Quick – How many times have the Dodgers allowed a runner on first base to take second base on Defensive Indifference this season?

Don’t know? Okay, here’s an easier one.

How many times has the base runner that the Dodgers gave Defensive Indifference to come around to score this season?

Can’t find the answer? Of course you can’t because it’s a baseball statistic that nobody keeps, not even Baseball-Reference.com – the greatest baseball website in the world. One can only assume that Baseball-Reference is… well… indifferent about Defensive Indifference.

But even though Baseball-Reference nor anybody else keeps Defensive Indifference stats (which, by the way, is officially scored “DI/FC” [Fielder’s Choice]), I can tell you for a fact that in the last week alone two base runners that the Dodgers allowed to take second base on Defensive Indifference came around to score – including last night’s game against the lowly Diamondbacks. Fortunately, neither run cost the Dodgers the game but in last night’s game it forced Dodgers closer Kenley Jansen to have to begin warming up when he otherwise would not have had to had that DI run not scored.

Last Tuesday night, Dodgers closer Kenley Jansen turned an 8-5 laugher into an 8-6 nail-biter when Padres pinch hitter Will Venable scored from second base after being given Defensive Indifference.
(Photo credit – Ron Cervenka)

Now granted, DI is only used when the team on defense is leading by a wide margin, usually five runs or more and it is usually only used in the final inning. But how often have we seen teams that are down by five runs or more rally back to within a hit or two of winning the game? Taking it one step further, there have actually been teams that did come back and win games after trailing by a wide margin (the Dodgers notwithstanding) by a rally that was ignited by (you guessed it) Defensive Indifference. But here again, there are no hard stats on how many games were lost (or won) because of DI.

The theory behind DI is that the defending team with a big lead is willing to concede second base to the runner in order to keep the right side of their infield in a better defensive position, especially with a left-handed batter at the plate. The flaw with this theory is, of course, that when DI is employed with less than two outs, not only are they conceding second base but they are also conceding the possibility of a double play – including a potential game-ending double play.

So where did Defensive Indifference come from, or perhaps a better question is when did it begin? The answer may surprise you.

According to Steve Hirdt, the executive vice president of Elias Sports Bureau, he noticed references to Defensive Indifference while researching play-by-play accounts of games from the 1920s. Hirdt stumbled onto an article about an imminent change to the stolen base rule in The Chicago Tribune dated January 30, 1920. The article headline read “Cut Out the Joke Steals.” In other words, quit giving guys credit for stolen bases when no attempt is made by the pitcher or first baseman to hold the runner on first base or any attempt by the catcher to throw out the runner or either middle infielder to cover the base. Hirdt calls this 94-year-old rule a good one because “it protects the spirit of what a stolen base is.”

The Defensive Indifference rule itself, rule 10.07(g), reads verbatim:

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.

New York Yankees outfielder/DH Carlos Beltran once admitted that he didn’t even know what Defensive Indifference was until he was well into his 17-year MLB career. But once it was explained to him he, too, thought it was a good rule.

“If the first baseman plays 50 feet behind me, there’s no way that’s a steal,” Beltran said. “As a base runner, I wouldn’t want that.”

Although I personally loathe Defensive Indifference and usually share my thoughts about it with those around me (whether they want to heard it or not), I can certainly live with it when a team is leading by a substantial margin – say, like, eight or 10 runs (or more). But once that lead drops below eight runs, all bets are off and it becomes time to “step on their throats” (and hope like hell that it isn’t too late). I am also opposed to Defensive Indifference whenever there are fewer than two outs, opting instead to try for a back-breaking (and spirit-breaking) game-ending double play – but that’s just my take on it.

What about you? What’s your take on Defensive Indifference?