Baseball Pet Peeve Thread

[Cynosure]

Wish MLB would review some of these terrible strikezones because over 50% of the strikezones are not the rulebook zones.

Too often I see an umpire not understand what knees are.

 

Yep, I can see how it might be difficult to judge some inside/outside pitches... but when I umped for Little League it's not hard to judge the height at all... I know it was kids throwing 50 MPH but where you position your head... it's easy as hell to tell the height.

[ConstableRabbit]

-- The "foul tip into the catcher's glove" rule. I would like to see it abolished entirely. If the batter makes contact with the ball, and the defender catches it, he's out.

I see where you're going on this, but aren't you punishing a batter for the incidental contact of a foul tip so minute that it's essentially the same thing as a swing and miss?

[Clem Fandango]

The media fascination with Steve Bartman and the general neglect of Alex Gonzalez regarding the 2003 blunder

[Cynosure]

The media fascination with Steve Bartman and the general neglect of Alex Gonzalez regarding the 2003 blunder

 

AND 100 years.

[Butterscup1679666578]

the Hit and Run

the pitcher batting 8th

stealing in front of your 3-4 hitters (actually, stealing at all)

players who can't get a bunt down

but in the same sense...sacrifice bunts also irritate me.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The entire classification of "errors" vs. "hits"

 

 

The wonky continuum of contact:

 

Swing and a miss = bad

Swing and a near-miss (foul-off) = neutral

Swing and a near-miss with two-strikes (foul-off) = good battling by the hitter

Swing and almost a good hit (putting the ball in play in fair territory, but not strongly) = second-worst thing a batter can do

Swing and a good hit = good.

 

 

"I see where you're going on this, but aren't you punishing a batter for the incidental contact of a foul tip so minute that it's essentially the same thing as a swing and miss?"

 

Works great in cricket :)

[BigSlick]

The entire classification of "errors" vs. "hits"

 

Honestly this is something I've gotten onto right now. I'm of the opinion errors should be abolished completely and any time a hitter puts a ball into play and reaches base safely it is a 'hit' and helps your on base percentage. Errors were a nice idea on paper but now it ruins everything, there are plenty times a ball is an 'error' because the man is hustling down the line and forces someone to make a hurried throw, or an error is a 'hit' because a fielder can't get to it. There are basically no good consistent criteria for the difference between hits and errors. Its stupid, antiquated, terrible, much like many traditional stats.

 

Similarly, why should someone get rewarded for getting a 'base hit' and getting thrown out at second? You are making outs, those are bad.

[soapy]

the only thing i dislike more than a sac bunt (with a few exceptions) is watching someone fail at a sac bunt. come on...

 

another one of my biggest pet peeves is bringing in the infield early in the game. i'll never understand why you want to make it harder for your team to get an out. i can see if it's the tying or go ahead run late in the game but doing it in the first six inning or so seems completely insane to me. purely from an observational standpoint, it seems like it rarely works.

[rawaction]

I hate the idea of baseball "purity" and "integrity".

 

A game that has a history of players and coaches gambling and fixing the outcomes of games. A game that has a history of racism and not allowing some of the best players to play it at the highest level. A game that turned a blind eye to years of drug use. A game that has made playing fields the size of my backyard. Baseball is about as pure as a 90 mph slider.

[fromthestretch]

"good pickoff moves" from LHPs. They're all balks, all of them.

 

On the flip side, I hate seeing a LHP that doesn't have a good move to first. I mean, c'mon, you're facing the damn base. You should be able to at least have a decent move.

 

The ball beat the runner, so he's going to be called out even if he never even touches him and the runner makes a great slide.

 

There are umps that will call a guy safe if he deems the tag is "high" (tagging the runner's upper body on a feet-first slide) Doesn't matter if the fielder tags him 10 feet before the bag. If the tag is high, some umps will still call the runner safe. Doesn't necessarily happen a lot at the professional level, but it does at just about every other level.

[erik316wttn]

but in the same sense...sacrifice bunts also irritate me.

 

Even when laid down by the pitcher, or by a lousy hitter in the 9th inning when you only need 1 run to win?

[Schwarber Fan]

Fake to third/first pickoff move

Defensive Indifference

Conceding runs in a tie game

[aeaasie]

$6.50 Beer

[daske17]

Automatically getting tossed for arguing balls and strikes

Argumentative umps who subsequently toss players

Five game suspensions for starting pitchers who appeal and get it lessened

[Mugged By Fluffy]

Batters that slide into first base. I can't stand it.

[Soul]

The fake to third throw to first move should be a balk, as the whole purpose is to deceive the first base runner and that's supposed to be against the rules. Yet, they have it in the rulebook that it's legal, even though you aren't supposed to try to deceive the runner.

 

I hate that. It's an unnecessary exception for a move that rarely does anything in the first place.

 

 

 

I also get annoyed with all the non-arguments against replay. "Human error is part of the game." WUT. Human error is part of life, mandinga. So what?

[CarolinaCubFan]

-- Fans that don't understand the beauty of the game, and try to decifer everything with statistical analysis.

[fromthestretch]

-- Fans that don't understand the beauty of the game, and try to decifer everything with statistical analysis.

 

You seriously have something against people that try to gain a better knowledge and understanding of a game they really enjoy?

[CarolinaCubFan]

-- Fans that don't understand the beauty of the game, and try to decifer everything with statistical analysis.

 

You seriously have something against people that try to gain a better knowledge and understanding of a game they really enjoy?

 

No, I have something against people who discount parts of the game because they can't figure out how to crunch the numbers. I've read this board everyday for years, and what's kept me hooked is the stats. I enjoy the conversations of people who understand "old" baseball and use the stats to make it better.

[fromthestretch]

-- Fans that don't understand the beauty of the game, and try to decifer everything with statistical analysis.

 

You seriously have something against people that try to gain a better knowledge and understanding of a game they really enjoy?

 

No, I have something against people who discount parts of the game because they can't figure out how to crunch the numbers. I've read this board everyday for years, and what's kept me hooked is the stats. I enjoy the conversations of people who understand "old" baseball and use the stats to make it better.

 

I'm curious as to what parts of the game you feel are being discounted by those who prefer statistical analysis.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Those White Sox commercials with the cardboard signs. Especially the ones with Nick Swisher doing stupid things. They're this seasons Dane Cook October commercials.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The fake to third throw to first move should be a balk, as the whole purpose is to deceive the first base runner and that's supposed to be against the rules. Yet, they have it in the rulebook that it's legal, even though you aren't supposed to try to deceive the runner.

 

I hate that. It's an unnecessary exception for a move that rarely does anything in the first place.

 

Is it really that hard to understand why it's legal?

[flyseye]

1. People who act like painfully obvious statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " is some recent discovery known only by the most clever of baseball fans. Come on. Do you really think people of the 1930's, 1940's, or whenever were too stupid to figure this out ? We are not talking about the stone age here. This has been common knowledge for as long as baseball has existed.

 

2. People who act all high and mighty and condescending towards baseball fans who may not know, or even care about, the above statement. There is nothing wrong with the casual fan taking his son/daughter to a game at beautiful Wrigley. It is one of the many things that makes baseball great.

 

3. People who twist statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " around to " won/loss records don't matter ". Don't matter ? Of course they matter. The only thing that really does matter when it is all said and done is how many games you WON. Still the most important stat in baseball.

 

I could go on and on.

 

Thank you.

 

Good day.

[CuseCubFan69]

1. People who act like painfully obvious statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " is some recent discovery known only by the most clever of baseball fans. Come on. Do you really think people of the 1930's, 1940's, or whenever were too stupid to figure this out ? We are not talking about the stone age here. This has been common knowledge for as long as baseball has existed.

 

2. People who act all high and mighty and condescending towards baseball fans who may not know, or even care about, the above statement. There is nothing wrong with the casual fan taking his son/daughter to a game at beautiful Wrigley. It is one of the many things that makes baseball great.

 

3. People who twist statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " around to " won/loss records don't matter ". Don't matter ? Of course they matter. The only thing that really does matter when it is all said and done is how many games you WON. Still the most important stat in baseball.

 

I could go on and on.

 

Thank you.

 

Good day.

 

Welcome to the forum and for swinging right away!

[jersey cubs fan]

The entire classification of "errors" vs. "hits"

 

Honestly this is something I've gotten onto right now. I'm of the opinion errors should be abolished completely and any time a hitter puts a ball into play and reaches base safely it is a 'hit' and helps your on base percentage. Errors were a nice idea on paper but now it ruins everything, there are plenty times a ball is an 'error' because the man is hustling down the line and forces someone to make a hurried throw, or an error is a 'hit' because a fielder can't get to it. There are basically no good consistent criteria for the difference between hits and errors. Its stupid, antiquated, terrible, much like many traditional stats.

 

Similarly, why should someone get rewarded for getting a 'base hit' and getting thrown out at second? You are making outs, those are bad.

 

Really? It's extremely rare that a ball a fielder can't get to is called an error. I can't remember a single time when a shortstop knocking down a ball in the hole was given an error if he didn't field it cleanly.

 

I think there are some issues with the stat and how "official scorers" are allowed to fudge a bit, but by and large it's a pretty accurate description of a play that should be made not being made properly.