Box score broodings

A lot has been written over the past few days about how the "rules" of baseball, from standard etiquette to common perceptions, have changed in many ways.

With hitters parks, stronger hitters, and diluted pitching, among other things, leads once considered "safe" aren't safe any longer, say the game's scribes and broadcasters.

"Old codes of honor don't apply any more" is the fashionable assessment of postmodern baseball.

I guess people around the game are trying to say that Major League Baseball is not your father's Oldsmobile.

This has two meanings: figuratively, that the game is different from older versions; literally, that the game -- in its wild card/expanded playoff/non-game-of-the-week/regionalized/post-1994 strike form -- is dead to a lot of people, especially old-timers and purists, just like the Oldsmobile company itself.

At any rate, each of these two meanings reflect the same basic idea: baseball is different from what it used to be. As a result, the realities of the contemporary game cry out for a more demanding and intelligent way of scoring baseball contests, and of compiling statistics that go into the box score, one of the objects most revered by any true American sports fan.

Baseball can be, and should be, judged with a much more discriminating eye. This is true for reasons that a George Will or Ken Burns would submit, but it's also true -- and this is where the average fan can especially relate to my cause -- since ballplayers are provided more, and paid more, in this day and age. Scoring with less leniency would make for more sophisticated fans, methinks, but more importantly, it would give fans a bit of an added outlet.

What is this outlet, and when could fans avail themselves of it? Rather than give it away, let me package it in with the first of many suggested changes in scoring and -- resultingly -- box score improvement: fly balls lost, but untouched, should be ERRORS, by golly!

When a player loses a ball in the lights, does that mean the batted ball was a ringing double worthy of being scored a hit? No! It means that the outfielder lost the ball in the lights, i.e., he made a mistake, i.e., he committed an error! And while a provisional note does exist in the official rules, I still see official scorers cut way too much slack to players.

See how much fun fans could have whenever an opposing ballplayer misjudges a ball? "Oh, that's another error for (insert Pittsburgh or Colorado outfielder here)!"

Looking at the integrity of the game (or what remains of it), a more profound question is as follows: how much might a player improve if this scoring change was made and fielding percentage was subsequently tied in with an incentive clause in his contract? We'd have better fielders, lemme tell ya.

Sticking with fielding, let's try out this one: if an infielder botches a double-play grounder, but gets one out, THAT should still be an error -- just ask Tony Fernandez of the Cleveland Indians, who made that very mistake in Game 7 of the 1997 World Series. Was it a mistake? Did it give a team an extra out? Then it's an error -- period!

Moving on to pitching, can we first adjust the definition of what a quality start is? Currently, the minimum standard for a quality start (something not officially kept in a box score, but tossed around often in baseball circles) is at least six innings, with no more than three runs allowed.

Hey, if a pitcher allows three (earned) runs in six innings, that's a 4.50 ERA, worthy of admiration only at Coors or Enron. Make the minimum seven innings, and we have a deal.

Of greater consideration when it comes to pitching is the save rule. Closers essentially have the luxury of being able to walk in from the bullpen at the start of the ninth inning, issue a walk and a two-run blast, and still obtain their statistic of success, their saving grace as professional firemen.

If the rest of the save rule -- outside the one-inning, three-run parameter -- dictates that the tying run must at least be in the on-deck circle for a save to be granted, it only follows that a one-inning save should apply to nothing more than a two-run lead, when the tying run is always in the on-deck circle at the beginning of the half-inning.

Next, winning and losing pitchers. Progress has been made in this area, since a new provision has prevented ineffective closers, or late relievers, from picking up cheap victories with rallies by their team -- especially in the bottom half of the ninth inning or an extra frame.

As far as I have been able to determine, however, this provisional rule has been applied only to pitchers who followed the ineffective pitcher, NOT to any pitchers who preceded the rotten reliever.

Example: starting pitcher for team A throws eight masterful innings. Pathetic closer inherits 3-0 lead in the bottom of the ninth and blows it, but finishes the inning. After team A retakes the lead in the top of the tenth, a third pitcher pitches the 10th.

This year, such a scenario made the third pitcher the winner. That's an improvement from past years, when the second pitcher would get a win as a reward for giving up three runs, and the third pitcher would get a save. However, a better solution for the future is to give the starter the W he essentially earned (especially if a manager wanted to give his closer one of those damn three-run cheapo saves!!!). The third pitcher would get a save. Let's look at who really won the game and who really saved it -- improvements have been made, but more remain to be made.

Going to hitting or run-producing, here's a reintroduction of a statistic that caused much debate, but which I loved -- even though I had disagreements with it: the game-winning RBI.

The essence of championship baseball is not necessarily greatness, but timely greatness. Not impressive hitting, but impressive hitting with a runner on third and two outs in the eighth inning of an October game. The GWRBI categorized that ingredient, albeit imperfectly.

The biggest fault with the GWRBI's application -- and this same basic principle applies to the determination of winning pitchers, even to this day -- is the obsession with the time when a lead became a tie or switched hands altogether.

This principle has always allowed a starter to get the win, even if he gave up a ton of runs in five innings of mediocre (or worse) work. Why? Because he went the minimum five and had the lead when he left in a game where his team never relinquished that lead. The effective reliever who truly shut down the other team should get the win, but a lucky five-inning starter would always get the win by rule.

It was similar with the GWRBI: a player who hit a three-run homer in the first inning of an 11-9 game would get the GWRBI, if his team never gave up that initial three-run advantage early in the contest. In reality, the player who drove in the tenth run should have gotten the GWRBI.

While this attitudinal shift must take place, just the act of reintroducing the GWRBI would add flavor that's been missing from The Great American Box Score for more than a decade.

Finally, one thing on behalf of all the math teachers in America who are also baseball fans and box score consumers (and directed toward broadcast outlets who post the outrageous digits) -- WHEN A PITCHER GOES "SIX AND TWO-THIRDS INNINGS," THAT'S 6.7 INNINGS, NOT 6.2!!! "SEVEN AND ONE-THIRD INNINGS" IS NOT REPRESENTED BY THE DECIMAL 7.1! TRY 7.3, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

Box scores: so much fun, yet so much imperfection. Summer venting was never so involving.