為了讓棒球重新列為奧運的比賽項目，IBAF 不斷向 IOC 低頭。從一度實行後來又無疾而終的故意四壞只需投一球規則，到奧運裡可笑的「突破僵局制」都是些譁眾取寵的主意。台灣隊在奧運碰上突破僵局制吃了虧，但這不是我要討論突破僵局制的唯一原因。隨著日本美國等棒球強國輸球，突破僵局制的致命問題也將浮出水面。
*note: English version of this article is towards the bottom of this post.
先講一下突破僵局制的規定：
國際賽多半採用單循環制度。每種對戰組合進行一次後，戰績最佳的四隊會進入四強戰。當參賽球隊實力相近時就會出現互咬情況。使得單循環最後出現許多戰績相同的隊伍。
傳統規則碰上這種情況時，接下來比較的是各隊的總失分。因為每種對戰組合進行一次之後，各隊的進攻和防守實力會反映在各隊的失分之中。仍不失一種公平衡量球隊強度的方式。
然而這次「突破僵局制」出現之後，沒有進入過十一局延長賽的球隊在比較失分上取得極大且不合理的優勢。無論該隊的投手與守備能力為何，突破僵局制都將免費把兩名跑者送上壘包。不需要查 Run Expectancy 也知道這種規定大大增加了失分機率。
每局開始一支球隊的 Run Expectancy 是 0.555。突破僵局制從無人出局，跑者在一二壘開始，得分 RE 為 1.573，整整多出一分。進入十一局延長賽也不代表球隊比較弱。只是代表參賽兩隊實力相當而已。這樣就在比總分的時候落入劣勢，合理性何在？
隨著美國日本等隊輸球，四強資格很可能又要靠總失分決定。屆時總失分還能衡量球隊水準嗎？靠著總失分進入四強賽又有何公信力可言？
決定執行這條規定的組織完全沒有想清楚這條規定真正的涵義。要不然這次奧運不該是單循環，也應該配套修改「戰績相同時比總失分」的規定。如果對最重要的國際比賽， IBAF 和 IOC 的心態是如此隨便的「邊玩邊試」。當你制定出一條「看情況實施，讓比賽較快結束」的規定時，這條規定必然有他不公平的地方。那乾脆每一局都用突破僵局制來打好了？至少那樣比賽會是公平的。
這屆奧運的「突破僵局制」就像在快死的奧運棒球身上撒尿一樣。傷透了棒球人的心。
In an effort to restore Baseball and Softball back to the 2016 Olympics, IBAF have been making continuous concessions in order to please the IOC. From the now defunct Intentional Walk only needs to throw one pitch rule, to the new Extra Innings Rule, IBAF kept trying to find new ways to shorten game time.
While team Taiwan fared poorly under this bizarre new rule, it is not the bases of my criticism. Unfortunately, while the effort to shorten the game is admirable, this new "solution" they came up with is so poorly thought out, the Extra Innings Rule is a complete mockery of the sport.
First of all, let me explain the new extra innings rule.
In most international baseball competitions, the first round of the tournament is usually arranged with a single round-robin schedule. Each team gets to play every possible match up once, and the teams with the most wins advance into the quarter-finals.
When teams are pretty equally matched, several teams might have the same amount of win-loss. Traditionally, the next comparison used to determine who gets to advance is each team’s RA (Runs Allowed).
Every team played every possible match up once, so each team's offensive capabilities are already factored in when comparing team RA. It probably isn't the best way to measure which team is more deserving of advancing into the quarter-finals, but at least it is a fair one.
While the RA comparison was a very effective measure for a teams' ability, now it is a complete mockery with the new extra innings rule in place. The new Extra Innings Rule will gave teams that didn't play the extra innings a large and unfair advantage.
No matter what a team's offensive or defensive capabilities are, there will always be 2 runners awarded on base for no reason. You don't even have to check the Run Expectancy table to know this rule increases the chance of allowing runs. Frankly, that's probably the only reason IBAF came up with this rule.
If REAL baseball is played, at the start of every inning, the offensive team have a Run Expectancy of 0.555 runs. With retardo extra-innings rule, runners at 1st and 2nd with no out, the offensive team will have a RE of 1.573 runs. That is an increase of more than 1 run.
The sad thing is, teams that had to play the extra-innings doesn't mean they are lesser teams. It simply means the two teams involved are equally matched. But if at the end of the first round of the tournament, there is a need to compare RA to determine who gets to advance, they are suddenly evaluated as lesser teams for no good reason.
Now, where is the logic or fairness in that? If the rule of advancement in a tied situation remains the same, the end result will be a mess.
In that case, it would seem like the organization that decided to implement this rule didn't realize the true implication of this rule. If this rule must be enforced, the first round of the Beijing Olympic should not still be single cycle. Or at least they should have made adjustments to the rule of advancement.
The Olympic is big event. Not to mention this is possibly the last Olympics to host baseball as an event. The IBAF and IOC shouldn't treat this like a trial and error experiment. When a rule is created with the intent to shorten games only in special situations, such as the 11th inning, it is bound to be an unfairness time tomb. They might as well just start off every inning with 1st and 2nd loaded, at least that will be fair.
p.s. A comment by ID4 below suggested they do the home-run derby as the tie breaker. While it isn't a new concept, if they do the home-run derby only to determine who wins the game, and the home-runs are excluded from the final score, it will be more fair than the new extra innings rule when it comes to comparing team RA for advancement.
相關連結：
Ottacat － 突破僵局制
IBAF - IBAF Revises Extra Innings Rule
*note: English version of this article is towards the bottom of this post.
先講一下突破僵局制的規定：
比賽在正規9局無法分出勝負，進入延長賽第10局時仍依原規則進行，若第10局仍無法分出勝負，第11局起採用新規定。
11局開始後，攻方從無人出局一、二壘有人開始進攻。
雙方教練在第11局開始時將跑者與打者名單交給主審，教練可任選其中一個棒次作為本局首位打者，如選擇本局從第3棒進攻，則1棒為二壘跑者、2棒為一壘跑者。
12局之後將繼續延用11局打序，如第11局結束時的最後一名打者為第8棒，第12局的打者將從第9棒開始，而二壘跑者為第7棒，一壘跑者為第8棒。13局延續12局打序，以後每局亦同。
其餘任何的代跑或代打將按照既有的規定進行。
國際賽多半採用單循環制度。每種對戰組合進行一次後，戰績最佳的四隊會進入四強戰。當參賽球隊實力相近時就會出現互咬情況。使得單循環最後出現許多戰績相同的隊伍。
傳統規則碰上這種情況時，接下來比較的是各隊的總失分。因為每種對戰組合進行一次之後，各隊的進攻和防守實力會反映在各隊的失分之中。仍不失一種公平衡量球隊強度的方式。
然而這次「突破僵局制」出現之後，沒有進入過十一局延長賽的球隊在比較失分上取得極大且不合理的優勢。無論該隊的投手與守備能力為何，突破僵局制都將免費把兩名跑者送上壘包。不需要查 Run Expectancy 也知道這種規定大大增加了失分機率。
每局開始一支球隊的 Run Expectancy 是 0.555。突破僵局制從無人出局，跑者在一二壘開始，得分 RE 為 1.573，整整多出一分。進入十一局延長賽也不代表球隊比較弱。只是代表參賽兩隊實力相當而已。這樣就在比總分的時候落入劣勢，合理性何在？
隨著美國日本等隊輸球，四強資格很可能又要靠總失分決定。屆時總失分還能衡量球隊水準嗎？靠著總失分進入四強賽又有何公信力可言？
決定執行這條規定的組織完全沒有想清楚這條規定真正的涵義。要不然這次奧運不該是單循環，也應該配套修改「戰績相同時比總失分」的規定。如果對最重要的國際比賽， IBAF 和 IOC 的心態是如此隨便的「邊玩邊試」。當你制定出一條「看情況實施，讓比賽較快結束」的規定時，這條規定必然有他不公平的地方。那乾脆每一局都用突破僵局制來打好了？至少那樣比賽會是公平的。
這屆奧運的「突破僵局制」就像在快死的奧運棒球身上撒尿一樣。傷透了棒球人的心。
Considering the nature of this discovery of mine, I feel the need to share this with a broader international baseball audience. Therefore, I added the translation.
Before I go on, I must clarify that I made this discovery based on available IBAF news articles on the extra innings rule. Since there is no mention of revising rules on advancing to the next round, I came to this conclusion while replying to a post on the East Wind Chronicle. I then translated that comment into Mandarin and is now translating it back into English...
If there are already changes in the way teams advances into the next round at the Beijing Olympics, IBAF did a poor job of letting people know, and will probably come as more of a shock to the players and coaches than me. Below is the article.
In an effort to restore Baseball and Softball back to the 2016 Olympics, IBAF have been making continuous concessions in order to please the IOC. From the now defunct Intentional Walk only needs to throw one pitch rule, to the new Extra Innings Rule, IBAF kept trying to find new ways to shorten game time.
While team Taiwan fared poorly under this bizarre new rule, it is not the bases of my criticism. Unfortunately, while the effort to shorten the game is admirable, this new "solution" they came up with is so poorly thought out, the Extra Innings Rule is a complete mockery of the sport.
First of all, let me explain the new extra innings rule.
If the game remains tied after the completion of ten (10) innings, the following procedures will be implemented during extra innings:
• Each team will begin the 11th inning (and any subsequent necessary extra innings) with a player on first and second, no outs.
• To begin the 11th inning, representatives from each team will meet at home plate and will indicate (at the same time) to the home plate umpire where the team wishes to begin the batting order. That is, the teams have the option of beginning the 11th inning anywhere in the existing batting order that was in effect when the 10th inning ended. Note that this is not a new lineup (just potentially a different order).
• Once those players/runners are determined for the 11th inning, the order of any subsequent innings will be determined by how the previous inning ended.
• With the exception of beginning the inning with runners on 1B and 2B with no one out, all other “Official Rules of Baseball” and “IBAF Competition Norms” will remain in effect during extra innings required to determine a winner.
• No player re-entry is permitted during extra innings.
In most international baseball competitions, the first round of the tournament is usually arranged with a single round-robin schedule. Each team gets to play every possible match up once, and the teams with the most wins advance into the quarter-finals.
When teams are pretty equally matched, several teams might have the same amount of win-loss. Traditionally, the next comparison used to determine who gets to advance is each team’s RA (Runs Allowed).
Every team played every possible match up once, so each team's offensive capabilities are already factored in when comparing team RA. It probably isn't the best way to measure which team is more deserving of advancing into the quarter-finals, but at least it is a fair one.
While the RA comparison was a very effective measure for a teams' ability, now it is a complete mockery with the new extra innings rule in place. The new Extra Innings Rule will gave teams that didn't play the extra innings a large and unfair advantage.
No matter what a team's offensive or defensive capabilities are, there will always be 2 runners awarded on base for no reason. You don't even have to check the Run Expectancy table to know this rule increases the chance of allowing runs. Frankly, that's probably the only reason IBAF came up with this rule.
If REAL baseball is played, at the start of every inning, the offensive team have a Run Expectancy of 0.555 runs. With retardo extra-innings rule, runners at 1st and 2nd with no out, the offensive team will have a RE of 1.573 runs. That is an increase of more than 1 run.
The sad thing is, teams that had to play the extra-innings doesn't mean they are lesser teams. It simply means the two teams involved are equally matched. But if at the end of the first round of the tournament, there is a need to compare RA to determine who gets to advance, they are suddenly evaluated as lesser teams for no good reason.
Now, where is the logic or fairness in that? If the rule of advancement in a tied situation remains the same, the end result will be a mess.
In that case, it would seem like the organization that decided to implement this rule didn't realize the true implication of this rule. If this rule must be enforced, the first round of the Beijing Olympic should not still be single cycle. Or at least they should have made adjustments to the rule of advancement.
The Olympic is big event. Not to mention this is possibly the last Olympics to host baseball as an event. The IBAF and IOC shouldn't treat this like a trial and error experiment. When a rule is created with the intent to shorten games only in special situations, such as the 11th inning, it is bound to be an unfairness time tomb. They might as well just start off every inning with 1st and 2nd loaded, at least that will be fair.
p.s. A comment by ID4 below suggested they do the home-run derby as the tie breaker. While it isn't a new concept, if they do the home-run derby only to determine who wins the game, and the home-runs are excluded from the final score, it will be more fair than the new extra innings rule when it comes to comparing team RA for advancement.
相關連結：
Ottacat － 突破僵局制
IBAF - IBAF Revises Extra Innings Rule
全站熱搜
留言列表
棒球 (5)
