A Rule Change
Posted: April 14th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball, Other Sports | 128 Comments »
Lamar Hunt, the founder of the Kansas City Chiefs as well as the key voice behind the old American Football League, always hated that football teams are allowed to run out the clock by kneeling on the ball. He felt — and it’s hard to disagree with this — that there is nothing more boring than watching a quarterback take a step back, fall to one knee and leave the fans yawning as the clock ticks down.
Well, Lamar was a tinkerer — he was called “Games” as a child because he was always inventing new ball games — and so he came up with a rule change. Actually, he came up with several potential rule changes, some crazier than others. The most distinct of them all was this: In the final two minutes, if the defense stopped the other team behind the line of scrimmage, the clock stopped. This would give the final two minutes of a game a little bit of extra intensity. If a team was ahead by three points with 1:37 left, it could no long just fall to a knee. The team would have to somehow try to move the ball forward — either with a quarterback dive or a running play or even a short pass. If the defense could somehow stuff them at the line, then they might give their offense another chance.
There are, of course, all sorts of quirks with such a rule. What happens if it’s the WINNING team that sacks a quarterback behind the line? Does the clock stop then? Could the team decline the clock stop? Would referees have to stop the clock to measure if someone actually gained yardage on the play? Would they have to gain a full yard or would an inch be enough? And then there is the basic philosophical question: Why are you messing with the game? Shouldn’t a team that put itself into position to win by running out the clock be allowed to run out the clock?
And so on.
Well, the ideas behind most rule changes — I mean radical rule changes that fundamentally change the games we watch — are too jolting for us. Make the net larger in hockey? Tinker with the offside rule in soccer? Widen and lengthen the basketball court for the NBA? Make a safety worth more points in football? You get into to a rhythm as a sports fan, and a rule change, while it might make sense intellectually, can overwhelm us emotionally.
As a football fan at rest here in the offseason, I would love for the NFL to take on some version of the Lamar Rule. I think it is stupid that teams ahead by a single point can just fall to a knee and wreck the final two minutes of every game. An NBA team can’t kill the final two minutes of a game, and a pitcher in the ninth inning can’t just fall to one knee to protect a lead with one out in the ninth, and a hockey team can’t just sit on the puck for the final two minutes. So I would be all for the rule change right now, and I would be all for the rule change if my team was trailing by a field goal with 1:47 left and the other team was just kneeling on the ball. But I suspect I would NOT be for the rule change if it was MY team winning with 1:47 left …
Emotions.
All of this is just a lead-in for a baseball rule change — first proposed more than 20 years ago by Bill James — that I believe would be great for the game. There’s no way it can or will happen for the reasons I just went over: At heart, we don’t want change, especially in baseball. But I do believe this rule would be great for the game.
The rule would allow batters to turn down intentional walks.
Now, I admit, this rule is right in my wheelhouse because I’ve never hidden how I feel about the intentional walk. I might exaggerate here for emphasis, but I’m not exaggerating much: I truly hate the intentional walk. I hate it for all strategic reasons … I think managers misuse the IW all the time. But, more, much more, I hate the intentional walk because of what it represents. I don’t see the intentional walk as strategy. I see it as an abomination. I think it goes against every single thing I believe about competition.
I believe every single intentional walk is just a derivative of Vic Morrow’s horrific attempt to intentionally walk Kelly Leak with the bases load in “Bad News Bears.”
Walter Matthau: What the hell are you doing walking a man with the bases loaded? You’re putting the tying run on first base, you imbecile!
Vic Morrow: He couldn’t even manage a food store, and he’s managing a baseball team.
Yes, I do hate the intentional walk. I believe it is circumventing the rules to prevent your pitcher from having to face the other team’s best hitter in a critical situation. I think it’s awful for the fans, who pay good money to watch great players hit in those critical situations. I think it’s a generally terrible message — the message being that in life, sometimes, it’s better to try and sneak your way around a challenge rather than face it head on. Plus, I think that when you put a weapon like the intentional walk in the hands of the wrong people, voila. suddenly someone is intentionally walking Tony Pena Jr. and, thus, bringing us all one step closer to Armageddon.
So, this is the rule change: A batter would be allowed to turn down an intentional walk … or, for bookkeeping purposes, any four-pitch walk.
Here’s how it would work: A pitcher intentionally walks a batter.* The batter would have two choices.
1. He could accept the walk and go to first base.
2. He could decline the walk … and the count would revert back to 0-0.
Now, you ask, what would prevent a pitcher from intentionally walking him again? Ah, because if he did that, then the batter gets to go to second base … that’s a double-walk. In fact, ANY walk the second time around — even a 25-pitch walk — would be considered a double walk, and the batter would get to go to second base.
And, if the batter DID intentionally walk a batter the second time, he could decline that too, and a third walk would be a triple walk — the batter would get to go to third base.
*And let me make this clear because a few people seemed to miss it the first time around: Any four-pitch walk would be considered an intentional walk. There would be no umpire judgment involved. If a pitcher was wild, threw four straight balls, the batter would still get the option to turn down the walk. I suspect the hitter would almost never turn down the walk, but the option must be there to make the rule fair.
I love this rule for too many reasons to count. First, if you really believe that the intentional walk is “strategy,” then you should be all for the other manager being given a chance for some counter-strategy. Second, I believe it would reduce intentional walks. Take the typical situation: Runners on second and third, one out, Jim Thome to the plate. OK, as the rule stands now, you just intentionally walk him, take you chances with Jermaine Dye or Paul Konerko or whoever. But with the new rule, if you do that and Thome turns down the walk, now you have to face Jim Thome with the very real chance of a double walk … which would drive in a run.
Third, it would make “pitching around” a hitter much harder. Remember: You have to throw at least one strike or else the batter gets the option to turn down the walk. I think that’s fair. As far as I’m concerned, if you throw a strike to Thome and THEN decided to intentionally walk him after that, I’m cool with that. At least you gave Thome a fair shot to hit the ball, and you gave the fans the tension and excitement of the match-up.
I’m certain there are reasons the rule change isn’t workable or isn’t practical or whatever. And, in general, nobody wants to make real rule changes to baseball. Hell, people are STILL arguing about the designated hitter rule, and that thing has been around since 1973. But I would love the change. Maybe I should call Bud — he told me to call him any time I had an idea. Of course, I don’t think he really meant it.
Loading ...
This idea, so simple and so obvious, blew my mind. Let’s do it, like, today.
So basically, guys would throw three balls, a get-me-over strike on 3-0 when almost no one is ever going to be swinging, and then a fourth pitch in the dirt.
The World League had (at least when it had teams in North America, I never paid attention to its Europe-only incarnation) a rule that teams had to try to advance the ball at the end of the game instead of kneeling down. I’m rather surprised that the NFL has never adopted it, or even (as far as I can tell) considered it. I hate kneeldowns.
Maybe most guys don’t have the green light on 3-0, but you can bet that Albert Pujols’ or Manny Ramirez’s eyes will light up if some pitcher tries cruising a 90 mph fastball by them in that count. I think Joe’s rule is great, at least in theory. I agree, though; it will probably never be implemented because people just don’t like changing the game.
As much as intentional walks are obnoxious to witness, I disagree with this rule change suggestion. If one could objectively distinguish an intentional walk from a non-intentional walk, I think most people would be OK with sending the batter to scoring position; however, it is impossible to do so, which discards that option.
The current rules force managers to be more meticulous with their lineup decisions, and encourage managers to have a more balanced lineup. I think the new rules could indirectly have an adverse affect on the quality of fielding. Then again, I am a fan of the worst team in baseball (0-7!!!), so what do I know?
bigflax, what’s the problem with that? If a pitcher really thinks it’s wise to get to a 3-0 count and groove a fastball down the heart of the plate to Jim Thome in the 9th inning of a close game with runners on second and third… well, I’ve got to believe that’s not exactly a winning strategy.
Well, BF, the kinds of guys who would be swinging are the kinds of guys you want to intentionally walk, and that get me over strike would be hit a long, long way.
I’m just thinking of how many times you see a pitcher go insanely wild and deliver 10 straight balls when he’s not trying to — especially in the playoffs, seemingly always in the eighth inning.
I don’t have a problem with an IW. What I would like to see is rather than go through the motions of throwing four balls, the pitcher could just signal he’d like to walk the batter. Saves time.
I can see it being pretty entertaining when you have those limited situations where you really want to walk the guy (thinking certain spots with 2003 Bonds up), and you have to find a count or pitch to get that one strike.
I would like to see the stats of what the next hitter does after an intentional walk. Is it actually a good strategy to walk Barry Bonds 5 times in one game?
In Co-ed softball they had to implement something similar because otherwise you would almost always walk the guy to get to the girl. If you are a guy and you walk on four straight pitches then the girl behind you also gets a walk and that would bring another guy to the plate.
I’m as intrigued by this as I am by the whole relief-pitcher-must-give-up-a-run-before-he-can-be-taken-out-of-the-game thing, but I don’t necessarily think the intentional walk sends our kids the wrong message. This country is consumed with an ethic of macho risk taking that, among other things, appears to have wrecked the global economy. Sometimes it needs to be OK to say, “You know what, pitching to Pujols in the 10th inning of a tie game with RISP is just stupid. If I do it, I’m doing something stupid.” I for one applaud taking calculated risks. But stupid unnecessary risks? Those need to be stigmatized.
My only beef with the Intentional Walk is that it takes too long. Why can’t they just say, “Put him on first” instead of going through the whole rigor morale of the pitchouts? I know one time someone struck out Johnny Bench or something, but c’mon, it’s silly and boring.
“a pitcher in the ninth inning can’t just fall to one knee to protect a one-run lead with one out in the ninth”
But that does happen, and as proof, I present Soria
First, let me say that I love this rule.
It entirely changes the complexion of the 3-0 pitch, and in good ways. The strike becomes a MUCH bigger deal, and the ball becomes a much more dangerous mistake.
So, given 3-0, the pitcher might not be so likely to throw the “It’ll probably be a ball, but if I’m really luckly I’ll catch a corner” pitch. The unintentional intentional walk becomes less common, too.
At 3-0, the batter can dig in and pay attention, knowing that there’s a much better chance of a strike. But, at the same time, the pitcher can try to use that against him. Fool the batter with a bad pitch — making him swing on pitch outside the strike zone — and the pitcher will be pumped. The fans will have strong reactions to that, too. It can give 3-0 a bit of the drama of 3-2.
And then, imagine what happens if a pitcher goes 4-0, but then recovers to strike the guy out, or something. How awesome would that be?
Second, I don’t think that this rule is an abomination.
It doesn’t hurt the walked player/team, or doesn’t have to. Most players who get a 4-pitch walk will take it it. For most players, a walk is nearly as good as a hit, and a walk in the hand is more more than a hit in the bush. There are not many circumstances when the player would start over again at 0-0. I mean, a garunteed walk! Who would turn that down? Who might really *expect* a better outcome than that the second time around? Just a tiny handful of players, right?
Heck, I think that starting over would be so rare that it would get mentioned in every article and included in every highlight package. “…and made the picther pay for it” or “…and it cost the team.”
Certainly, it’s not too complicated a rule for baseball. The rules of baseball are already more complicated than this. With that in mind, to make it even less common, I’d say that it only applies to 4-0 walks with first base open.
Third, I wonder about the downside.
Would this lead to MORE pitching changes? I mean, if a skipper can keep the same pitcher in, so long as he walks one guy, might that be better than *another* pitching change? We certainly don’t want more of them.
I don’t have as big a problem with the intentional walk as I have with the current HBP rules. About half the batters in baseball go up there with some kind of body armor, and they get the same free base whether they take a fastball in the ribcage of a harmless curveball in the elbow pad. That makes no sense to me. I say if a batter is hit on any protective gear except the helmet, it’s just a ball, not a base. And he has to make an actual effort to get out of the way, too. If he gets hit anywhere at all without a visible effort to evade the pitch, it’s a ball, nothing more. No more of these guys standing dead still, hanging halfway over home plate, begging for one of Tim Wakefield’s wiffle balls to hit him in the shoulder so he can take a free base.
It’s a neat idea, but I don’t think it would work. For one thing, I think you would see people just hit the batter. (I swear Pedro used to do this. It only takes one pitch!) Also, I think it would advantage the hitters a fair bit. (This may or may not be a good thing).
I love this idea. What a great suggestion and it really does add to the strategy of things.
What happens if a pitcher just throws 4 pitches outside the strike zone, but it isn’t an intentional walk??
My second thought would be in the last inning of a game and the go ahead or winning run is on third. Good baseball strategy is to load up the bases so that you have a force in home or maybe a double play to get out of the inning.
Just a few thoughts.
“I think it’s a generally terrible message — the message being that in life, sometimes it’s better to try and sneak your way around a challenge rather than face it head on.”
Well, actually, it is. There are many situations in life where a person has options – if your advice is to always take the most challenging option, then that’s some crappy advice.
Your argument reminds me of the end of the movie ‘Tin Cup’ – everyone knows he should lay up on the final hole, but he’s too stubborn and always has to face the challenge. It was cool and all that he made a 10 by holing out from the fairway, but the lesson certainly shouldn’t be that he made the right choice by taking the challenging way. All the bs about the shot being immortal is pretty worthless when he is still poor and not on the PGA tour while Peter Jacobsen won the tournament and has all kinds of exemptions to continue to play because he won the US Open. (something tells me I took this analogy too far)
I actually like another Bill James proposal more. He suggested limiting the number of times a pitcher can throw over to first base. Nothing is more mind numbing than a number of pickoff tries in a row. Why not say during each at bat, you can attempt 2 pickoffs, after that it is an automatic balk.
Would speed the game up. Would also cause more running (the reason that repeated pick off attempts started is that it most definitely slows down the running game)
For the good of the world, I propose the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball be replaced with a triumvirate of Joe, Bill James and Bob Costas.
I honestly believe that the designated hitter rule would be long gone if it wasn’t for the player’s union. I just don’t think many would miss it.
Yes, the biggest boppers might swing on 3-0. Plenty of intentional walks, however, are simply done to get to the pitcher, or with one out and first base open nearly regardless of who’s up next.
Also, I agree with #s 5 and 8. How can you be sure you’re distinguishing a wholly unintentional four balls from a guy who’s struggling with his command from an intentional four balls in the dirt to walk a guy in spite of the fact that it wasn’t a technical “intentional walk”? Jorge Julio came into the Cubs/Brewers game on Sunday with the bases loaded and Suppan having just walked in three runs. He threw four straight balls to Derrek Lee. Ignoring that Lee would probably take the walk in all situations, why should we have a rule that says he can decide not to? That makes no sense to me.
I do agree that the rule could easily be changed to just say “Put ‘em on first.” I know that every once in a while you’ll see the pitcher lose his grip on one of the tosses and have it go to the backstop, but I don’t think you’re losing much by eliminating that.
I should have said, with one out, first base open, and a man on second.
So pitchers then would throw 4 balls without the catcher standing up holding out his arm. And if you are going to have the ump interpret whether the pitcher is wild or just wanting to walk the hitter well then its bad for the game.
“The World League had (at least when it had teams in North America, I never paid attention to its Europe-only incarnation) a rule that teams had to try to advance the ball at the end of the game instead of kneeling down.”
If memory serves, the Arena league had/has a similar rule, where you had to get positive yardage on a play, or else the clock would stop.
How about just making any intentional walk immediately a “double” walk? This would set it apart from an unintentional walk and would immediately put more risk to the decision in the first place. Most importantly it would not (most likely anyway) take the bat out of the hands of a dangerous batter in the 2nd and 3rd situation, forcing the pitcher to figure out a way to pitch around the batter in that instance.
So when a guy lays down a sacrifice bunt are you also going to let the defense decline the out and make the guy go bat again? And if he bunts a second time it’s two outs?
Hate the idea. Pure gimmickry.
If you want to discourage intentional walks, put together a lineup that drives in more runners.
How about a batter being able to decline any walk? I mean, if you’re going to get rid of the intentional walk, why not get rid of walk completely. In fairness, given how concerned people are these days about OBP, I think players really would take the walk a great deal of the time, but why should the game ever force the bat out of a hitter’s hands at all? It certainly would make the game more interesting.
Never understood this rule. If implemented the way you say it should be, it changes the game a lot. If there’s second and third and you want to pitch around the guy, he’ll decline a walk every time. He’ll know another walk would drive in a run. I’m for many radical rule changes in baseball, football, and soccer, but this one has never made sense to me.
Well, you can’t really kill the clock in basketball, but there is the inverse of that problem. That is, where the losing team repeatedly fouls in order to keep the game from ending. Maybe some people like that, but I think that making the last 60 seconds of a game take 15 minutes a bit annoying and not very exciting.
Another thing I don’t like is the current basketball fashion of just not playing the last 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 seconds of a game. OK, the offense doesn’t have to try to score. OK, the defense doesn’t need to continue fouling. But they’re conditioned athletes. The defenders could at least try to steal the ball until the horn blows.
Would Eddie Gaedel have been able to turn down three walks and then walk a home run, er, home walk?
This reminds me of the time a friend told me that quartebacks should be able to throw the ball through the uprights for 3 points at any time during a game…
Why would you EVER swing on a 3-0 pitch if the reward was 2nd base? That would be stupid… so the pitcher would just throw one down the middle, the batter COULDN’T possibly swing, and then just throw the next pitch way outside. Basically, this would be the long way around an intentional walk.
Would you swing if the reward for a ball was a double?
Absolutely, unequivocally, ludicrous.
Really Joe…..I have a lot of respect for you, but…
My idea is better: before there are 2 strikes, each foul-off counts as a strike.
“That is, where the losing team repeatedly fouls in order to keep the game from ending. Maybe some people like that, but I think that making the last 60 seconds of a game take 15 minutes a bit annoying and not very exciting”
Couldn’t agree more. I wouldn’t mind seeing a foul in the last minute/2 minutes/whatever, be an automatic 2 shot-and-the-ball type of foul…
I love the rule. When I was a kid we used to play baseball and we played by that rule. Let me explain – the place where we played did not have a backstop and had a pond behind home plate. We didn’t have enough players to have a catcher, so we had to pitch slow pitch softball style. But that made the scoring out of control, so we put in a rule that after scoring 6 runs the inning was over and the other team got to bat. But you didn’t have to stop the instant the 6th run was scored, so if you had runners on base they could all score, so if you had 5 runs in the inning and got the bases loaded and hit a HR you actually scored 9 runs that inning. So that became the strategy. So the pitcher would then intentially walk the other team to get the scoring to stop at the 6th run. So we implemented to rule that the batter could turn down a walk and have the count start over.
The fence in the OF was a barbed wire horse fence (and it wasn’t very far from home plate), so if it was hit over the fence it was a HR, but if it went through (under, whatever) then it was a ground rule double. So most most games were decided by who hit the most bases loaded HRs at the end of innings vs. bases loaded ground rule doubles.
OT: Should we expect an RIP: Marilyn Chambers post today?
Going to keep it simple: I love it. If either this, the raising of the mound a little, or a restriction on super light bats happens ever, I would be ecstatic
Fans that boo when pitchers throw to first base bother me.
Love the poll.
If you stopped 100 people on the street and asked them to recite ANY American poem in its entirety I’d be surprised if two could actually do it.
On the other hand if you asked the same 100 people to sing any TV theme song in its entirety I’d put the over-under at 90.
Please read the entire blog post before leaving a comment. All of you who said some variation of “How do you tell an intentional walk from an unintentional-intentional walk or a guy with no command” please read what Joe wrote:
“So, this is the rule change: A batter would be allowed to turn down an intentional walk … or, for bookkeeping purposes, any four-pitch walk.”
Why waste your time by posting a comment to an article you didn’t even read thoroughly?
Anybody die yet today? No? Good.
A bigger flaw in football in my view is when one team, because of timeout issues, has to let the other team score a TD so they can get the ball back — rather than let the other team take a knee three times and kick a field goal as time runs out. This actually happened in a Super Bowl, the one where the Broncos finally won it, beating the Packers.
I’d like to see basketball games just played until one team scores 100 points, maybe 80 for college. No clocks at all. Intermission happens when one team gets to the middle, i.e. 50 points.
Wow. Usually, I agree with everything Joe says. Not this. No way.
@35- shelby- am I missing the joke?
@42- well said.
I agree hbp numbers would dramatically increase.
So basically what this rule change would amount to, is 3 intentional balls with the catcher standing up in the usual position for an IBB, and the slugger gets 1 mighty hack at the 3-0 pitch, if he doesn’t succeed, he gets put on first with the 4th intentional ball. BAD RULE CHANGE. But it does give the slugger one swing. You can’t force a pitcher to pitch to someone he doesn’t want to. Besides, a groundball with runners on 2nd and 3rd means a run scored with 1 out or less, but if you intentionally walk the batter, then a groundball gets you out of the inning. It’s a valid strategy as far as I’m concerned and the fact the managers misuse it doesn’t mean the rule needs to be changed, it means managers need to be smarter.
I like the intention of the rule, but baseball is PERFECT the way it is.
Marilyn Chambers isn’t just anybody, Spud.
If we outlaw the kneeldown, the Joe Pisarcik play will just seem clumsy instead of dumb.
I think Steve Stone said a couple of days ago that he would hit a guy instead of IBB-ing him to save three pitches. Trying to hit a guy would be a huge wild pitch risk though.
@42. Joe clearly added that Pozterisk after a lot of the comments had been made. Read carefully before calling out other commenters.
@50. You should read carefully before criticizing #42. Clearly, above, Joe said, “any four-pitch walk.” He may have added the Pozterisk, but that was just to further clarify what some people clearly missed.
Er, I actually meant that every foul ball *after* there are 2 strikes adds a *ball* to the count until there are 3.
i.e. a pitcher is penalized for having pitches fouled off, but a batter can’t foul himself to 1st base.
I was among those who missed the four-pitch walk caveat in the post, but I still don’t think that criteria is going to solve the problem. So if you have the pitcher throw a single strike, he can then proceed to intentionally walk the batter as is done today. So de facto, the new rule would be: you can only intentionally walk someone if a strike is recorded during the at bat. That’s almost like saying the pitcher must throw something hittable to the batter, when in fact the pitcher’s job is to never do that.
Brian (#48), we already did her … uh, I mean talked about her yesterday.
I’d love to hear some of Lamar Hunt’s other suggestions.
Off subject I know, but I think there is a lady in a snuggie in the Crown seats tonight. Can anyone confirm?
Seriously, I think Joe and Bill James have a good idea here. The change seems fair to both sides and would open the game to interesting strategic possibilities (dependent on a particular situation), as opposed to the predictable four wide ones and a stroll to first base.
I’m also for whatever change would bring more doubles and triples and good defensive plays and fewer home runs.
I had never seen Ogden Nash’s “Line-up for Yesterday” (1949), so I was pleased that it was on the list. When I read it, however, I was sorry that its 26 verses refer only to white men. (Well, it’s about yesterday, and “R” is for Ruth, naturally enough, instead of Robinson.)
Here’s a challenge. Make the very best 25-man team you can, picking one last name for each letter of the alphabet (no X-men). The task requires a fair bit of compromising. I know I chose Frank Edward Thomas about ten years ago, but I’m not sure I’d stick with that “T” today.
On one level of this, I disagree with you. I love intentional walks. They provide a certain amount of pressure that the pitcher/defense actually chooses to add to their plight (extra base runners). Plus, the opposing manager does have some options, like a pinch runner, or pinch hitter, etc.
But because I love intentionals, I also like the idea that the batter should hold the option to turn down the walk and that a subsequent walk would become a walked double or triple. After all, doesn’t the US constitution declare that all Americans have “the freedom of choice”? haha
The really awesome thing is, since you can’t switch pitchers during at-bat, if a pitcher is legitimately wild or something, this provides the batter with an extra strategy of trying to induce a tired pitcher into allowing a double-walk. That would be fun to watch!
Here’s a new slogan for a campaign to alter the rule “no batter should be bullied to 1st”
Two thoughts:
- aside from the in-game strategy aspect, the intentional walk also makes the game more of a team game in this sense: if you try to put together a team of one great player surrounded by crappy players (think 2005-2007 Giants), you are going to fail because the other teams simply won’t face the one good player. One of the reasons Pujols doesn’t get intentionally walked more than he does (although he still gets plenty) is because he has generally had good teammates around him. This isn’t little league where IBBing Kelly Leak just seems wrong. . . .
- if hitters want to cut down on IBBs, nothing prevents them from giving up a strike or two. After ball1, take a cut at the 2nd pitch to make the count 1-1. IF that doesn’t work, take a cut at pitch 4 and make it 2-2. Guarantee you most managers will give up the IBB defensively if the hitter is willing to give up a strike or two. Fact is, it doesn’t make sense NOT to take the walk. If the defense is foolishly willing to give up baserunners, they deserve to suffer the consequences.
I appreciate the goal of this proposed rule change, but I think I have identified an aspect that might make it unworkable. This might occur rarely for a true unintentional walk, but it could certainly happen on an unintentional one.
Consider a situation with a runner on first base under the current rules. If the runner takes off for second base on a 3-ball count, the runner is safe without a play if the pitch is called Ball 4. A play can still be made on an unforced runner, but the forced runner is always awarded the base.
How would this be handled under the new rule? On a 3-0 count, does the catcher make the throw to second after a Ball 4, just in case the batter declines the free pass? If so, then the offense would have the advantage of taking the walk if the runner was thrown out. If the runner is safe, they could choose either option. If the ball is thrown into centerfield, the runner could advance two bases. I don’t think it is feasible to allow the potential of these results to be contingent on a player’s choice after the fact.
Would it be better to be consistent and award the base to the runner without regard to the batter’s decision? That is, to make it a “dead ball” in regard to a forced runner, awarding him second base whether or not the batter accepts the base on balls. Awarding second base to a runner on first due to a wild pitcher missing the zone four times, but letting the batter remain at the plate, would seem to be an unintended consequence of this rule.
I don’t know. It’s late, maybe I’m missing something. Besides, I’ve got my own rule change battle. We need to narrow the gap between the uprights in football to make field goal attempts less attractive and fourth-down attempts more attractive. Who’s with me?
This might occur rarely for a true intentional walk…
Like I said, it’s late. There are probably other mistakes in the post, but that’s the only one I care to correct at this time.
What’s next, no more double and triple teaming in basketball? QBs must throw to the WR being covered by Asomugha? Football defenses cannot put 10 men in the box to stop the league’s best running back who plays along side an awful QB?
Trying to prevent the other team’s best player(s) from beating you is a strategy component that should not be eliminated.
And part of the awesomeness of baseball is that the defense -can- take the bat out of the other team’s best player (or out of a better hitter’s hand to face a lesser hitter).
I like Mikey’s point in #29. Don’t send lesser hitters to the plate! But if you want the Michael Bourns out there roaming the outfield, it’s going to cost you dearly at the plate — including some times the better hitter batting in front of Bourn not having the opportunity to drive in runs.
I don’t get Hunt being upset over the “kneeldown” rule, considering it’s not a special situation at all. At any point in the game, the player with the football can kneel down to end the play. This happens all the time on kickoffs; it’s usually called a “touchback”.
Joe’s IBB rule is interesting, but I don’t think it would solve anything. That is, I imagine no team would ever willingly give up a guaranteed baserunner. Therefore, every IBB would just result in the same thing we currently see: a runner on first base.
“We need to narrow the gap between the uprights in football to make field goal attempts less attractive and fourth-down attempts more attractive. Who’s with me?”
Perhaps the horizontal bar could be elevated as well.
Or it could be lowered and widened as the team moved closer to the end zone. Thus a 50-yard FG is damn near impossible, but a 20-yard field goal is almost automatic.
As an alternative to the Bill James / Posnanski IBB idea:
If a batter is walked without incurring a strike, the offense may elect to have the -next- batter in the lineup take first base while the batter who was just walked mans the plate again with a fresh count.
I see less complications with this idea.
For those of you scoring at home, the batter who walked would be credited with a PA and a BB the first time, and then again another PA and whatever outcome the second time. The next batter in the lineup who took first base will of course still be rewarded with any SB, CS, Run Scored, etc.
Heh … you could earn a walk and then ground into a double play, getting “yourself” out twice.
If you don’t like the next batter being awarded first base, what if they just used ghost runners?
So, out of curiosity, are we going to get an entry tomorrow about how the Royals got two free runs in the eighth due to intentional walks?
I like reducing intentional walks, but I think Joe is convoluted about it…a variation was suggested above that a four pitch walk simply be a 2 base walk. To that I would add that it “push” the other runners on base–if any–two bases forward. So a man on 1st would go to 3rd, and men on 2nd or 3rd would score. Now you have to throw at least one strike or you definitely would give up the run.
Sports isn’t just about shrewd but dull decisions. It’s about rising to challenges and entertainment. The IBB is neither of those; we should have a penalty for chicken-sh*t managing.
That’s bullshit about chicken-shit managing.
Most IBB are ill advised based on the odds, but they are the optimal strategy once in a while.
I understand your reasoning, Joe, but let’s review this for a second.
Your premise that the intentional walk is stupid is absolutely correct. The main reason it’s stupid isn’t that it is a kind of cheating fans out of legitimate competition (although that definitely is a reason), but because the intentional walk is almost never a good idea. Given the choice between a free base and a ???, the batter should always choose the free base, right? So I’m not sure when the opt out rule should be applied. Maybe in the si
*situation you’re describing with Thome, but not in many others. (sorry, accidentally clicked the submit button)
Damon, most sabermetric analysis I have read indicates that there are virtually no circumstances in which giving away a base is a good idea. You even acknowledge this–the burden of proof is on you to say when it is good odds.
More, you missed the point. The IBB is still avoiding the challenge instead of meeting it. It may be good strategy, but it is not the essence of competition. It may be good for the winning team and the fans of the team, but it is bad for the game itself. If you were to go back in time and could see Ruth or Josh Gibson or Ted Williams play, would you be happy if the crafty manager intentionally walked said legend every time they came up to bat? Or would you feel cheated?
If it is the latter, you know why I call it chicken-sh*t.
Why not just let the hitting team have the option of sending the intentionally walked batter to first base OR put a pinch runner on first and allow the intentionally walked batter to resume his place in the batter’s box. Not only would the pitcher be sacrificing the open base but he would be setting himself up for a grand slam as well.
Just a thought.
Personally, I think the NFL should implement stoppage time.
For the record, the DH is an abomination. There are no designated free throw shooters in basketball (unless Mizzou is playing) and I hate what it’s done to the game. I say this even though Chris Carpenter hurt his ribcage last night swinging the bat and we now await the medical report…
Hate the idea, Joe.
The problem of the guy stealing raised by Billsee in #61 is a big one and kind of sinks the idea.
Also, the most famous American poem starts “There once was a man from Nantucket”.
Hope this helps.
No.
The poem poll involves a lot of the same problems as HoF discussions around here! What’s “famous” mean? I voted for “The Raven” because, well, there’s no football team called “The Road Not Takens.” Sorry, Frost. Though he was a baseball man.
Wallace Stevens’s “No Possum, No Sop, No Taters” should be more widely known.
“So, this is the rule change: A batter would be allowed to turn down an intentional walk … or, for bookkeeping purposes, any four-pitch walk.â€
So the four-pitch walk seems like a throw in, as if Joe knew that there wouldn’t be a way to discern if a pitcher is just wild or wanting to walk a hitter. This is like a basketball player declining free throws or a pitcher declining a strikeout, it wouldn’t work and it’s not a good idea. It’s gimmicky which just so happens to be right up Bud Selig’s alley so you never know.
But if Jose Guillen declined a walk and then struck out can you guess who the first writer to post a 2000 word article blasting Guillen will be? I think you do.
Sometimes there is nothing wrong with leaving things the way they are.
I think basketball teams should be able to decline the free throws and take the ball instead. They get their choice on every foul that would result in free throw attempts. How difficult is that to understand and/or implement?
That is one of the more idiotic suggestions that I’ve heard, Joe. Truly.
One other rule change James presented many, many years ago was limiting the number of throws to first base during any given at bat. Granted, this was back when stealing bases was at a near historic high, but he suggested something like allowing pitchers to only throw over to first base to hold the runner three times. After that, it was essentially a balk. He suggested it would bring about a lot of strategy after the pitcher had made his second throw. The primary reason back then, however, was to speed up games a little bit.
I have a couple of basketball rule changes which I believe would make basketball a much, much better game.
Change 1 – When a player is fouled he or she should be allowed to choose between shooting free throws from the free throw line or from the point of the foul. The reason for this change is that as it stands now when a defensive player is beaten on a play he or she can foul and make it harder for the fouled player to make a sure two points.
Change 2 – This change gets at the numbing idea of a team with a three point lead late in a game fouling to prevent a 3 point shot. In the last two minutes of a game anyone fouled should be allowed to shoot free throws until he or she misses.
By the way, the no intentional walk rule change is a good idea.
Michael (in NYC) writes, “The poem poll involves a lot of the same problems as HoF discussions around here! What’s ‘famous’ mean?”
What’s “poem” mean, as opposed to light verse or a lyric or doggerel? Few could recite a verse of “Line-up for Yesterday,” but lots could finish Nash’s “Candy is dandy. . .”. “Casey at the Bat” and “Take Me Out to the Ball-game” qualify as famous, but do they qualify as poetry? What about Woody Guthrie’s “This Land”? Who can’t complete “From the redwood forest to [where?]“
I don’t like the idea. The IW did get rediculous with Barry Bonds, but I don’t think you need a rule change because of that. Definatly not a double walk. You definatly lost me when you included a regular 4 pitch walk. A pitcher could easily be just missing the corners, or the umps strike zone could be a little off. Pitching around a hitter happens. You don’t really want to walk them, but you don’t was to groove a fastball down the middle.
I would be interested in seeing, outside the Barry Bonds phenomenon, how the number of IW today compares over the years. I would suspect it’s not that big of a problem.
Big fan of the “no kneel down” rule though.
As bad as MLB umpires are, they may call intentional walk pitches as strikes. Their stike zones seem to change depending on who the pitcher is, what manager is bitching about calls, or how cold they are. Ball-strike calls are the worst I have ever seen. The umpires are supposedly graded on their performance. Why aren’t some of these clowns fired?
No.
I have not read all of the comments yet but how about a couple of other options. Lets give the batter this option in any walk. Go back to 0-0 and if he walks again it is a 2 base walk (same thing for HBP or they would just throw at them, and for that matter you have to let the HBP be declined too). Does not need to be intentional, this could deal with all nibbling/half intentional walks and you get to see Pujols hit the ball most every time, just what the fans want. Of course you can go to 3 and 4 base walks too if the batter decides to. This could make for very long at bats but the tension and the wear on the pitcher might make for a fun situation.
Another idea is that if the batter declines the walk the runners get to move up a base as if he had taken the walk. This applies if a guy was on 1B but not if it was empty. The runners get to be forced up 2 bases for a double declined walk, etc. In this scenario you greatly increase the chances of seeing Pujols hit the ball and he is not penalized, in fact his team is helped.
All for it. As a Bonds fan nothing bothered me more than the IBB.
As tedious as an intentional walk can be to watch, I’ve always been opposed to conceding first base without pitching 4 balls because there is always the possibility that this can happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GOtAQ__wks
Yes.
i HATE this idea! a double walk?? that is perverted. so if a pitcher is wild suddenly hes walking in runs at a multiple pace? so what if a manager wants to pitch around a guy. thats why there are nine hitters in the line up thats just how it goes. someone else will have to step it up (and with more runners on base). I know you (joe) are a fan of sabermetrics money ball and the like, dont you argue as to how important getting on base is even if it is via the walk. so by intentionally walking a guy the manager puts another runner on base, stops the pitcher from getting an out and increases the pressure on him. isnt that punishment enough? ill admit that i like the matchups, and i hate when a team walks my favorate slugger to put the double play in order. but you cant have a “double walk” thats just a terrable idea. just leave the game alone.
I love the “refuse-a-four-pitch-walk” rule. I also like the only 3 throws to first base rule. (The pitcher would only be able to throw over twice, because after you threw over three times, then the runner could just take off for second base. The pitcher would always need to save one throw to keep the runner from doing that.)
Other baseball rule changes I’ll be making once I’m commissioner: batters can’t step out of the box after every pitch. Once you get in the box, you stay there, unless you have a legit reason to call time-out, umpire’s discretion. But the umps will be pressured from above to cut out all the stepping out and keep the game moving. Also, automated balls and strikes calls– a system where the ump hears the call in his ear, and then announces it as they do now.
Football: I will enact the Lamar Hunt rule of stopping the clock if a team loses yardage in the last minute of the game. Also, extra point kicks will be taken from the 20-yard line. Extra points are the most boring plays in sports. It’s so hard to get six points, why should the 7th be virtually automatic? If the extra point was significantly further back, teams would go for 2 way more often, which is a much more entertaining play then an extra-point kick.
Personally, I would love to see football go back to very limited substitutions, instead of all the specialists. I know this one will never happen, alas. Football will continue to get more and more specialized, and more and more ridiculous.
College Basketball: the game lasts until one team gets to 100 points. Got to win by 2. Referees will be encouraged to make a no-call instead of a block or charge when a defender flops backward. It would only be a charge if the offensive player blatantly runs over the defender. Brushing into a player isn’t charging.
Soccer: no offsides. If you want to cherry pick, that’s fine, that means someone on the other team is going to be open in your end of the field. Teams should have to defend the whole field. Average Premier League scores would probably be 5-4 after this change, rather than 1-0. Vastly more entertaining. Defenders would have to be fast, and great defenders would be even more valuable than they are now, because defending would be so much harder.
Also, the penalty spot would be moved back 5 yards from where it is now. And referees would be pressured to penalize players for diving more often.
A childhood friend had a somewhat related rule in Strat-O-Matic BB: when issuing an IBB, there was a chance for an error (using the deck if I recall correctly).
I’d rather just have a rule where the catcher has to be in the catcher’s box when the pitcher comes out of his set position. Then you wouldn’t have pitch outs and the intentional walk position outside of strike zone. You could still pitch around a guy or have a signal to throw one high, so the catcher has a shot at the runner, but you wouldn’t be punishing unintentional wildness excessively. Many times that wildness gives the batter a meaty pitch by mistake.
“If you were to go back in time and could see Ruth or Josh Gibson or Ted Williams play, would you be happy if the crafty manager intentionally walked said legend every time they came up to bat? Or would you feel cheated?”
Sure, but not -all- IBBs are chicken-shit. Burden of proof — “The Book” by Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin, pages 293-320. When the on-deck hitter is worse than current batter, there are cases where the IBB make sense. For example, from page 296 in The Book Says box: “The only base/out situation in which a walk reduces the run expectancy is when there are men on second and third, two outs, and an unprotected elite (Pujols-like) hitter at the plate.”
If the elite hitter were to be IBB in this situation, I would not consider it bad for the game itself, avoiding the essence of competition, etc. It’s definitely not chicken-shit. It’s a smart move. Just like not throwing the ball near Asomugha. These are -team- sports, not solely Pujols and Asomugha vs. the other team. Thus their contributions can be minimized if so desired.
Wait, am I the only one who thinks Robert Frost’s “Stopping By Woods” should be in the poll? I thought everyone knew that poem. Did you know that you can sing it to the tune from “Gilligan’s Island?”
Whose woods these are, I think I know
(His house is in the village, though)
He will not see me stopping heeeeeere
To watch his woods fill up with snow
Also: Trees, by Joyce Kilmore. It’s in _Superman_, for cryin’ out loud!
Here’s what I imagine happening in a fair number of cases when this rule would be invoked. Suppose Pujols goes to the plate late in the game with runners on and first base open. The pitcher throws him 4 balls, and Pujols declines the walk. Now we get to watch the pitcher throw one strike and four more balls. So, in effect, the IBB becomes a 9-pitch affair rather than a four-pitch one. Marginal increase in excitement: not much, since only one pitch (the strike) is actually significant. Marginal increase in tedium: a lot, since the throw-away AB takes more than twice as long.
Besides, if the IBB is a bad strategy most of the time, isn’t the solution to convince managers/the public/Joe Morgan that teams are usually worse off when they issue one? Then they’d just stop doing it. No need for rule changes.
Here’s why this will never work:
Our heads will explode trying to figure out how to account for this in our rotisserie leagues.
Andrew @ EC #99 –
You must also know that all of Emily Dickinson’s poems can be sung to the tune of “Yellow Rose of Texs”, e.g.,
Because I would not stop for Death
He kindly stopped for me
…
Joe –
Love your blog, love your writing, love most of your ideas, but this one is just plain stupid, for any and all of the reasons already pointed out by others.
And, if I’m a manager, I fine/bench any player stupid enough to turn down a walk of any kind. Any player (or manager) who thinks that a 100% chance of a walk (0% chance of making out) is worse than a non-zero chance of making out doesn’t understand baseball. Yes, I know there are all sorts of those people (hello, Dusty Baker), but that doesn’t make them not stupid.
And the converse is the sacrifice bunt (0% chance of reaching base, 100% chance of making out [yes, I know there could be fielding errors, etc; but a successful sacrifice by definition means making an out]). Should we allow the defense to decline an out because they want to try for a double play?
My all-time dumb baseball moment is a sacrifice (stupid move by the offense to guarantee an out), followed by an intentional walk now that 1B is open (stupid move by the defense to guarantee a non-out). I imagine a dialog between the managers along the lines of:
“Here, let me give you a free out and increase my chances of losing.”
“Oh, yeah? How about I give you a free non-out, and an additional baserunner? I’ll show you increasing your odds of losing.”
Baseball rules are pretty much just fine the way they are — with, of course, the exception of the abomination known as the designated hitter.
Bo Jackson would have loved this rule!
On a baseball subject but not necessarily a rules change….Hey, I get the wonderful outpouring of respect that MLB and America should show to the memory of Jackie Robinson, BUT, this idea of every player wearing #42 today is WAY OVER THE TOP in my opinion. How can fans tell who is whom? Sure, most know the stars on your team but otherwise, huh?
How about next year every team wear their team hat with “42″ on it instead of the team logo or with a tiny team logo beside the #? It would maybe generate a few more souvenir cap sales for the teams too.
CA, you say in post #100 that “runners” are on. That is, on 2nd and 3rd, right, with first base open for Pujols? Do you understand that in the James/Posnanski proposal, an 8 or 9 or 29-pitch double walk to Pujols would put him on second base, thereby advancing the man on second to third, and necessarily scoring the runner on third? Suddenly everyone starts to pay attention to what is going on between the pitcher and the batter. . . .
Mark W. – I agree on the 42 overdo. It’s supposed to be a tribute to a legend but instead it reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where everyone was named Bruce.
Spud: Exactly…I had forgotten about that Bruce thing with the Flying Circus or whatever…Was there also some talk or did MLB discuss doing something similar for Clemente’s “21″ a season or two ago? Again, I love the idea of a tribute but let’s be sensible and not make the game more confusing for the half-hearted fan. Having everyone wearing #42 in lesser baseball games, especially so early in the season, could create some hilarious results.
What does Mariano Rivera do today?
Yeah, this is kinda dumb, sorry. Not only does it lead to all sorts of logistical problems, but a team would have to be stupid to take its option.
Oh, and the DH rule is a good one, in that it leads to better pitchers (more specialized, less chance of injury), and better at-bats.
I first blanched at this idea because I feared it would slow down a game that is already as slow as a Sunday afternoon at grandma’s house. However, if you think about it, it likely would speed it up by challenging pitchers to pitch to the best hitters — therefore accelerating the outcome.
Another simple rule change: When they’re called in during the middle of an inning, relief pitchers get two warm-up pitches on the actual mound. That’s it. They can throw as many as they want in the bullpen, but none of this eight-pitch-and-let-me-make-14-adjustments before I face the next feared hitter. Two pitches. Batter up.
Not only would it accelerate the game, this would up the ante for pitching changes and might make managers/coaches less willing to trot out to the mound a dozen times a game. Which is far more excruciating than an intentional walk.
Joe, you need to create posts just where your readers can argue about your polls.
The most famous American poem is “The Wasteland” by T.S. Eliot, and it’s not really that close. So I voted for none of these.
The most famous (not the best, but the most famous) of the poems listed is quite obviously “The Defense of Fort McHenry.” We stand up for it, set to the music of an 18th century English drinking song, every time a ball game starts.
Also, does Eliot count as American or British?
You cannot just change the walk rule. You’d have to change several other rules. If the IBB can be declined, then pitchers will throw a lollipop two feet inside until they hit the guy. Make HBP declinable? Then they’ll groove a fastball and the catcher will slide forward for catcher’s interference. Increase that penalty? Then the pitcher will go to his mouth on the mound four times in a row.
Now I’m not saying that there isn’t good cause to reduce IBBs in baseball. I’m saying that your suggestion isn’t it. It needs to be all encompassing, and I think this, simply put, is it: any time the batter would be awarded first base without a play, the batter may decline the honor and start a new at bat with an open (0-0) count.
Aside from being all encompassing and much much simpler than having a double walk, a triple walk, etc., this also eliminates all judgments. You don’t get judgment as to whether or not the HBP deserves a warning or not – there’s no reason to do it except accidentally. You don’t get to judge whether the pitcher is wild or intentional: the manager picks his result. It makes trying for the intentional walk have the risk factor of forcing the pitcher to throw four extra pitches. And if you got 2003 Barry to swing at strike one, he could *still* decline the walk, having had 4+ extra pitches to look at to get his timing down. It becomes the manager’s choice.
The advantage to the team at bat, of course, is that they can drive up the pitch count in an effort to tire out an otherwise effective pitcher. Sure, most of the time the batter will take his base. But on those rare occasions where he wouldn’t, the pitcher will already be some pitches into his effectiveness level, and as Vin Scully says, there isn’t a pitcher alive who doesn’t lose effectiveness once he’s thrown 30 pitches that inning. So that’s enough penalty. And a batter who works a tiring starter to a 3-2 count with a few loud fouls might also choose to start over again. So there is more strategy overall.
I also like Lamar’s rule, with this slight addendum: any time the guy’s stopped behind the line in the last two minutes of a half, the defense may *choose* to stop the clock. And I like the proposal to allow any team fouled in the last two minutes to choose to take the ball out of bounds with a full 24 seconds on the clock, or to shoot free throws. They both change the end of game strategies in favor of more action. But I bet the NFLPA would veto the clock stop; three more plays per game is three more chances to get injured.
@David (105): Yikes, I missed that ANY double walk, not just a four-pitch second walk, would be worth two bases. I stand corrected.
There were 187,614 plate appearances in the Majors last year. In total there were 1310 intentional walks, for an intentional walk rate of 0.7%. Based on average, only 5 teams – all in the National League – received an intentional walk more often than one every third game. While some may not like this strategy – and it is strategy – it’s not occurring as often as some might believe.
Oddly, in every season of the Retrosheet era, the National League has more walks than the American League. The advent of the DH in 1973 has only exacerbated this. In the 17 seasons prior to the DH, the AL averaged 449 walks and the NL averaged 583. Since the DH began (36 seasons, including some strike-shortened ones), the AL has averaged 518 walks and the NL 760 walks. As much as we like to discuss how Barry Bonds was so frequently given the free pass, even if we remove all 688 of his intentional walks, the NL has averaged 740 since the DH.
While that’s certainly not hard evidence, it would seem the DH and the deeper lineups it helps facilitate has decreased the managerial inclination to call for intentional walks (pre-DH and post-DH averages on the surface don’t indicate this, but it’s clear once expansion is accounted for). And if we look at the NL in the DH era, we see that the cleanup batter is most frequently intentionally walked. After him, it’s about even between the #3 hitter and the #8 hitter. The intentional walk, then, is being used most commonly in one of two ways: to either avoid a very good hitter or to seek out the worst hitter.
As others here have implied by mentioning the value of deeper lineups, the solution is not to change the intentional walk rule, the solution is to standardize the DH (which I’m not advocating) or to increase the emphasis placed on teaching pitchers the craft of hitting. Since neither of those are likely, the best move would seem to be what others have also mentioned – spreading the gospel so managers learn the intentional walk is rarely beneficial.
As for the broader proposals – changing the intentional walk rule or limiting the number of times a pitcher may throw over to check on a runner – the problem I find with these is that they contradict the normal logic of the game. The game is designed such that players (on offense or defense/pitching) have options to choose before game actions. Do I throw a breaking ball now? Should I move up in the batter’s box? Should we employ a Williams Shift on this hitter? Do I take a big lead off first? These options (and countless others) precede the game actions and help determine the outcome of individual events.
There is a prescribed reward for a batter choosing inaction (i.e., not swinging at four balls) and there is a clear risk-reward scenario by choosing to take a large lead from a base. Both teams – whether on offense or defense – have various strategies available to counteract the options the opposition may choose. Intentional walks and frequent tosses to first base are just two of them.
The proposed rules reverse this design philosophy through enforced structure. A player shouldn’t get to choose the reward for seeing four consecutive balls since there is no other occasion when the offense can choose what it will receive. The rules delineate everything the offense is entitled to receive, and everything beyond that is a risk of being out that is chosen in the course of game action. From this perspective, either of these rules seem to me to defy the logic of the game as it is constructed. While intentional walks and throws to check on a runner may not be the most exciting parts of the game, they are well within the rules and are but two of many aspects which allow participants and spectators to speculate about what will happen or what could have been done differently. And those are attributes of the game I don’t like to see diminished in the name of individual preferences or strategy-defying efforts to decrease game times.
“Also, does Eliot count as American or British?”
I consider Eliot an American but that’s a good point. He was born in America and considered his homeland the emotional source of his poetry. But, he wrote his poetry in Britain. So, I don’t know.
Joe –
In a poll for the “The Most Famous American Poem”, on this blog, you left out “Casey at the Bat”?
Whatever were you (not) thinking?
And calling T.S. Eliot an American is roughly the same as calling Michael Jordan (born in Brooklyn) a New Yorker — technically true, but not what most people would mean by either term.
Love the rule change.
Love the James idea about throws to first and can’t imagine how exciting the game would be with it.
Love my rule change: No mound conferences barring injury. None. Maybe one per game.
Love the idea that players simply can’t leave the batters’ box unless they’re being attacked by bees or dogs or dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you.
Most of all, LOVE the biggest James idea: a pitcher has to give up a run or finish the inning. Fewer mid-inning pitching changes are ruining America.
Which brings me to my last point: I hereby declare that I will continue to ignore anyone who bases their arguments on how a given rule change will teach or children values or lack thereof.
Play ball.
Josh –
Your rule on mound conferences (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is close to the actual rule of years ago, when the “2 visits per inning” was “2 visits per GAME”. Changing that was one of the dumber things baseball has done in recent years.
A minor quibble about the throws to first rule: it is (according to James) the number of UNSUCCESSFUL throws to first base that are restricted. If you pick the guy off, it doesn’t count towards the limit. Other than that, great idea.
Same with the pitcher changes: not unless the score or the inning changes. I ABHOR this “let’s change pitchers every time there’s a batter standing on the other side of the plate” nonsense. Do we really need or want to see 4-5 pitchers in the 9th inning of every close game (like we do now)? It makes the end of the game about as exciting as the free-throw shooting contest at the end of any close basketball game.
David in NYC: You are absolutely correct about watching pitcher after pitcher walk in from the bullpen in the same 1/2 inning and comparing that to the free throw shooting contests that now decide most close basketball games. BORING!!
However, changing the rule in MLB may be next to impossible…You know that those MLB relievers love their 1/3 of an inning role and the MLBPA will stick by them 110%.
Mark W.: As long as they don’t shrink the sizes of the rosters (and I’m not advocating that they should), there’s no reason most players would put up a fight. Some would — there’s a LOOGY on most teams, so you’re talking about 30 players. But if it were part of a larger package (including the no-leaving-the-batters-box addendum) I think even the pitchers would go along.
Incidentally, does the Players Association get a say on rule changes?
Yes, I do think the MLBPA has the right to approve rule changes. Maybe to speed up the process more clubs could provide the car or buggy to shuttle the reliever to the main mound a few seconds faster. I always enjoyed seeing relievers in Cleveland in the ’60s ride in a speedy convertible from the bullpens behind the outfield fence to the infield!
Josh and Mark –
Yes, MLBPA has the right to approve or disapprove anything that affects “playing conditions”. Obviously, our proposed rule changes would fall into that category.
As for roster sizes: many years ago, I took a “course” (really a series of bullshit sessions) at the New School in NYC called “Sports in the City”. Each week, we had a guest speaker; one of them was Donald Fehr (then Marvin Miller’s right-hand man). During the Q&A, I asked him about getting rid of the DH; he said he (read MLBPA) was opposed to it because DHs would lose their jobs. When I asked him if he would still be opposed if roster sizes were increased to 26 to accommodate the DHs, he was still opposed. So much for that thought.
I do think the MLBPA would approve the return of vehicles to transport relievers from the bullpen, since it would remove the enormous burden of having to walk the 100 yards or so to the mound.
In fact, IIRC, it was the rule at one time that relievers HAD to ride to the mound to speed up play. The Yankees used a car (originally a convertible — you can imagine how long that lasted in Yankee Stadium) provided by a sponsor (Toyota?), while the Mets used a golf cart tricked up with an enormous Mr. Met head over the seats. I wonder what happened to that.
“T.S. Eliot an American is roughly the same as calling Michael Jordan (born in Brooklyn) a New Yorker — technically true, but not what most people would mean by either term.”
I disagree. Eliot wasn’t a British citizen until he was about 35 or 40 and he said in many places that he considered America the emotional source of his poetry. Jordan moved to Carolina when he was a small child. He probably has no memory of NYC. If, hypothetically, Jordan lived in NYC until he was 18 and later said that his revolutionary game was based on the NY-style basketball he learned growing up, wouldn’t that change our perception of Jordan?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying he’s not British. He’s both. But anyway, Joe lists Prufrock in the poll, so I suppose he considers Eliot an American. Although, maybe he was just trying to invite this very discussion.
David in NYC: The Wilpon’s probably had to auction off the “Met-Head mobile” to raise some cash since the Madoff disaster…
“If a pitcher was wild, threw four straight balls, the batter would still get the option to turn down the walk. I suspect the hitter would almost never turn down the walk…”
Why?
Any intelligent manager would instruct his hitter NOT to take the walk, simply on the odds that he earns a free walk into scoring position. Especially if we’re talking about an NL team. But, since we’re filandering w/ the rules anyway, why not let ALL the pitchers sit and watch their teammates swing the bat?
A different idea I used to kick around while watching Barry Bonds walked multiple times in a game it that a batter should be awarded two bases if he is walked a second time in a game. This would apply whether the walks were intentional or not. Three bases if walked a third time, etc. It leaves the IBB as a manager’s tool, but limits what he can do with it and makes them pitch to the big boys and the mid-level players, too.
Seems to me the intentional walk represents the “game” aspect of the sport just like 3 strikes is an out, 4 balls is a walk, a ball bouncing over the wall is a ground-rule double. Inherently people want to see the “athletic” aspect of the game more than the game aspect. We are ok with teams winning on athletic superiority but we loath teams that win on a gimmick or a quirk in the rules (the Tom Brady tuck rule comes to mind even though I despise the Raiders), but with all games its going to happen regardless. Sports with no “game” aspect are called track and field and they are no fun to watch.
One of the most attractive aspects of baseball is the very small number of rule changes over the years and for this reason I would oppose almost any change in the rules.
However, I hate intentional walks too. The whole idea of being too scared to face a particular batter offends me. It is just running from a difficult challenge which does not sit well with the overtly combative nature of baseball.
So although I don’t think the rules should be changed we should shame them into stopping.