Printer-friendly

Contact Author

March 15, 2013

Pebble Hunting

Retaliation, and Pitchers Hitting Pitchers

by Sam Miller

An accepted piece of baseball wisdom that I understood growing up is that a pitcher is less likely to go headhunting if he has to step into the box himself. As J.C. Bradbury and Douglas J. Drinen wrote in the 2007 article “Crime and punishment in Major League Baseball: the case of the designated hitter and hit batters,”

The DH succeeded in turning the AL into the "power league" as intended, but an unintended consequence of the rule change is that the AL now has more batters hit by pitches than the NL. Traditional baseball lore holds that the lack of retaliatory punishment in the AL for hitting batters is the cause of this phenomenon. Veteran NL manager Dusty Baker describes the deterrent impact from a pitcher's point of view, "You can be bold in (the American) League and get away with [hitting batters]. It's different in our league where you have to hit." Pitchers who do not have to bat (where they might face retaliation) are more willing to risk hitting batters than pitchers who do bat.

Bradbury and Drinen say that “the deterrent effect of requiring pitchers to bat explains 60%-80% of the difference in hit batsmen between leagues.”

If this is true, then the ramifications would go beyond a few intentional beanings each year. We would expect the American League pitchers to feel more comfortable pitching inside; we would essentially allow that American League pitchers have an advantage over National League pitchers. I’m not interested in denying that it’s true. I’ll assume for today that the conclusions of Crime and Punishment are accurate, and that pitchers really do fear direct retribution for hitting batters. The simpler question I’m interested in is whether they should.

There were 12 pitchers hit by pitches last year. Among the many things pitchers do poorly on offense, reaching first base via HBP is one. Pitchers were plunked with