MLB Considering allowing automatic intentional walks

[AdamGreenwood]

The change would mean that instead of throwing four pitches wide of the plate, the pitcher simply indicate to the umpire that he wants to intentionally walk the batter, and the batter would then be awarded a walk.

 

The justification is that:

 

1) It would speed up the game (albeit marginally - as there aren't that many intentional walks, and they don't take that long.).

2) It would save the pitcher's arm (again marginally), as it's usually not a super fast pitch.

 

Naturally, I am against this change as:

 

1) Sometimes pitchers miss with their intentional walks, and the results are very exciting.

2) Sometimes batters can reach pitches that aren't outside enough, which creates some awesome baseball.

3) Runners can still attempt to move down the bases on an intentional pitch, although it is rarely done.

4) Fans enjoy 'booing' during the intentional walk. Don't take that away.

[LGBJ29]

Manfred has an obsession to speed up the game but he's looking in all the wrong areas. Fix the damn replay process before anything else

[Brownie19]

How often do #1 through #3 actually happen per season?

 

Why encourage moronic fans from booing an often smart, strategic baseball decision? Not once in all my years following baseball have I felt the need to boo a pitcher trying to pickoff a runner or during an intentional walk. Those are strategic actions that are part of the game. Why don't said fans boo when the other team steals a base? or when they sac bunt?

[Boxcar]

How often do #1 through #3 actually happen per season?

 

Why encourage moronic fans from booing an often smart, strategic baseball decision? Not once in all my years following baseball have I felt the need to boo a pitcher trying to pickoff a runner or during an intentional walk. Those are strategic actions that are part of the game. Why don't said fans boo when the other team steals a base? or when they sac bunt?

 

Intentional walks are rarely the correct move.

[Brownie19]

Intentional walks are rarely the correct move.

 

A point which makes it even dumber for home fans to boo when the other team intentionally walks their hitter...

 

Fans don't boo when the teams use pinch hitters, make pitching changes or implement shifts either. They have oddly identified the strategy of the attempted pickoff and the intentional walk as the most appropriate times to boo the opposing team. I don't get it. Fans are dumn.

[intrigid]

If they allow this, they might as well allow all baserunners to go directly to the dugout on a home run. Exact same logic.

[Santoki]

Haven't they looked at this the past three offseasons now?

[FrozenRopes]

Automatic walks should equal the batter getting 2nd base.

[TholesWeirdEye]

If you want to make the game faster, limit the times a /catcher/teammates/coach can come to the mound. Also fix the god damn review times.

[L54]

If they allow this, they might as well allow all baserunners to go directly to the dugout on a home run. Exact same logic.

 

Except it's not, for a couple of reasons:

 

a) the homerun is one of the games most exciting plays. Eliminating the excitement of that would be a colossal mistake.

in order for the run from a home run to count, you actually have to physically touch each base. So by this logic, a home run would actually become an out.

[L54]

I really don't care if they implement this, but if their reasoning is to reduce the length of games someone needs to have their head examined.

[intentional wok]

Don't automate baseball plz.

 

Even just one wild pitchout is worth the negligible amount of time they want to save. Baseball is exciting when routine stuff is taken for granted and goes way wrong.

[Brownie19]

Don't automate baseball plz.

 

Even just one wild pitchout is worth the negligible amount of time they want to save. Baseball is exciting when routine stuff is taken for granted.

 

Again - I think it's about increasing pace, not decreasing time. Also, many would have argued the same thing about the extra point in football. There were only a couple missed per year; however, I think the change they made was remarkably successful (although I acknowledge simply removing it - like they are proposing with the IBB may not have been as successful).

[Brownie19]

Except it's not, for a couple of reasons:

 

a) the homerun is one of the games most exciting plays. Eliminating the excitement of that would be a colossal mistake.

in order for the run from a home run to count, you actually have to physically touch each base. So by this logic, a home run would actually become an out.

 

I think he's suggesting we can assume the batter would touch all 4 bases successfully - just as they are assuming a pitcher will throw all 4 balls successfully. The former actually being much more of a sure thing. I don't agree with his comparison either, but you should have stopped at point a).

[intentional wok]

Again - I think it's about increasing pace, not decreasing time. Also, many would have argued the same thing about the extra point in football. There were only a couple missed per year; however, I think the change they made was remarkably successful (although I acknowledge simply removing it - like they are proposing with the IBB may not have been as successful).

 

I'd argue those are the same things and not worth removing the intentional walk no matter how you frame it.

[TholesWeirdEye]

I'd argue those are the same things and not worth removing the intentional walk no matter how you frame it.

 

I think you're a little bias on this subject...

[Laika]

It's a bad proposal by MLB but it's just the discussion stage so no harm in talking to the union and brainstorming about possible alterations.

[JaysFan4Ever]

I'm a bit conflicted on this. Yes, I know that's an odd thing.

 

I'm in favour of it because it'll speed the game up a bit, and not be a waste of time even though it might only save a few minutes, but it will still save sometime and not have to wait as someone plays catch.

 

I'm kind of not in favour of it like it was said that sometimes the pitch/catcher misses and it can allow a runner to move up, score. I'm not sure of how often that happens. I've seen it happen, but i doubt it's enough to really have that as a point.

 

I think I'm leaning more towards just having the pitch put up 4 fingers or the catcher tell the home plate umpire that they're going to walk the batter and let the batter head to first without playing toss. But that's just my feeling right now.

[Krylian]

Intentional walks are rarely the correct move.

 

Barry Bonds had 120 IBB's in 2004. Every single one of them was the correct move.

[Krylian]

This is like automatic icing in hockey.

[P2F]

I'm a bit conflicted on this. Yes, I know that's an odd thing.

 

I'm in favour of it because it'll speed the game up a bit, and not be a waste of time even though it might only save a few minutes, but it will still save sometime and not have to wait as someone plays catch.

 

I'm kind of not in favour of it like it was said that sometimes the pitch/catcher misses and it can allow a runner to move up, score. I'm not sure of how often that happens. I've seen it happen, but i doubt it's enough to really have that as a point.

 

I think I'm leaning more towards just having the pitch put up 4 fingers or the catcher tell the home plate umpire that they're going to walk the batter and let the batter head to first without playing toss. But that's just my feeling right now.

 

I think you should go into your points a little more in-depth, please. I want to read more.

[Spanky99]

Wow... shave off 45 seconds every game or so... Well played, Manfred!!! This really is a non-topic, other than it's stupid. Now altering the strike-zone might be significant, although I don't see many umpires adjusting their strike-zone.

[ChrisS]

Automatic walks should equal the batter getting 2nd base.

 

There would never be an IBB then. Pitchers would simply throw 4 junk pitches for a regular BB.

[intrigid]

Except it's not, for a couple of reasons:

 

a) the homerun is one of the games most exciting plays. Eliminating the excitement of that would be a colossal mistake.

Then all you're arguing is that the automatic walk is a less bad idea. You're still not justifying it.

in order for the run from a home run to count, you actually have to physically touch each base. So by this logic, a home run would actually become an out.

And in order for a walk to count, you actually have to physically throw the pitch 4 times. So by your logic, an automatic walk would actually become a delay-of-game.

 

It always feels funny when your own argument is used against you, doesn't it?

[King]

Wow... shave off 45 seconds every game or so... Well played, Manfred!!! This really is a non-topic, other than it's stupid. Now altering the strike-zone might be significant, although I don't see many umpires adjusting their strike-zone.

I think it would be almost a non factor. I'd be more upset if they restricted pitching changes, Manfred seemed serious about that.

 

 

 

"I am in favor of something like that," Manfred said. "We've spent a ton of time on this issue in the last few months.

 

"You know the problem with relief pitchers is that they're so good. I've got nothing against relief pitchers, but they do two things to the game: The pitching changes themselves slow the game down, and our relief pitchers have become so dominant at the back end that they actually rob action out of the end of the game, the last few innings of the game. So relief pitchers is a topic that is under active consideration. We're talking about that a lot internally."

[Spanky99]

I think it would be almost a non factor. I'd be more upset if they restricted pitching changes, Manfred seemed serious about that.

 

 

 

"I am in favor of something like that," Manfred said. "We've spent a ton of time on this issue in the last few months.

 

"You know the problem with relief pitchers is that they're so good. I've got nothing against relief pitchers, but they do two things to the game: The pitching changes themselves slow the game down, and our relief pitchers have become so dominant at the back end that they actually rob action out of the end of the game, the last few innings of the game. So relief pitchers is a topic that is under active consideration. We're talking about that a lot internally."

 

lol... now that's absurd. *SMH* Can you link me to that, thanks.

[glory]

My god....Manfred is an idiot.

[L54]

I think he's suggesting we can assume the batter would touch all 4 bases successfully - just as they are assuming a pitcher will throw all 4 balls successfully. The former actually being much more of a sure thing. I don't agree with his comparison either, but you should have stopped at point a).

 

o rly?

[King]

My god....Manfred is an idiot.

The relief pitcher changes were discussed previously here: http://www.bluejaysmessageboard.com/threads/6505-Manfred-looking-at-relief-pitcher-limits-in-game

 

BTS and Cyborg made a good point about limiting the amount of warmup pitches and not having commercial breaks for pitching changes.

[Spanky99]

The relief pitcher changes were discussed previously here: http://www.bluejaysmessageboard.com/threads/6505-Manfred-looking-at-relief-pitcher-limits-in-game

 

BTS and Cyborg made a good point about limiting the amount of warmup pitches and not having commercial breaks for pitching changes.

 

Yeah, if they need to put commercials in, use a split screen like they do in soccer.