IBB

[Banedon]

Not exactly a new topic, but Rob Neyer has an article about how horrible the IBB is. It seemed like just whining for a while, but there's some suggestions at the end, and they don't come from Rob. This one sounds interesting, from A Game of Inches...

 

Sid Keener of the St. Louis Star-Times made an imaginative proposal. He suggested giving a batter who walked on four pitches the option of declining the free pass. If a second four-pitch walk resulted, the batter could choose between a walk to second or again declining the walk. If he declined again and another four-pitch walk ensued, the batter would walk all the way to third base.

 

The suggestion is that the first time a four pitch walk happened, it would be just like a normal walk. After that, a rule such as the above would take effect. It would allow the managers to "save" an IBB for a strategic moment, presuming their pitcher didn't accidentally waste it. Other ideas in the article...

 

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/10/25/2512355/intentional-walks-the-scourge-of-the-game

[UMFan83]

Yeah I dont like that idea. Carlos Marmol would blow games a lot easier with that rule.

 

Though I would love to hear an explanation from the first manager who triple walks albert pujols.

[Yeti]

that is an idiotic idea

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Yeah I dont like that idea. Carlos Marmol would blow games a lot easier with that rule.

He only had 2 IBBs this season.

[Banedon]

Yeah I dont like that idea. Carlos Marmol would blow games a lot easier with that rule.

He only had 2 IBBs this season.

 

But had 11 four pitch walks (IBB's included).

[Guest]

I can just see the outrage from the hitting team's fans the first time someone turned down the walk. And who decides whether or not to turn it down?

 

It's an interesting idea though.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Yeah I dont like that idea. Carlos Marmol would blow games a lot easier with that rule.

He only had 2 IBBs this season.

 

But had 11 four pitch walks (IBB's included).

Aren't we just talking about the IBB?

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah I dont like that idea. Carlos Marmol would blow games a lot easier with that rule.

He only had 2 IBBs this season.

 

But had 11 four pitch walks (IBB's included).

Aren't we just talking about the IBB?

 

it said 4 pitch walk.

 

 

And that's a stupid idea. Baseball definitely needs to find a way to make games longer. You get 4 balls and 3 strikes. If you throw 4 balls before the third strike, the guy gets first base. No reason to make up new goofy rules.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The whole article was about the IBB except an old-timey blurb about regular walks? That's even more stupid than the stupid idea. Stupid.

[Banedon]

The whole article was about the IBB except an old-timey blurb about regular walks? That's even more stupid than the stupid idea. Stupid.

 

How are you going to differentiate between intentional walks and a 4 pitch walk?

 

And that's a stupid idea. Baseball definitely needs to find a way to make games longer. You get 4 balls and 3 strikes. If you throw 4 balls before the third strike, the guy gets first base. No reason to make up new goofy rules.

 

The idea would be that it would encourage less intentional walks though. How many times would you actually see this come into effect? Are teams going to want to put Pujols on 2nd or 3rd base intentionally? Nope. They'll pitch to him instead.

 

I'm playing some devil's advocate here, cuz I'm not sure what I think of it. But it's fun discussion fodder.

[UMFan83]

I heard someone propose that you can give INT walks out freely but the pitcher has to throw one strike first.

 

I could see that being even a bigger advantage to the pitcher though because first of all, when the AB starts, only the pitcher knows if his intention is to intentional walk someone. It's more for the better to predict. If the batter thinks the pitcher is going to walk him intentionally and he is ok with it, he can take a strike, but if he does that and is wrong about the pitcher's intention, he only has 2 strikes to work with.

 

Furthermore, by requiring a strike in order to intentionally walk someone, there is a possibility that the pitcher would change their mind if the count is 0-1 and the AB seems a lot more managable.

[jersey cubs fan]

The whole article was about the IBB except an old-timey blurb about regular walks? That's even more stupid than the stupid idea. Stupid.

 

How are you going to differentiate between intentional walks and a 4 pitch walk?

 

And that's a stupid idea. Baseball definitely needs to find a way to make games longer. You get 4 balls and 3 strikes. If you throw 4 balls before the third strike, the guy gets first base. No reason to make up new goofy rules.

 

The idea would be that it would encourage less intentional walks though. How many times would you actually see this come into effect? Are teams going to want to put Pujols on 2nd or 3rd base intentionally? Nope. They'll pitch to him instead.

 

I'm playing some devil's advocate here, cuz I'm not sure what I think of it. But it's fun discussion fodder.

 

Who gives a crap? The IBB isn't a particularly smart move, why are we making rules to force teams not to do dumb things?

[Banedon]

I heard someone propose that you can give INT walks out freely but the pitcher has to throw one strike first.

 

I could see that being even a bigger advantage to the pitcher though because first of all, when the AB starts, only the pitcher knows if his intention is to intentional walk someone. It's more for the better to predict. If the batter thinks the pitcher is going to walk him intentionally and he is ok with it, he can take a strike, but if he does that and is wrong about the pitcher's intention, he only has 2 strikes to work with.

 

Furthermore, by requiring a strike in order to intentionally walk someone, there is a possibility that the pitcher would change their mind if the count is 0-1 and the AB seems a lot more managable.

 

So what would happen if someone threw 4 straight balls to start an AB?

[Banedon]

Who gives a crap? The IBB isn't a particularly smart move, why are we making rules to force teams not to do dumb things?

 

The argument is that it's boring, and means you don't get to see the best players bat as often.

[sneakypower]

I can just see the outrage from the hitting team's fans the first time someone turned down the walk. And who decides whether or not to turn it down?

 

It's an interesting idea though.

i imagine they'd look to the stands like a contestant on The Price is Right

[Yeti]

that is an idiotic idea

[jersey cubs fan]

Who gives a crap? The IBB isn't a particularly smart move, why are we making rules to force teams not to do dumb things?

 

The argument is that it's boring, and means you don't get to see the best players bat as often.

 

And football teams can punt out of bounds instead of to Hester, so what? You can foul Shaq and cross check Kane. This sort of micromanaging the rules has no benefit. There are repercussions to the IBB, you are putting a guy on base, and potentially throwing off your pitcher's rythm. There's no way you can do this without just banning all 4 pitch walks, because a pitch around isnt' all that hard. It's not like this postseason has lacked offense or big hits by big time players. This is much ado about nothing and just nitpicking at something that doens't need picking.

[UMFan83]

I heard someone propose that you can give INT walks out freely but the pitcher has to throw one strike first.

 

I could see that being even a bigger advantage to the pitcher though because first of all, when the AB starts, only the pitcher knows if his intention is to intentional walk someone. It's more for the better to predict. If the batter thinks the pitcher is going to walk him intentionally and he is ok with it, he can take a strike, but if he does that and is wrong about the pitcher's intention, he only has 2 strikes to work with.

 

Furthermore, by requiring a strike in order to intentionally walk someone, there is a possibility that the pitcher would change their mind if the count is 0-1 and the AB seems a lot more managable.

 

So what would happen if someone threw 4 straight balls to start an AB?

 

Maybe they wouldnt be allowed to walk until a strike is thrown. But its hard not to get into the argument of intent for an intentional walk and teams could easily throw 4 pitches clearly outside but not in the standard 'catcher stands up and holds his arm out' designation with little risk. So yeah would never work. I wish I could remember who suggested that...it was in a similar article a few years back.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The whole article was about the IBB except an old-timey blurb about regular walks? That's even more stupid than the stupid idea. Stupid.

 

How are you going to differentiate between intentional walks and a 4 pitch walk?

The same way they do now? I'm confused.

[Banedon]

The whole article was about the IBB except an old-timey blurb about regular walks? That's even more stupid than the stupid idea. Stupid.

 

How are you going to differentiate between intentional walks and a 4 pitch walk?

The same way they do now? I'm confused.

 

The point if you institute a rule specific to an IBB, then teams could just "unintentionally intentionally walk" someone. Who's job is it to determine intent?

 

So if you create a rule to try to discourage IBB's (which clearly, most on here oppose), you'd have to do it in such a way that it affects 4 pitch walks, rather than just IBB's, so as to not have umpire's determining whether it was "intentional".

[UMFan83]

Who gives a crap? The IBB isn't a particularly smart move, why are we making rules to force teams not to do dumb things?

 

The argument is that it's boring, and means you don't get to see the best players bat as often.

 

This sort of micromanaging the rules has no benefit. There are repercussions to the IBB, you are putting a guy on base, and potentially throwing off your pitcher's rythm.

 

There's a slight benefit in a situation where there's runners on 2nd and 3rd and less than 2 outs in a close game, setting up the DP to get out of the inning without damage. But I'm guessing that putting that runner on increases run expectancy despite this "benefit"

[Banedon]

Who gives a crap? The IBB isn't a particularly smart move, why are we making rules to force teams not to do dumb things?

 

The argument is that it's boring, and means you don't get to see the best players bat as often.

 

This sort of micromanaging the rules has no benefit. There are repercussions to the IBB, you are putting a guy on base, and potentially throwing off your pitcher's rythm.

 

There's a slight benefit in a situation where there's runners on 2nd and 3rd and less than 2 outs in a close game, setting up the DP to get out of the inning without damage. But I'm guessing that putting that runner on increases run expectancy despite this "benefit"

 

And beneficial or not, managers do it. The argument being made isn't whether or not it works...it's to discourage a "boring" part of the game.

[Guest]

I just want to say that this is a great thread. We are in mid off-season form already and the WS isn't even over yet.

 

IBB is just like any other decision a manager makes, it can have negative and positive consequences. It's one of the few things that are actually under a manager's control. Leave it alone.

[TruffleShuffle]

intentional walks are very rarely issued when a player is at the plate with nobody on base. more commonly, it's when first base is open with a runner on second or third, and a good hitter is at bat... or in the national league when the #8 hitter is at the plate and the pitcher is probably going to bat for himself. obviously some great hitters are going to decline an IBB with a runner on second and 2 outs. so what happens with the rule about moving the batter to 2b if he's walked again? does the other guy go to third? and on a triple walk does the baserunner just score?

 

if, say, ron washington wants to be a dumbass and put pujols on with two outs and none on, then that's his right. and if TLR wants to take the bat out of his slugger's hands by bunting with the #2 hitter, he can do that too. let managers [expletive] up all they want; it's funny and i enjoy laughing at them.