Sports Gripe #1: Defensive Indifference

The term "defensive indifference" was coined by Major League Baseball in the 1920's. It refers to the situation where a base runner does not get credited with a stolen base after stealing a base.

Wait...that statement does not make any sense?!?! Does it? How can that be? Statistics are a major aspect of baseball, shouldn't all steals count? When is a steal not a steal? Who came up with this stupid rule?

Those are some of the common responses I would expect from viewers after hearing an announcer speak of "defensive indifference" while watching a steal occur during a nationally televised baseball game. I certainly said a few of those things when I first heard about this moronic concept years ago. I believe that a steal is a steal, no matter the situation - it is unfathomable that a player could steal a base and not get credit for their efforts on the stat sheet. Baseball fanatics and statistics gurus could probably argue the validity of this MLB rule, but the O's game from this past Saturday showcased a legitimate flaw in the "defensive indifference" rule of the MLB rulebook - 10.07(g).

I'm going to sum up the "defensive indifference" rule in one sentence:

Defensive Indifference occurs when one team is ahead by multiple runs in the 9th inning and allows the losing team to steal bases because they do not see the losing team's base runners as a threat to their victory (most common usage).

The actual rule (stated in bold text below) does not explain the rule accurately. The presence of a long rule comment (in italics below) signifies a rule where scorekeepers must use subjective judgment when applying the rule during a game - I'm not high on scorekeeper reliability when it comes to objectiveness. If you need a page to explain a rule, there is probably something wrong with the rule. Ignore the text below in italics - I put it here as a testament to how convoluted and over-stated the rule is in its current state.

(g) The official scorer shall not score a stolen base when a runner advances solely because of the defensive team's indifference to the runner’s advance. The official scorer shall score such a play as a fielder's choice.
Rule 10.07(g) Comment: The scorer shall consider, in judging whether the defensive team has been indifferent to a runner’s advance, the totality of the circumstances, including the inning and score of the game, whether the defensive team had held the runner on base, whether the pitcher had made any pickoff attempts on that runner before the runner’s advance, whether the fielder ordinarily expected to cover the base to which the runner advanced made a move to cover such base, whether the defensive team had a legitimate strategic motive to not contest the runner’s advance or whether the defensive team might be trying impermissibly to deny the runner credit for a stolen base. For example, with runners on first and third bases, the official scorer should ordinarily credit a stolen base when the runner on first advances to second, if, in the scorer’s judgment, the defensive team had a legitimate strategic motive—namely, preventing the runner on third base from scoring on the throw to second base—not to contest the runner’s advance to second base. The official scorer may conclude that the defensive team is impermissibly trying to deny a runner credit for a stolen base if, for example, the defensive team fails to defend the advance of a runner approaching a league or career record or a league statistical title.

Failure of the Defensive Indifference Rule:

Situation: Random Game in the Middle of the Season, O's at White Sox, July 18th, 2009, O's down 4-1 at the start of the 9th inning with closer Jenks coming in for the White Sox.
Phase 1: Mora doubles to lead off the 9th inning. Reimold singles to drive in Mora. White Sox still lead 4-2.

Phase 2: Wieters and Scott strike out. Reimold steals second...sorry...defensive indifference (see image from ESPN Play-by-Play below).

Phase 3: Roberts singles to drive in Reimold. White Sox still lead 4-3.
Phase 4: Markakis grounds into fielder's choice to 2nd. White Sox win 4-3.

MLB Explanation: According to the MLB rulebook, Reimold is not given credit for a stolen base because the opposing team did not make an attempt to get him out. The opposing team does not make an attempt to throw him out because his advancement to 2nd will not "change" the outcome of the game.

My Gripe: My reaction to the MLB Explanation - FALSE!! I would agree that the steal of 2nd base by Reimold did not have an impact on the final outcome of the game, but the steal can be justified as consequential because a note-worthy statistical impact occurred:
Positive Statistical Impact: Reimold - run scored
Negative Statistical Impact: Jenks - ERA increases because of run scored.

Reimold should receive credit for a stolen base since a statistical impact was present. A pitcher never wants extra runs scored on them (don't let them tell you otherwise). The "defensive indifference," or steal in my opinion, was the direct reason for an additional run being scored . If Reimold was on first when Roberts singles, no run is scored, and it is a first and third situation for Markakis. If Markakis were to still ground out, the third out would have been recorded with no additional runs being scored. Outcome still same, O's lose, 4-2 instead of 4-3, but Jenks' ERA stays a little bit smaller.

The "defensive indifference" rule is claiming that a run can be irrelevant if it does not affect the winner of the game. If the base runner will not effect the outcome of the game, then why not try end the game by throwing him out at second (and save your pitcher from throwing unnecessary pitches)? That seems to make logical sense to me, but I'm only one person.

In my opinion, baseball has become a game of statistics - every one of them should be counted equally - if one is discounted for another, then the validity of all statistics has been damaged exponentially. The best way to maintain the intergrity of Major League Baseball is to make all "steals"/"defensive indifferences" the same statistically no matter how small or large the impact is on the overall situation.