Are You Indifferent About Defensive Indifference?

Jack Curry, commenting on an official scoring debate that has been swirling the last few weeks:

Defensive indifference is exactly what it connotes: a situation when a team was unconcerned about preventing the runner from advancing. After official scorers consider the score and the inning, if the pitcher made pickoff attempts and if the first baseman was positioned behind the runner, they determine if the dash was a steal or defensive indifference. “It’s an old rule and a very good rule,” said Bill Shannon, who has been a scorer for 31 seasons. “I’m loath to give away statistical achievements.” But what about the runner who has successfully scooted the 90 feet? Some players contend they should be credited with a stolen base. If the team’s defensive strategy was to give away the base, should the runner be rewarded for taking what was available? “I feel like you should get something for doing it,” said Nate McLouth, a center fielder for the Atlanta Braves. “It’s the only way to advance that doesn’t show up in the stat column.”

Of course Nate McLouth wants credit.  Stolen bases are part of his game. A few factors to consider when forming your own opinion on this:

• The defense may show some indifference to Brett Gardner because he's a tough out on a stolen base attempt.  Would they be more likely to throw through if, say... Hideki Matsui were trying to run?

• How does defensive indifference equate to intentional walks?

• If the advancing runner scores, should the pitcher not be charged with an earned run because he doesn't care?  Where do you draw the line?

From a philosophical perspective, I have a difficult time giving credit to a player for a feat unearned. That begs the bigger question: with defensive indifference, is it a stolen base truly unearned? Where did this practice come from?  At what point in a baseball game does a team stop caring about getting outs?  What creates the mindset that it's not worth throwing down to second?  Is it because the ball might go into the outfield?  Big deal.  If the run is inconsequential, who cares if the runner is on second or third? The practice itself just comes across as lazy and counter to some of the other tenets of the game. Teams get mad in a blowout game if the winner appears to be padding the score.  That's rude.  However, the winning team should let down their defense and give the losing team some freebies.  That's the consolation for getting your butt kicked one afternoon. Or how about all of the flap around certain players possibly tipping pitchers to the opposition in blowout games.  Isn't that the same thing?  You're giving the opposition a chance to score an extra run in a blowout game.  Either way, the pitcher would be charged with a run.  In one instance, it's a player doing it.  In the other, it's the norms of the game dictating it. When Nick Swisher pitched in a blowout game at the beginning of the year because Joe Girardi didn't want to waste the bullpen, should BJ Upton have gotten credit for a walk or Willy Aybar a hit?  Clearly, Swisher being in the game was defensive indifference on the part of Joe Girardi. I really don't understand why defensive indifference is a practice in the first place.  The concept is stupid to me.  If a team is lazy enough to employ it, then yes, I do think the runner deserves to get credit for the stolen base. If a batter is intentionally walked, they are credited with a walk as if they worked a 3-2 count.  Shouldn't an intentional walk be defensive indifference?  The defense is making a choice not to pitch to a batter. The difference is the perceived value of that base within the game being played.  A pitcher intentionally walks a batter because he is afraid that batter will cause more damage at the plate than the hitter after him.  Therefore, the

threat

of that intentionally walked batter has

some

value.  For being threatening, you get credit for a walk. In the case of the intentional walk, then, the pitcher and/or manager is actually trying to neutralize that threat.  The intentional walk itself has greater value to the defense in that strategy than it does to the batter.  Say what you will about the strategy (I think it's overused personally), but we don't hear people clamoring to change how that is scored. I don't like looking at a game that plays with one philosophy for eight innings and then suddenly turns that philosophy on it's ear.  The point of the offense in a game is to score runs.  In order to score runs, you need to get on base and advance bases.  The defense's job is to prevent runs.  That's it. If a team is too lazy to thrown down to second base because they're winning 13 - 2, that's their prerogative.  The runner should be credited for doing his job even if the defense is being lazy.  The catcher could probably do his battery-mate a favor by saving him a few pitches and throwing out the runner.  How often do you hear about teams allowing their pitchers to throw more pitches? I guess the catcher's arm is more important.