THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I don’t understand why the IBB is not sporting. Aren’t you allowed, even required, to utilize every legal tool available to gain an advantage?

I’m not arguing that the IBB isn’t over used. I’m just arguing that as a legal ploy, it is perfectly sporting to use it as you see fit.

If we are going to mandate that pitchers must throw into the strike zone, then lets take it to the absurd and reinstate the rule that the batter can call for a low or high pitch.

What’s the alternative if no IBB?  You’d have to impose some kind of penalty for an “unintentional” walk as well.  Perhaps: (1) any batter can refuse any walk, count resets to 0-0; (2) if count is reset and same batter walks again, he can choose to reset the count or go directly to 2B.  I might vote for that or a similar rule--but it will never happen.

Legal?  Legal is whatever is legal.

- If it was legal for Federer to tell Roddick that one time he can tell him to serve it at under 100mph, then legal is legal. 
- If it was legal for Avery to quack like a duck in front of Marty Brodeur, then legal is legal. 
- If it was legal for the opposition to select the player who takes the penalty shot, then legal is legal. 
- If it was legal for the hitter to call for the pitch and location, then legal is legal. 
- If it was legal for the opposition to tell a batter that he cannot bat one time a game (and send him back to the dugout), then legal is legal.

In no way are any of these things sporting.  That something is legal is irrelevant to its sportingness (that a word?  it is now!).

If you are a baseball fan of a team other than the Angels, do you REALLY want to watch a baseball game in the early innings where Barry Bonds was being walked intentionally with no one on base?

The only sadder and more pathetic site than watching a great hitter being walked on four pitches (intentionally or not) is when the bases are loaded, is when the pitcher is at bat in the 6th inning, and there are two outs.  It’s like in little league where everyone has to hit, and you hope little Johnny just puts the bat on the ball.

Indeed, baseball recognizes how unsporting it is by creating a disincentive to the IBB, and that is to put the batter on first base.  That disincentive is not enough.

In the team sports, you can double-team someone, but the disincentive there, having someone wide open, is an enormous benefit.  Furthermore, someone being double-teamed still has the chance to perform.  It’s not like the opposition is saying: “Ok, we’re double-teaming Lebron.  This means that Lebron and our two worst players get off the court, and it’s a 4-on-3 for the Cavaliers until there’s a score or turnover”.

This could be a legal rule.  It’s a fairly strong disincentive.  But, it is not sporting at all.

Hiz: yes, we’ve talked about the alternatives a few times.

Bill James proposes that a batter can refuse any walk, the count is reset.  And if it’s another walk, then it counts as a “double walk”, and that puts the batter at 2B.

I proposed that any 4 pitch walk is a “two base” walk, meaning that the batter gets to second base if the bases are empty, or runners on base that are in the way move one base forward to get the batter to first base.

You can make any kind of disincentive that would prevent Pujols and Bonds from being walked as much as they do.

All I can say is that it is a pure travesty when you have someone like Vlad, who will swing at any pitch that is 6 inches off the plate, and that is STILL not enough of a big strike zone for the pitcher, that he feels he needs to walk him on 4 pitches.

***

Basically, I’ll put it to you: IF we have decided that we want to provide a bigger disincentive for the IBB, what rule would YOU create to do so?

Part 2: now that you created this rule: do you prefer your rule, or the rule that was created by god-knows-who over 100 years ago, that you need to follow blindly?

I love James’ idea.  I’m envisioning a “Deal or No Deal” moment when Ortiz (OK, Bay) gets the 4th ball and presses a big red button and screams “NO DEALLLLLLL!” Seriously though, it would make the post-declined-walk PA pretty exciting.  Although, how would this be dealt with statistically?  Just ignore the declined walk?  What if the second walk is accepted… how do you reconcile the batter being on second with simply a BB?  BB plus defensive indifference?

We’ve been through this before. I don’t have any problem with the IBB.  If I had to invent the rules of baseball, I would probably outlaw it, but it is no big deal, IMO.  It is probably just one of those things that no one thought about until it was used.  If it was a gigantic advantage for the pitching team such that it were correct to walk great hitters almost all the time, then I would talk about eliminating it.  As it is, it happens only occasionally and at least it adds a tiny bit of strategic decision-making to the game.

I like the BJ proposal--I must have inadvertently stolen my proposal in #2 from him.  What about saying the next guy up walks on 3 (instead of 4) balls? 

But IBB really don’t bother me too much.  I think the penalty or disincentive for a BB would likely be out of proportion to the problem.  In addition to MGL’s comments, I like watching Zumaya and Lindstrom and other wild flame-throwers pitch.  I don’t want them to become less useful or to have to tone it down.

***
Also, how much is the 40% at the end of the original post reduced if the other team has Nathan and MoRivera waiting for you?

Mike: you reconcile it by having a category called: BB2 (double walk).

***

MGL: agreed, that if you were to start the rules from scratch, you’d want to outlaw it in some form.  Agreed, that it would be no big deal if it was used only occasionally.

However, it is not used “occasionally” with Bonds (and now Pujols).  The very players we most care about that we don’t want to see walked on 4 pitches are the very players that are being targetted here.

A LHP occasionally walking Ramirez to face Ortiz may be cool.  A LHP walking Bonds to face anyone else is not cool.  Especially with 0 outs.

I don’t see how the Federer-Roddick example is analogous. In that example (which I understand might be exaggerated), Federer is imposing no penalty on himself when he orders Roddick to do that. Wouldn’t a more relevant analogy be that Federer purposely doesn’t return a serve because he doesn’t like what side of the court he’s returning from? In that instance, he does something unsporting that penalizes him but only because it gives him a perceived advantage. Now, I don’t know why a tennis player would do that, but tennis and baseball obviously aren’t the same thing.

I’m sure a similar example could be made for hockey. And what about the 15-yard prevent defense in football? Isn’t that the same thing?

The intentional walk isn’t fun, but I don’t think it runs contrary to the game. Besides, the only way to outlaw an intentional walk is to outlaw a four-pitch walk, because anything else would allow the pitcher to skirt the rules.

(And outlawing the four-pitch walk would effectively turn some at-bats into a “second-serve” situation, with the pitcher dialing things down to stay in the zone. how would that affect the game? That’s a serious question, not some piece of rhetoric… how would the “second serve” manifest itself in a batter-pitcher matchup?)

the new rules for IBB debate only seemed to really gain steam during the years bonds was going ape all over the league.  but to me, the strike zone and the picth count are integral and fundemental rules of the game of baseball and aren’t something to mess with because of one or even a few outliers at the sport’s highest level.  whether or not it’s ‘sporting’ seems highly subjective and not good rationale to argue for change (IMHO).

reminds me of when everyone in the nba was going nuts because Shaq was dominating the paint and msking it ‘unsporting’ for other teams to gaurd him so they talked about all kinds of crazy rules.  then when shaq got older and less dominant the kvetching subsided.

i think at most the way to combat blatant IBB is to require the catcher to saty in a ‘catcher’s box’ and make all IBBs ‘unintentional’ IBBs.

Lars, the tennis analogy I came up with is that Roddick knows that Federer has a great forehand, so he purposely serves the ball or hits his ground strokes to Federers backhand side.  Or that he knows Federer (this could be any two tennis players, just using the same names as above) has a great net game, so he purposely hits deep loopy topspin shots so that Federer can’t get to the net, or lobs all the time.  These are most likely losing strategies, but occasionally will payoff (mostly due to dumb luck), but are still within the rules of the game, are a valid strategy, and often a sign of desperation and an admission that the opponent has a advantageous skill and will have to beat you a different way.
vr, Xei

The key point is that this rule is being applied highly disproportionately to one individual in the game.  And not just any individual, but the sport’s best player.

***

As for the “outlawing” of the IBB: we are talking about disincentives, such as the two-base 4-pitch walk.  I like the analogy to the “second serve”.  Great analogy.  During Wimbledon, I saw that Roddick’s first serve win% was 89% and his second serve was 67% (or some such).

So, I agree that if you had a particularly wild pitcher, he would have to tone it down to a great extent on the “second serve” to Pujols.  But, doing so would fundamentally shift who that pitcher is and how he will now pitch to Pujols.

There is no question that the most important part of baseball is the strike zone, and the ball-strike count.  Yes, we need to be careful to suggest changes here.  At the same time, look at old game highlights.  The strike zone was very high just 25 years ago.  They alter the strike zone often enough (in 2000 I think was the last major change).

I do not think that the “second serve” PA would alter something fundamental about baseball that other rule changes that have been implemented havent’ already.

***

Like I said: stop talking like a politician ("no we can’t") and offer alternatives (imagine you are a hired consultant and were asked to make a proposal).  Make your best pitch to how you would handle the reduction of IBB to Pujols, Bonds, and other greats that will come along.

Sport is about strategy, and the IBB is a strategic move. I have no problem with its existence. The only reason it bothers me is because I know it’s almost always a bad move. I really don’t see how it’s any different from throwing 4 straight pitchouts.

What’s so bad about the catcher standing and sticking his arm out? If anything, the unintentional intentional walk is worse because it’s deceptive and fake and gives the impression that the pitcher is trying to get that batter out.

"Bill James proposes that a batter can refuse any walk, the count is reset.”

Would the count be reset to 0-0?  I think I’d want the batter to have to keep his strikes.

It might be amusing when the batter disobeys the manager’s preference when it comes to whether to accept the walk or not.

I am including all 4-pitch walks.

Once again, I will ask the bright folks here to act like a paid consultant who has been charged to finding a better way out of problem that your customer has noted: he does not want to see Albert Pujols being walked on 4 pitches any more than other top hitters. Your personal feeling on this issue as a consultant on this issue is irrelevant.

PLEASE, do not take the politicians way out and say that the current structure is the best.  You are a paid consultant.  Your job is to find a solution.

Puck: the count doesn’t have to be reset.  The batter could start at 0-1.  Or at 1-2.  Or whatever it is that you’d like to propose.

***

There’s strategy in whether the batter is going to accept the walk, or go for the second-serve.  By the “strategy” argument, then this is a plus.

You are almost conflating ‘sporting’ with ‘entertaining’. I think we’d all like to see Albert Pujols hit as often as we can. But I also don’t want to do so at the expense of my team’s chances to win.

I understand the difference between legal and sporting. However, it’s not as if the IBB is an obscure strategy that, though technically legal, is against the spirit of the rules. It’s applied so liberally that at this point, it is hard to argue that it is not sporting since you are likely to have it employed against you.

Do you consider pitch outs to be sporting? (FWIW, most pitch outs are actually illegal by the letter of the law. Next time you see one, note how early the catcher is leaving the box and also how far into fair territory he receives it.)

How about fouling an opponent who otherwise has an easy layup? Is it sporting to force them to make free throws?

Paid consulting hat on?

4 pitch walks can be refused.

If the batter walks on 4 pitches immediately following a refused 4 pitch walk, he can advance to 2b and all runners advance 2 bases. That would end the intentional walk.

Not original, but the best idea I can come up with.

To me the IBB to a slugger like Pujols is similar to the hack a Shaq strategy.  No it’s not sporting, but it’s a smart move (sometimes). 

I think I’d be in favor of combining the proposed rules: a player can decline a 4-pitch walk only.  The best rule is one that would deter IBB’s but be relatively invisible otherwise.  The amount of unintentional four-pitch walks are small and the amount of players who would decline a walk is even smaller - I think that does the trick.

Looks like I was beaten to the punch by BrianK.  Great minds think alike!

Brian: yes, fouling an opponent to bring him up to the line is ridiculous.  Even more ridiculous is when the offending team is upset at the ref for NOT being called on the foul!  Can you believe that?

“Hey!  I fouled him!  Call the foul on me!  Hey!  Where are you going!  I did a bad thing!  I will be upset if we lose because you didn’t call the foul I just perpetuated!”

***

Sky: ok on the decline of the 4-pitch walk.  I presume you are going with the “two base” walk of some sort, otherwise the pitcher will just keep issuing 4-pitch walks.

How about the option for a batter to decline ANY walk, especially those coming at 3-2 counts?

Imagine Albert Pujols up with the bases loaded, down by three in the bottom of the ninth and two outs and he’s walked. How’d you like to see him refuse the walk and try for the GW grand slam?

If a hitter is walked on four pitches, or is hit by a pitch with no strikes in the count, all baserunners advance one base.

It’s clean and simple, doesn’t extend the game, and doesn’t punish wild pitchers that much. You can still intentionally walk a batter if the runner is on second base, but it’s a much more risky maneuver.

Simplest and somewhat effective is the 4 pitch walk penalty.  It doesn’t have to be a large penalty - in fact, you want it to be as small as possible - just enough to make the IBB a really bad play.

Of course, after a strike is thrown, you can still IBB a batter under that scenario, which means that if I wanted to IBB a batter, I might start with pitching around him and if I happen to get a strike, I would then go with the IBB, assuming that the count is at least 1-1 (it is obviously crazy to IBB anyone in a pitcher’s count like 0-1 and 1-2).

Right.  If he takes a four-pitch walk and then gets ANOTHER walk (of any variety, I think) then he gets a two base walk.  I think that would eliminate IBB’s without penalizing pitchers who are legitimately trying to get people out but are wild. 

Of course that also eliminates IBB’s for other reasons (to get the pitcher, lefty/right stuff, to create a force-play, etc).

I could also see Pujols still getting IBB’d if he gets a 2-1 or 3-1 count on him, but then at least he would have had at least one pitch to hit.

What if you not only required the catcher to remain in the catcher’s box, but required him to crouch (not disturbing the umpire’s view of the pitch) until the ball left the pitcher’s hand?  That would make giving an intentional walk dangerous (other than the Bonds/no one on base situation), because of the increased possibility of wild pitches/passed balls allowing the runners to move up.  And the penalty for failure to comply would be the same as a balk, all runners move up one base.  And the punishment would fit the crime (the advantage the catcher was trying for, less risk of the runners moving up because he is in position to catch the intentional ball matching the extra base for a balk).

Bread: I like that.  A pitcher could pitch well-outside the strike zones for 4 pitches, but keeping the catcher crouched long enough does have that extra risk.  Of course, a pitcher can simply refuse to throw the pitch and get 4 called balls.

So far, I like the idea of the additional penalties, be it a two-base walk, or everyone moves one base, or whatnot. 

I also very much like the idea of including the hit batter sans strike.  Well-done there.

For Bread’s suggestion, the pitcher could just roll the ball to the catcher (SBs would then be a problem if runners were on with 3d base open or 1st and 3d).

In co-rec softball, a female batter following a male batter has the option to taking an automatic walk if the preceding male batter has walked.  Perhaps in baseball we let the next batter after a 4-pitch walk start with a 1-0 count.  That penalty seems, at first glance, less drastic than the others suggested.

Tango/16 - If we are a paid consultant and expected to find a solution to something that’s not broken, isn’t it our job to say that?

We don’t force quarterbacks to throw Champ Bailey’s way or run up the middle into the Williamses. We don’t force point guards to dribble into the paint to try to score on Yao or Shaq. The intentional walk is only not sporting if you’re looking at baseball as an individual game. But it’s not. Despite all the individual moments, it is a team game and choosing to avoid one (superior) member of a team happens in various ways in all sports.

I really think if it were a good strategy/employed properly more often, people wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it. I just don’t see how it’s against the nature of competition to do what you think is best for your team to win (outside of cheating). Isn’t that the definition of competition?

While I have no problem with the IBB as an acceptable strategic option, I will note that it’s only occurring in 0.6% of plate appearances this year. That’s once for every 157 PAs. And in 2004 when Bonds set a ridiculous single-season record of 120 IBBs, they only occurred in 0.7% of plate appearances.

Part 1
From a consulting perspective, I think you have to begin with fact that most everything in baseball is physically earned (i.e., a single) or physically yielded (i.e., a walk). There are some exceptions, but these involve what happens to the ball in relation to the playing field (i.e., the automatic double) or a player’s interaction with a ball in play (i..e., a ball overthrown into a dugout). With this in mind, I don’t think a rules change should diverge from this. This is a serious shortcoming with many of the proposals, notably Bill James’ suggestion that an intentional walk could be worth two bases. Suddenly, then, the definition of the walk has changed. And the same would be true for any change in the award for a 4-pitch walk, whether intentional or not.

(Not exactly the same, but I always find it odd how the NFL now has different rules for clock stoppage. I think it was an effort to reduce the game times, but it’s now something like running out of bounds doesn’t stop the clock unless it’s within the last 2 minutes of the first half or last 5 minutes of the second half. That’s three rules for one on-field act.)

Part 2
So far this season, 5,313 times a pitcher has gone 3-0 on a batter. We also know there has been 649 IBB. So, that’s 4,664 times a count went 3-0 when an IBB was not clearly the intention. And 3,029 times the next pitch was a strike. The net result is that 35% of the time there is what appears to be an unintentional walk on a 3-0 count. With about 45% of the season still to play, that’s already 1,600 times a pitcher seems to have lost the strike zone. Since that’s about 1,000 more 4-pitch walks than intentional walks, to penalize the defense for what appears to be unintentional would overshadow the point behind a rules change, and that is to discourage the intentional walk. So I wouldn’t propose a rule that increases the batter’s reward for any unintentional walk.

Part 3
Let’s not forget the underlying idea behind a rules change on the intentional walk is to encourage the batter-pitcher matchup, not to create situation-specific rewards for the batter.

Part 3
With the considerations derived in Parts 1-3, the only rules change that comes to mind for me is that an IBB would also require a pitching change. Doing so would add additional strategic considerations for a defensive teams to consider without changing the definition of a walk (intentional or otherwise). And there are plenty of instances which are not easily foreseen or are easily handled with this rule in place.

Example 1: Does Team A bring pitcher A out to start the 8th inning but also warm up Pitcher B because because the other team has Bopper Jones available as a pinch hitter? Say the game is tied at 5. The first hitter singles. The defense changes pitchers to get a lefty-lefty matchup. The pitcher retires the next batter. And on strike 3 to the next hitter, the runner on first steals second. In one pitch the situation has changed dramatically from man on first and one out, to a runner in scoring position with two outs and an open base. And now the offense is sending up right-handed Bopper Jones to pinch hit. Does the defensive team issue the IBB to avoid Bopper? That means three pitchers will be used in one inning when the game could go extra innings. And for all we know, Bopper Jones is pinch hitting for the pitcher, so Slappy McLeadoff is due up next.

Example 2: There are also those extra-inning situations where teams choose to use the IBB to walk the bases loaded to create a force at any base. How many pitchers does a team have in the bullpen in the bottom of the 12th inning? Do they have enough pitchers to walk the bases loaded after a one-out triple? And if they do, and the strategy succeeds, how many pitchers are left if the tie remains for a couple more innings?

Perhaps there’s another approach, but I think this best balances the spirit of the existing rules I mentioned in Parts 1 and 2 while encouraging the batter-pitcher matchup which is the basis for making a rules change.

JD: I’m begging people to set aside their beliefs and approach the issue from a different angle.  I’m trying to construct the “paid consultant” as a way to do that.  But, if that is not good enough, pretend you are Johnnie Cochrane, and that OJ is the IBB.  OJ has told you he can’t stand the IBB as it currently stands.  He’s asking you to figure out another solution.  He’s asking you to imagine that baseball rules have been 99% completed, and you are called in as the expert on baseball rules, and they are asking about this arcane rule they are considering called “the IBB”.  He is telling you that he doesn’t like the rule that the old fogies are proposing.

PLEASE, I am begging you to play devil’s advocate, to come up with something smarter than what currently exists.  If you don’t think you can do it, then just say that you are not up to the job.  Not everyone can do what Cochrane did.  Heh.  He probably is, right now, the Devil’s advocate.

***

In no other sport can you take the ball or stick from your opponent simply by saying so.  Now, it’s not so outrageous because the batter gets a benefit: he gets to go to 1B.  But the DEFENSE thinks this is a good deal for them.  This is as silly as the intentional foul in basketball.  The DEFENSE thinks it’s good to create the penalty.

"That’s once for every 157 PAs. “

And they occurred once for every, what, 5 Barry Bonds PA?  When a strategy is used 30 times more often for one player than the league, is that a little overboard?  Just a little?  And it’s not like this strategy is used 30 times more for 15 or 20 players.  Just one.

***

NaOH: thank you so much for accepting the challenge.  I have a huge problem with forcing the pitching change.  I also have a problem with the idea of treat the 4 pitch walk separately from an intentional one (if that’s what you are doing).  In any case, I like that you are proposing something that we can discuss.

Tom, I realize how great the frequency of IBBs was with Bonds, but I don’t think a rule should be built around the extreme, uncommon cases within the game. Definitely, what was done with his was overboard, but it’s such a random digression from normal strategic decisions that I’m reluctant to change the game around him.

For broader perspective on Bonds, he averaged an IBB for every 37 PAs. In his San Francisco years it was one every 14.5 PAs. I don’t think the career rate is that outlandish considering how divergent from the norm he was treated in SF, though the rate in SF is definitely high. Pujols, in his career, is getting an IBB for every 31 PAs. What’s that, about one every 6 days? That doesn’t seem outlandish to me, though I can understand how you might feel differently.

As for my proposal, I guess I should have been more clear. If a team wants to intentionally walk a batter (in the traditional sense with a catcher not squatting), then force the pitching change. But if the catcher is squatting and the pitcher is doing the unintentional, intentional walk, then that’s permissible without a pitching change. The pitcher is accepting all the other risks – wild pitch, passed ball, a Vlad-type hitter who swings, etc.

So, what I’m saying is that a 4-pitch walk is just a walk. An intentional walk with the catcher never squatting requires a pitching change. Perhaps this could somehow be combined with BreadBaker’s idea concerning the catcher squatting, but no good ideas come to mind right now.

(And BreadBaker and I should get together and exhange formulas since I’m also a bread baker.)

I should ask, what is it about the pitching change that you don’t like?

Pujols IBB since 2005: 27, 28, 22, 34.  In 2009, he’s already at 32.  I think it’s likely that Pujols will continue to get the Bonds treatment.  If so, that’s 12 PA per IBB (his likely “true talent IBB rate").

Bonds topped out at 120 in 617 PA, or 5 per IBB.

And yes, I think you can and should change the rules around this extreme.

***

What if the rules in hockey was that you can “assign” one opponent to stay out of the offensive zone, but by doing that, you’d have to take out TWO of your own defensive players.  So that, at most, you would have 3 defenders against 4 offensive skaters.

Now, teams wouldn’t do this except in some rare cases.  But, if Mario Lemieux or Wayne Gretzky was on the ice, they’d do it all the time.  Simply put, one of those guys is worth more than two of the opponents.

So, 99% of the time, it never gets applied to all other players.  But, 20% of the time, it gets applied to these two guys.  What’s that?  Don’t change the rules around 1 or 2 guys?

If this was the rule from the beginning, and you were asked to change the rule, what’s your response? 

***

In basketball, the silliest rule in the world is the defense begging to have a penalty called on them, so that they can get the ball back (albeit by giving up possible points).  In no way do I think this is sporting.

NaOH: I don’t like the idea of players be forced out of the game.  It’s like a battle.  The general doesn’t get to choose which of his enemies can carry a gun. 

You draw up your list of soldiers, I’ll draw up mine, and let’s rumble.  You want to send two guys on my best fighter, that’s fine.  He’ll defend himself.

This is tough with all the analogies going on here.

I can understand the basis for your reservations about the pitching change. Interestingly, though, soldier substitutions are already permissible (defensive replacements, pinch-hitters and runners, pitching changes), so the idea of sides drawing up a list of soldiers and letting them rumble is already drawn in sand and not etched in stone. That’s not to say the mandated pitching-change suggestion is the way to go on this IBB issue, I’m just noting what’s already in place.

As for the hockey analogy, I’m reluctant to comment simply because my knowledge of the sport’s rules are rudimentary. As for your broad question, “If this was the rule from the beginning, and you were asked to change the rule, what’s your response?” it makes little difference to me.

To stick within baseball, I don’t think traditionalist sentimentalities obscure my ability to draw perspectives. For instance, when I was younger and dumber I was against the Wild Card for traditionalist-type reasons. While I think there’s room for improvement with the format, I think it has been a great move for the game (effects on the non-waiver trade deadline, fan interest, attendance, marketing, additional playoff round, etc.) without compromising the game’s design.

As for the IBB issue, I don’t have a problem with a rules change as long as it’s appropriate to the design of the game, namely what I mentioned in my initial post, that everything in baseball is physically earned or physically yielded with exceptions for what can happen to the ball while it’s in play.

Definitely, the IBB issue is worth investigating for alternative approaches, but I think the game’s parameters must be kept at the forefront. And while you may disagree with me, I think the sporting-behavior aspect is secondary to the game’s parameters.

And it’s certainly possible that we could form a think tank on this and conclude the IBB rules as they are have shortcomings, but are, so to speak, the lesser of evils. To me, the question is how can the rules be modified to encourage the batter-pitcher matchup while not changing the underlying principles behind the rules which govern the game.

So far, all I’ve thought of is the pitching-change proposal when there is an IBB. That doesn’t mean it’s better than the current rules or the best workaround, but I’ve yet to see another approach which seems more feasible and in keeping with the sport’s design. I’d like to hear how you’d modify the rules while maintaining the principles of the game which are in place. And even if someone comes up with potentially viable alternatives, I’d like to apply the proposal(s) to game situations to better gauge how the rules would actually impact the games.

The better analogy is to the purposeful (not intentional, since that means something else in the rules) foul at the end of a basketball game, when the defensive team thinks taking the penalty (two free throws) is better than the risk of a three- or four-point play, and at the end they ordinarily get the ball.  There was a game in the playoffs this year where the refs were criticized for not calling a foul and the other team did in fact get the three pointer.  What I’ve always argued is that in the last two minutes the offense should get a choice between two free throws and one free throw and the ball back. 

As to the pitcher rolling the ball to the plate in my proposal, try it sometime.  It’s not as easy to control as you think, the area between the mound and plate isn’t always smooth and the catcher has a mitt to try to field a ball on the ground, which it wasn’t designed for.  And if the ball got anywhere near the plate, Vlad at the very least will have a nice golf shot out of the park.

A pitcher can always not throw in the prescribed time to get a ball call.

***

In football, the offended team always has the option to turn down the penalty.

In soccer, the play continues if the offended team is better off.

In hockey, the play continues until the offended team loses the puck.

In baseball, the offended team has no choice but to accept the offender’s terms to putting their best player on the bases, even if the offended team doesn’t want that to happen.

This is what a walk is: a penalty to the defense.  The purpose of the ball-strike count is to force the pitcher to throw to the batter.  The idea of a walk is that you would NEVER purposefully choose that over pitching to the batter.  If this is only true 99% of the time, then the rule needs to be tweaked. 

The same applies to the silly foul rule in basketball.

I don’t know:  If the IBB in baseball is seen as a “moral” issue (unsportsmanlike), then I suppose the punishment for icing in hockey ought to be much more severe than it is.  I don’t see one tactic as more (or less) “cowardly” than the other.

If you want to play around with small increments of penalty for a 4-pitch walk without too much damage to the traditional stats of the game (no two-base walks or “declined” walks), you could simply award the next batter up an automtic ball one in the count when he comes to the plate.  This would not advantage the Prince Alberts of the world directly (the guys up next would benefit) but it would change the incentives for handing out IBBs.  The major league OPS after a 1-0 count is .852 this season, compared to .748 over all, so a pitcher would have to think pretty carefully about IBBs.

One might want to think about whether some concurrent minor rules adjustment favoring the pitcher’s side might be advisable if you really did legislate somehow against 4-pitch walks.  By increasing the cost of 4-pitch walks, you impliedly increase the cost a little of every ball before strike one, and that is likely to have a more than trivial effect on league offense generally.  If we are going to better encourage pitchers to throw strikes, how about balancing that by encouraging hitters a bit more to make contact?  For example, how about if three-pitch strikeouts in which the bat never contacts the ball during the PA result in an automatic 0-1 count on the next batter (perhaps exempting #9 batters in the NL from this rule)?

Pitchers throwing more strikes and hitters making more contact would be healthy for the game, I think.

Couple of points on that, birtelcom. For one, the MLB OPS on an 0-0 count is .878, and it rises to .903 when the count is 1-0. I think that’s a better way to evaluate it, rather than comparing the 1-0 OPS to overall OPS.

Secondly, and much more importantly, I considered an IBB affecting the count on the next batter, but that goes against the principles behind all the rules in the game. Players only give up or achieve results when they are part of the action. Awarding balls (or strikes) to the guy on deck means results being assigned to someone who is not part of the action, so I don’t think such a rule is appropriate.

I think the relevant numbers are OPS AFTER 0-0 and 1-0, not the OPS ON a 0-0 and 1-0 count.  The initial ball affects not just what happens on that particular count, it affects the entire arc of the whole PA thereafter. For example, after a 1-0 count, there can be no 0-1 or 0-2 counts in that PA, so the OPS ON 0-1 and ON 0-2 will never come into play in that PA.  All the result of that intial 1-0 count.

Baseball has rules that affect players not involved in the particular action.  For example, a caught stealing with two outs resets the count on the batter in the next inning. The affect of the one ball count on the next hitter would not be that much greater than the effect of a pitching change that switches over the platoon advantage, something that happens almost every game these days without striking us as unfair to the batter.

A caught stealing and a batter getting to bat again the next inning is a different circumstance. Teams get three outs to make whenever they bat, and they always start from the same parameters. The guy who doesn’t get his complete opportunity in the top of the third inning is still getting his full opportunity, but his teammate (caught stealing) deferred it to the fourth inning.

Seriously, if there’s an instance when a player who is not part of the game action is impacted by what happens on the field, I’d like to know what it is. You’ve said there are examples, but the one you’ve cited does not contradict the principles behind the rules.

Good discussion.

Yes, in hockey, they do have the icing rule.  It’s worse than you described: on a power play, the team down a man is allowed to ice with impunity.  I think that should definitely change.

As for the general icing, I agree it’s not good.  The only time the defense does it on purpose (that is, HOPE for icing), is in the last minute of play, and the offense is pressing.  I agree that this is unsporting.

What should be the penalty for icing?  Taking a guy off the ice seems fairly severe.  All stoppages in play are always reset with faceoffs.  I suppose they could keep the action going (icing is declined), but the clock stops ticking until the puck crosses back into the offensive zone.  You could also prevent the defense from a shift change until the puck comes back into the offensive zone. 

Agreed, icing is cowardly.  Good analogy.

Hate it and its counterparts in basketball and football.

1.Small benefit if any. Honestly it seems more public relations than attempting to win the game.

2. When the lesser player succeeds in these situations, there is a plague of “winner”, “clutch”, “genius”, “unorthodox” “gut feeling” etc.

>You cannot make a reasonable case for the IBB in baseball.

Well, to play devil’s advocate, I think you CAN make a reasonable case for the IBB in baseball.  I have no objection to eliminating it, and I might even prefer it eliminated, but I don’t think it’s an abomination or anything.

You could argue that the IBB turns baseball into more of a team game.  That is, you can’t get a bunch of bums and Barry Bonds and win all the time; they’ll walk Barry to get to the bums.  The IBB forces you to have more of a balanced lineup.  It’s like if you have Wayne Gretzky on the ice with four minor-leaguers (or four members of the 1980-81 Leafs) ... you can double-team Gretzky to neutralize him and not lose too much.

Also, you’re saying, if any player comes up who’s a freak of nature and can hit home runs at will, then instead of letting him ruin the game with his freakish talent, you’re putting a limit on how much he can disrupt the game.  Imagine a thirteen foot tall basketball player with such long arms that if you give him the ball in the paint, he can reach over and gently place the ball in the basket.  Wouldn’t that be bad for the game of basketball?

Third: most of Barry Bonds’ IBBs were bad strategy; teams were overreacting.  That would have settled down eventually; bad strategies usually wind up disappearing.  Banning IBBs because of Barry Bonds would be like banning regular walks because of Eddie Gaedel.

How about this for a rule change:

On a four-pitch walk, the hitting team’s manager can opt to put a pinch runner on first for the walk, and the batter who was walked stays at bat for another PA.

Advantages: no change to the offensive rules; still allows for IBBs when the purpose is to set up the double play or force; the only time it matters is when you’re really trying to avoid Barry Bonds hitting. 

Disadvantages: screws up record-keeping, with the same guy having two consecutive AB.

Phil/48: on further thought, the “two consecutive AB” issue is so yucky that I withdraw my proposal.  I vote for the BB2.

I cancel Phil/49’s withdrawal.  I love the idea! 

F- the record keepers.  What you can do is allow the offense to choose between the batter at bat or the batter on deck to go to 1B for the walk.  If the guy on deck goes to 1B, the batter gets a second turn.  It would be as if they batted out of turn, but legally.

You can also limit this to a one-time event per batting team.

I love the strategical implications here.

One thing to note, even though I’m not particularly in favor of any rule changes regarding the intentional walk: there is some precedent for a slight rule change that both altered the standard batter-pitcher matchup and was done to increase its sportsmanship - the two-strike foul bunt.

It’s a special rule that everyone knows comes into play only when the batter has two strikes on him, but no one seems to have a problem with that. And the rule was obviously put in place to prevent perpetual at-bats. What it has going for it (and this is the reason I don’t think anybody has much issue with it) is that it doesn’t introduce any kind of complications to the matchup and it resolves itself immediately. You have two strikes and you bunt the ball foul, you’re out. Pure and simple. (Of course, if the rule was suggested today, then people would complain about the fine points and how umpires would have trouble distinguishing some bunts from swings, etc...)

If I were in favor of any kind of rule change, it would have to affect only the 3-0 count and be resolved immediately. Here’s my suggestion (and I know that other people have mentioned it, but I think I provide some good justifications for it here):

Classify any “ball” thrown on a 3-0 count as a “pitched-ball balk” (or something along those lines). The runner would get his base on balls, ending up at first, but all other runners would advance a base as well. Each runner would only be given one base. The ball would still be live. If the bases were loaded, the runners would still only advance one base unless they wanted to test the defense. A wild pitch would still give the batter-runner and the base-runner their one base, but they would be free to try for another one.

I think this rule would work really well because it does not deviate from any established rules whatsoever. A bases empty walk wouldn’t incur any further penalty to the pitching team, but neither does a bases empty balk. The situation is immediately resolved, so there’s no “bleeding” into extra or ensuing at-bats. And, most importantly, the pitcher is already used to being penalized for miscues on the mound by way of balk, and this would not do anything different.

The only thing I’d like to add to that rule would be to give the home plate umpire discretion in deciding whether the pitcher tried to throw a strike and failed or if he was just throwing ball-4 away. This would be similar to the umpire deciding whether a batter hit by a pitch attempted to get out of the way of the pitch or not. This isn’t a discretion given to umpires about balks, though, so it might not be a good idea unless the general balk rule is re-examined.

What do you think? I can’t imagine there’s a much better alternative than that.

I said this yesterday, but I guess my comment got lost in the ether. Much like Phil’s idea, I think the on-deck batter should be put on base, swapping the batting order for the two players until the end of the inning.

You can walk the guy in front of Pujols to put Pujols on base, but you still have to pitch to the guy in front of Pujols (and with an extra runner on at that).

The best part is it would limit the effectiveness of the IBB. Instead of pitching to the guy in front of Pujols aggressively to try to get out of the inning, you have to decide at the beginning of the at-bat whether you want to risk doing the same with an additional runner on base.

I would, as lar did, classify myself as “not particularly in favor of any rule changes regarding the IW.”

With respect to the ideas that involve two-base walks or special treatment for 3-0 walks, I have two big concerns:

1) I’m not sure it’s a good idea to give the judgement call of a walk even more importance.  There are already conventional walks that occur in high-leverage situations, which is unavoidable, but I am loathe to do anything that gives umpires even more control over the outcome of the game.

2) It would make it very difficult for anyone to ever swing at a 3-0 pitch (at least without getting second guessed to high heaven)

I am one of the minority of fans who actually likes walks (in the aesthetic sense, not the objective sabermetric sense), and while I realize the point of these rule suggestions is to discourage intentional walks, I fear that they would make the walk too powerful of a weapon for the offense when they did occur.  I’m not sure reducing their frequency is worth the tradeoff of increasing their potency when they do occur.

Put the on deck batter on base?

Best hitter is on deck, you IBB the current hitter.  That puts the best hitter on first base.  All you’ve done is taken the bat out of the best players hand a batter early.

Sure, you can start complicating it and give the team at bat the choice.  But that’s not what I saw proposed in #52.
vr, Xei

Definitely the offense would get to choose.

You can instead choose a “designated runner” (stays in the game after the inning is over), but limit that to once per game.

These are all decent suggestions, which is what I am after: devil’s advocates.

Do your best to defend “OJ” please.

I’m also posting at this Primer thread:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/wezen_ball_the_intentional_walk_has_to_stay/

Ok, Pujols comes up to bat in the 7th inning of a tied game with a runner on 2nd base.  The opposing team brings in a new pitcher.  He throws four unhittable balls to Pujols.  Pujols doesn’t accept the walk.  So he remains batting.  Once again, the pitcher throws four straight balls to Pujols.  Pujols doesn’t accept the walk.  Repeat and rinse.  How fun would a baseball game like this be to watch.  All the pitcher would have to do is keep nibbling close enough to the plate that eventually, either Pujols swings at a bad pitch, or he actually gets a called strike, then commence with the four straight balls.

Any of the proposed rule changes for the IBB would either open up a can of worms and get too complicated and too hard to watch, or are just bad rules that change the game too much (make things worse).

It may be a fun excercise to think of rule changes.  But this is never going to happen in our life time.

vr, Xei

XeiFrank, good for you in contemplating the trickle-down implications of all these proposed changes, and how the defense will behave in the newly changed environment.  There hasn’t been enough of that in this discussion so far, IMHO…

"So he remains batting.  Once again, the pitcher throws four straight balls to Pujols.  Pujols doesn’t accept the walk. “

He has to accept the second walk: to second base.

Why do you think that the proposal is that Pujols can face an unlimited number of pitches?

The offense has the option of accepting the walk, or declining.  And if they decline, they get a second (and final) turn.

I think the unintended consequence will come on the 3-0 count.  Already, we only get 8% swings.  The 3-0 count is the most boring count in baseball.  In a typical IBB situation, Pujols would basically never swing at a 3-0 pitch unless it’s right down the middle.  Most of the great hitters would also likely swing at a 1 or 2% rate. 

The rest of the hitters would not decline the no-strike walk, so there is no effect on them.

So, for the great hitter, they now get a benefit as well on the 2-0 count, because a pitcher knows that at 3-0, they will be taking all the way.  And pitchers have poor control, getting a called ball on 3-0 35% of the time.

I agree that this would be a bad unintended consequence.

I disagree with the way Xei tried to characterize the issue by taking the idea and finding the most ridiculous possible implementation (unlimited pitches) that no one is advocating.

What if 2nd and 3rd are occupied, there is 1 out and it is a tie game in the bottom of the 9th inning.

What the pitcher really wants to do is walk the batter so he can a) put on the force play at home so he can increase his chances of extending the game on a larger % of ground balls, or even better b) get a double play grounder and get out of the inning.

Sorry, this great new rule says you have to throw Pujols a strike and give him a chance to either a) hit a fly ball and win the game, b) hit a base hit and win the game, or c) hit a sharp ground ball not exactly at someone and win the game.

And oh by the way, even if you try to throw him a marginal strike so as to avert this rule, if for some reason you can’t, Pujols is awarded 2nd base, forcing home the winning run.

This is not the sort of strategy I hope we end up contemplating.  I much prefer what we’ve got already.

As I said, either here or at Primer, the intent of the 4-3 ball-strike rule was to force the pitcher to face the batter.  It was not intended to be used as a positive weapon for the defense.  This “foul” must be a net negative.

So, in Greg’s illustration, if you have runners on 2B and 3B, and you throw Pujols 4 straight pitches, Pujols has the option to accept the ONE base walk, or be thrown a second PA.  If he again gets 4 straight balls (that’s now 8 in all), he gets a TWO base walk, and wins the game.

In no way do I see this as a bad thing.  Greg’s illustration in trying to take down the double-walk is similar to what Xei just did: I am NOT proposing a two-base walk for a 4-pitch PA.  I am proposing it for an EIGHT pitch PA, all called balls. 

Eight called balls leads to two walks, doesn’t it?  Well, guess what: if you have two runners on base, and you get 8 straight called balls, a runner will score!

So, this illustration is not one I’d support as a viable objection.

My illustration is a case where issuing an intentional walk is a very smart thing to do, and decidely not cowardly, as literally every hitter will be walked in that situation, bar none.  The point is, there are times (actually quite a lot of times) when an intentional walk is not cowardice, but enlightened self-interest, and this proposed rule bans a very valid instance of acting in one’s own best interests.

As an aside, I am violently opposed to any rule change that establishes a second, parallel set of rules for an at-bat.  But me no buts about hockey, soccer or any other sport that from the very beginning built into its rules ideas like 5 on 4 play, or red-card disqualifications, or shootouts and the like.  In baseball, an at-bat has always been an at-bat, with exactly the same rules applied for every one of them (aside from the human element of the home plate umpire’s strike zone).  I think it would be a monstrosity to apply conditional rules to the outcome of an at-bat.  The implications would be many, enormous and pervasive, way out of proportion to the “problem” that some feel needs fixing here…

It’s my opinion that the “double” or “two base” walk changes the game too much and is disqualified as an option.  I don’t accept it as a possible scenario for a penalty of two four pitch walks in a row.

If you are going to change the walk rule, you mind as well add the HBP to it too.

vr, Xei

Incidentally, I disagree with the comparison between an intentional walk and a foul in basketball.  Throwing four balls in a row is not proscribed by the rules, and therefore there should not be any talk of the offensive team being wronged by this play, any more than you could say the defensive team in football was wronged when the offensive team takes a knee at the end of the game to run out the clock.  Should the defense in football be allowed to decline the results of a kneel-down, just because they don’t like it?  What about when the QB takes a snap and kneels down to put the ball in teh center of the field for a subsequent field-goal try - should hte defense be able to “decline” this play and force the field goal from the hashmark just because they don’t like it?

Penalties and remedies should be reserved for infractions of the rules, not enforcements of the rules.  When a pitcher throws ball four, they are not breaking a rule, and the batter’s award of first base is not a penalty, but the fulfillment of the rule. 

What’s next?  When an infielder lets a popup drop so he can eliminate the faster runner on base in favor of the slower hitter, should the offense get the option of reversing that, if they don’t like it?

Yes, the no-strike PA gets the option to the batter of being accepted or declined.  This includes the hit batter.

***

Greg, yes, the IBB is almost always a break-even position, or a slight advantage to the offense.  In the rare cases (most of the Bonds IBB) they are a net advantage to the defense.

As for baseball, it has not always been the 4-3 ball-strike rule.  That has evolved over time:
http://www.baseballlibrary.com/chronology/rules1.php

- The pitching distance has changed, including the mound in 1968/69

- The strike zone has changed, including in 2000/01

- In 1879, there were 9 balls to 3 strikes.  Then reduced to 8 the next year.  Then 7.  Eventually to 4 in 1889.  Strikeouts went to 4 for a brief time.

It seems therefore that the rules that we’ve come to accept as “traditional” only count as such if they’ve been worked out after a 30-40 year test period as they were hammering out all the different rules.

And even after that, there have been significant enough rule changes (the composition of the baseball of all things!, the composition of the bat, the playing surface, etc) that have tremendous impact on the playing style of the game.

Therefore, I don’t buy into the characterization that is going on regarding the “proportionality” of the solution to the problem.

You can have said the identical thing from 1850 to today for half of the rule changes.

As I said, the only viable (and it may be effective just on its own) downside I’ve heard so far is what would happen at the other counts because of this one change.

However, reducing the strike zone has had the effect of players taking more first-pitches.  This change is “invisible”.

Great point about the kneel-down: I don’t like that one either!

If you note, QBs are not allowed to throw the ball out of bounds at will: there must be an intended receiver.  This is basically a rule that tries to keep the matchup between the off/def alive, and not just let the QB get away scot-free.

That’s what we’re talking about here: the ability to skirt a confrontation, and do so to your advantage. 

Your better analogy might be the punter who kicks to whatever part of the field he wants.

Well, let me take this opportunity to agree with you about the confrontation aspect of this: I don’t really relish losing the pleasure of a Pujols at bat any more than the next guy.  Nor do I like watching two defenders cloak Randy Moss all game.  Nor do I like watching a boxing match where one participant is obviously trying to avoid all contact with the other.  Nor do I like the keepaway basketball that used to be the norm for some teams before the college shot clock.  Boring!!!

However, so far the proposed remedies all seem to be flawed (IMO, of course) and seem likely to introduce new problems bigger than those they ameliorate.  And I have to stick to my guns on parallel paths for at-bats; I just can’t stomach the idea that sometimes ball four means one thing, sometimes it means something else, and some other times you have to go ask the guy in the dugout who wears a uniform but doesn’t play what it means.

Along the same lines, I can’t stand the three-point shot in basketball, although I’ve kept that opinion to myself, and readily make use of it when I play.  The idea that the location of one’s toes should decide the outcome of a basketball game is silly; IMO, the ability to make long shots is enough of an advantage in that it pulls the defense away from the basket and makes it easier to score close in.  3-pointers unbalance the game, although the game has proven big enough to survive it. (Incidentally, free throws are sufficiently removed from the normal flow of the game that I can live with them being worth 1 point.)

From war to football, tennis, soccer, hockey, baseball, chess or any sport/game played with an opponent a key strategy to winning is to attempt to neutralize your opponents strength and attack his/her weaknesses.

In war, you don’t send in the ground troops until after you soften the defenses with air attacks.

In tennis, you don’t hit the ball to Nadal’s forehand when easily given a choice.

In soccer, you deny the ball to Kaka if you can.

In basketball you double team or play zone defenses to keep a player from scoring.

In chess, you castle, develop your pieces try to control the middle of the board, waiting for your opponent to strike first.

Every sport, game or war that is team or side based has as an important part of it’s existence strategies that allow for skirting of head to head (pitcher vs batter) confrontations.  The skirting however in all cases is limited.  If you pitch around Pujols, you still have Rasmus or whoever bats next.  It’s not like you’ve escaped the inning by walking Pujols.  In tennis if you hit to Nadal’s backhand, you have not won anything, you’ve just made him hit a shot that is not his strongest.  In basketball, just because you have double teamed Lebron, doesn’t mean that Mo Williams won’t hit a wide open three pointer.  If the Iraqis have mined and booby trapped the beaches of Kuwait, it doesn’t mean that a western desert left flank tank attack is going to have any better results.

But to modify a rule because a team is trying to increase their chances of winning through avoiding the opponents strength and attacking it’s weakness is short-sided imho.

After reading most of the posts here and at the BTF site, I am in favor of..........leaving things as they are.

Greg: how do you feel about the two-strike foul rule being different, based on whether you are bunting or not?

I think it’s stupid, actually.  You ought to be able to bunt foul all you want…

Put me in the camp with Greg and Dave Smyth of “leave things as they are”.  For me the time to change rules is when someone has found a way to exploit them to the extent that the nature of the game has changed in a way that is undesirable and for which there is no way for the game to self correct to reestablish its previous equilibrium.  I don’t think that is the case with the intentional walk.  In fact, I think it can be argued that the intentional walk is itself a part of the self regulating structure of the game that helps achieve a balance between offense and defense.  And if the intentional walk is being used excessively against a particular player there is a way for the team to correct that.  Get another good hitter to follow that player in the lineup.  That decreases the advantage in win value that the defensive team can gain from the intentional walk.

Tango - It would also seem that you are arguing against your own success.  There seems to be some evidence that the intentional walk is being used more often against great hitters than it was in the past.  If that is the case, one of the important factors causing that trend is probably a better understanding of the value of putting a batter on first as opposed to letting that batter hit in specific situations, an understanding brought about by advanced sabermetric research such as that in The Book.

It is interesting that Peter says his requirement for what he’d need to support a rule change.  I have no doubt that a clear majority of fans agree with him. Baseball fans anyway.

In no way is this true in other sports.  The QB and kicker protection rules.  The 2-pt conversion.  The yard line to kick from.  Any future change to OT rules.  In basketball, the 3-pt rule is enormous.  In hockey, they move the lines back and forth, even removing the center line.  4-4 OT.  Goalie protection.  Clutch-and-grab.  These are all enormous changes, akin to the DH rule.

Also, all the invisible-type things, like the composition of the ball and bat has seemingly no problem from anyone, while in golf, these things take on the utmost import.  Changing the strike zone, the mound, or the fence distances, which can drastically change the run environment.  Just fantastically enormous impact.  Barely a peep really.

Proposing that the batter gets to decline a walk, with the impact that he gets a double-walk?  It’s basically nothing in comparison to other changes that happen “behind the scenes”.

Also, baseball fans seem to prefer the status quo, regardless of what it is.  Had the rule always been the double-walk, and then someone proposed eliminating it, the same percentage of people would be against change.

So, it’s not the rule, but rather what baseball fans have grown up as with the rule.

There is no clearer one than the DH.  Had both leagues adopted the DH, then everyone born from the 1960s onward would not support a rule change back to removing the DH.  They grew up on the DH, they are comfortable on the DH, and a rule change against it would be met with fierce resistance.

The same resistance would apply had the DH never existed to begin with.

In the other sports, they don’t hold the tradition like that.

For example, it would not surprise me in the least if hockey went to 4-4 full time.  It would not surprise me if the net gets an extra foot added to it.  If they change the offside rule to a floating blue line (once inside the blue line, the line floats to center ice, for example), again no biggie.

So, when I see the comments here and at Primer, I always read the comments as “why change” as opposed to “This rule can work; how can we make it so”.  This resistance is unique to baseball.

The biggest change of all time to the most popular sport around was going to shootouts to decide the World Cup winner.  In no way is this even possible to discuss with baseball, not now, not in 100 years.

Please don’t classify me as a traditionalist just because it makes it easier for you to see this as the progressives (meaning the people who agree with you) versus the stick in the mud old fogies (meaning the people who don’t).  My original post (which got eaten because I took too long to write it) said that I liked the current situation because I like the strategy of it.  Right now there are times where intentionally walking the batter is clearly the right strategic thing to do, and times when it clearly isn’t, and a whole lot of times when the choice isn’t clear.  So there is a lot of room for individuals to make either good or bad decisions that we can agree or disagree with.  Same with sacrifices and stealing.  If we somehow get to the point where we know for sure what the right thing to do is maybe I’ll feel differently. 

I liked pro football going to the two point conversion for the same reason and the three point shot in basketball and the time clock.  I was old enough to have learned these sports before these rule changes occurred, but there were clearly good reasons for each of them.  Soccer had way too many tie games so the shootout was one way to prevent that.  I am still not sure that it is the best way.  I could have lived with the relatively few football tie games that we had, but with so much riding on the post season not having any tie games seems preferable. 

The DH is an interesting experiment that doesn’t particularly bother me one way or the other.  Going to separate offensive and defensive teams would.  That baseball with and without the DH can coexist and play remain similar shows me that it really doesn’t make much difference one way or the other.  Babe Ruth drew a lot of walks, Mickey Mantle drew a lot of walks, Ted Williams drew a lot of walks, but the walks didn’t prevent them from being remembered for their outstanding offensive ability.  Nor did the walks prevent Bonds from setting his offensive records.  Pujol’s walks and intentional walks are not out of line with what other players of his stature have faced in the past.  So I just don’t see the situation as it exists now as a problem.  Maybe I will change my mind if it gets worse in the future.

Mind mind is on bigger questions.  Such as who the hell was Adolfo Phillips and why was HE intentionally walked 29 times in 1967?

The difference between my proposal (#26) and Tom’s is that Tom’s merely changes the circumstances in which the strategy is employed.  Runner on third, any number of outs, tie game, Albert Pujols at the plate, his proposal is going to let the fans boo for eight consecutive pitches.  All that does is enshrine the intentional walk in the rule book.  My proposal, on the other, hand, will turn any attempt into an intentional walk into something the fans will watch with anxiety and anticipation.  Did the catcher leave the box too early?  Will the ball get by him?  Particularly if the pitcher has been wild to get to the situation he is in (say, walk followed by wild pitch to get the runner into scoring position), the manager will be taking a far more significant risk than he is now in calling for the IBB.  And bringing in a fresh pitcher to deliver four wide ones, when he and the catcher have only eight warmup pitches to get their rhythm down, a lot more risky.  We’ve all seen catchers under the current rules having to lunge for balls thrown a million miles wide.  Imagine if the catcher was starting for those balls in a crouch.  So you have the risk of the “catcher’s balk” and the risk of one of the more exciting plays in baseball, the run scoring on a wild pitch (or the runner cut down on a great play by the catcher and pitcher).  I’ll take that over watching Albert stare at eight balls wide any day.

"That baseball with and without the DH can coexist and play remain similar shows me that it really doesn’t make much difference one way or the other.”

Fantastic point!  Yes, the DH is an enormous change.  We are taking out someone with a .160 wOBA and replacing him with a .350 wOBA.  That’s a huge huge change.

Creating the double-walk rule is a blip in comparison.

Also note that I am not against the IBB.  Because of its infrequent use, it doesn’t really matter.  I am against the disproportionate use toward Bonds/Pujols.  It crosses the line of absurdity in terms of the very high frequency used against these guys.

***

And in no way am I saying that age is somehow a delimiter between old fogies and progressives.  Sports fans treat baseball differently, as some virgin to protect. They don’t hold other sports to such high esteem.

Sports fans treat baseball differently, as some virgin to protect. They don’t hold other sports to such high esteem.

Whatever the basis for this discrepancy, it is an important aspect of the sport which should be given reasonable consideration – among many aspects – when approaching the IBB issue from a consulting angle.

Since obviously anything I say will have zero impact to the Rules committee, I would say that if we’re going to have a discussion on this blog regarding rule changes, it does not need to be limited to the “the change better be worth it big time for me to be in favor of it”.

I would prefer that the rule change be discussed on the merits of the rule.  That the decision on which rule is better should not be predicated on which rule came into place first.

If we always had the no-strike walk rule, and then went to the standard walk rule, or if we started with the standard walk rule and went to the no-strike walk rule, I would expect our discussion to be the same.

However, the discussions here and at Primer are in large part preempted from this, as the focus is so largely on the don’t fix what ain’t broke, and better with the devil we know.

I’m all in favor on focusing on the specifics, such as the change in approach on the 2-0 count, etc.

***

For example, someone at Primer said we may as well also discuss having 8 or 10 men on the field, since there’s no logical reason for 9.  It would simply be a different game.

But, as Peter reminded us, the DH is a different game too.  But, it’s still baseball when it comes down to it.  And whether you have a huge strike zone or a small one, or you use a baseball or a softball, it’s recognizable.  The two-strike foul-bunt rule is one of those exceptions that doesn’t need to necessarily be in place.  Same deal with the no-strike walk rule, that we could discuss it in terms of the implication of instituting it.

Tango, I’m fine with discussing this thing without regard to which alternative came first or which exists and which doesn’t currently exist…

Here’s a factor which plays into my distaste for a change on the IBB rule: in baseball, I would really dislike adding or changing any rule that involves choices - as in choose whether or not to accept a walk, or choose whether or not to accept a HBP.  Note, I am not talking about choices of things like when to pinch hit, or when to bring in a reliever, or when to pitch around someone.  I’m talking about things where a hitter chooses what kind of pitch the pitcher should throw.  Baseball got rid of all of those things a long time ago (correct me if I’m forgetting anything), rightly I think.

Put the on deck batter on base?

Best hitter is on deck, you IBB the current hitter.  That puts the best hitter on first base.  All you’ve done is taken the bat out of the best players hand a batter early.

Sure, you can start complicating it and give the team at bat the choice.  But that’s not what I saw proposed in #52.
vr, Xei

Or, if you really really want Pujols to bat, you get the hitter to swing at the 3-1 pitch. Then the pitcher is still at a disadvantage (walking doesn’t benefit them anymore), and Pujols will come to bat.

It doesn’t require the umpire to ask the batter if they want the walk or not, it doesn’t require the bat to be taken out of Pujols’ hand, and it effectively eliminates the IBB as a ploy for getting to a weaker hitter/getting around a stronger hitter, and makes it only effective for filling up a base for a force/DP.

As noted, the offense decides whether to accept the walk as-is, or allows the on-deck batter to go to 1B.

As noted, the offense decides whether to accept the walk as-is, or allows the on-deck batter to go to 1B.

And this defies the underlying principles of the rules which are currently in place, namely (as I said earlier) that everything in baseball is “physically earned (i.e., a single) or physically yielded (i.e., a walk). There are some exceptions, but these involve what happens to the ball in relation to the playing field (i.e., the automatic double) or a player’s interaction with a ball in play (i.e., a ball overthrown into a dugout).”

You don’t need to make it an actual ‘ask the player if they earned it.’

You want to walk Pujols. So you have Rasmus up. You throw him 3 pitchout balls. LaRussa signals to Rasmus. Rasmus swings at the next pitch (even if it is an intentional ball).

Now the pitcher is at a 3-1 count on Rasmus, and has to face Pujols. The offense chooses.

Alternatively, let’s say it was Ortiz-Ramirez a couple years back. Francona signals to Ortiz to take the intentional walk, giving him an at-bat with Ramirez on first, rather than to bat at 3-1 with nobody on.

The strategy is still there. There is no delay of game. There is no ‘choosing’ which outcome to take. It’s just a simple way to force pitchers to pitch to the batters.