21 comments have been left for this article. BP Comment Quick Links
| |
|
|
October 25, 2011 Wezen-BallRethinking the Intentional WalkI've never been one to complain about the intentional walk. Sure, it's boring to watch and usually ill-advised, but it's never really bothered me as part of the game. I've always just viewed it as a tool that managers use sometimes. I know there are plenty of smart, baseball-loving writers out there who hate the move. Rob Neyer, Joe Posnanski, and Tom Tango, for example, have all written about their hate of the intentional walk many times; they are certainly not alone. It's not a popular part of baseball, but, other than it being boring, I was never convinced that it needed to be fixed (the word "unsportsmanlike" is used a lot, and, frankly, that's not convincing). In fact, a couple of years ago I wrote an article called "The Intentional Walk Has to Stay." My main argument had two points: one, we harp so much on the value of getting on-base these days that a manager's willingness to give a team that positive outcome cannot be viewed as removing the offense's weapons and, two, that we shouldn't be removing something that's been around since the game's inception without good reason (and "I don't like it!" isn't a good reason). I still believe in those points, but I've been re-thinking my intentional walk position recently. Then Tony LaRussa brought in Lance Lynn in Game 5 of the World Series to intentionally walk a batter for the sole purpose of giving his better pitcher an extra chance to warm-up - now I can't help but rethink that position. Intentional walks, while a clear positive for the batting team, can be too easily used for reasons that aren't on the field. An "intentional stall tactic" is only the worst of these reasons. There should be a penalty issued to the pitching team - above and beyond the extra man on base - if they choose to intentionally walk someone. In that way, any ulterior motives for issuing a free pass will be pushed aside and the game can get back to where it belongs. How can we do this? It's not as hard as it may seem. The rule I would like to see in place is this: for any four-pitch walk, the defensive team is issued a "pitched-ball balk". All balk rules apply (baserunners advance, if present). This change would flow seamlessly into the game (we all know what a balk is) and it wouldn't even go against the spirit of existing rules (balks are issued for pitching mistakes). In fact, I don't even think this would be all that different from current rules. We all know that a player can't bunt a ball foul with two strikes without a special penalty. How would it be so different to have a penalty for a pitcher throwing a ball on 3-0? I'm not one to react strongly to a single moment and demand change. Usually those reactions are proven to be over the top and wrong-headed in the light of day. I've been thinking about this "pitched-ball balk" idea for two years now, though, and it just gets better and better in my head. The LaRussa/Lynn shenanigans from tonight's game just gave me another reason to favor it. It'll never happen, of course. Bud Selig and his pals are too busy changing divisional alignments, interleague play, and the Wild Card set-up to ever consider rule changes at this level, but I honestly think it could work. How am I wrong?
|
Playoff Prospectus: PECOTA Odds and ALCS Gam...
The Keeper Reaper: Outfielders for 10/25/11
Tradition is a bit of a stretch. That said, even if you ban the intentional walk, a team can still unintentionally, intentionally walk someone (is that even functional English there?). Anyway, personally, I find the intentional walk abominable, not for the reasons of the analysts. For me, it takes away a part of the game for the fans. This might be the only time that people in some parts of the country can see a guy like Pujols play. To walk the guy every time he gets up takes away from those fans. I also find it an act of cowardice. The stench of that cowardice will never go away for me in those years when Barry Bonds was being walked in every plate appearance. The fact that baseball allowed something like that turns my stomach. Those stains on the baseball records are for me much worse than his chemically induced output with his bat. Anyway, it's late and I'm rambling. I just hate the intentional walk. I hate about as much as I hate anything in baseball.
With this rule, the "unintentional intentional walk" would only work if the pitcher were to somehow throw a strike in there first (all 4-pitch walks). Of course, walking the batter with the bases empty - like they did with Pujols last night - wouldn't change, but at least that's a pretty rare occurrence.
And your aversion to the intentional walk is how most people who dislike it view it. I agree - just never thought that was enough reason to change the rule.
This is no different than the Hack-a-Shaq or intentionally fouling the worst FT shooter on a team so they can't get the ball to the star for easier points.
In football, it's angle kicking or punting out of bounds to prevent the Devin Hester's from running it back on you for the TD.
I hate the IBB as much as the next guy that hates it. It's almost always a bad idea, but if a team wants to make a mistake, let them.
Problem #1 with the idea of any 4-pitch walk falling under this rule: There are plenty of times where a pitcher just is wild and walks a guy on 4 straight because ball 4 was bad enough to not even get the courtesy/pity strike call.
Heck, there are plenty of times when a guy is so out of it he throws 8+ straight balls and walks 2 guys. That'd be 1st and 3rd on the 2nd walk with this setup.
Worse still, the batter KNOWS that he's almost certainly getting a BP fastball down the chute on any 3-0 count with runners on, just to avoid the balk.
If I were to argue for this (and I'm not, I don't like it), I'd suggest that only the IBB where the catcher is not in the crouch would count. Pitching around someone still leaves the chance for missing over the plate or throwing a wild pitch and paying for it.
Better yet, if you want to IBB a guy, don't require any pitches to be thrown. Just have the manager/pitcher signal the Ump that you want the batter on 1st base and move the game along. You can no longer 4-pitch/catcter standing up half out of his box IBB. Prevents this as a stalling tactic, speeds up the game, and makes it look even stupider as a management call.
Of course, the jerk-move in this would be to just bean the guy you'd otherwise IBB to avoid this.
>>>Better yet, if you want to IBB a guy, don't require any pitches to be thrown. Just have the manager/pitcher signal the Ump that you want the batter on 1st base and move the game along. <<<
To me that's the way to go - you want to put a man on base, go ahead and do it but don't dawdle, just get on with it.
Or for that matter using timeouts to manage the clock at the end of games. That wasn't why they were invented.