Ball Four, in the dirt

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Think how much faster it would be if the catcher simply threw the ball back to the pitcher.

Since either action is completed before BR reaches first, and since no furhter action happens until after that, the savings would be negligible.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Since either action is completed before BR reaches first, and since no furhter action happens until after that, the savings would be negligible.

That's true. I'm speaking, in general - not just ball four in the dirt.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

That's true. I'm speaking, in general - not just ball four in the dirt.

I don't think the amount of time it takes to exchange baseballs with the catcher for an entire game adds up to more than a minute or two, so even in general it's a weak argument to use time savings as a benefit for not changing baseballs.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I don't think the amount of time it takes to exchange baseballs with the catcher for an entire game adds up to more than a minute or two, so even in general it's a weak argument to use time savings as a benefit for not changing baseballs.

That's true.

This thread took a turn I hadn't intended. I was simply pointing out how spring-loaded they are to change baseballs at the MLB level and that it has become so routine that there does not seem to be any concern that this swapping occurs when the ball should remain live. Those reasons have been discussed and they make sense. This obsession with pristine baseballs has not always existed, even during an era when money was certainly not the issue.

And then, when a pitcher casually gets rid of a ball that has touched the ground he is promptly penalized. Was the runner advancing? Why not take the same ho-hum attitude with that occurrence?

Really just an observation more than a criticism.

[RPatrino]

Realistic, do you even umpire?