their franchise to meet the always successful New York Yankees. As Ron Fimrite wrote in Sports Illustrated, 1941 was an amazing year in baseball, with Joe Dimaggio hitting in 56 straight games and Ted Williams batting .406 on the year. The Dodgers had spent most of the previous seasons near the bottom of the standings, but had turned their fortunes around in the previous couple of years. They not only surprised baseball by winning the pennant in 1941, they surprised the powerful Yankees by taking the lead in the Series.

In game four, Brooklyn was only one out away from evening the series. Dodgers reliever Hugh Casey faced Tommy Henrich with the Yankees down to their last batter. Henrich, whose nicknames include "Old Reliable" and "The Clutch", would become the first player to hit a walk-off home run in a World Series eight years later. But before that, he dealt with Casey in 1941. Henrich worked the count full before a Casey breaking ball got him to swing and miss for strike three, and what would have been the end of the game. Unfortunately, Dodger catcher Mickey Owen didn't catch the ball and Henrich made it safely to first. A subsequent rally by the Yankees stunned Brooklyn and turned that game around. It also turned around the series and immortalized the uncaught third strike.

In 2005, an uncaught third strike once again changed the outcome of a postseason series. Television replays and an umpire's mechanics made this one even more controversial.

That year, the Chicago White Sox reached the postseason, looking to win their first World Series since 1917. They faced the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in the American League Championship Series. The Angels took the series opener in Chicago and had an opportunity to take a 2-0 lead back to their home field. Then A.J. Pierzynski changed the dynamic of the series when he reached first on an uncaught third strike.

It was a tie game, the White Sox had no runners on base, and the Angels were one out away from forcing extra innings. Pierzynski, the White Sox catcher, swung and missed on a 3-2 pitch from the Angels' Kelvim Escobar. After plate umpire Doug Eddings indicated strike three, Angels' catcher Josh Paul thought the inning was over and rolled the ball back to the mound. Pierzynski knew the pitch was low and wasn't sure Paul had caught it cleanly. The White Sox backstop took a chance and ran to first. Eddings ruled that Paul did trap the ball, and Pierzynski became the go ahead run when he reached first safely. The Sox won the game later that inning—and their next eight postseason games—for their first championship in 88 years.

Controversy surrounded the play, ranging from Eddings' third-strike-fist-pump to replays showing Paul possibly making a clean catch. Many pointed to Pierzynski's reputation as a villain and figured he took advantage of the situation, maybe going as far as intentionally faking out the Angels.

Pierzynski did take advantage of a close play on that uncaught third strike. Perhaps he even duped his opponents, acting initially like he'd resigned himself to a strikeout. Perhaps somewhere, John Wetteland cursed a rule that's been around for 120 years.

[xpress34]

Re: Should dropped third strike rule be changed?

OBR 6.09(b):

"Historical notes: Under the original Major League Code (1876), a batsman who struck at and missed a third strike OR failed to strike at a "good ball" for a called third strike was obligated to run to first base "..as in the case of hitting a fair ball."

The rules of 1887 specified that the batsman became a base runner "...instantly after FOUR strikes had been declared by the umpire." This "four strike" provision lasted only one year.

As late as the 1940's the batter was entitled to advance (with liability) after three strikes had been called by the umpire. By the time of recodification in 1950, a provision had been added that stipulated that the batter could advance (with liability) after three strikes had been called when the third stike was not caught unless there is a runner on first base with not more than one out.

Essentially, this changed the previous rule in two ways: (1) The batter could legally advance as a runner ONLY if the third strike was NOT caught; and (2) The batter was not permitted to advance if first base was occupied with less than two outs.

In 1956, the wording was simplified to it's present form."



Originally the batter could run after every third (or, more accurately, last) out. Since the catcher played well behind the batter in these days, the out was not "automatic."

As catcher's moved up and the out's became routine (at the level of play the rules were written for), the batter became out when the pitch was caught.

Smart catchers realized that they could "not catch" a pitch in certain circumstances and get a DP. So, now the batter can only run when a DP is not possible.

The above in bold is the same idea behind the infield fly rule so defense can't 'dupe' an offense into a double play.

[xpress34]

Re: Should dropped third strike rule be changed?

The post just previous to this should be credited.

It was taken from the Officiating Forum Officiating.com

- Smitty

[coxfan]

Re: Should dropped third strike rule be changed?

The rule is found in the 1845 knickerbocker rules,which referred expressly to swinging strikes (no called or foul strikes.) Those rules also required that the ball be "pitched" like hay; i.e. slowly underhand, like modern slow-pitch softball. (This is where our term "pitch" originated.)

So those 1845 rules, which evolved into modern baseball rules, clearly used the uncaught third strike-becomes a runner rule as a way for weak players to get to run the bases even if they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Since the catchers in the early game stood way behind the batter, such uncaught third strikes were common. But the rule hung on when the game changed.

The rule can occasionally produce excitement, such as when my South Carolina Gamecocks won recently on a walkoff missed third strike (The winning run came home while the batter was reaching first.) That was a first time for me in a game I attended; though Ive seen a lot of games. But at least 97% of the time the catcher just tags the batter or lobs easily to first. Or the batter doesn't even run and is called out automatically.

And any time there's an appeal on a check swing on an uncaught third strike there's likely to be confusion, as we saw last night.

[godwulf]

Re: Should dropped third strike rule be changed?

It seems to be one of the oldest rules of the game that is still in force. I see no reason to change it. Certainly not to make pitching a perfect game easier; for whatever reason, perfect games seem to have been happening with greater frequency in recent years, without changing the rules to make it easier still.

It can certainly produce excitement, as coxfan said, particularly when a catcher or fielder gets sloppy, as happened about twelve years ago, when the Diamondbacks were playing in Atlanta. Kelly Stinnett struck out to end the top of the ninth, with the DBacks down a couple of runs, which should have been the end of the game - only the catcher lobbed it over the First Baseman's head, Stinnett ended up on Second, a number of hits followed, and the Diamondbacks ended up winning the game in extra innings.

As the philosopher said, "It ain't over till it's over."

[coxfan]

Re: Should dropped third strike rule be changed?

Back in 1845, the original Knickerbocker club rules, rule 11, read as follows: "Three balls being struck at and missed and the last one caught, is a hand-out; if not caught is considered fair, and the striker bound to run."

John Thorn's excellent book " Baseball in the Garden of Eden", p. 75, says of this rule: "The responsibility of the catcher to hold the third strike is, amazingly, one of baseball's oldest rules to survive intact...Only swinging strikes counted. Called strikes did not enter the game until 1858..." ( Fouls started counting toward the three strikes around the turn of the 20th century.)

I intend to look through some of my other histories to see if I can find an earlier reference to this rule, as Thorn doesn't think the Knickerbocker rules were completely original. It'll also be interesting to see when the "three-strikes is out" rule started. I suspect many early variants of baseball didn't have this aspect.