The Continued Decline of the Intentional Walk

I’m on record as being against intentional walks in most situations. That’s hardly some bold claim — over the last 15 years, they’re on a steady downward path as front offices and managers come to grips with the ills of extra baserunners. That’s not to say there’s never a good situation for a free pass, but those situations are few and far between.

Why pinpoint the last 15 years as the timeframe for this drop-off? In 1955, the first year where we have intentional walk totals, teams issued roughly 7.5 intentional walks per 1,000 plate appearances. In 2002, they issued 7.8 intentional walks per 1,000 PAs. Sure, there were peaks and valleys in between, but the data hardly indicated a trend. Take a look at the number of intentional walks issued per 1,000 plate appearances each year since 1955:

One note: I’ve excluded 2020 because of the universal DH, which created a meaningfully different backdrop for intentional walks — walking a decent hitter to face a pitcher is one of the best uses of the tactic.

I could end this article right there. That’s a convincing chart — the year with the least frequent intentional walks is 2021, and the year with the second-least is 2019. They’re roughly equivalent — four walks per 1,000 in 2019, 3.8 in ’21 — but even so, the writing is on the wall. Give the game 20 years, and we’ll surely see even fewer.

But this trend still understates how much managers have turned away from the tactic. I’m quoting this per-PA metric because it makes the numbers intelligible, but that’s not really how intentional walks work. Plenty of plate appearances in a given game aren’t candidates for intentional walks at all. Even the most walk-happy manager wouldn’t issue a free pass to lead off a game, or even to lead off an inning.

If we really want to know how managers are using intentional walks, we need to look at intentional walk opportunities, situations where “the book” (with apologies to Tom Tango, whose book would never recommend such nonsense) says a walk is okay. Let’s consider intentional walks not as a fraction of all plate appearances, but of those where a manager might reasonably consider issuing a free pass.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-Members
✓Full postseason coverage

I cobbled together a few ways of looking at this data using our Splits Leaderboards, which have data going back to 2002. First, I looked at situations with high leverage and runners in scoring position. There’s a roughly similar pattern, though from a higher baseline and with less of a drop-off:

One problem: this is one of the few circumstances where intentional walks might make sense, so I’m not sure it’s a great picture of “managers getting more rational.” The same is true if we look at intentional walks in National League games with the ninth spot in the lineup due next and runners on base. Please excuse the non-zero y axis; the graph looked silly with a base at zero, and I think the message still comes across:

Like our previous subset, there’s a higher baseline — walking the eighth hitter to get to the pitcher just makes sense. Again, however, I’m not sure that this data is useful. This is a spot where intentionally walking the eighth hitter makes sense at least some of the time. Even if managers are making the “optimal” decision, they might still walk a fair number of batters in that spot.

If those cuts weren’t conclusive, though, the next one is an eye opener. There’s actually something in the game this year that gives teams an incentive to issue more intentional walks, not fewer. The new extra inning rules create situations where the game is close and there’s almost automatically an open base. Runner on third and one out? You can walk the next batter to set up a double play. You can walk them to get a platoon matchup. Heck, you could walk them and the hitter on deck to make a force at every base — though walking the bases loaded carries risks.

Take a look at intentional walks as a proportion of extra innings plate appearances over time:

That spike in 2021 isn’t managers suddenly deciding that intentional walks are cool again. It’s their response to a meaningfully different game state, one that by its very nature makes intentional walks more likely. That split looks even more shocking if we limit it to the home half of extra innings:

To get a better sense of what’s going on with intentional walks more broadly, we’ll have to remove extra innings. Otherwise, the changing game rules will cloud our analysis. Here’s the frequency of intentional walks in regulation innings from 2002-2021:

Now we’re talking. If you exclude situations that practically force managers’ hands, intentional walks have plummeted again this year. Not only are they at the lowest rate ever (again excluding 2020), they’re declining at a rapid rate. There’s nothing particularly strange about that — they should be declining, because the circumstances that would dictate an intentional walk are quite rare, more rare by far than the situations where managers call for one. Since that’s the best chart of the article, here it is in table form as well:

Intentional walks, innings 1-9
Season IBB/1000PA
2002 7.1
2003 6.5
2004 6.7
2005 6.0
2006 6.9
2007 6.5
2008 6.4
2009 5.8
2010 6.0
2011 6.0
2012 5.3
2013 4.8
2014 4.7
2015 4.7
2016 4.6
2017 4.8
2018 4.5
2019 3.7
2021 3.0

We may be headed for another step change in intentional walk frequency. In this year’s CBA negotiations, a universal DH will certainly be on the table. Pitchers are hitting .110/.150/.141 this year, which would be the worst average, second-worst OBP, and worst SLG recorded by pitchers if it holds up until season’s end.

An NL DH, along with the end of the automatic runner in extra innings, might be the final push the game needs to turn completely away from intentional walks. Managers are already avoiding them like never before, trusting the numbers and their pitchers. They’re doing so despite rules changes that create additional intentional passes. When the rules stop fighting the tide and start aiding it, we might look at these recent seasons as the midpoint of a trend, not its end.





Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.

15 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
newsenseMember since 2020
5 years ago

One other new incentive for IBB: the requirement that relievers face three batters. Previously an unfavorable matchup might trigger a pitching change rather than an IBB; the rule makes IBB the only alternative.

CJMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  newsense

A certain Yankee slugger may be getting a lot more IBB if he continues hitting like this – He benefitted from the 3 batter fule on at least once over the weekend

Robert
5 years ago

Ben, when you cite pitcher hitting stats, do you remove the Ohtani of it all? Or do you keep in his PAs as a pitcher, and still come up with the worst ever group of hitting pitchers?

johnforthegiants
5 years ago

The recent Padres-Dodgers 16-inning debacle is a prime example of the new trend in IBBs. The Dodgers gave 8 of them in one game. The Padres ran out of pinch-hitters in the 10th and the Dodgers kept walking batters (two batters two times each) to get to the pitcher’s position.

Barney Coolio
5 years ago

Ugh, I am a Padres fan. IBBs are now automatic with no pitches. I have always been opposed to that. An IBB can be very dramatic. Remember when Barry Bonds kept getting walked? I enjoyed hearing the boos, and sometimes booing myself. I liked watching the frustration on Bonds’ face, the indignation on Jeff Kent’s face, and the resolve on the face of the pitcher’s manager, and the embarrassent on the pitcher’s face.

If that 16 inning game required actual pitches from the pitcher, there would have been a lot more boos and a lot more drama. I wonder if any pitcher/manager has ever been influenced by the boos which accompany an IBB.

DGLewisMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  Barney Coolio

I was going to make some snarky comment about how the decline was due to the no-pitch IBB taking all the excitement out of it, and here I see someone made it seriously.

tung_twista
5 years ago

There is another factor at play in the form of
decrease in starting pitcher innings -> decrease in pitcher PAs -> decrease in situations where IBB makes the most sense.
We are on pace for ~4,800 pitcher PAs which is the lowest full-season number
since 1992 when there were only 26 teams in MLB.
The change is pretty dramatic when you consider there were 5,913 pitcher PAs as recently as 2012.
That is a 20% drop in 9 years.

The Duke
5 years ago

From your lips to Mike Shildt’s ears

badenjr
5 years ago

Am I the only one stunned that there isn’t a more pronounced Barry Bonds effect from 2002-2004?

Barney Coolio
5 years ago

Interesting. What about the pitchout? Is that essentially extinct? Maybe for Albert Pujol’s final plate appearance, the opposing manager should call for a pitchout. “Hey old timer, remember those?” Even with no base runners.

chewbaccaMember since 2019
5 years ago

Love this stuff! Did you investigate the Barry Bonds walk? When steroids an one superhuman changed the game…

chewbaccaMember since 2019
5 years ago

I remember some Tony LaRusso hearsay. Tony did not IBB walk Bonds as much as other managers. He stated that asking his pitcher to IBB was the ultimate dis…

Richard Bergstrom
5 years ago

fwiw, 1975 to 2002 looks like a trend downwards.. can’t just take the valley of one year, a peak from a later year and call it stable.. also need to omit NL games with a DH because of interleague play.

NATS FanMember since 2018
5 years ago

the intentional walk rarely seems worth it to me. nonetheless, Soto gets intentionally walked all the time.