In Defense of Intentional Walks
I am no fan of the intentional walk. Not only is it usually poor strategy (there are very few situations when it is even a good play to give Albert Pujols a free pass), but I also tend to agree with those who think that the intentional walk is contrary to the “spirit of the game.” There are some interesting suggestions out there on how it might be “banned” — for example, any 4-0 walk gives the walked player two bases, and makes corresponding adjustments for any base runners. My own opinion on whether or not intentional walks should be “punished” (and if so, how) is not fully-formed. However, for the sake of argument, I have tried to think about why we might not want to change the rules with regard to intentional walks (as defined above). I am not a firm traditionalist who believes that “this is the way the game is played and forever shall it be,” as that is neither true nor rational. Rather, as a devil’s advocate, let me propose that how we might view intentional walks as a enjoyable part of the game.
This sort of dispute cannot be settled in the same manner as, e.g., the average run expectancy of some event. It is more of an aesthetic matter regarding what makes the game pleasurable to watch. (Some might want to call this an “objective” versus “subjective” difference, but I think it is problematic to use “objective” interchangeably with “quantifiable,” and “subjective” with “unquantifiable.” This is an all-too-frequent habit in much sabermetrically-influenced writing that I hope to address at greater length some other time.) Those who oppose the current arrangement with respect to intentional walks have a strong aesthetic claim — almost all of us would agree that it is much more fun to watch hits, defensive plays, strikeouts, or even simply the pitcher and batter dueling it out than to watch the catcher standing to the side while four lazy pitches loop over to him. Moreover, intentional walks (usually) mean that we do not get to watch a “real” plate appearance from a superior hitter.
But let me try to introduce a different aesthetic perspective for the sake of argument. I have not run the WPA numbers for the 2011 season, but it is fairly well-accepted that most intentional walks (at least when the pitcher is not batting next) are bad ideas that usually hurt the chances of the pitcher’s team. Are we going to punish other bad strategies? Should the league give fines for having good hitters bunt too often? Will Mike Scioscia get suspended four games for every time he starts Jeff Mathis (Angels fans are nodding vigorously)? If I really wanted to get on my high horse, I would make a comment about the irony of a league that allows the players to use smokeless tobacco on the field trying to crack down on strategies that result in self-inflicted harm, but I do not want this post to get that “serious,” the parallel harms are quite disproportionate, the similarity breaks down in other ways, and I am no good at riding horses, anyway.
What I am trying to get at is that there is a sort of aesthetic pleasure that comes from seeing a bad move (as many, if not all, actual intentional walks are) “punished.” Those who are parents and/or teachers might view outcomes such as these as natural consequences. Of course, there will always be times when excessive intentional walks do “work,” as in the surreal 2011 World Series Game Five (subtitle: “Come Back, Grady Little, All is Forgiven”). That may frustrate some from a “natural consequences” perspective, but may also generate a perverse joy in seeing something so wrong go oh-so-right, somehow.
It may be that my own sense of aesthetics that is perverse, of course. I do generally prefer “good baseball” to silly strategies blowing up in the faces of those employing them or working out against all sense. Maybe my perspective on the perversely pleasurable possibilities of the intentional walk can be illuminated a bit by reflecting on how things can go wrong not just in the post-walk situation, but during the process itself. After all, it has been proposed (apart from the whole for-or-against intentional walks discussion), that the necessary pitches be eliminated, and that the pitching team could just signal that the batter can take first. I oppose that with the same contempt that Octavio Dotel shows for the intentional walk in general. It takes the (potential) fun out of the process. After all, some pitchers just are not ready to do it. Royals rookie pitcher Danny Duffy reported that prior to a major-league game this September during which he airmailed the last pitch of an intentional walk, he had never intentionally walked a player before at any level. I have heard that about other young pitchers. That can be fun (unless you are rooting for the team providing the entertainment).
Sometimes, the hilarity and natural consequences all come together, as in the case of the game-winning run during the June 26, 2011 Marlins versus Mariners classic.
Graphically:
This is what is at stake.
Matt Klaassen reads and writes obituaries in the Greater Toronto Area. If you can't get enough of him, follow him on Twitter.
I, too, get aesthetic pleasure from seeing these bad strategies punished. I get a lot of joy from seeing managers and teams get punished for intentional walks or poorly timed sacrifice bunts..
It’s silly to create artificial means for punishing intentional walks b/c they’re boring when we allow half our games to be infected with the “entertainment” of watching a pitcher try to hit. Intentional walks are boring but sacrifice bunts and weak groundouts to 2nd are entertaining? Not for me.
The walk itself is already a punishment — you’re putting someone on base… allowing them to 100% avoid giving you an out.
Since they are self punishing, they don’t need to be banned.
I don’t like the idea of banning them because it’s kind of a gray area on some unintentional intentional walks.
4 pitch walks are often a result of a pitcher struggling so he doesn’t need to be hit harder than he already is.
Intentional walks are a natural side effect of the walk rule and a fixed batting order. Punishing intentional walks or even banning them outright won’t stop them. They just won’t be announced in advance by having the catcher stand up and move several feet outside the strike zone. You’ll then have the problem of having to judge “intent” every single time four pitches are thrown out of the strike zone. Never mind that intentional walks are already self punishing as it is…
If an intentioanl walk is bad strategy why on earth would a team need to be punished more? I don’t get that? Has anyone looked at the Barry Bonds Intentional walks and see exactly what influence they had?? That is a huge sample size and should show something.
I enjoy IBB. It adds more drama to the game and raises the stakes. The pitching team is basically spitting in the face of the next batter when they IBB someone.
I think the issue there is that the defense can essentially remove or minimize the contributions of the other team’s best player without ever “giving him a chance”. This is most often stated in comparison to basketball, football, etc.
In other sports you cannot say, not let Kobe Bryant have the ball, or not let Walter Payton receive a handoff.
It would be like the situation being 3rd and 8 in the 4th quarter and the defense can say “Aaron Rogers isn’t allowed to pass the ball, but he can gain 3 yards.”
My strong preference is to have the game emulate the spirit of competition “I’m better than you and I can prove it”, but understand that occasions call for defensive strategy in the form of IBBs.
But Aaron Rodgers CAN decide he will never throw to a particular corner. The Packers can choose to never run the ball toward a particular lineman.
You’re right that there is something to be said for the spirit of competition. But you couldn’t be more wrong about other sports not prescribing matchups. In the NBA and NFL the coaches job is primarily to draw up plays that CREATE favorable matchups. If anything your argument should be that baseball needs to ditch the IBB in order to embrace its uniqueness as the sport that doesn’t do that sort of thing.
CircleChange,
While KDL already alluded to this a bit, I’ll expand. You CAN not let Kobe Bryant have the ball or be minimally effective by double teaming. You CAN stack 10 in the box to completely nullify walter payton running the ball. But as with the intentional walk, both situations would have big consequences for essentially shutting down a player on the other team.
Should we disallow double coverage in the NFL because it could completely shut out a WR? If any defensive coordinator wanted to, they could make sure a WR had a high chance to never touch the ball by double teaming every single play. They don’t because some other part of the defense will get hurt. In baseball, managers make the decision that the consequence of allowing a free base outweighs consequences from letting them an at bat.
Maybe there is some solid logic behind getting rid of the IBB, but this line of reasoning holds no water
No, but you can triple team a player in basketball, or Hack-a-Shaq.
And in football you can take a knee to run the clock.
But of course neither of these are perfect analogies. Intersport analogies should be wiped off the planet. They never do anything to clarify an argument. They take one abstracted set of rules and place them against another set of rules, which still remains abstracted.
No one says you can’t swing at IBB pitches.
Not to mention trying to compare baseball, the only sport in which the defense has the ball, to any other sport is pretty silly.
TBH the game would become way, way more interesting if they employed a 2-base advancement for a 4-0 count. Perhaps managers would finally start realizing how important it is to use their best relievers in the highest leverage situations rather than save them for the 9th inning ‘save situation’.
Also the IBB is very deflating for fans on both ends, not getting to see your favourite players have a proper PA or pitching matchup just sucks.
I don’t know. If I’m Cardinal fan watching Game 6, and Napoli comes up with a guy on 2nd and 2 out in 3rd inning…I can’t say that I’d agree that I would find an intentional walk deflating.
You’re absolutely right there. My beef though is that from an unbiased standpoint you miss out on a lot of great matchups and situations because of it. I’m not suggesting they remove the IBB from baseball or change it at all, but the thought of a game without it is certainly entertaining to me.
dumbest post ever
followed by the dumbest comment ever
That Mariners-Marlins game looked like at pitch out? The Batter wasn’t heading to first, and it wasn’t exactly a lazy toss like you see in an IBB. However Ackley was the only one on any base, over at third. Trying to gun down the squeeze?
I also like the IBB, it gives the manager more of the feel like he’s playing a game of chess against the other manager. And more chance to screw it up. Good drama.
It’s ridiculous to say it’s ALWAYS a bad strategy. What about Tango’s chart on when to walk Barry Bonds?
In particular, (even without putting too much stake into matchups and situational hitting/pitching) isn’t it often the right move leading by one, runner on third, one out, when there’s a significant difference between the batter you’re facing and the next one?
Completely irrelevant anecdotal case – walking Pujols with a runner on 3rd and one out did give them that double play to get out of the inning.
I meant score tied – especially bottom nine situation where there’s no difference between giving up one or two runs.
But I might be wrong about that. The more obvious situation might be RISP, 2 outs.
I completely agree. Given the infinite multitude of factors that go into an at-bat, you can’t really say that an IBB automatically hurts a team’s chances.
The rule would also punish a national league team who IBBs to get the pitcher
As almost everyone else pointed out, one can’t logically argue both “IBBs are a bad strategy” and “IBBs should be punished.” One fulfills the other. If you believe the first then there’s no need for the second, it’s a built in punishment.
Personally, I think there’s been way too much complaining about IBB. If you don’t like it because it’s “managerial meddling,” why don’t you complain about the dozens of other managerial choices made throughout the game that go by unmentioned and unnoticed? It may not always be the most effective strategy when plugged into a win% calculator or simulation, but it works SOMETIMES, which means it’s just another strategy for a manager to choose from.
If you don’t like it because it “takes the bat out of the hitters hands,” just wait 4 pitches, there’s another one coming up.
Actually, it IS the right strategy plugged into a “win calculator” at certain times, if you’re using have enough data. It’s plain wrong to say that it’s always a bad move.
Run expectancy tables (where we get linear weights from) are useful for basic guidelines and rough estimates, but when you have expected results for particular players you can have a more accurate real picture of what to expect.
Here’s an extreme example – you’re tied, bottom of the ninth, two outs, facing 2004 Barry Bonds, with 2011 Vernon Wells on deck, a runner on third, and a right-handed pitcher on the mound. Nobody on the bench, nobody else in the bullpen, for the sake of simplicity, and everyone after Wells is an average hitter.
Now let’s assume for simplicity that Bonds’ true talent at the moment is represented by his 2004 stats, and Wells’ true talent is represented by his 2011 stats (this won’t be the case, but for simplicity’s sake…)
Excising intentional walks from his stats in 2004 v Righties we get
Hit — 28.9%
Walk/HBP — 26.1%
Out — 45.0%
(forgetting errors for simplicity’s sake)
The win expectancy after a hit, any hit, is 0%. After a walk/hbp, it’s the same as after an IBB – Wells hits with runners on 1st and 3rd. After an out, it’s 50% (with the slight adjustment of starting an inning with Wells rather than the next guy)
On the other hand, let’s say you walk Bonds
You have 1st and 3rd.
Wells v righties, 2011, gives you
Hit – 17.9%
Walk/HBP – 03.4%
Out – 78.7%
The hit gives you 0% chance of a win. The walk gives you standard WE, bases loaded, game tied, bottom of the ninth, two outs – which is 33.8%. The out gives you the 50% chance.
So in aggregate, pitching to Wells with 1st and 3rd gives you.
17.9 % * 0 = 0
3.4% * 33.8 = 1.2% +
78.7% * 50.0 = 39.4%
—–
40.6%
Knowing this, let’s run the Bonds numbers
28.9% * 0.0 = 0
26.1% * 40.6 = 10.6%
45.0% * 50.0 = 22.5%
——-
33.1%
So you have a 33.1% chance to win if you pitch to Bonds, but you stand a better chance at 40.6% pitching to Wells. Even if you want to make a distinction between entering the 10th with Wells up and entering the 10th with the next guy, and you’re ridiculously (unrealistically) mean to Wells and give yourself 60% chance to win with Wells coming up, you’re still better off walking Barry.
Of course, nobody in their right mind would pitch to a prime Barry Bonds with two outs in a tie game, first and second bases empty, a righty on the mound, and an aging Vernon Wells coming up. But the stats would tell you as much.
Nice. I totally agree with you (see my reply to your comment above).
It’s worth pointing out that “IBBs are a bad strategy” does not entail “IBBs are punished.” Bad consequences are not punishment, since punishment is an intentionally enacted harm to an agent for the agent’s misbehavior. IBBs are not misbehavior (according to the extant rules); they are the result of a set of events, like billiard balls careening around a table after being struck. And the proper conception of consequences for this discussion does not include agent-directed intentional harm. Thus, it is perfectly sensible to note that IBBs are a bad strategy (at least in many cases) and to argue that they should be punished. And certainly, even if the former entailed the latter, logic would not be violated, since logic is just the set of formal rules for reasoning. The form of the two sentences is akin to F(c) and G(c) which share a constant (IBB) but differ in their (semantic) functions. If F(c) –> G(c) (and that is public knowledge) then it is redundant to assert G(c) after asserting F(c), but it violates no rule of logic, e.g., -(p.-p).
I’m also not a fan of punishing 4-pitch walks. Why wouldn’t this just give worse lineups an advantage against better lineups? (More doubles than were likely to happen otherwise) I’m for parity. But I want parity of talent on teams, not parity through ginning up the rules.
A walk, intentional or not, is by definition a punishment. The batter being given the base is a punishment for the pitcher throwing 4 pitches outside of the strike zone.
Whether or not to issue an intentional IBB is a tactical decision. The more tactical decisions, the more fun. That is why I detest the DH rule.
I disagree with your conception of punishment. Games have rules which create consequences when they are followed. A batter is awarded first base as the result of putting a ball in play and reaching the base before the base or he is tagged (in some manner) with the ball. This is not a punishment for the defensive team; it is simply the consequence of everyone following the rules. Punishments result from violating rules. For example, a balk is a rule violation. The pitcher is required to follow certain (rather detailed) rules in order not to deceive the base-runners. Violating these rules is a balk, which is punished by awarding the base-runners a free base. Unlike balks, walks are the outcome of everyone following the rules, not the outcome of someone violating them. After all, there is no rule requiring pitchers to throw strikes.