I agree with your analysis completely!
If you recall, my
primary criticism was that the ball-swapping occurs in the
first place. Yeah, I guess if they're going to swap the balls out every time - I guess they have no choice. What I propose is that they
do have a choice.
You're probably right, this is a technical concession they have to make to keep the game moving. If you're not willing to make that concession, then you have to decide whether you want to delay the game in order to keep the ball live, or simply play a ball that just touched the ground
.
Ooooo, does the itsy bitsy baseball have an itsy bitsy wittle skwatch on it? Well, we better getter a brand new one because that big bad pitcher can make it do somersaults and stop in mid-air if we don't.
Think how much faster it would be if the catcher simply threw the ball back to the pitcher.
Also, let's remember that the ball-swapping doesn't just occur on ball four in the dirt. It happens on
all counts. For
that reason, I would say that, in aggregate, ball-swapping slows the game down. How many times, in the course of a game, is there a ball-four-in-the-dirt compared to a ball in the dirt on any
other count?
By the way, although it had great dramatic effect to hyperbolize a point, most players don't wear the armor you described and talk off for first rather expeditiously.
Hell, I remember watching Pete Rose draw a walk and I was never completely convinced that guy was going to stop. But, then again, that was back "in the day" where players found a way to play with a little dirt on the ball.