POLL: How Would You Handle the Intentional Walk?
Whether or not you believe baseball games take too long, whether or not you believe they’re trending in a bad direction, I think everybody can agree that your average game includes too much time during which nothing is happening. So to want to cut down on that is noble, and baseball’s put together a Pace of Game Committee to try to fit these things back under three hours. Already, they’re testing out a variety of proposed tweaks, and while obviously nothing is yet official for the major-league game, here’s something we could see during the regular season in the near future:
Intentional walks will no longer include the pitcher lobbing four balls outside the strike zone. Instead, the manager will signal to the home-plate umpire and the batter will take first base.
So, automatic intentional walks. People have talked about this one for a while. Tuesday night, Aaron Barrett pitched.
It didn’t end up mattering, but at the time, the play was bizarre and spectacular. Right after Barrett had spiked a pitch, allowing the go-ahead run to score, he lobbed an intentional ball well beyond the catcher, and that mistake turned into a critical out. It was high-leverage excitement out of nowhere, and had the intentional walk been automatic, obviously this wouldn’t have happened.
And maybe that’s a bad thing. Or maybe that’s a good thing? How often do you need a surprising result to justify a play’s continued existence? To be sure, it’s not like this is the only messed-up intentional ball in recent history. Here’s an intentional ball wild pitch. Here’s an intentional ball wild pitch. Here’s an intentional ball wild pitch. Here’s an intentional ball wild pitch. Here’s an intentional ball wild pitch. From the collegiate ranks, here’s an intentional ball turning into a home run:
And here’s Miguel Cabrera hitting an intentional ball in the majors a handful of years ago:
People recall the Cabrera hit to this day. Pretty much none of them were actually watching it live. It’s a cherished minor memory, a clever gamble by a hitter who looked to take a pitcher completely off guard. I don’t even know if it was a good idea on Cabrera’s part, mathematically, but it became an instant highlight specifically because no one’s supposed to be able to do that, or to even think about doing that. I like that this play happened.
The conversation around intentional walks is a lot like the conversation around extra points in football. Extra points aren’t automatic, but they’re so close to being automatic that some people believe they might as well be automatic, because, why spend the time if you don’t have to? What’s the point of a play if it’s converted more than 99% of the time? That seems to call for either an automatic point, or a more difficult point to convert. The status quo is weird.
This season, there were 985 intentional walks. Previously, the number hovered a little over a thousand. I don’t know exactly how often intentional walks are messed up, but it almost has to be less than 1% of the time. I don’t think there were ten screwy intentional walks in 2014, Barrett’s included. It’s a tricky thing to research, but we know it’s not that common because when it happens, we react like it’s an uncommon thing. So if intentional walks were too frequent and too long, it would make plenty of sense to do away with them as a process that has to play out. Might as well reduce it to a hand gesture, in that case.
But. (There’s always a but.) I don’t know how long the average intentional walk takes, but I just watched one from April where Carlos Martinez walked Brayan Pena, and the four pitches took about 40 seconds. Everything seemed ordinary so I don’t think Martinez was unusually fast or unusually slow. There’s some other time there, like when Pena approached the plate and when he subsequently headed down to first, so maybe you put it in between 45-60 seconds. Let’s say that’s the length of an average intentional walk. There’s value in reducing game duration where you can, but is that enough of a reduction to justify the lost opportunity for wackiness?
Let’s say that an intentional walk goes somehow awry, I don’t know, 0.5% of the time. Maybe that’s high. Maybe it’s 0.25% of the time. Do you give that up to save a minute? How much do you value unexpected wild pitches? What role does that play in your enjoyment of the game?
Over the weekend, somehow, I wound up watching the end of a football game between Alabama and Ole Miss. It was a game of significance to people with whom I’ll never have any interaction, but it was interesting and I was bored, and Ole Miss scored a go-ahead touchdown late. They subsequently missed the extra point, but a penalty gave them another chance at it. They subsequently missed it again and that led to a nervous final few minutes against the No. 1 team in the country. In the end the score held, but that was weird enough that today I’m referring to a football game on the front page of FanGraphs, so that’s what makes you think. On paper, the automatic conversion makes sense. But there’s also entertainment value in seeing a failed conversion, so I understand why there are still conversions.
This is one of those polls where I really don’t know where people are going to come down. And that’s why I’m interested in the poll results. To be honest, I don’t even know how I feel, myself, because while I’d love a faster game, I also love that the Mariners once scored the go-ahead run on an intentional walk wild pitch. I love that, last night, Barrett turned a humiliating mistake into an out at home at a critical juncture. How rare must a rare event be in order to totally kill it off? Are you prepared to prevent the next Miguel Cabrera-style intentional-ball ambush?
It’s a difficult question to think about. So it’s perfect for a day without baseball. If we can’t watch baseball happen, we might as well think about how it happens.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
You should include an additional poll option: abolish / discourage it somehow.
Intentional walks are dumb and against the spirit of the game, and I say that as a fan of a team that really should have intentionally walked Barry Bonds every single time he came to the plate in games held in Colorado for several years in a row.
All walks will advance a runner 3-k bases where k is the number of strikes in the count when the batter walks.
Then you could just bean someone on the first pitch, instead.
This is currently known as the A.J. Burnett maneuver
All HBP will advance a runner 3-k bases?
I can’t agree with this enough. Maybe have intentional walks put a runner on second. Or abolish them and not allow a catcher to start standing or something. Glad I’m not the only one
How do you determine was is intentional? If the catcher doesn’t stand up and put his arm out, but the balls are 12 inches off the plate, is it intentional?
If a team does not want to give a guy something to hit, that guy is not going to get something to hit.
I think you could make intentional walks automatic, and then penalize “ordinary” four pitch walks by giving the batter second base. In order to avoid these walks, pitchers will throw slightly easier pitches for batters to hit, which would increase offense slightly.
If I wanted to watch a sport where they made up new and arbitrary rules at the beginning of every season I’d stick to football.
That penalizes pitchers that lose their control and unintentionally walk a guy on 4 pitches, though.
I take it you’re not a pitcher.
If the goal was to lessen the number of intentional walks, they could just make a rule that prevents the catcher from standing prior to the pitch, forcing a pitch around scenario rather than an intentional walk. Of course, that would add time rather than reduce it.
I lost on a pitch around situation earlier this year. Threw a 4-seamer 18 inches off the plate and watched it get tagged down the line for a game tying double.
and I thought games started by CJ Wilson were bad enough as it is =(
I’m glad we finally found the guy who is the One True Authority on the “spirit of the game.”
Do you start your chess games by taking both queens off the board?
Stupid analogy; the walked batter is in a better position to score a run than he was when he was batting.
I think the intentional walk is bad strategy. Same as most sac bunts and pinch running with two outs. But I don’t want any of these made illegal. Nevermind the fact that it would be impossible to properly enforce.
He’s been here the entire time, smartass.
All you have to do if the IBB is banned is throw four pitches outside with the catcher still squatting. Pointless.
I see no issue with this. If you want to throw a batter four wide ones, go ahead. It’s having the catcher stand up behind the other batter’s box and throwing four pitches that aren’t even remotely hittable that’s the problem.
Intentioanal walks are not what is slowing the game down by any stretch of the imagination. There are many, many very slow batters and pitchers. Fix that and IBB would not be an issue.
If a pitcher goes to his mouth while on the rubber it is ruled a ball. Why not just do that 4 times quickly?
Doesn’t it also allow the runners to advance? And there are runners on base most of the time an IBB is issued.
It does not allow the runners to advance.
Rule 8.02
The pitcher shall not —
(a) (1) Bring his pitching hand in contact with his mouth or lips while in the 18 foot circle surrounding the pitching rubber. EXCEPTION: Provided it is agreed to by both managers, the umpire prior to the start of a game played in cold weather, may permit the pitcher to blow on his hand.
PENALTY: For violation of this part of this rule the umpires shall immediately call a ball. However, if the pitch is made and a batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a hit batsman or otherwise, and no other runner is put out before advancing at least one base, the play shall proceed without reference to the violation. Repeated offenders shall be subject to a fine by the league president.
I’ve always wondered this too, why a pitcher doesn’t do that 4x in a row instead of risking a wild pitch.
The only reason I would see not to do that would be the last part of the rule, which mentions “repeat offenders” being subject to fines.
This poll needs more options having to do with eliminating the intentional walk entirely, allowing hitters to decline a four-pitch walk, etc …
You can’t get rid of them. The only difference between an intentional walk and a normal one is the catcher is standing. If they get rid of intentional walks, the catcher will just crouch, then go to the side like they do now, it’s just more strain on the catcher.
It’s been proposed that you could allow a hitter to decline a four-pitch walk, which would effectively eliminate them.
Jeff makes a good point about this being a different question, but given the title of the article, I was all geared up to vote for this option.
What do you mean decline? I havent’ heard this before and I’m curious. Do you mean he’d simply say “no, I’m staying until he pitches to me.” What if I’m a really determined manager and I tell my pitcher to just keep throwing them out there? What if the pitcher just can’t find the zone? I guess I don’t understand how you’d enforce that . . .
I’ve heard the decline option before. If the batter is walked, he can decline it and essentially start a new at bat. If he is walked a second time, it would be a two-base penalty. If declined and walked a third time, …
Fun rule change to think about, but I wouldn’t want to see it anywhere except the independent leagues
This always reminds me of the time college basketball tried giving teams the option of taking foul shots or simply inbounding the ball late in the game.
I saw one game in which the team took the inbound and the other team kept fouling. The resulting 1 minute took 15+ to play and was simply unwatchable.
That’ll really speed up the game.
You could just say a catcher must be crouched behind the plate when the pitch is thrown.
Sure they could still ‘unintentionally’ walk batters, but they would atleast have to through it close enough to get hit if they miss.
It’s a valid question but a different question for a different time.
I saw the Cabrera hit live b/c, even though you guys refuse to believe it, I’m a Marlins fan, and we exist
If you were actually at the game, I’m sure you can name everybody else who was there.
it was in baltimore
ROFL
Not all IBBs are 4 pitches, so the average would probably be less than 40 seconds. Pablo’s IBB last night was only 1 pitch.
Almost all of them, though, are four pitches. Others are rare.
Jeff – In 2013 more than 27% of the intentional walks had fewer than four intentional balls (277 of 1018). I don’t think that qualifies as rare.
i’d guess the majority of those started at 1-0 or 2-0 though.
By my rough calculations, every year during the regular season, roughly 8,505 hours worth of baseball are played (162 games, 15 teams, 3.5 hours a game). There were 985 IBB this year. If each one took a minute, roughly, that’s about 16.5 hours worth of baseball. That’s approximately 0.002% of the baseball being played. How is THIS a question? Lots of things can be sped up in the game, but an intentional walk? Let’s deal with bigger things, first.
Simply removing it is impossible. Any team can pitch out four times. Any team can pitch out four times and have their catcher stand up with their glove outstretched. It’d be nice if we could keep these things from happening, but that doesn’t seem very realistic.
It’s actually a hundred times more than that. 0.002 = 0.2%.
Just had to point it out because of my name; I’m against the automatic IBB.
Your math is terrible.
Yes, not only is outlawing the IBB pointless as you note, since you can still walk a guy with the catcher in his crouch, it doesn’t actually solve the problem of long game times. There are three reasons games are long: 1) pitchers taking a long time to throw, 2) batters taking a hike through the Sierra Nevada mountains between pitches, 3) commercials between innings. Any solution that doesn’t address those things is no solution.
I agree. IBBs can be so easily circumvented, no point trying to eliminate them. Besides, that wild toss last night lead to great theater–the shock value was so high, as was the subsequent out as Posey tried and failed to score.
It reminds me of the 1972 World Series. The Oakland A’s had two strikes on the great Johnny Bench and then proceeded to pretend as though they were going to intentionally walk him. But they pulled a fast one: after the third ball, the catcher stealthily moved back behind the plate–Bench didn’t notice–and the pitcher threw a called third strike. That gets you out of your seat!
Like the Cabrera incident, it is extremely rare of course. But given the stage, it is something a baseball fan remembers for a long time. (Not to mention that the opportunity for embellishment is great.)
Vidor has two good ideas: limit the amount of time allowed between pitches (a clock?) and don’t allow batters to step out of the box more than two or three times during an AB. We’ll miss the jock strap adjustments and the reflexive spitting, sure, but somehow I think the game will survive.
The potential for something truly remarkable happening during an intentional walk far outweighs the bore of sitting through a 30-second intentional walk once every few games.
Every year during the regular season, roughly 8,505 hours worth of baseball are played (162 games, 15 teams, 3.5 hours a game). There were 985 IBB this year. If each one took a minute, roughly, that’s about 16.5 hours worth of baseball. That’s approximately 0.002% of the baseball being played. How is THIS a question? Lots of things can be sped up in the game, but an intentional walk? Let’s deal with bigger things, first.
Simply removing it is impossible. Any team can pitch out four times. Any team can pitch out four times and have their catcher stand up with their glove outstretched. It’d be nice if we could keep these things from happening, but that doesn’t seem very realistic.
I do not know why this posted twice. Ignore it, unless you can delete it.
so ridiculous. If you care so much about the length of the game, then you clearly dont like baseball, and should just stop watching it. Football is just as long, if not longer, and basketball is only slightly quicker, and is sometimes the same amount of time as a typical baseball game…I’ve got an idea for speeding up the game. How about calling strikes when a pitcher throws a strike? That would probably quicken the pace. The instant replay system is dumb. Get a 5th umpire in the booth with headsets, and let him tell the umpires on the field when they are wrong. That takes 4 seconds, and you get the calls right. Its not difficult…Some of these new rules are egregious
People complain about warmup pitches, but they’re limited to 8 warmup pitches…People argue about hitters stepping out of the box, but lets see them go in there and face 95+ from different angles and then ridiculous offspeed stuff, and not have to readjust themselves. Obviously, you would prefer the hitters not to step out to take a practice swing after every single pitch, but what about the fact that a pitcher can just hold the ball on the rubber to disrupt your timing? Some pitchers take forever to get on the mound. Is that annoying? Yes, but it also only takes a couple of extra seconds. If you complain about a couple of extra seconds, then you clearly have something wrong with you…Games are lengthened b/c of what happens over the course of the game. It isnt the outside stuff. Pitchers that throw strikes tend to have a lot of quick games.
If baseball really wanted to speed up the game they’d reduce a timewaster that happens at least 16 times every game: the break between half innings. That could be much quicker. But then there’d be less time for commercials, so….
This is one of the proposed measures that they are trying out. I am surprised by it because of the potential ad revenue.
I figured they would keep the intentionally base on balls, but just use that down time to tell us more about Glidden Interior Semigloss Paint.
If you only had breaks after full innings that would prevent the visiting team from having a warmup. That could have big implications for pitch counts, rest, etc.
Why can’t all warm ups take place in the bullpen with the exception of an injury?
b/c the bullpen mound is different from the mound on the field, according to everything we’ve heard from pitchers
Re: David, that wouldn’t work in the National League for the innings where the pitcher hits
Ridiculous. If I don’t like everything about the way baseball is played today, I don’t like baseball?
I like baseball; I don’t like watching a batter step out of the box and adjust his batting gloves after every pitch. I don’t like pitchers taking forever to throw a pitch. I don’t like the long time between half-innings either, but at least I can understand the reason for that.
I’m saying that the obsession with shortening games is ridiculous. If you really love the game, then you should care less about how long it takes, and care more about the things wrong with it that actually matter. I go to almost every game in Miami (inb4 someone makes a “you’re the only person there” joke). I have no problem staying into extra innings. If I were at that Game 2 in Washington, I would have stayed that whole game, and enjoyed it. I wouldnt have mentioned the time of game, even once. As I said, when a pitcher throws strikes, the game usually doesnt last as long
“If you really love the game”…
No, this is illogical. It is a complete non-sequitur.
We also care about drawing in new audiences. Long drawn out games can be a deterrent. Cricket in India is wildly popular, but the Premier league system which permits three hour (rather than week long) matches adds much more excitement.
explain to me then…why are football games so long? Why is the ball barely in play? The hypocrisy is kind of stupid. The thing people hate most is that there are 162 games. In football, if you want to say the NFL is still football, there are only 16. This makes the importance of each game different from what it is in baseball, so people are more willing to sit on their ass and watch the game, than they are with baseball. People have a whole routine set up for football. If they had to do that every single day for 6 months, they couldnt get through it. Its all an illusion. Ya, some games can be long, but again, if pitchers throw strikes, you can definitely get through a game within 2 1/2 to 3 hours.
A lot of people just dont give baseball a chance, as they have misconceptions about it. In my life, I’ve been able to show people that had never given it a chance, why its such a great game. I’ve taken them to numerous games, and explained things to them, and now, they love baseball. Multiple people that had always called it “garbage” or “boring,” but had never even taken the time to actually watch. Just a couple of days ago, one of those friends said exactly this: “I have to admit, Zack. Baseball has the best postseason of all the major sports. You just feel like anything can happen. I really like it.” These particular changes that are being proposed are egregious. Also, I dont see how they’ll have any effect on casual fans. Those people already have their own perceptions about baseball, and I dont see these things changing them
Ya I’m not sure I understand. I love baseball so much I would love to see 2 hour games, thus allowing me to have time to watch more of them.
Cano got IBB’d a lot this year because Morales was a god-awful hitter. If the IBB were outlawed then you’ve harmed the real (or perceived) strategy of lineup construction, which everyone cares a ton about.
Love the Ole Miss presence in this piece: Aaron Barrett and then that walk-off HR on the intentional ball attempt.
For the polar opposite of Cabrera getting a hit while being intentionally walked, in (I think) the 1972 World Series, Johnny Bench was struck out while being intentionally walked.
Yup: the footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2TPCNP4_qXo#t=138
Wow, I’d never heard about that before. But if you look close at the video: the catcher squatted, the pitcher had a normal throwing motion, and the batter had a normal stance. I’m not sure Johnny Bench ever noticed the catcher’s fake out; he never looked up.
IBB’s provide a good time to think about the game situation and seem to add to the tension. I like them. They virtually always occur during tense, exciting parts of the game.
Are we going to get rid of home run trots next?
I’ve calculated the bat flip takes .00000000004 seconds. This and the new IBB rules could speed up the game 6.456 seconds per game.
This is unrelated, but as this is the first place on FG I’ve seen the Barrett play from last night, I thought I’d mention it here to see what others have to say.
When watching the game in a public setting, many people argued that Barrett blocked the plate from Posey without the ball and thus Posey should’ve been called safe. I know Bochy said after the game that part of the rationale for the challenge was seeing if Barrett blocked the plate. I’m aware there would be (and even is) debate over whether or not he blocked the plate, and if so, whether or not he did so in the act of fielding the throw. That’s inconsequential to my question.
In Section (1) of Rule 7.13, it essentially states that a player cannot initiate contact with the “catcher (or other player covering home plate).” It adds the “(or other player covering home plate)” clarification in each place that it references the catcher. However, Section (2) indicates only that the “catcher” may not block the pathway of the runner without ever including the “(or other player covering home plate)” reference.
This might be overly analytical of the syntax, but could a manager effectively argue that they (presumably inadvertently) made it legal for the pitcher or any other position player to block the plate in this situation so long as they were remotely in the act of making a play? While a catcher is normally planted, the play with Barrett would arguably not be all that different than a middle infielder blocking the clear path into second with his foot during a stolen base attempt.
I’m really beginning to get annoyed with the MLB’s interest in shortening the pace of games.
The MLB cares about casual fans not committed fans, and the casual fans absolutely HATE the length of the games. It also hurts the TV ratings.
This simply isn’t true. The time of game in an average MLB game isn’t any different than the average NFL game. The problem is the pace. NFL games have concentrated action inbetween terribily long commerical breaks in which fans most get more drunk, use the bathroom, or get food. Going to an NFL is nearly unbearable for this season. The ball is IN PLAY roughly 11 minutes of a NFL game. The games take over 3 hours.
The simply difference is people dedicate a day to football and baseball is on everyday. If people made time for every baseball game to get drunk and eat pizza + hot wings. We would have a problem.
That there are 16 games instead of 162 is also relevant.
And how long is the ball in play in a baseball game? Not to mention your average play in baseball is the pitcher throwing it and it not getting put in play while the average play in football is significantly more action packed.
I just thought of a way to shorten games…penalty flags…
@ Doug
Technically the ball is in play almost all the time – it’s only not in play when the umpire calls “Time” and after a foul ball.
Oh. And also after a HBP, when the ball leaves the field of play, when a batted ball hits a runner or an umpire, and when a ball gets stuck somewhere weird.
Yes. It cares about increasing its viewership. “Committed fans” by definition will stick around while they make changes that appeal to casual fans to increase viewership.
this feels like something similar that happened in pro wrestling and in the NFL…WWE marketed its product more towards children and families a few years ago, and have continued to do so. The people that actually were committed to the genre have been complaining about it for YEARS. The argument made is, “stop watching.” Most people dont. However, there are a lot of people who did, and ratings are horrible now b/c even though they gained a ton of new viewers, they also lost a lot of the old viewers. I was someone that did stop, and after 7 years, I havent looked back…well, I troll the IWC by making jokes about how its still the same, but other than that, I dont involve myself in that garbage anymore…The NFL. I stopped watching the NFL years ago, even though I love football, b/c I couldnt stand the media, and then when I tried to give it another chance, I realized it was no longer football b/c of all the ridiculous changes that were made, and I cant bare to watch it…
Anyway, the point is, I would hate to see some people stop watching baseball, as they try to gear towards the casual fans with egregious changes. I wouldnt be one of those people in this instance, but I would still likely complain about issues that are un-necessary…Quick question about the pitch clock (which is already technically supposed to be a thing): Wouldnt that be an advantage to runners on base? They would know exactly how long the pitcher has to either throw a pitch, or throw over. That kind of takes away from holding runners by varying your delivery timing.
I think there are ways to shorten games that won’t affect my enjoyment at all but would make baseball more appealing to others. This is exactly the kind of thing I think MLB should be doing.
If you really want to shorten baseball games, then you should shrink the diamond down from 90 to 80 feet a side. The casual fan won’t even notice and the smaller diamond will shorten the time spent on almost every play. A batter walking to first base will get there sooner, runners on the bases will make it home more quickly, and homerun trots, a total waste of time, should take 10% less of it (time).
That would probably lengthen game times by 20% or more. Infield hits galore, higher scoring games, longer innings.
How many batters are thrown out at first base by less than 10 feet?
almost all of them
I’m pretty sure daniel was being sarcastic.
let’s move the bases out to 330 feet and make it a home run derby
But homerun trots would take very long. Don’t want to think about how many air catching breaks Ortiz would need for his 1320 feet walk.
Dunno if you can say that was an “idea” of Cabrera’s since he had a second, tops, to think about it. And of course you aren’t supposed to be able to do that–the pitcher missed his target by about three feet, and to the wrong side, which meant that the IBB pitch turned into a ball that was traveling very very slowly that Cabrera could swing at. If the pitcher had missed just a little bit more Cabrera probably would have hit it to the moon.
IMHO, the fastest way to speed up the game would be a pitch clock. MLB Official Rule 8.04 states that: “When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call Ball.” This rule could be modified to require either throwing to a base or pitching within 12 seconds to address situations when there are base runners.
As to the batter, per rule 6.02(b) “The batter shall not leave his position in the batter?s box after the pitcher comes to Set Position, or starts his windup.”
A pitch clock, like play clocks in football and basketball, would provide a public monitor of enforcement of the existing rule.
This is the best idea.
Pitch clock and no timeouts for the batter unless he’s injured.
I think that they should limit mid inning pitching changes if they want to shorten the games. Maybe limit it to one pitching change per inning if no run is scored. Those innings where four different relievers come in and there is only one baserunner are very annoying.
Every pitcher should be required to face a minimum of 3 batters. Plus any pitcher entering in the middle of an inning should only be allowed 1 warm up pitch.
I don’t understand this at all. How many games even have an IBB in them? And how long does an IBB take? 2.5 minutes? Even just holding up four fingers and letting the guy walk to 1st probably takes 30 seconds or so, since the next batter isn’t going to be ready to just jump right in the box as soon as you put up your four figures.
Total time saved by this would probably be under 1 minute per game.
The place where the game slows down is in the late innings of close games. Relievers can sometimes take FOREVER to decide what to throw. And if someone is on first, there are a million look over….pause…step off…get a new sign….look over….pause….throw over….get the ball back….etc. Next thing you know its been 3 minutes since a pitch was thrown.
But much of that is part of the game, and there really isn’t a great way to speed it up. What happens with a runner on if you had a “pitch clock?” The runner knows you have to throw either to 1st or to home by the time it counts down. That would seem to give the runner the advantage.
Is there an option for “I’m good either way”? Funny stuff happening on IBBs is good, but I don’t care much either way how they’re intentionally walked.
The first options that should be explored for speeding up games are ones that won’t affect the actual game.
“Forcing Relief Pitchers to ride Segways from the bullpen instead of walking/jogging” is the stupidest sounding idea floated so far, but would actually make a large difference with no downside.
Oh, I am SO for moving into place a vast array of ideas, whether actually or just superficially goofy, all at the same time (to make it more difficult to isolate and remove any of them), AND for constantly asking: What would Bill (Veeck As In Wreck) do?
I’m thinking, move the bullpens JUST A BIT off site, far enough away to accommodate the cannon yet still near enough there’s at least an outside chance that a given reliever fired into the safety net that lowered by helicopter onto the mound as soon as the manager signals lefty or righty might still be able to throw (ro at least continue to breathe) on landing.
While we’re on reforms, how ’bout livening up sacrifices with a real active volcano to scale for throwing in those who fail to drop the ball into play at all? (See, the cannon thing’s making more sense to you, isn’t it?)
I am totally fine with making them automatic. They need to speed up the game some way or other. That it might lead to exciting plays once in a blue moon is no argument for it. So does having pitchers hit, so would eliminating outfield walls and making HR “in the park only”, so would a thousand other things.
My favorite IBB disaster from any level of baseball is this one, mostly on account of the fact that you can see it coming from a mile away
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GOtAQ__wks
I’d take it, ask to be removed for a pinch runner, and retire with a perfect 1.000 on-base percentage.
“TEN HITTERS YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT, BUT WERE BETTER THAN RUTH”
I have a compromise to consider: make 1 intentional ball be sufficient for a walk. It would save some time, but would also keep intact the idea of pitching to every batter (and the chance of something wacky happening would remain).
Isn’t it a general rule that you cant/shouldnt assume the outcome anything in baseball? This seems to go against that rather logical point.
Keep it the way it is. Ritual and tradition matters in baseball and the upside of dispensing with the pitches doesn’t seem particularly significant.
Make the games 7 innings long if you want to speed them up for real. The rest is just window dressing.
Make the games 6 innings, you idiot!
Just get it over with and make games 5 innings.
4 innings. Sheesh.
3 innings. There. I said it.
Give me a 2, 2 innings a game!
What is it they say? 1 inning a game is the loneliest number?
I’ll raise you 0 innings a game and call your bluff.
11 innings, but use speedier PLAYERS. Sheesh!
Brad, you just need more clutch hitters. Real RBI men.
Let the free market decide!
How about 6 innings of 4 outs each? Offense would go up, teams would actually practice triple plays, and STILL games would be shorter.
Found this, which suggests introduce the DH to the NL to decrease the number of IBBs
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9571
See above.
I voted to “leave it be” simply because i would like to discourage/eliminate four-pitch walks; making IBB’s automatic seems likely to entrench the strategy. So I don’t think you can seperate the two issues.
Poll should maybe had a third option: “Make it funnier”.
Or, since humor’s in the eyes & ears of the bewatchers, “Set up a IBB ‘zone’ JUST a little outside the opposite batter’s box”, further out to about the combined width of the plate & both batter boxes, & for every time the pitcher misses that ‘zone’, the intentionally-walked batter gets an additional base.
‘OMG Himmfeller has missed the Zone a SECOND time. Catcher Yada Yada Bolivar’s dancing about like a varmint on a hot metal roof trying to cover all the potentialities; now he’s set out even outside the Zone … and Bootsy Roosevelt’s breaking for home plate!’
THAT would be serious entertainment.
My catcher friend from high school days used to talk about using catcher’s interference to achieve the same result without the attendant risk of four balls. As soon as the pitcher winds up, the catcher can grab and hold the batter’s bat. Batter to first, forced runners advance. I’ve never seen it done, though.
I like it!
I don’t!
Not the bat, not the head.
Or we could just throw at the batters instead.
Problem 1: Non-trivial possibility that the ball bounces off beyond the catcher’s ability to stop baserunners from advancing (and there are ALWAYS baserunners, at least since Bonds retired).
Problem 2: Death, serious bodily injury, brouhaha, general melee, suspension, pariah status.
I believe the ball is dead once it hits the batter, so Problem 1 isn’t much of an issue.
Problem 2, however, is something of a problem.
I believe in problem 1, he was referring to instances where they miss
lol did you notice the name of the poster?
Based on the numbers you gave above, abandoning IBBs would save all of 30 seconds per game. Not worth the squeeze in my opinion.
I’d make the intentional walk automatic. I see a lot of amateur baseball, where the ump just waves the batter to first base, and I’ve never missed watching four pitchouts on the off chance that the pitcher will throw one away.
Reading the start of the article I immediately thought about Cabrera’s hit and I was so happy that you included it. I was at that game I remember it was off of Todd “Kerosene” Williams and it might have been the craziest thing I’ve ever seen at a baseball game.
When he hit the pitch a stunned silence came over our entire section. None of us could believe what we were seeing as we watched the ball drop in the outfield. Then, naturally, the boos started. I’ve seen a lot of cool things at the ball park, but as far as oddities go I’m not sure if anything will ever top that.
Just have the manager hold up four fingers, and get the guy to first. It would save time, and would eliminate something which I don’t think any baseball fan is thrilled about seeing – a guy throw four times, nowhere near the batter, to a standing catcher.
While it wouldn’t save a huge amount of time, it would save some.
While I don’t want to see them made automatic, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it either like if they were to expand the DH to the National League. I do appreciate the rare times it goes awry, and there are better ways to speed up the game like enforcing the 20 second rule between pitches and limiting mound visits.
By the way, there’s one other unusual thing that can happen. You ever see a guy advance to second on a wild pitch or passed ball, and then they intentionally walk the batter with first base now open even though he already has two strikes? In that situation it’s possible to bluff the batter by throwing a couple of wide ones followed by a surprise pitch back in the zone to strike him out. I don’t know if anyone’s ever successfully pulled it off, though.
I don’t mind the way it’s done, personally, but I’m also someone who doesn’t care about the length of games.
That said, logically, I have no problems with eliminating the four unnecessary tosses. First of all, anything that reduces wear on a pitcher is a good thing in my mind. Secondly, if a manager wants to give a player a base, let him take the base; no need for flim-flam pitches. Thirdly, as exciting as the few examples of IBB-gone-wrong are, they don’t seem to amount to a large enough percentage to be a critical part of the game.
There are several things that the IBB can affect aside from just putting a man on base, though: pitchers who throw the IBB and then have trouble finding the strike zone (probably impossible to quantify, maybe a myth made up by tv/radio announcers?), and the ol’ catcher-signals-IBB, then the pitcher sneakily throws a strike to an unsuspecting batter trick (seems ill-advised to begin with, haven’t seen it done in ages–might be a bit of trickery that has fallen out of vogue).
Don’t really know how to justify it but I would guess the numbers of IBBs would go (way) up if they are able to be called automatic. This would take more quality matchups away from the game.
Can’t they just cut a quarter from the commercial breaks? I guess pitchers never need the whole break for their warmup tosses.
Just shuffle some money from player salaries (they would get more free time each gameday, keeping the salary/working hours ratio equal) to the TV-stations (less ad gains). Also since companies would pay less for commercials, products could get a little cheaper making fans double winners of this.
I thought we all agreed the thing that makes games painfully slow is batters stepping outside the box to adjust their gloves (et al) and generally dick around between pitches. If they simply made a rule that batters must remain in the box unless given permission for a momentary break, all of the other pace-of-game issues would fade away.
Umpires could just tell the pitcher to go ahead and pitch if the batter screws around. Similarly, umpires could call a ball if pitchers stand there and refuse to pitch.
This rule would be easy to implement, and it would not change the nature of the game. Umpires would almost never need to actually enforce the rule, as players would adjust accordingly. If you implement this rule in the AFL and Spring Training, by the time the regular season rolls around players would be on board.
If you watch videos of games in the 1950s, you will see batters generally stay in the box. By the 1990s we had Paul O’Neil types taking laps around the ballpark between pitches and Nomar Garciaparra having OCD tantrums with his gloves.
Problem solved. You’re welcome.
I say leave it alone. First, for Jeff’s reasons–the screw-ups are memorable. The only reason I still remember Ray King, a mediocre middle reliever who pitched one season for the Braves 11 years ago, is that he threw a wild pitch while issuing an intentional walk that cost the Braves a game. Should I remember Ray King? Well, I feel like memories like that give texture to one’s fandom.
Second, because it just seems amateurish, somehow. This is the big leagues–you throw every pitch, run out every grounder, etc.
The thing that seems amateurish to me is batters demanding 3 minutes between pitches to mess with their batting gloves, look for signs and generally fuck around.
Why can’t batters be expected to remain in the batter’s box ready to hit the damn baseball? They do it in Little League for Christ’s sake.
Nothing else needs to be done to address the pace-of-play.
Well, Ray King is also memorable for being part of the blockbuster J.D. Drew trade that sent a certain pitching prospect named Adam Wainwright over to the Cardinals’ organization.
AS a native Miamian growing up, I’ll make a claim to watching that Cabrera hit live (well on TV, we like most people, didnt attend too many Marlins games). I think the biggest hing to speed games up would be to quicken the pace of pitchers pitching. IBBs are so few that it wouldnt make much mroe than a 15-30 second difference.
An AWFUL lot of thought and energy to fix a problem that does not exist. An IBB takes, what, 90 seconds? They occur maybe once or twice a game on average (guessing). Are we really in that much of a hurry? If you don’t want to watch, go take a pee, or get a beer so that you can pee next time there’s one of these enormous time wasters.
It’s BASEBALL people. Part of the beauty of baseball is what happens in “the margins”; the non-plays, the chatter between spectators, between players, between coaches, between all of the above and the umpires. The thinking and the strategy in preparing for each pitch, or each pickoff move.
If you really don’t have 90 seconds for the game, turn it off and write that book you’re sure you need to write, or re-sod your lawn, or teach yourself latin. If you are focused on “beating traffic”, just stay home. Meanwhile, there’s this beautiful game being played on a beautiful lawn and it’s called baseball, and I’d rather watch that IBB for 90 seconds than anything else I can think of.
It doesn’t matter much. I think at one point in Little League, we had intentional walks signaled instead of thrown, and it was fine. But that happened like once every ten games.
It’s both not a problem and not a solution for the game’s pacing problem.
A proper solution? Have 2 strikes and you’re out, 3 balls and it’s a walk.
Unfortunately, the levels of baseball where more interesting things can happen on an IBB are also the levels that don’t make you throw 4 balls.
Don’t care how many occasional freak instances we have, intentional walks should be banned. They are silly, unnecessary and almost farcial to watch. Let the manager just hold out his arm, or touch his nose or scratch his armpit or whatever, and put the guy on.
You’d think some enterprising soul somewhere in independent leagues would leap on all these pace-of-game fidgets, and other rules changes, and market themselves as a faster version of baseball.
Want to see pitchers hit and an ancient park? Catch a Cubs game.
Want to see baseball with a DH? Plenty of AL parks around.
Want to see a baseball game played at the pro level that gets through 9 innings in 90 minutes guaranteed? Here’s the independent league game with no IBBs, no commercial breaks, one pitching change maximum per inning, pitch clock, hitter can’t step out of batter’s box during an at-bat, etc. etc.
faster games benefit everyone. I don’t understand why anyone would be upset at the MLB for trying some things.
This idea seems inconsequential. The problem is the time between pitches, fix that.
Arizona Fall league is trying out a 20 second pitch clock.