THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

What about starting the next hitter at a 2-0 count after an IBB? I know the wOBA at 2-0 and after is very high so even a bad hitter would become average or better.

If, as most sabremetric analysts argue, the IBB is a loser under the current rules, why bother making it even more of a loser? Changing the rules to add additional pynishments to IBBs would only accomplish two things. (1) Reward star/scrub teams who can’t put a single threatening hitter behind their star player, or (2) attempt to force inefficient managers to change their ways. In the former, such teams SHOULD be punished for their roster mismanagement and in the latter, such teams SHOULD be punished, and according to stats, ARE punished, for their in-game mismanagement. I really don’t see any compelling need for a correction here.

David/1: excellent idea.

Don/2: the presumption of this thread is that the IBB is a problem.  I’m limiting discussion to only ideas that is going to give us new proposals.

I like the two base idea on all non-strike walks & HBP and intentional walks.  I think you need to modify the rule as stated above so if a stolen base occurs and there are strikes on the batter, the catcher putting his hand out makes the walk a two-base walk.

The biggest problem with intentional walk as I see it is that it takes what could be the most exciting at bats with the best hitters in the game, and erases them. Here is a solution that, for the most part, maintains the integrity of the mechanics of the game (which eliminates the unintended consequences/ripple effects of game theory, etc.)

- If a player is walked on 4 straight pitches, the manager can elect to send a pinch runner to first base and leave the hitter in for the next at bat.
- The runner does count as having entered the game.
- This can only be executed twice per game.

Pros:

- Allows the defense to put a runner on base, maintains structure of game
- It’s a compromise when trying to bypass a big bat. The pitcher MUST throw at least one strike, then you can IBB him.
- It treats pitching around a hitter just like an IBB. So, if they were to nibble at Pujols and not make a real effort to pitch to him, he can hit again.

Cons:

- It’s kind of weird/clunky. Once you get one strike, on a hitter, it’s back to business as usual.
- It messes up the lineup and statistics somewhat. Does the walked batter get a BB for his first effort? I would lean towards No, letting the second AB count towards his official line.

I don’t totally love this, but I think there’s something there. I think the most important thing is to not change the cause and effect of events in the game itself - as in - 4 balls is a walk, a walk puts a runner on first and moves the runners up one base. Anything more radical in that department I have reservations about.

I might consider limiting 4-pitch walk penalties to situations where the lead runner would not advance, i.e., runner on 1st, 1st+2nd, 1st+2nd+3rd.  My guess is that most 4-pitch walks in these situations are due to control and not intentional.

Thinking totally outside the box here...what if you consider penalties that apply to the team on the other half of the inning?  Maybe you credit a free walk (a 4-X count resets to 0-X), or you allow the team a free automatic out that must be used in the next half inning.  These have the drawback of being little penalty in some game situations (bottom 9th, or if you’re trying to protect a lead).

I like the idea of playing with the count for the next batter.  You could also consider allowing the next batter a free strike so that a strikeout would require 4 strikes or something like that.

If there is going to be a change, I say let the hitter decline the walk.  Taking first is supposed to be a reward of sorts for the pitcher not throwing strikes.  If the offensive team doesn’t see it as a reward, they should be able to decline the reward.  The rule would be: If the batter gets 4 or more balls, the batter can choose to take first after any called ball, or else continue hitting.

The main drawback is that the pitcher can try to nibble at the corners after he gets 4 balls, with no penalty....that could be more torturous for everyone than anything else in the game.

I like the ideas that focus on giving the next hitter a benefit, like starting the count 2-0, or requiring four strikes. They’re less intrusive on the flow of the game while still providing significant penalties.

I played in a co-ed softball league once, where the men and women had to alternate in the batting order. If a man walked--regardless of the count--the woman hitting behind had the option to declare a walk. Walking a male hitter essentially added two baserunners.

That may be a bit extreme for baseball. Starting the next count 2-0, or even 1-0, would make managers and pitchers think twice.

Two bases for all no-strike walks and hbp is too steep a penalty.

I like a shared-risk count reset.  Batters may decline first base on no-strike walks and hbp.  The count resets to 0-0.  With a subsequent ‘normal’ outcome, there is no penalty.  If instead there is a no-strike walk or hbp, the batter gets two bases.  Runners move only as needed, first to third, but a runner alone on third stays put.

While I am a no-change constituent, this change at least gives us the fun of seeing which managers have their batter decline his base.

In /5 I meant to write “The runner does NOT count as having entered the game.”

This is a pretty minor addendum to the rule anyway.

@Craig in MN, that’s what we did in my wiffleball league back in the day, allowed the “rejection” of a walk. It wasn’t just just 4-0 walks...any walk could be turned down by the batter, as many times as he’d like. The one drawback though was if a weaker pitcher fell down 3-0 or 3-1, and the batter was a particularly good one, it was all but certain that the next pitch would be in the dirt. Being young and dumb, we never thought to remedy that problem. Other than that it worked pretty well.

That said, I do like the two-base idea, or, combining the two, the one Neyer discussed a couple hours ago (http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/10/25/2512355/intentional-walks-the-scourge-of-the-game), where a walk AFTER a rejected walk would be worth two bases. I don’t think it’s too strict a penalty since, as JoePo has said about 900 times, the intentional walk goes against the very idea of sporting competition, and it’s a terrible viewing experience. How many Pujols fans were annoyed last night?

On a related note, I really wish some sort of penalty was in place during Bonds’ hey-day. [/sfgiantshomer]

Accepting the premise, I like the 1937 proposal, with a small tweak:

Any batter can decline a walk or HBP.  Count resets with strikes preserved, but no balls.

If the batter then walks (or is hit), he takes second.  All runners move up if forced and, if there is a runner on third only, that runner scores.  Pitcher is charged with a balk.

Pros:

-- Less clunky; I don’t like the 4-0 penalty as not all of these are intentional (think Hunter in Game 2 of last year’s WS) and some non 4-0 walks are mostly intentional (pitcher falls behind 2-1 and decides to just put the guy on).

-- Less disruptive; my guess is is you’d only see the batter decline in certain circumstances (presumably only when it’s 4-0 or, rarely, 4-1 and he’s a top hitter with MOB, i.e., just those times when you most want to force the pitcher to pitch to the guy).

-- Slightly heightens the penalty by having the non-forced runner on third score.

-- The choice aspect introduces a new strategic decision.

-- Doesn’t mess with game’s structure by having runners on with same guy at bat.

-- Keeps current scoring system—you just have a new type of balk.

Although I’ve been very much in the “ain’t broke” camp, I actually kind of like this.

"-- Doesn’t mess with game’s structure...”

But it does mess with the game structure. It doesn’t allow the defensive team to put a man on first base to set up a double play. This is something that I really feel can’t be lost with a proposal, because that is really a legitimate time when walking a batter is defensible.

What I believe we’re trying to avoid are frivolous IBBs, like walking Miggy with no one on and 0 outs. In my opinion 4 balls needs to result in a runner going to first base. 

I think the most realistically implementable suggestion so far is to start the next batter after a 4-0 walk with 1 or 2 balls. It’s the least intrusive/radical while still mostly accomplishing our goal.

What about just making pitchouts more difficult? Perhaps by ruling that the catcher must be crouched in the catcher’s box when the pitch is released? Penalty could be a balk. With no runners on, the penalty could be the 2-base walk. Or, potentially, one warning with a second leading to the catcher being ejected.

Two main downsides:
1) It wouldn’t be 100% effective for preventing IBB
2) It would have a knock-on effect on baserunning strategies

True, the pitcher could just throw high or outside 4 times in a row, but there is a greater risk of missing the spot, either via a passed ball/wild pitch or a pitch near enough to the strike zone.

Non-disclosure: I’m a bit in #2/Don’s camp and don’t see IBB as a particularly pernicious problem.

Also, the pitcher could also get an auto ball called just by going to his mouth in non-cold weather (8.02(a)1) or by taking too long to throw a pitch (8.04(a)). Of course, 8.04(a)1 doesn’t apply in cold weather and 8.04(a) doesn’t apply with runners on base.

So far, my preference is to start the next batter at 2-0.  It is the least intrusive, least disruptive.  (And, I’d make the 2-0 count also apply for the mid-inning relief change, but that’s another thread.)

You still have to make it apply to the no-strike HB, otherwise that becomes an alternative for the pitcher’s 4-pitch walk.

You still end up forcing the batter to crowd the plate, so that unintended consequence is still in play.

I should also note that Pujols can avoid the IBB by simply swinging twice when the count reaches 3-0 so that he’s now at 3-2.

Or doing so after one ball, so he’s at 1-2.

To then call for an IBB there would seem to be pretty tough.

It’s similar to double-teaming a player in the other sports.

Not sure if the cure is worse than the disease, but going with the premise here…

Allow the batter to declare to the umpire before the plate appearance begins that he will refuse to accept a base on balls.  The umpire will only count strikes, and if the batter is hit by a pitch, the pitcher is automatically ejected from the game and the batter continues to hit against a new pitcher.

Perhaps even give the umpire discretion to be generous to the pitcher with the size of the strike zone in that case.

Along the lines of unintended consequences, I’d encourage each contributor to include a brief assessment of how their change would likely alter pitcher and hitter behavior “up-count” - meaning if you propose some sort of incremental benefit to the offense for drawing a 4-pitch walk, what is that likely to do to their swing rate at 0-0, 1-0 and 2-0 counts.

For my part, I think any increase in the value of drawing a 4-pitch walk will depress the swing rate on no-strike counts (ordinarily favorable counts to hitters) - is this what we want to do, encourage (no, incentivize) hitters to take on hitter’s counts?

I realize the presumption for this thread is that the IBB is a problem, so I’m not trying to argue otherwise, but I do have a question about the presumption.

It seems to me that proposals tend to favor the offense. This seems odd to me, because it’s been shown that the IBB is almost never a good play for the defense. Yet the construction of the problem implies that people hate the IBB because it, for example, takes the bat out of, say, Pujols’ hands. But don’t most of us hate it because it’s usually strategically awful?

(Rob Neyer suggests that, somehow, “the single most exciting thing that’s happened all month happened” is when Pujols came up in game 3 having already homered twice, and then homered again. This leads into his article about the IBB being a scourge, the line being that it takes the fun out of the game. But I don’t see how it’s possible that that was the most exciting moment in the post-season. It made the score 16-7! I get that it was fun (though I’d gone to sleep), but really.)

Apologies that this isn’t itself a proposal; is there another more suitable thread?

I’m not clear why an automatic penalty for 4 pitch walks is preferable—not all of these are intentional (e.g., with a runner on first or a weak batter at the plate, or 98% of the time when the bases are empty).  The solution is over-inclusive; four-pitch walks are, at best, a crude way to capture intentional walks.

Along these lines, we’ve all seen games where a pitcher “loses it” for a batter or two.  With this rule, that becomes magnified and you’re looking at what could be a very ugly inning, with numerous walks, the very thing we’re trying to minimize.

One other reason I prefer the solution of letting the batting team choose to decline the walk:

The case against making any change (articulated a couple times in this thread) is that the penalty for intentional walks is already severe enough.  The 1937 approach “lets the free market decide.”

Greg brings up a good point that at a 2-0 count, the batter may simply not swing on the hope of getting to 3-0.  And, at 3-0, where the swing rate is already only 8%, it might simply drop even further, knowing that he not only gets a walk, but he starts the next batter at 2-0.  Who himself will take, and on and on and on and on.... don’t stop believing.... sorry…

So, maybe that’s not a good idea.

I will go back to the idea that if Pujols really thinks the IBB is hurting him, then he should swing through, and then see if the defense still wants to IBB after that. 

As much as I hate the IBB, and perhaps we can’t come up with the proper incentives to stop the IBB, maybe I should be hard on the batter in not swinging through to at least make it a bit more interesting for the defense.

Craig/20

You have to speak in terms of 4 pitch walk and not IBB because then you’d simply see “sneaky” IBBs replace the catcher putting his hand out, etc.

I will say that my proposal does circumvent this side effect somewhat. Instead of the next batter receiving a 2-0 count after a 4 pitch walk (in a non intentional, non IBB situation) he simply takes his base as usual, because the manager will want to save his “IBB block” for crucial game situations.

I also thought my idea would’ve gotten more chatter. I think it solves the major issues, while avoiding almost all of the side effects of the other suggestions. Mainly, it leaves normal 4 pitch walks as is, and doesn’t affect the game theory between the batter/pitcher during any at bats, except the ones where the batter would otherwise be intentionally walked.

Lee, I think the preference is for a “clean” solution, that works within the already existing flow.

On average, IBB’s help the offense.

So, why does the defense need extra punishment?

One adaptation would be to let each team define one player to whom the 4-pitch walk/hbp rule is applied. The Cardinals would choose Pujols - if someone throws four straight balls to Nick Punto ‘m not too worried about it being intentional.

This eliminates most of the incentives for players to game the system by not swinging while preserving the one thing we want - top players hitting

25 - Because it’s the defense’s decision to order the IBB. If we’re going to penalize, you have to penalize the offender. I’m kind of agnostic regarding IBB. I generally don’t like them, but they don’t bother me nearly as much as mid-inning relievers being brought in.

Yea, understandable. I guess in my mind it was less radical and more in the spirit of the game than the double walk or the 2-0 start, but it definitely has more moving parts and some awkwardness.

Imagine implementing all of the different solutions, and how the game would play out. Using my example the entire game would remain the same, except in 1 or 2 crucial spots where you might normally see an IBB in today’s game. Right away that is a plus. You are only effecting the times of the game you want to effect. In these rare spots we put this thought into the manager’s head: I can put a runner on first base, but it doesn’t prevent me from pitching to this batter.

Which in my opinion solves the major issue. (But now I realize that this may not be in line with others’ view of the situation.)

Where it is awkward is with the 1 strike rule, and I don’t particularly love that part, which I thought might benefit from brainstorming. But as I just mentioned, I realize now that my goals for this thought experimenter may be different than others.

If we’re really trying to come up with a sound idea, let’s talk about why exactly we don’t want to see IBBs.

My feelings boil down to this - I think a team should always have the option to put a runner on base for game theory reasons, and not be penalized for it, EXCEPT when they are trying to avoid a particular hitter. This is what is detrimental to the game. Seeing a great hitter come to the plate in a high leverage situation, and having him get sent to first base unceremoniously.

I’m not sure, but I think this is probably not how everyone else feels about it.

I like Lee’s solution. 

But what if we go one step further and any time a batter walks, the manager can opt to swap him with the upcoming batter (with that batter heading to first)?  It doesn’t have to be a four pitch walk.  This way we’d get to see Pujols (and other stud batters) hit more often.

If we’re going for least radical, I would think my proposal in #17 would be strongly in the running.

The only unintended consequence that I can think of is that the batter might try to lean in to get hit by a pitch in order to get the pitcher ejected.  But if he did that, the umpire already has the ability to deny a hit-by-pitch call if he judges that the batter did not try to avoid the pitch.

In fact, I might amend my proposal in #17 to make a two-strike foul a third strike in such a plate appearance, similar to how it is with bunts.  I wouldn’t want the batter simply to be able to spoil pitch after pitch by fouling them off when he’s up there to hit and the pitcher is required to throw him strikes.

Okay, so instead of the traditional IBB, we now get the unintentional walk ... sometimes with the catcher being set up 6-12 inches off the plate ... or even just drilling the batter.

So, you guys come up with all thse scenarios to get rid of or extra penalize the IBB, and the P will just throw 4 balls that the batter can’t hit but can still be called an unintentional walk.

Or if 1B is open with a runner on 2B, why can’t I as a manager say I was pitching out 4 times in a row because I thought the runner was stealing 3rd? Prove I didn’t think that.

Here’s where saberists have to decide whether they believe the research or not. Using data, the defense issuing the IBB is hurting themselves in many cases. So, that’s their punishment.

This all reminds me of all the laws to prevent crimes. Criminals don’t follow the laws, by definition. Likewise, whatever you’re trying to stop by “Banning the IBB” can be reasonably accomplished by 4 unintentional balls where the catcher stays squatted.

You can’t force a team to challenge another team’s best hitter, although that’s my preference.

Batter has option when the 4th ball is received to decline a walk.  If so, the count keeps running until the plate appearance ends in a non-BB.  Any balls >4 from this PA are applied to the next batter once this at-bat ends.  So, if the PA ends at 7-1, the next batter gets to the box with a 3-0 count.

I think it’s a little more flexible than the automatic 2-0.  Allows for a slighter penalty if the pitcher gets his act together, or a stiffer penalty if he still tries to keep it off the plate.

Likewise if it ends at 7-3 (a strikeout), next batter still begins at 3-0.

For an added wrinkle, you can make this only apply to the next PA *in that inning*.  So if there’s 2 outs, it becomes even more critical of a gamble, for both players.

Okay, so the batter declines a walk in an at bat, so only strikes count. As a former pitcher, I’m down.

Get ready for a 23-pitch at bat, where you’re going to have to swing at my low and away pitch before too long. I can throw 3 strikes low and away before I throw one over the plate provided I can throw as many balls out of the zone that I want. I will accept the crowd’s boos as praise that I am being an absolute shit ... a shit that’s going to win this encounter.

You want the 7/8/9/th innings to go on forever, this’ll do it.

Perhaps even give the umpire discretion to be generous to the pitcher with the size of the strike zone in that case.

The pitcher won’t need a bigger zone.

Batter can decline walk, so ump expands the zone for the pitcher.

WTH are we doing here?

Solutions are supposed to improve the situation, not make it worse (or more complicated, or murkier, etc).

This is getting crazy.

Ken/26: I like the idea. 

***

Circle: the defense sometimes BENEFITS from walking the batter.  We have a chart in The Book that lists all the good times for the defense to walk the batter.  It’s THOSE cases that are really bothersome.

***

Mike/33: I like the idea of the dynamic extra balls to the next batter.

CC/35: you are ignoring the proposal that if you decline the first walk, and the ball-count resets, and then you once more get to 4 balls, you get the double-walk.

You are instead focusing on the proposal where there are no ball counts, and it’s strikes only.

This is a brainstorming session.  Everyone’s voice is being heard in a brainstorming session.  You can offer your opinion as to the unintended consequences, but at least come back with your own proposal too.

If someone thinks that the status quo is the best solution, and that you have no creative bone in your body that could come up with a better solution, then just say so.  “I’ve thought about it real hard, and I’m coming up empty.  Status quo is the optimal solution.”

This is a brain-storming session.  I like hearing the creative ideas.  It has the opportunity to feed others, and who knows where it can take us.

I’d prefer to see the change kept as small as possible while still having the desired effect. 2 bases for a 4-pitch walk or HBP, limited to one pre-defined player in the lineup would probably do that and wouldn’t have dramatic effects on strategy. It would also be interesting to see who teams selected in certain cases. Having cascading effects from one plate appearance to the next seems awkward.

Having batters start with a 1-ball or 2-ball count makes sense after a mid-inning relief appearance (first time in the game - 1, second time - 2, ...).

I missed a lot of stuff due to being rushed. Ocassionally, I can be flat out dumb.

Apologies if someone suggested this, but what about forbidding the catcher from leaving the “catcher’s box” until the ball passes home plate (as opposed to now where they have to stay put until the ball is released).  This would make intentional walks more difficult/risky, as the pitcher would have to throw the intentional ball closer to home plate to ensure the catcher can reach it, as well as throw it harder to make sure the hitter can’t raeach out and clobber it.

If the catcher steps out of the box too soon, it’s a balk.

Now, this could tip things towards the “oops, I hit the batter” end of the spectrum, but if you enforce things with respect to beanballs, you could manage that.

While I’m on the subject, above I saw something about mid-inning pitching changes.  Here’s another rule change that I think could be put in place without damaging the game: no on-field warmup pitches for mid-inning relievers.  They’re already warm (or ought to be), so no injury worries, no 2 minute conversations on the mound to let them cool down, just make them start pitching.  It might discourage the excessive changes a bit, while speeding things up as well.

And for a beanball that results in a pitcher’s ejection, the defense has 60 seconds to get a pitcher on the hill and throw the next pitch.  Don’t want to get your reliever hurt?  Then don’t try to hurt the hitter…

How’s that for a package of changes?  Nothing too crazy, it’s still baseball, but with fewer IBB’s, faster play and fewer beanballs…

I prefer the 4-0 as a walk & balk approach.  The basic logic is the same as a normal walk.  The pitcher needs to give the hitter something to hit or the hitter will be awarded the base you denied him a chance to reach of his own accord.

In extreme cases, you are clearly denying the hitter a chance to hit because of runners on base.  Given that those runners are part of the value of his opportunity to hit, a failure to give the batter even a single decent chance to hit the ball harms not just the batter but the runners as well.  So the runners will be awarded the base advanced opportunity you denied them.

I’d also pair this with the “batter has the right to refuse a 4th ball” approach.  You want to pitch around Pujols?  Sorry, he doesn’t want your charity.  So what if your 3-1 pitch was a foot off the plate, he’s willing to give you another crack at 3-1.  And if you continue to refuse to give him something to hit, well, he’ll happily just stand there and let you run your pitch count up.

You want to pitch around Pujols?  Sorry, he doesn’t want your charity.  So what if your 3-1 pitch was a foot off the plate, he’s willing to give you another crack at 3-1.  And if you continue to refuse to give him something to hit, well, he’ll happily just stand there and let you run your pitch count up.

And if you’re ahead in the 3rd inning, what’s to stop the pitcher from throwing way outside pitches until curfew, meaning the game is wiped out and your lead is gone?  Knowing that your choices are to swing at a bad pitch or two, or take the walk, you’ll end up taking the walk, which puts us right back where we started…

I don’t have a problem with the intentional walk.

However, if I am outvoted and the rule is going to be changed to prevent it, I vote for Mike Fast/17.

Is the batter’s declaration to not accept a BB binding?

If so, what stops the endless delay the pitcher could impose? 

You’re essentially telling the pitcher “you have to let Pujols hit a strike”, and the pitcher can then say “I’ll take option B, throw lousy pitches until a) Pujols gets bored and chases 3 of them for a strikeout, b) the Cardinals’ starting pitcher goes cold on the bench and gets pulled from the game, c) the fans at the park get bored and leave, d) the fans watching on TV get bored and change channels, e) the game is called due to curfew or f) all of the above.”

I believe that very early baseball added the walk to the rule book to prevent this sort of thing.

Sorry for the pseudo-snark, but I don’t see how this can work.  Mike, your first paragraph in #17 was right…

Greg/45: Hmmm, good point.  But, it might be like pickoff throws: if you do too many, everyone just gets annoyed.  Of course, pickoffs can go wild and cost you a base ... that’s unlikely for intentional balls.

Maybe a combination with your #41?  After 4 balls, on a refused walk, the catcher has to stay in a crouch until the ball crosses the plate.  That would probably take care of the “go on forever” issue.

There’s a technical problem with these “decline a walk” proposals, that needs to be resolved: after a walk, the ball is still in play.  Here’s the sort of thing I’m thinking of:

Craig in on 1st, and Pujols is hitting with a 3-2 count.  Suppose Craig is running on the pitch.  If Pujols receives ball 4, then under current rules, Pujols trots to 1st, and Craig is entitled to 2nd.  But if Pujols strikes out, then Craig is running at his own risk.

But now suppose Pujols gets ball 4, and decides to *decline the walk*. 

Does this mean that Craig stole a base? 

Does this mean the catcher has to throw to second to try to get the runner, even on ball 4, because Pujols *might* decide to decline the walk? 

Can Pujols wait to see how the play at 2nd turns out, before deciding whether to he’s going to decline? 

Can Craig start running *after* ball 4 is called, thus forcing a throw from the catcher and a possible error, knowing that if he’s caught, the CS play can be erased by having Pujols accept the walk?

But, it might be like pickoff throws: if you do too many, everyone just gets annoyed.

There’s a shot clock in college basketball now, but do you remember what some games were like when there wasn’t?  The weaker teams didn’t feel any compunction whatsoever over their decision to run the “four corners” “offense"…

Put in a new rule, and if there’s a loophole, it will be found and ruthlessly exploited.  In fact, that’s what proponents of the intentional walk believe they are doing right now…

I can’t make up my mind, but I would like to submit a tweak to Lee’s original proposal. Instead of letting the batter hit again, just simply allow a pinch runner for any 4 pitch walk or hit batsman. The pinch running appearance does not count as the pinch runner entering the game. It would work as some sort of designated runner rule. You wanna walk Pujols with the bases empty and Holliday due up? Fine, but we have Dave Roberts as the “designated runner.” If you walk Pujols with a man on second, you can replace Pujols with Roberts or the man on second with Roberts. This would cut down on walking someone to set up the double play. It’s harder to turn two when Dave Roberts is one of the baserunners.

Admittedly, this would lead to problems when a walk is a good idea such as men on second and third with 2 outs and Pujols at the plate. There is little benefit to replacing any of the runners in that situation with Dave Roberts. If such a rule were to ever be implemented, I think it would be best to change one small thing at a time until you reached the desired reduction in IBBs.

I just thought of an unrelated suggestion. Ken in #26 mentioned the idea of designating an “unwalkable” batter. As a tweak on this idea, have each team designate a “feared” hitter or something. Team A can walk Team B’s “feared” hitter, but Team B can then cash in an automatic out against Team A’s “feared” hitter. The Cardinals walk Napoli with a man on second in the 6th. Then, in the 8th with Pujols up and the bases loaded, the Rangers cash in the automatic out and Pujols doesn’t get to hit. I know we want the Pujols’s and Napoli’s of the world to hit, not make an out or a walk automatically, but I don’t think any team would ever walk another team’s “feared” hitter with these consequences. You would run into a problem in the bottom of the 9th, but surely there is a workaround. Perhaps a 4 pitch walk or beaning of the “feared” hitter in the 9th allows the offended team to use its automatic out as an extra out in the inning? Rangers walk Pujols with men on second and third, 2 outs with the Cardinals. Now the Cardinals cash in their automatic out if they desire, and it takes 4 outs to get out of the inning?

Okay I got one ...

Rule: When a batter is IBB’d or HBP’d, the offense has the option of having that batter go to 1B or having a different player got to 1B and having the HBP/IBB batter repeat his at bat with a fresh count.

We could borrow a practice from travel baseball that allows for courtesy runners for P and C in orde to allow them to get back to the dugout and get ready for the next inning so that the time between innings in short and the games are done before the time limit. The player who recorded the last out is the courtesy runner.

So if Furcal gets a single and then Jay bunts him to 2nd, and Pujols comes up and receives a IBB to set up a DP situation, StL can either have Pujols go to 1B or have Jay go to 1B and have Pujols start a fresh at bat.

This would allow the defense to set itself up for a situation they want, but prevents them from taking the bat out of the hands of a key player for the offense.

It doesn’t remove the “strategic IBB”, but it does remove the “we aren’t pitching to this guy” type of IBB/HBP.

------------------------------

Example: #9 hitter leads of for DET and strikes out. #1 hitter (Jackson) singles. #2 hitter doubles and moves Jackson to 3rd. TBR wants to IBB Cabrera to load the bases for a DP situation. DET sends #9 hitter to 1B, Cabrera gets to bat with bases juiced. Both sides “get what they want” so to speak.

When asked this question, I usually trot out the simplest solution: any 4-0 walk results in a two-base walk that functions exactly like a ground-rule double.  This changes very little about baseball but makes the IBB that much more painful for the defense.  You’d still get some 4-1 IBBs, but at least the hitter had a chance.

I really liked Greg’s “force the catcher to stay in the crouch” proposal.  Simple, clean, with no impact on strategy other than the removal of the no-risk IBB.  The one scenario it wouldn’t address is the bases-empty IBB that hasn’t been seen since Bonds retired.

I am intrigued by the idea allowing a hitter to decline a 4-0 walk, but I don’t think it is a good enough solution.  The base-stealer issue is annoying, and I don’t think that the mechanic of declining a walk fits in with baseball’s aesthetic.

With all of these proposals, my biggest discomfort is with how we deal with the intentional HBP problem (and yes, I think it would be a problem).  I haven’t yet found a solution that I like.

I get that all 4 pitch walks would have to be treated the same, but most 4 pitch walks are not intentional, or at least not directly intentional (maybe the pitcher decides after falling behind 2-0 not to give the batter anything good to hit).

Penalizing the pitching team by awarding extra balls to the next batter would encourage more walks, when the point here is to encourage hitting, and challenging the batter.

Awarding extra bases would likely encourage batters to seek the walk even more than they already do.

An alternate penalty might be to give the next batter an extra strike if there’s a 4-pitch walk.

But that may not dissuade teams from walking a star batter enough…

We want to discourage simply pitching around the batter.

Award a batter 2 bases on a bases empty walk, and change the walk with runners on to award everyone 1 base, whether they’re forced or not.

This would mostly remove the “first base open” scenario, because you’d be walking in a run, or putting a runner on third, with an intentional walk in that case.

If you’re worried about the pitcher struggling with command, you might say this only applies to the first 4-pitch walk of an inning, or it doesn’t apply if you’ve just walked a batter on 4 pitches, although that complicates matters further.

In cricket the penalty for a “wide” (the closest analogue to a walk) is one run for the batting team, which would be quite harsh in baseball terms.

But that would certainly discourage intentional walks!

Maybe what you do is allow the batter to decline any walk, retaining their strike total. If they get another 4 balls before the end of the at bat, then award a run.

One thing from cricket that you might adopt is giving the umpire discretion to call a walk “intentional”, and only applying the IBB penalty to those walks, rather than all 4-pitch walks. Several of the previously mentioned penalties could work in this case, the key is to let the umpire rule if the walk was “intentional”.

The umpire already has discretion to rule an HBP as intentional, and to eject the pitcher, although usually they warn both benches first.

Awarding extra bases or even a run might be deemed less harsh than an ejection, and so this could be called more frequently.

From the intro:
“The law of unintended consequence may creep in.”
********************

You bet your bippy it will. That’s the problem with all of these suggestions. That, plus that most of them are ‘ugly’

Penalizing the pitching team by awarding extra balls to the next batter would encourage more walks, when the point here is to encourage hitting, and challenging the batter.

Awarding extra bases would likely encourage batters to seek the walk even more than they already do.

An alternate penalty might be to give the next batter an extra strike if there’s a 4-pitch walk.

But that may not dissuade teams from walking a star batter enough…

I’m not sure why giving the next batter an extra strike accomplishes here.  If he had already decided to walk Pujols, then giving the defense an extra strike on the next batter will encourage more walks to Pujols.

And in any case, the idea is not to encourage hitting, but encourage facing Pujols and other star hitters, while at the same time, keeping the overall balance to the other hitters the same.

***

I agree with David and Greg that unintended consequences abound.

The “designated double-walker” is one solution that limits the chance of unintended consequences from spinning out of control.

Here’s another option: on a 4-pitch walk (or no-strike hit batter), the batter either takes first base, or remains at the plate with an 0-2 count.

If he still walks (or is hit batter) after that, we have the double-walk event (as I describe in the main intro).

An 0-2 count puts the batter in the hole by -.10 runs.  Giving the batter an extra base via the double-walk gives his team about +.20 runs over the original walk.

We can also limit this to the designated double-walker.

So, it’s controlled, and the gain of the extra walk is balanced against the huge hole of putting the batter down 0-2.

I also like Greg’s rather simple idea to ensure the catcher remains in a crouch (at least with runners on base).  The pitcher at least pretends to throw near the plate, with the risk of it being a wild pitch.

Of course in that case, the pitcher can simply refuse to throw the ball, or go to his mouth.

I’m not sure why giving the next batter an extra strike accomplishes here.  If he had already decided to walk Pujols, then giving the defense an extra strike on the next batter will encourage more walks to Pujols.

Sorry - I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. I meant that the next batter would need 4 strikes to strike out, not 3.

That’s a rather small penalty, and so may not dissuade the IBB much.

I’m growing more fond of letting the umpire use judgment to call an “intentional” walk and then applying one of the harsher penalties to such cases.

… the gain of the extra walk is balanced against the huge hole of putting the batter down 0-2

How often would the batter reject the walk in favor of a fresh 0-2 count, with the reduced wOBA that implies, even with the possibility of a 2-base walk or other larger penalty?

At the same time you don’t want to make it too easy to try to work a “super-walk”.... it’s hard to find the right balance!

The simplest solution with what would seem to be the fewest unintended consequences is something like the 2-base walk.  But I’d do it thusly:

1) When the pitch is delievered, the catcher’s feet must be in the “lane” created by the batters’ boxes or a balk will be called
2) After 4 consecutive balls in a plate appearance:
a. If the bases are empty, the batter is awarded 2nd base
b. If at least one base is occupied, a balk is called and all runners advance one base and then the batter is awarded 1st base

Of all the options described, I personally think the simplest solution is to allow the batter to refuse the walk or HBP, and if he is walked/HBP again then he is awarded an additional base, with all runners advancing if forced normally.

The majority of players in the vast majority of situations would take the base and baseball would continue on normally, including a lot of IBB to create double play opportunities.

The only exceptions would be when it matters most - in the biggest moments with the best batters up.

I like this solution because it can be the basis for a number of variations:

- only apply for HBP and 4-pitch walks OR all walks
- only be used twice in a game, only for one player declared before the game, OR at all times
- if walked again it’s an automatic two bases OR allow the batter to refuse a walk multiple times, until it results in a home run.
- reset the count OR keep the strikes

It might make box scores a little harder to follow, but I think it could be done. Call it a 2BB or something, or (stealing another idea) throw additional bases under the definition of a balk.

I suggest a variation / simplification of Lee/5:

Let the manager swap the next batter with the newly walked baserunner. 

For example, if you 4-pitch walk the #8 hitter to face the #9 pitcher, the manager can elect to put the #9 pitcher on 1B and the #8 hitter bats again (with the #1 hitter on deck).  If the #8 hitter is immediately I-BB’d again, the mgr can opt to put the #1 hitter on 1B and bat the #8 hitter yet again, etc.

I would also consider giving the umpire some semi-discretionary authority to distinguish intentional walks from unintentional ones. 

For example, if at least 1 or 2 pitches are within 6 or 9 inches of the strike zone (numbers for illustrative purposes), then the intentional walk remedies are not applied.

A four-pitch walk is a “double” for the hitter. Period.

If a runner was on first he goes to third, a runner on second advances to third, and a runner on third stays put.

If there were runners on second and third, a run scores and there’s now runners on second and third again.

If the bases were loaded, two runs score and there’s now runners on second and third (a two-RBI walk!).

I think this is the harshest penalty proposal yet.  But it also might be the simplest. 

Something that I (and CircleChange) have mentioned in these kinds of convos before is the declining interest in this game among the current youth.  Any proposal to change the game, I’m mindful of that.  So, I’m typically in favor of changes that

a.) are very easy to explain to young people/casual fans
b.) increase action and offense
c.) require no scorebook modifications or asterisks (pinch-runner, 2-0 count to the next hitter, etc.)

“A four-pitch walk is like a double.” I could easily explain that to my kid when he’s watching a game with me.  That’s a good thing. 

My proposal completely eliminates the intentional walk, and really, it completely eliminates pitching around people, period.  Barry Bonds brought casual fans into the game of baseball. People in your house stopped what they were doing when he was at bat.  We need more of that.  Let the best hitters hit. 

The NBA does several things wrong, but this is the kind of issue that they get right.  The NBA doesn’t allow a defender to camp in the key for more than 3 seconds (illegal D).  And they don’t allow you to take a charge under the rim.  Neither of those two rules exist at lower levels.  This is the NBA acknowledging what fans want to see - incredible athletes getting to the rim and dunking.  Their rules protect and encourage guys who do that.  Not some guy as unathletic as me sneaking under a guy who is in midair to take a lame charge.  (and I say that as a basketball coach). 

If MLB made a four-pitch walk a double, it would be akin to that.  It’s protecting fans’ right to see Bonds/Pujols hit 650 times a year.

Last thought:  the data that teams are using to strategically position their defense, and the proliferation of the sinker in the last 10 years, has really turned the tide back in favor of the pitcher. I think the data boom has benefitted pitchers (defense) more than the hitters. Anecdotally, you see things like the Brewers putting three defenders on the left side against heavy-pull righties, and nearly every lefty power hitter is aggressively shifted to the right in such an effective manner that it’s bringing down the BABIP of guys like Pena, Tex when he hits from the left side, etc. in a way that wasn’t as recently as 15 years ago.  So, I am totally ok with a subtle rule change that benefits the hitters again, and strongly incentivizes pitchers to throw at least one strike to everyone.

JJ/65 Well-put. I was toying with “balk + walk if runners on base, two bases if empty” but the simplicity of your proposal is a big plus. As for HBP, I’m OK with treating it the same, but possibly the umpire could distinguish “nominal” vs. “serious” HBP’s.

JJ/65, LL/66 - I am in agreement - but there has to be something that keeps this from changing the incentives for weak hitters - especially in terms of avoiding a HBP. And I’d rather avoid having the umpires trying to guess intent.

It’s protecting fans’ right to see Bonds/Pujols hit 650 times a year.

Unfortunately, the next thing you’ll need to protect is the fan’s right to see Pujols swing at a 2-0 pitch.

Even Prince Albert rarely gets two bases - in 2011, he got 66 extra base hits in 651 PA’s, about 1 in 10.  If he all of the sudden gets two bases for a 4-pitch walk, I can’t see him swinging at a 2-0 pitch any more, it’s not smart to do so. 

Which is too bad, since he hit .650/.619/1.150 when he put a 2-0 pitch in play…

Greg #68:  I think teams would groove him a 2-0 fastball, agreed.

But that’s a good thing!  As a fan, we either extend the drama of the Pujols at-bat (because it’s now 2-1 if he does indeed automatically take as you suggest), or, we watch in awe as he punishes a pitcher who grooves a pitch in a 2-0 count (.650/.619/1.150).

Both outcomes are better than watching a pitcher blatantly avoid a guy or intentionally walking him.

I would expect there to be many fewer 2-0 and 3-0 pitches delivered. I’m not positive the difference, but it seems the lesser hitters see far fewer 2-0 and 3-0 pitches than the better hitters do. A 4-pitch walk being two bases would force pitchers to throw more strikes.

Reading (more like skimming) all these ideas, I am left with 2 general opinions:
1) The penalty, if it exists, should logically apply to all walks, not only IBBs. After all, the idea behind the walk rule is to punish the pitcher for not throwing enough strikes. I don’t agree that it logically follows that throwing bad pitches intentionally is a worse offense than doing so because of poor control. In both cases, the fans are ‘deprived’ of seeing the ‘true’ batter/pitcher matchup (which seems to be the major gripe), and
2) The increased penalty for BB, if it exists, should be the minimum to effectively get rid of the IBB, while at the same time not artificially deviating from normal baseball outcomes.

What does this mean in practice? It means awarding the ‘next step up’ outcome which occurs naturally in baseball for all BB . And that would be the minimum outcome on a single, which is 1 base for the batter plus whatever baserunner advances are ‘forced’.

So, do you want to have such a result for all walks? What are the likely unintended consequences? Think about that.

Me, I’ll vote for the status quo…

Could we just treat a walk as a single ignoring the possibility of taking an extra base? A walk (or 4 pitch walk, depending on your preference) moves all runners up one base. If there is a man on third, and you walk Pujols, the man on third scores. We’d be treating the walk as a free hit, and at that point, the pitcher would surely pitch to the batter and make him “earn” it, right?

If he all of the sudden gets two bases for a 4-pitch walk, I can’t see him swinging at a 2-0 pitch any more, it’s not smart to do so.

If the two-base walk (or any other penalty) only applies to a 4-pitch walk, then that 2-0 pitch may be his only chance to swing in the at bat.

The batter would be selective, but he already is now on 2-0. So while I think you might take a little more than you do now, I doubt the effect would be all that big.

This point does make the argument for the status quo stronger: any proposal that only applies to a 4-pitch walk would not change things if/once a pitcher gets a single strike on the batter. At that point, you’d still see intentional walks to avoid star batters.

Two possible ways to address that could be:
1. Apply harsher penalty to all walks, or
2. Give the umpire discretion to call a walk intentional.

Penalizing all walks has the negative side effect of encouraging batters to try to draw walks much more than they already do - a 2-base walk becomes *better* than most hits. So I’m not fond of that option.

Giving the umpire discretion may be better at encouraging pitchers to go after batters, but at the cost of giving the umpire even more influence on the outcome. You’d probably need a similar rule to balls and strikes, not allowing players/managers to argue over intentional walk calls. And umpires would likely differ in how they viewed walks, just as strike zones vary among umpires now.

This is not an easy problem to solve!

Umpire discretion is really out the window.  I’d rather Bonds be IBB with bases empty than to know the name of an umpire.  Umpires need to be invisible.

As for the idea of the hitter getting a strike and then being walked on 4 pitches: that’s GOOD!  All we want is for ONE chance for the batter, not to have his bat replaced by a twig for the whole PA.

Ego is so prevalent in MLB. I really think it would work in our favor here.

“Really? You’d rather give me a two-base walk than pitch to me?”

and…

“you already got strike one. You’re not gonna intentionally avoid him now, are you?”

The intentional walk is passé in its current form, such that isn’t really a blow to anyone’s ego to avoid guy, with the rule change, though, a pitcher would be the rare “cowardly” one to still give out free passes in those situations.  The MLB culture is conformist enough to make it work.

Ok, let’s switch gears to “law of unintended consequences”.

We’ll start with the most restrictive of the suggestions (and then we’ll talk about the rest in progression).

Solution #1:
1. designate a double-walk player before the game

2. if such a player gets a no-strike walk or a no-strike hit batter, he has the option to (a) take first base as usual or (b) remain at the plate with an 0-2 count, but if he is walked or hit batter, we have the double-walk scenario (meaning a total of two bases are gained by the runners+batter, in some combination)

If we implement that, isn’t it likely that the vast majority of IBB to this batter will remain as-is, and the batter will rarely elect to remain at the plate?

Geoff/73, Tango/74: Then don’t let the umpire decide, let the players decide!

If the player refuses to be intentionally walked, then up the ante with a double walk if he’s walked a second time.

The walk is supposed to punish the pitching team, not the offense. The whole point of baseball is for the pitcher to throw the ball so that the batter has an opportunity to hit it, and balls/walks are the ensure the pitcher has to throw reasonable pitches. The walk was not intended to occasionally be a benefit to the defense, so the offense should have the opportunity to decline if it’s not in their favor.

Forcing the batter to accept the walk is like forcing a football team’s defense to accept a penalty against the offense after a 3rd down stop, repeating 3rd down and giving the offense another chance to convert. Sure, converting 3rd and long is hard (just like inducing a double play), but the offense would rather try it than to be forced to punt (or pitch to Pujols).

The punishment is not effective is the offenders intentionally seek to be “punished”!

Tango/74 -

Sure, getting one pitch to hit is better than zero, but it would be be better yet to see him get a full three strikes. So while brainstorming, I care about that also.

Tango/75 - I agree that the batter would not take an 0-2 count to keep swinging. Or, if he would, we’d criticize it harshly. wOBA on an 0-2 count is below the Mendoza line!

See http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/hitting_by_count/

Yes, but if he walks, he gets double-benefit.  So, the wOBA equation has to be adjusted for that.

The thing is, you just want to prevent the IBB with the proper incentives.  That’s the goal, right, just to prevent it?  So, concentrate on preventing it BEFORE it happens, rather than punishing after. 

That is: just set the incentive so that if Pujols DOES get walked 4-0, it was probably an accident.  My suggested rule: 

1.  The batter may declare in advance of the PA that we will refuse a walk on a 4-0 count.  This is announced publicly, so the pitching team knows and the fans can second-guess.  If the batter does not declare, the PA proceeds under today’s rules, where the IBB is just fine.

2.  If he is walked 4-0 after his declaration, and there are runners on base, it’s a balk.  Runners advance, and batter restarts at 0-0. 

3.  If the batter declared, there are no runners on base, and the count goes 4-0, the batter has the option of going to second base, instead of first.  If he refuses, start him again at 0-0.  If it happens again, he has the option of third base.  If it happens a fourth time, he circles the bases, a run scores, and the next batter comes up.

This is scored as BB+, or BB++, or BB+++, like a dropped third strike is K+.

4.  All this happens ONLY if the catcher left his crouch during the 4-0 walk (or the ball got past him, which implies leaving his crouch even if he doesn’t chase it).  In my view, if the catcher stayed put, every pitch was hittable or carried the danger of a WP/PB.  In that case, the defense is not really taking advantage of a loophole in the rules.  They’re taking a serious risk.  That means the “pitch around” is a risky and interesting strategy, instead of the kind of boring “take advantage of a loophole” IBB that we want to eliminate.

5.  Also, if any runner advanced during the AB (via a stolen base, passed ball, wild pitch, balk, etc.), that 4-0 walk doesn’t get “punished”.  The batter can still refuse it, but there’s no balk or no banked extra advancement. 

6.  You need to cover technicalities like HBP, but that’s not too difficult.

----

By instituting the “Pujols tells the umpire in advance” rule, the pitching team won’t bother with the IBB at all—it can only hurt them.  The AB goes normally, the pitcher doesn’t waste our time with four intentional balls, and the rhythm of the game is not disrupted.

What you get, almost all the time, is exactly what you want: Pujols hitting, seamlessly.

And, the “punishment” will almost never happen, because the pitching team will almost never call for a “real” IBB where the catcher leaves his crouch. 

The only time you’ll have to invoke it is when the pitching team decides it’s worth it to maybe put Pujols on second base.  Or, when they pitch to him with the bases empty, after he’s said he’ll refuse a walk, and one ball unintentionally gets away, and there’s no chance afterwards to throw a strike.  How many times a season will that series of events coincide?  Not many.

Bottom line: what you get is a seamless elimination of the strategic IBB, and you replace it with, at worst, a strategic “pitch around the batter as best you can without the catcher leaving the crouch.”

Is that good enough?  It’s good enough for me ...

Not all hitters may be equally affected by being down 0-2, but overall wOBA is nearly twice 0-2 wOBA. Even accounting for the more valuable walk, I’d guess wOBA to be much below normal down 0-2.

But maybe there’s bias in looking at the wOBA data by count: good hitters are likely down 0-2 less often than weak ones, since pitchers aren’t trying to challenge them. If the link normalized count wOBA by total plate appearances of players in the pool, this isn’t an issue, but if it simply computed wOBA from all PAs that reached that count, then perhaps some of the lower wOBA when down 0-2 is from overweighting worse players instead of worse performance by the same set of players.

0-2 wOBA is about 120 points below the 0-0 wOBA.  You MUST look at the “through” count, not the “at” count.  99.999% of the time, you should ignore the “at” count.

***

Phil: I like the idea of presenting it before-the-fact, and I definitely like the idea of keeping the catcher in the crouch.  Indeed, just keeping him in the crouch might be sufficient.

I don’t think that keeping the catcher in his crouch is enough. First, throwing a ball two feet outside is not that hard for a major league pitcher and the catcher should be able to catch it if he is ready for it. Second, it does nothing for the bases empty IBB. I have an image of the pitcher throwing 4 straight to the guy standing on deck.

Bases Empty IBB will be one of those that we’ll live with.

If the catcher must stay in his “box” until the pitch passes home plate, I think throwing a pitch that is a) catchable by the constrained catcher, and b) out of reach of the hitter will be very challenging, and maybe just the sort of deterrent for an IBB that we’re looking for.

Remember, if the catcher sidesteps early, it’s a balk, so he’ll have to play it safe and stay put.  If the pitcher misses towards home plate, the ball’s hittable - especially so if the hitter suspects the defense is going to try to IBB him, and the pitch is almost certainly going to be a 4-seam fastball in a known location.  If the pitcher misses outside, it’s likely a WP since the catcher is stuck behind the plate until the ball reaches home, and anything beyond an arm’s reach will go to the backstop.

Under this rule, if the defense is able to avoid balking, avoid leaving a tasty pitch within reach of the hitter, and avoid the wild pitch, then I think they deserve to get what they want.  At the very least this should up the risk level to the defense for employing this strategy, which will no doubt reduce its usage.

I agree with all that.  Leaving the catcher in the box would be a simple first step.

Phil/81 - I just reread your suggestion - and I think everyone would announce that they would not accept a 4-pitch walk. With no one on it is a dominant strategy - if you are walked on 4 pitches, you go to second with no other change.

Tango/83 - My mistake. .120 is still a big difference.

I’m still curious about whether the table is simply averaging all PAs that pass through that count, or whether it is weighted. Or, whether there may indeed be bias in how often batters face certain counts. If there’s no significant difference, then there’s no issue at all. But if better, more selective, hitters are more likely to face 2-0 or 3-1 counts, and less likely to face 0-2, then numbers at a given count may be affected.

I’m getting off-topic, though.

It seems unlikely that even great batters would often pass up a walk to bat starting with an 0-2 count, even if they got a 2-base walk for being walked again.

Ken/88:  Oops!  You’re right.  My suggestion wouldn’t work for bases empty.  It would work for bases occupied, though.

For bases empty, you could fix it with one extra rule: if the batter declares he wants to refuse a 4-ball walk, the pitching team gets the right to reset ANY walk (only if it chooses).  That way, the batting team will only do the refusing it when it *really* doesn’t want a walk.

From GBTS at Obstructed View:

Any batter can opt to refuse first base after ball four.  After ball 6, the batter is entitled to second, should he choose to accept it.

Likewise:
ball 8 = third base
ball 10 = home run

A hitter adept at fouling off pitches (say, Wade Boggs) could really exploit such a rule.  Get ready for 15 minute long at bats by hitters with excellent bat control and plate discipline, followed by the anxiously-anticipated bases-clearing walk.

I’d expect a lot more mid-plate-appearance pitcher subs, too.

Mid-inning pitching changes will go away before the IBB goes away.  That’s an easy problem to fix.

Anyway, keep the catcher in the crouch, that’s an easy fix, and should be done right away.  That by itself may get rid of half the IBB.

Have a designated-double-walker, with a reset count to 0-2, at least gives the batter an option to be “double teamed”.

These I think are low-risk solutions, that at least addresses the issue.

For HBP, instead of getting a free pass, the batter gets one free swing at the pitcher’s head with his bat.

I think this is a reasonable compromise and shouldn’t affect the outcome of the game too badly, while still discouraging pitchers from hitting batters.

I assume the Ball 6, 8, 10 is without a strike. We’ve been talking about non-strike plate appearances so I would assume that’s what he meant. I didn’t clarify it with him and I didn’t like the idea at first, but the more I’ve thought about the more I like it. I don’t think we’d see anyone refuse 2nd base at Ball 6. So this really just gives the hitter the chance to take the base or see if the pitcher throws 2 more consecutive balls and he gets a double out of it. I’d be OK with it. I’d prefer the double walk on all 4-pitch walks though.

Then what happens after you get to 4-0 ant the batter refuses to go to first then there is a strike and you are at 4-1? how does it play out from there?

How about allowing the batter to invoke the double walk prior to the plate appearance, but as an incentive for the defense, the batter only gets two strikes instead of three.  If the plate appearance ends in a walk, regardless of count, the batter goes to second and all runners advance two bases.

bhart/97 has the advantage that the batter doesn’t have to announce it in advance.  If the first pitch is a deliberate ball, and the batter deliberately swings, it’s on.  The count is 0-1, as it would be normally, but the “batter goes to second” rule is now in force.

That’s a good thing: most of the time, the defense isn’t contemplating the intentional walk, and forcing the announcers and teams to think about it all the time is annoying.  This way, it just happens, when it happens, and everybody sees it.  If it doesn’t happen, it’s business as usual.

I think for this kind of serious rule change, you want to make it as seamless as possible.  This rule allows that.

ari/96 - At 4 balls the count starts over. If a strike is thrown it’s an 0-1 count. If at 6 balls you decide you want to go for the triple, it resets again.

David/99 - I don’t see why you need a reset, unless you’re giving the option to refuse to any walk, not just 4 pitch walks.

Treating 4 pitch walks a little differently, but post hoc, seems reasonable to me. I don’t like having the batter announce intentions to refuse in advance - that seems overly clunky. But giving him an option to refuse a 4-pitch walk, and keep hitting again with a changed walk value, is workable, albeit a bit slower.

Say after a 4-pitch walk, the batter can accept or refuse. If he refuses, he stays at bat with a reset count, but any walk (4 pitch or more) then results in a 2-base walk, forcing any runners as needed.

Weak hitters would simply accept the 4-pitch walk the first go-round. Stronger ones would decline, putting much more pressure on the pitcher to actually pitch to the hitter.

And since the pitchers know strong batters would decline a 4-pitch walk to gain advantage, pitchers would be much less likely to issue them 4 pitch walks in the first place: better to try to sneak one strike by than three. And also a refused walk runs the pitcher’s pitch count even higher.

You’d still be able to intentionally walk someone (at least de facto) once you got that first strike, although the proposals to keep the catcher behind home at least give some greater risk to doing that.

Have only skimmed here, so I don’t know if this has been mentioned:

Instead of increasing the penalty for an IBB AFTER the fact, increase the difficulty/risk BEFORE the fact.

Make it a rule that the catcher must be in his usual crouch before every pitch, and cannot start to come out of it until the pitch has left the pitcher’s hand. A violation is called a ‘catcher balk’ and the penalty is the same as a pitcher balk. On an IBB attempt, then::

1) the pitcher doesn’t have a visual target to throw to
2) the pitch has to come closer to the plate, to make sure the catcher can get to it.
3) the catcher has to catch the pitch while moving
4) the pitcher has to have decent mustard on the pitch, just in case it comes closer to or over the plate

All of these changes increase the chance of either a catchers balk, a wild pitch/passed ball, or a swing at a slow/medium fastball which is catching the plate. If the defense still thinks the IBB is worthwhile, at least they’ll have to earn it with some risk attached.

The catcher-crouch has been brought up a couple of times, and no one has any negatives behind it.

It’s very possible that this rule by itself can have enough risk to mitigate some IBB.

So, I’d say to implement this catcher-crouch rule, and see how it works out for a year.  (At least implement it in AAA.)