THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

You know, I never calculated the linear weights value of the double-walk.  Let’s do that.

With bases empty, a regular walk is +.26 runs.  A double-walk is +.43 runs (places runner on second base).  That’s a differential of +.17 runs.

With runner on 1B, a regular walk is +.43 runs.  A double-walk is the same. (In both cases, you gained your two bases, by forcing the runner on 1B to 2B.)

With runner on 2B, a regular walk is +.26 runs.  A double-walk is +.43 runs.  Differential of +.17 runs.

With runner on 3B, the differential is +.17 runs.

With runners on 2B and 3B, the differential is +.40 runs.

So, overall, a double-walk has about an extra run value of about +.17 runs over and above the regular IBB.

In order to cancel that out, a pitcher needs to throw just one pitch in the strike zone.  Even a pitch down the middle is not worth +.17 runs.

While I would like the intentional walk to go away I wouldn’t make such an extreme penalty for a 4 pitch walk. I would like a rule that all base runners move up one base. The only situations that would change would be the ones where the intentional walk occurs frequently. I guess don’t like the thought of the leadoff batter of the game/inning going directly to second just because the pitcher just misses on 4 pitches.

Here are the differences between your proposal and mine:

bases empty: my guy gets to 2B, and yours stays at 1B… I’m more extreme by +.17 runs

runner on 3B: I’m at 2B and 3B, while you are at 1B with a run… YOU are more extreme by +.23 runs

runners on 2B, 3B: I’m at 1B and 2B, with a run, while you are at 1B and 3B, with a run… YOU Are more extreme by +.17 runs

Granted, bases empty 4-base walks will occur more often than the other two situations.  We could make it that we don’t apply my rule of 4-base walks with bases empty.  If I do that, then YOUR proposal becomes much more extreme.

What if you gave the batter the option to continue the at bat with a fresh count of 0-0, but a walk would result in the batter taking second.

Bond’s comes up with 1st base empty and gets walked.  Says “no thanks, I’d like to keep hitting”
The count would then go to 0-0 again.  A ball in play would be treated like any other ball in play.  A strike out in the 2nd at-bat could result in a walk to first or a strike out, i have not made up my mind.  A walk in the second at-bat would result in the batter taking second.

This would let the luck dragon come into play.  And who doesn’t like the luck dragon?

Steve, that would be fun for any 4-pitch walk.  Of course, I grew up watching pro wrestling on TV, so I’m picturing Pujols in a high-leverage situation getting 4 balls and then waving his index finger, Hulk Hogan style, at the pitcher, then digging in and getting ready for the next pitch.

Personally, if the batter stays at the plate, I’d make the result of the second 0-0 count be final.  Unless that’s a 4-pitch walk, I’d allow the batter to decline that too, and start at 0-0 with a walk sending him to third. (and again, allow a decline, with a walk on the FOURTH 0-0 count sending him all the way around the bases, scoring all runners in front of him).

Steve, that’s what Bill James proposed in the 1980s.  He had it for ANY walk, regardless if it was a 4-pitch walk or not.

He had alternatives that the batter is either reset at 0-0, or (better in my opinion), you reset the balls, and the pitcher keeps the strikes.

So, if some batter was at a 3-2 count, and he got a called ball, he could refuse that, reset to 0-2, and continue the at bat. 

In either case, the walk is a 2-base event.

Just the idea that the batter has some control this way is fantastic.

Note: if you think this idea, or any idea that upsets the delicate inertia balance of baseball, is stupid, it has been duly noted.

This thread is for critical thinking.  If you can join in, great.  If not, find another party.

Tangotiger, On the tangent of the breakeven walk-rate for an “Eddie Gaudel” no-contact hitter:

If I enter 523 AB / 477 BB / 523 K through your Markov calculator, I get 6.930 runs per 9 innings, which would edge out the ‘31 Yankees for the most RPG in the modern era.  Is that because the run environment assumptions no longer hold up with a lineup of 9 hitters like this?

Better solution? Create a catcher’s box. (Is there one already?)

If the catcher leaves the box or gets out of his crouch to catch a pitch, it’s a balk.

Michael/7: if you have ONE batter who is Eddie Gaedel, and the other 8 batters are normal, then what I said holds true.

However, in your case, you have NINE Eddie Gaedels.  And using the Markov simulator is perfect for that, as you did.

If I just set AB = 1000, BB=1000, K=1000, I get 8.438 runs per game.  In order to get it down to 4.5 runs per game, you need to set it to BB=753.  That means a team OBP of .430.

Brian/8: fantastic!  I love the idea behind it.  Sure, the pitcher can throw a high pitch each time, but at least it opens up the possibility of a wild pitch.

I prefer the other solutions, but yours is the first I heard of it, and I like it.

You can also go here:
http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902event.html

And calculate the breakeven points:
Breakeven Base Outs
40% Empty 0
40% Empty 1
48% Empty 2

43% 1st 0
44% 1st 1
52% 1st 2

52% 2nd 0
62% 2nd 1
71% 2nd 2

53% 3rd 0
72% 3rd 1
73% 3rd 2

43% 1st_2nd 0
43% 1st_2nd 1
53% 1st_2nd 2

56% 1st_3rd 0
69% 1st_3rd 1
65% 1st_3rd 2

55% 2nd_3rd 0
78% 2nd_3rd 1 <--
74% 2nd_3rd 2

44% Loaded 0
49% Loaded 1
43% Loaded 2

If your OBP is lower than the breakeven point, then you won’t have much value to your team as an all-walk all-K guy.

We see that with man on 2B and 3B with 1 out, your OBP has to be .780 in order to just break-even.  That’s because your walks have very little value (don’t move the runner over), but the strikeout is very damaging (keeps runner on 3B, and now with 2 outs).

It’s no coincidence that the IBB situations are those that are also the highest in break-even terms for OBP. 

The lowest are the bases empty, even lower than bases loaded!

There is a catcher’s box.  The catcher is not supposed to leave it until the pitch is released.  It seems to me that they tend to leave it early on IBBs (while the pitcher is still in motion).

If you are saying the catcher can *never* leave the box, is he supposed to wave at unintentional wild pitches?

How about this as an alternative to the Bill James from the 80’s suggestion:

A batter who is walked on 4 pitches may take his base like normal OR choose to move any one baserunner up by one base and take a new at-bat.  For bases empty, the batter would just take his base.

If you are saying the catcher can *never* leave the box, is he supposed to wave at unintentional wild pitches?

That’s what my catchers did. *grin*

#12 - probably write the rule, such as the catcher cannot leave the box until the pitch crosses the front of home plate or something.  I think it would be very rare for a pitch to be so wild that the catcher would leave the box before that happens.  And if it is, I doubt he could prevent the runner from advancing anyway.

Another possibility, perhaps: allow the intentional walk, but limit how many a team can use in a game?  Whatever number seems appropriate: I’m thinking two, though one may be good as well.  Adds some more strategy to the game, IMHO.

I don’t like having the umpire involved to make the determination of when the ball crosses the plate.

I like the idea of an IBB like a “timeout”, that you are limited to how often you can use it.  One per team is more than enough. 

Indeed, how about one per game (both teams combined).  If for example the Giants didn’t want Bonds walked, THEY could IBB their opponent early, and thereby, remove Bonds (or anyone else) from being walked.

It’s like getting to hit a batter first without being ejected.

@#12:
How often does a pitcher uncorked a true wild pitch that requires the catcher to leave the box or his crouch (need that to mitigate the high pitch intentional walk) to block it? If so, it’s a pitch that is probably going to the backstop anyway, allowing the runners to advance.

I don’t want to turn this into another rule brainstorming thread since I think there already is one on this...BUT...Another alternative is that you can intentionally walk a hitter any time you like. But you have to replace the catcher before the next batter after the IBB. (We already have rules that you have to replace the pitcher after a 2nd visit, this is not so radical.)

Not sure why you’d replace the catcher.  I’d be in favor of replacing the pitcher if you want to think along those lines.

Mid-inning pitching change still requires the new pitcher to start with a 1-0 count on the batter.

I’m a big fan of the idea of letting the batter refuse a walk (any walk). It adds another strategic decision, and that is always interesting for the fan. Like BJ and Poz are pointing out, if the walk is supposed to be a penalty for the pitcher, then the batter should be able to say no.

I’d also apply that to basketball. 

The most ridiculous thing I heard was when the losing team was trying to foul their opponents with the seconds ticking off, and the referee wouldn’t call a foul on the losing team… and the losing team got upset about it!

Football gets it right, with the option of the team to decline the penalty.  Hockey gets it right that the penalty is only called when the offended team loses possession.  Soccer gets it right that the foul is only called if it’s advantageous to the offended team.

Baseball, king of inertia?  Oh no, they have to stick to the letter of the law, and 4 balls is a walk, and even if the batting team doesn’t want it, then it’s going to get it.

Stare decisis is a good concept for the courts, because the courts have presumably applied critical thinking to their decisions.  Continuity via inertia here makes sense.

Baseball?  The baseball lawyers believe that because it’s always been that way, that inertia is tantamount to stare decisis.

Another neat way to implement the double walk would be to allow the batter to designate that they want a 7-2 count to be full (8 balls for a walk), and in return they would get two bases.

@#18 Tango:

Because replacing the catcher likely limits you to 1 IBB per game.

Well, replace the SS, and you get 0 IBB!

The “decline the walk” option is the most intriguing to me.  It is the one variation that seems most likely to get rid of the problem.

Incidentally, I see the problem as a very specific one: reflexive intentional BB’s to star hitters.  I don’t think intentional walks to most other players are a problem, since they happen rather infrequently, and in a lot of cases are not hugely advantageous to the defense, if at all.  And I don’t think 4-pitch walks from genuinely wild pitchers should be considered part of the problem.

So, I think allowing Bautista to decline a 4 pitch walk guarantees him at least one pitch in the strike zone (though not more than one, as once he fouls one off or takes one, down to first base he goes); throwing 4 balls just tires out the pitcher if he is going to decline.

I’m not a fan of all the two base advancements, everyone advances, etc.  Too gimmicky for me.

@Tango/20

Are you saying that the team with the lead in basketball should be able to decline the foul?  That’s not really realistic—it’s not really all that difficult for a team to run out the shot clock each time they have the ball with little risk of losing possession, unlike hockey where it’s hard to keep possession for a prolonged period of time unless somebody’s on the power play.  If they’re not trying to score, then they’re not likely to turn it over. 

The losing team would be desperately trying to steal the ball, which would result in a foul anyway a vast majority of the time because the players on the losing team would be frantically swatting at the ball.  If the winning team then declined all those fouls, you’d have an endless stream of throw-ins at the end of games, not to mention that there would almost never be comebacks at the end of games.

Hot/26: then give the offended team the ball back.  You can make it one-throw and ball back, or two throws.

And why do they need a chance at the ball, beyond the shot clock?  Would you want to see something like that in football?

Greg: interesting… so, 4 balls, and then the batter has one chance to swing.  If he takes a strike or swings/fouls, then he just gets on base.

What’s to stop the pitcher from nibbling?  If the pitcher throws 4 MORE balls, then count it as a “single” and everyone moves one base.

No, Tom, I was just saying that for a monster hitter, if the pitcher wants to walk him, but knows that if he throws 4 balls the hitter can decline, then his objective becomes throwing one ball on the black, or inducing a foul ball, after which he can issue the intentional pass without any penalty.  This means that essentially, a guy like Bautista can be guaranteed to get one pitch to hit, but not more than one, by implementing the “decline option” for 4-pitch walks.

I was actually thinking that the decline option would be the only change.  If he declines, and then the pitcher decides to go after him and gets him out, then he’s out…

Tango/27

That’s what I’m saying—if you give the offended team the ball back, what you end up with is an endless stream of throw-ins from out-of-bounds that immediately result in fouls anyway because the losing team is going to try and steal it.  That’s what happens late in games when the losing team has not yet reached the bonus (that is, the limit where the number of fouls they have accumulated results in their fouls automatically results in free throws instead of a throw-in and a resetting of the shot clock).  Sometimes watching free throws at the end of games is no fun, but that would be brutal every time.

It’s a similar situation to football, but it is distinguishable.  In football, a team with the lead that isn’t trying to accomplish anything is going to give the ball back anyway because they won’t gain the 10 yards necessary to retain possession, particularly if the other team has timeouts.  In basketball, most people consider it better strategy for the team with the lead at the end of the game to not try and accomplish anything—it is more in their interest to run time off the clock than it is to try and score.  And they are at very little risk of giving up possession if they do the worst thing to watch in basketball, which is to simply hold the ball (that’s the reason there’s even a shot clock in the first place). 

The game would be over as soon as the team with the lead was ahead by enough points that they could just hold the ball for each period of 35 or 24 seconds (college and pro shot clocks, respectively) and the other team couldn’t catch up.  If you’re down by 1 with 20 seconds left, game over.  That sounds like the opposite of exciting basketball.

If you’re gonna implement a four-pitch-walk penalty, you better include a rule for hitting batters too! otherwise all hell would break loose.

I may be a minority of one, but I have no problem with the IBB. A baserunner is supposed to be a positive outcome for an offensive team. It may not be *the* most positive outcome, especially if the batter is Bonds or Pujols, but even those guys make outs more often then not.  If the issuing team is smart enough to accurately determine that an IBB will give them an advantage, then I say more power to them. If, as most analysis has shown (IIRC), the IBB as actually given out confers a small advantage to the batting team for free, than why complain?

If it’s all about the spectacle of preserving the Bonds vs pitcher matchup, that’s a matter of personal preference. For me, I like to see the moves and tactics, and whether they succeed or fail, more than I like to see any specific forced matchup of batter vs pitcher.

Hot: excellent post.

Ok, are you saying this is the best we’ve got, that it’s the best of a bad situation?

Adding to my last paragraph in #32---- Not to mention that, if the pitcher is forced to pitch to Bonds when he would just as soon IBB him, it’s not going to be any sort of entertaining confrontation. The pitcher will simply pitch around him. So, let the IBB happen. In fact, do away with the 4 boring pitches, and just let the pitcher signal it…

Take your base, dude....

Should have left my post #34 out. Ignore it.

#33

Maybe. Basketball has a big inherent problem in that it’s not supposed to be a contact sport and hard contact is penalized yet there is tons of it which means you have to very liberal rules concerning contact fouls (every player is allowed 4/5 of them which is generous and the resulting free throws aren’t much of a discouragement). This creates numerous issues that diminish the sport.

First of all, I think a fundamental principal for any sport should be that the penalties for an infraction should be severe enough no one would deliberately commit the infraction to gain an advantage. The whole point of a penalty is to keep players from violating the rules so if players choose to do so despite the punishment then your punishment isn’t tough enough. It isn’t fun to see teams break the rules, and I can’t stand that in basketball fouling is a deliberate strategy, not only at the end of the game but on fast breaks and against certain big men (like Shaq). This principal would apply to intentional walks in baseball as well.

Second, basketball is supposed to be this intense, fast paced game but all the fouls and all the resulting free throws kill the momentum. This is doubly so at the end of a close game which should be the most exciting point but so often gets worse as it devolves into a tedious, irritating foul-fest.

I’m with you that the intentional foul needs to go away, but I don’t know if there’s a good way to do it and not let a team run out the clock. Maybe we shouldn’t worry about teams running out the clock. Teams do it in football all the time and no one complains. In fact, football teams can just take a knee and not give their opponents any chance at a turnover. Yet no one insists that football players should be allowed to intentionally foul their opponent and force the opponent to kick a field goal just so they can get the ball back. That would be considered ridiculous, so why do we tolerate such a strategy in basketball?

I don’t like the intentional walk, but I also don’t like penalizing a pitcher to a greater extent because he’s wild. As for giving a batter second base when he’s walked on four straight balls, I haven’t seen any discussion of any of the possible unintended consequences. One that immediately comes to mind is that there could be longer games. Pitchers will be afraid of that four pitch walk, so they’ll groove more pitches when they get behind in the count. Hence, there will be more offense and, inevitably, longer gams. Likewise, batters will tend to take more pitches in the hopes of getting ahead in the count so that the pitcher will have to groove one. I think that this would be a likely outcome. People already complain when teams like the Yankees and Red Sox play because they take so many pitches, making for long games. I can think of other possible unintended consequences but I won’t belabor the point.

My response to Pos:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=14113

If the batter wanted to “refuse” the intentional walk, he could swing at one or two pitches (intentional strikes) to create a pitcher’s count and tempt the other team back into pitching to him.

There seem to be two basic arguments against the intentional walk: 1) boring and against the entertainment interest of the fans 2) “not fair” (or “anti-sport” as Tango put it). I’m not sure how these mix together, because the discussion usually seems to involve walking Bautista or Pujols or Bonds, not the 8th place hitter in an NL game to get at the pitcher.

I’m not bothered by the intentional walk. Teams compete, not individuals, and they compete to win, not entertain.

I think Colin makes a good point in passing in his article. We arrived at the current rules because a lot of experimentation took place at the end of the 19th century to get a good balance in the batter/pitcher confrontation. As with the introduction of the DH 40 years ago, if MLB does want to mess around with a major rule change, it will need to be tested for a while in the minors.

Now, the Bonds/Pujols/Bautista superstar type of intentional walk has become more prevalent in the big homerun era. But intentional walks as a whole are rarer events on a percentage basis. The rate of intentional walks per plate appearance peaked in 1967-1968.

Those experimentations occurred when HR hitters did not exist.

When Ruth was being IBB, the same outcry occurred, IIRC.

The problem is that the matter is so localized to a handful of players that you don’t have much room for experimentation.

***

In the NHL, the two-minute penalty was always a two-minute penalty… until they figured that the Canadiens were so good, that the penalty was so hurtful, that it should be waived following a goal.

It’s not clear that this should still be in play today.  That perhaps it should be a full two-minutes (just like a five-minute major is a full five-minutes).

I don’t think it’s correct to think that experimentation in 1892 in MLB or 1954 in NHL needs to be stare decisis.

***

The World Cup of soccer is sometimes decided by a shooutout for gosh sakes.  The most popular sport in the world, with the most popular tournament in the world resorted to something very unappealing.  This means that every single rule in every single sport should be up for grabs.  There’s practically nothing any other sport can change that can compare to that.

My biggest problem with basketball is when the offensive player flails and jumps into the defender simply to draw a foul.  Play the game, don’t exploit it.

some good ideas in here.  i would add that maybe the next hitter gets to start with 1 ball on his count after an IBB. 2 balls seems a bit too much.  maybe +1 ball per IBB in a game? i know hitters usually have better wobas when ahead in the count, so this will add a little bit of a penalty without altering the game too much.

the trouble for me is defining an IBB. in my mind, there are three kinds of four pitch walks.
1 - traditional IBB, with pitch outs
2 - where the pitcher tries to bait a good hitter the first few pitches and then pitches out after falling behind
3 - a lack of control or a pitcher just missing the spots

the trouble is that if you implement a rule for IBB only people will find ways to game the system.  for example, pitchers might then be taught to throw four straight fastballs down the pipe but at the eyes or a little higher for an IBB.

I don’t have a problem with a league introducing rule changes to make the game more exciting. Like how the NBA introduced a shot clock when teams were just playing keep-away once they got a lead. Or the 3-point line (I believe it was the ABA that started this). Or how the NFL implemented the forward pass.

Now, a 2-base walk isn’t nearly as dramatic a change as the shot clock or the forward pass. But I still think it would make the game more interesting.

@#41:
You must absolutely hate world class soccer then.

dutch/42: I like that, that you start the next batter at 1-0.  If it’s the pitcher, no one is really going to care.  If it’s the #5 hitter, then that may really dampen the enthusiasm for the IBB.

You can even make it that the first IBB to the team is 1-0, and then the second and subsequent IBB start the next hitter at 2-0.

I like this very much.

***

dutch/42: forget about the “intent” in the BB.  4-straight balls is what we are talking about. 

Also, you need to have the same penalty for 4-ball walks as you would for a hit batter (or at least a no-strike hit batter).

***

Tom/43: right, exactly.  The BIGGEST rule change in baseball is changing the size of the strike zone (done in 2001 I think).  The next biggest is changing the composition of balls or bats.  These are huge changes.

3-point line, etc are big changes.

Two-base walks?  Ejecting hit batters at the head?  These are little things.

But, this is what we are up against with baseball fans, who are so used to their inertia.  Every little thing is a huge deal.  Going from 8 to 10 teams in the playoffs is a huge deal to some.  When the NFL introduced wild cards and play-in wild cards, IIRC, it was just… done.  That’s it, and accepted.

Baseball changes are like Supreme Court rulings…

I think Joe Arthur defines the two arguments against the intentional walk very well in post #39. I also like the tactical decisions that Dave Smyth describes in Post #32.  A possible solution that solves problem #1 of the boring nature of the 4 pitches is to allow the little league (and senior league rule) of declaring an intentional walk, but also allow the batter to decline if he has no strikes against him.  The count would remain what it is when the pitcher declares the intentional walk. Only then would the two bases on 4 straight balls come into effect, but if the pitcher has already thrown some balls they would count toward the four straight ball rule.  This adds an extra layer of tactics, shortens the game, and will create more ABs for the best batters, while not over penalizing wildness.

Peter/46: just so I can follow:

A. Pitcher declares a walk at 0-0, batter will either take first base, or refuse… if he refuses, then if he gets 4 straight balls, he gets a two-base walk

B. Pitcher declares a walk at 2-0, batter will either take first base, or refuse… if he refuses, then 2 straight balls, he gets a two-base walk

Well, I like that very much.  It saves us the trouble of waiting for the 4 soft tosses to happen before a decision is made.

You’d still have to include this for a hit batter though.  If you have a no-strike hit batter, the batter has to have the same choice.

Otherwise, as the other reader said, a pitcher will just drill the batter instead to get a one-base walk.

Also, you need to have the same penalty for 4-ball walks as you would for a hit batter (or at least a no-strike hit batter).

No, this is silly.  No batter that is taking all the way is going to get hit by a pitch even if the pitcher is throwing at him.  Getting hit on a 3-0 count only happened 73 times in the last 11 years.  That’s 73 times in almost 100,000 3-0 counts.  Its not a problem now and it will be even less of a problem with a two base penalty because there will be much more incentive for the batter to take the pitch.

The problem is that the matter is so localized to a handful of players that you don’t have much room for experimentation.

Tango, I’m not really worried about whether or not these silly rule changes will affect IBBs or not. I’m worried about how they will affect the vast majority of PAs which are not IBB situations.

Peter: if the pitcher WANTS the batter to take a one-base walk, but would think twice about giving him a two-base walk, then he’ll drill him.

Your evidence would be from the perspective of the batter.  I’m talking about the perspective of the pitcher.

What would have to be added is a provision that the catcher has to stay in his crouch in the catcher’s box until the pitch is thrown to prevent an undeclared intentional walk.

Colin/49: you are saying that because the 4-pitch walk is prevalent enough, that alot of “unintended” two-base walks will occur.

The result is that pitchers will now have to pitch more toward the center of the plate.  This will of course upset the delicate balance with the strike zone.

With more hittable pitches, we get more action.  Indeed, walks will go down, strikeout will go down, and contacted balls will go up.

This is a byproduct of wanting to reduce the IBB.

And, in the end, this byproduct will end up having the significant effect, and the loss of IBB will end up being the byproduct.

I agree with all that, that that would happen.

And, this can only be a good thing.  We’re up to 3.8 pitches per batter now, whereas we were at 3.6 just 20 years ago, and 3.4 or 3.5 60 years ago.

Baseball is best when there’s something happening.  Hitting, fielding, running.  Non-swinging, while necessary, is the necessary evil.  But, we’re at, what, 26%, 27% (I didn’t check) of PA that end with no contact?

I don’t know about anyone else, but I prefer it be much closer to 20%.

Colin/49: you are saying that because the 4-pitch walk is prevalent enough, that alot of “unintended” two-base walks will occur.

The result is that pitchers will now have to pitch more toward the center of the plate.  This will of course upset the delicate balance with the strike zone.

With more hittable pitches, we get more action.  Indeed, walks will go down, strikeout will go down, and contacted balls will go up.

That’s one theory. Let me propose another.

If you make a double walk part of the game of baseball, hitters are going to try to double walk. Evidence suggests that hitters are more responsible for all PA outcomes than pitchers, walks included:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10533

So if you have hitters out there trying to double walk - they’re going to get to double walk, and the ability of pitchers to change what they are doing to avoid the double walk is more limited than I think you’re giving credit for here.

So given these incentives, I think you see more pitches being taken, more walks, more strikeouts, etc. - the exact opposite of what you propose.

Which of us is right? You have your ideas, I have mine. The only way we’ll know, though, is to test them.

Peter: if the pitcher WANTS the batter to take a one-base walk, but would think twice about giving him a two-base walk, then he’ll drill him.

What I am saying is that batters rarely get hit by balls intentionally thrown at them when they are in situations when they know that a pitcher might be throwing at them.  Batters mostly get hit when they are fooled by a pitch, i.e, expecting a breaking ball and getting a fast ball.  Yiou don’t want to penalize a pitcher for fooling the batter.  Batters also get hit when they don’t mind getting hit, i.e. the batter is behind in the count and the pitcher misses his spot.  You don’t want to add an more incentive for batters to not get out of the way.

Besides the umpire already has the authority to decide that a pitcher is intentionally throwing at a batter.  The only thing that needs to be added that if the umpire makes that determination then the batter, whether hit or not, is awarded two bases in this situation.

colin -

you call out tango and says he gives the pitchers more credit than they deserve.  i think you are doing the opposite.  just because a hitter can potentially draw more value from the proposed double walk doesn’t necessarily mean he will attempt to or even be able to successfully do so. there is a skill level inherent in walking.  if pich recognition and plate discipline were easily learned skills than jeff francouer might be an elite player by now. 

conversely, i don’t entirely agree with tango’s conclusion either.  i think it would just lead to more pitchers grooving 2-0 and 3-0 fastballs.  i don’t see the approach changing in any other counts.

also, i think it might be worthwhile to look at the number of 4 ball walks that get handed out to pitchers to really see how often 4 ball walks due to being wild actually. outside of pitchers, there will often be some level of pitching around the hitter / nibbling corners inherent in those walks.

I’m pretty sure I didn’t argue “stare decisis.” I argued for experimentation in the minors, as in 1970-1972, before the introduction of the DH in the American League. The 1870s-1901 were another period of experimentation, without the minors as a proving ground.

But I think the “requirements” here are not clearly stated. What precisely is the problem? I realize that not not everyone who thinks there is a problem will agree what the problem is. The current rules and style of play (fewer ground balls, less chance of a double play, more chance of an extra base hit) have shifted strategy such that intentional walks are less common in general in the last decade, particularly in comparison to 40 years ago. “mediocre” hitters are getting IBB’d less. Very good hitters are getting IBB’d at similar rates to past eras. The only difference that jumps out in the last decade is that the major league leader in intentional walks is getting more of them. The #5 guy in the majors in each season has gotten about 15-20 IBB no matter what era you look at.

The last major rule change I can think of which was for entertainment purposes rather than safety or tweaking competitive equilibrium was the introduction of the DH [not counting off-the- field stuff like changing the postseason playoff].
I don’t see intentional walks as a competitive equilibrium issue. The pitching team should issuing intentional walks if it raises their win expectancy. Otherwise they are punished by their own strategy without any rule change incentive. If the batting team wanted to counteract that strategy, the batter has the ability to make intentional strikes to induce the pitching team to change its strategy. Since they never do, it seems likely that the current strategy is close enough to equilibrium that giving back a single strike would be too much of a win-expectancy penalty for the batting team.

Let me spell out my line of thought: you want to change the rules so that the pitching team is loses some amount of win-expectancy incentive from the intentional walk and pitches to the batter. But the batting team already has, as a counter-strategy, the ability to change the win-expectancy by offering back a strike or two, and putting the batter into at least a mild pitcher’s count. That they don’t do so, suggests that giving back a strike would overcompensate the pitching team. So if you want to make a rule change which reduces the pitching team’s incentive to issue an intentional walk, it should be at most equal to the change in incentive from an intentional strike.

Colin: excellent, yes.  With the incentive high enough for the double-walk (and, we can limit the double-walks to only when there are runners on base), a batter may be prone to take, and a pitcher may be prone to throw more down the middle.

The “attitude” may be one like we’d see with the 3-1 count.

I agree: test it!  That’s what the minor leagues is for.

joe: excellent reasoning.  You can extend that to having a runner on 1B and stealing, opening up for an IBB situation.  So, you can naturally upset the IBB situation frequency by having the runner stay put, by having the batter swing once.

Teams therefore must be happy to get that walk on the offense, even if the defense is happy to give that walk too.  It’s like they are both happy with the trade.

***

What I am saying is that batters rarely get hit by balls intentionally thrown at them when they are in situations when they know that a pitcher might be throwing at them.

Rarely?  Without running the numbers, I am sure that batters get drilled quite often following a HR and the batter just stands there and takes it.

Rarely?  Without running the numbers, I am sure that batters get drilled quite often following a HR and the batter just stands there and takes it.

As I said above, if the umpire determines that the pitcher was intentionally throwing at the batter then give the umpire the power to assess a two base penalty.  Just don’t make it automatic for every hit batter.

In that case Peter, the umpire will have far too much power.  I never liked “intent” determination as one of his functions, and I certainly wouldn’t want to increase the number of scenarios that that function comes into play.  It’s ripe for huge inconsistency.

Tango - You can’t have it both ways. Either the prospect of a two base walk is going to cause pitchers to throw at a lot more batters or it is not.  If it does, what you are proposing is that the umpire can’t do anything to prevent it unless the batter actually gets hit.  Which is a bad situation. If it doesn’t, then you are unneccessarily penalizing pitchers for pitching well and rewarding batters for not getting out of the way.

Peter, I’m very confused by your post.

How are pitchers pitching well, if their pitch hit the batter?

And your earlier sentence makes it seem like the umpire can call for the two-base “intend to hit” if the pitcher intended to hit the batter, even if he didn’t actually hit him.  Is that correct?  (I wasn’t considering this scenario.)

The only thing I am saying is to keep the hit batter rule determination rule as-is (batter makes effort to get out of the way), but increase the penalty to two-bases.

This will of course have the consequence of the batter wanting to crowd the plate.

By the way, great points all-round by everyone.  The key point is that you have to consider the unintended consequences.  So, before we rush into upsetting the batter-pitcher balance, we need to consider how far it can go.

***

Note that the current batter-pitcher balance as ALREADY been upset by doing nothing at all.  Back in Koufax’s time, he would throw 3.8 pitches per batter (lots of strikeouts natch), while all the other pitchers would throw 3.4, 3.5.  Now, 3.8 is the norm, as the batters have figured out that taking is, if not a positive, at least not a negative.

This could be caused for whatever reason.  Maybe batters selected for patience.  Maybe more flamethrowers, as batters wait for a more hittable pitch.  Who knows.  But, it’s not the same baseball, and it’s not a given that letting the free market dictate the talent distribution and playing approach by freezing rules is actually a good thing.

Peter, I’m very confused by your post.

How are pitchers pitching well, if their pitch hit the batter

Yes I read that sentence after I posted and realized that it was confusing.  What I meant to say was that the pitcher was pitching as he should be, trying to throw a strike to the batter that was a pitch type that the batter wasn’t expecting, but just executed poorly.  So awarding a 2 base HBP would be over penalizing poor pitcher execution rather than a pitcher trying to hit a batter intentionally.

And your earlier sentence makes it seem like the umpire can call for the two-base “intend to hit” if the pitcher intended to hit the batter, even if he didn’t actually hit him.  Is that correct?  (I wasn’t considering this scenario.)

Yes, that is correct.  I had mentioned that in my Post #54.

If you eliminate IBB then will you see a rise in HBP?  Should whatever rules for an IBB also be applied to a HBP?

Bryan/65: half of posts 45 through 64 is about this issue.

Whoops.  That’s what I get for having the thread open for way too long and not refreshing before posting....

Of all the IBB, how many of them actually benefit the pitcher?  It seems that the pitchers already tend to use too many IBB.  I doubt there are that many cases where an IBB is really hurting the hitting team.  If the hitter had to make a choice between starting the AB over or taking the IBB it seems that there may only be a couple of hitters where this would make sense.

If we are changing the rule book because of a few hitters like Barry Bonds (who isn’t even playing anymore) I think there needs to be a clear and significantly large benefit.

Maybe MLB should just educate all the teams/managers on how using IBBs isn’t really that great of a strategy in a lot of cases.

I strongly prefer simply letting the batter decline the base and leave the count at three balls (and however many strikes there already were).

The same for a HBP, except it would automatically set the count to three balls, regardless of the count.

So, you’ve thrown four balls, and the hitter won’t walk.  Now you’re in a 3-0 count and you have to pitch to him.  If you think he might do that, you might be better off pitching at him in a 0-0 count.

Sure, you can pitch around him - but until there are two strikes, he can just wait for his pitch.

The thing that annoys me about the IBB is that it makes the batter helpless.  I know we’ve discussed the intentional strike (wave your bat in the air) but I don’t know of it ever happening in practice.  Letting the batter decline a walk (any walk) brings the batter into the game in that situation.

After all this talk about 2 base penalties, etc., I’m still waiting to understand the damage to the game being done by the IBB which warrants these ‘radical’ rule changes, along with their unintended consequences..

If I’ve got it right, there is about 1 IBB given out per every 5 team games in the DH rule AL. In the NL, where a significant proportion of IBBs are given to get to the pitcher, it’s around 1 IBB every 3 or 4 games.

That frequency is low enough for me that it does not cast any sort of shadow over the game, enough to get outraged by the inequity and lack of fan entertainment. And that is assuming that the issuing team gains a slight edge overall, which is of course their goal, but which does not seem to be the case in practice.

So, the only leftover argument seems to be about a few great hitters in history, and about Barry Bonds in particular, especially in his outlier 120 IBB season in 2004 (IIRC). But if we *generously* assume that those IBB were overall break even for Bonds--given the lack of a good or even average hitter following him in the SF order--a break even result for Bonds is not anything to really complain about. Bonds is not being negated, he is giving the team his typical PA value. So, what’s the problem that calls for radical changes?

A full discussion of this issue should be prior to all the talk about changing the rules to two bases, or refusing the IBB, or whatever.

To ‘force’ a matchup between Bonds and the pitcher, without the pitcher having the normal freedom to pitch around any batter as desired, is sort of a phony matchup to me.

Watching a QB take three kneel-downs to kill the last minute of a football game is 1000% more boring than watching an IBB in a critical late-game situation.

An IBB in baseball is more like an NFL offense saying “we’ll run normal plays, but you have to bring in second-stringers at saftey, middle linebacker, and nose tackle (or whatever positions) to try and stop us”.

After all this talk about 2 base penalties, etc., I’m still waiting to understand the damage to the game being done by the IBB which warrants these ‘radical’ rule changes, along with their unintended consequences..

I agree with this.  No one has established that there is a serious problem.  If/when we get to the point where great hitters are routinely walked (like Bonds 2004), then we will have reached an imbalance that requires a remedy and should consider rules changes.  But we’re not there, and there is no sign we’re approaching it (on the contrary, IBBs are at a low level). 

Three additional points in support of David:

1) Most BBs to good hitters are “intentional” to some degree.  If we assume that pitchers are capable of reducing their BB rate to about 3%, then Albert Pujols has received about 700 walks that pitchers could have prevented.  Only one-third of those were rated “intentional.” There’s a continuum here, on which pitchers choose to allow Pujols more or less opportunity to hit the ball, depending on the circumstances.  On IBB Pujols’ opportunity to get a hit drops to zero.  But on many other PA it was probably only 5%, or 10%, or 15%.  Why draw a bright line and say “zero chance is morally offensive to me, but a 5% chance (one borderline strike and 4 balls) is OK?” This seems arbitrary. 

2) It is not unique to baseball that there are times where penalties are not sufficient to prevent a team from denying the opposing team a normal chance to score.  In the NBA, for example, there are many times where deliberately committing a foul is rational.  It seems to me that baseball probably has less of this than other sports, not more.

3) IBBs almost never provide more than a small advantage to the defensive team.  Even now, many of them are counterproductive.  It seems likely that as this knowledge becomes more widespread, their use will continue to decline.

On the subject of IBBs, this is where I break from traditional sabermetric thinking somewhat.

I also don’t like the inconsistent views of the community.

On one hand, saberists will rail on about how the IBB actually helps the defense and how managers, in general, are dumb to do it. Seriously, it’s as if every IBB ever issued is “dumb”. Most IBB’s I view as “doesn’t really matter either way”, since most are issued in situations where the defense is already screwed.

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

My personal view is against the IBB, from a macho, bravado, standpoint (as a former pitcher).

EA sports had it right when they employed the marketing slogan of “I’m better than you and I can prove it”.

But, my preference and “smart” baseball are always congruent.

I’d walk Cabrera every late game situation where he has a chance to beat me. I’d rather win than lose with my manhood.

CC/72: it sounds like you really don’t know what the “views” of the “community” actually is.

Is there some cult idea that all or almost most in the community have accepted?

In The Book, we give you exactly the situations where an IBB is actually a smart play.  I also posted on my site the situations where walking Bonds was a smart play.

Otherwise, I think you are just picking and choosing supposed facts to fit your narrative.