I noticed this comment from Brilliant Reader Keith K. about the intentional walk, and it is something I have thought about quite a bit over the years so I wanted to mention it here:
First the comment:
I am with Joe in his anti-IBB stance in that it often is a bad strategy that leads to more runs. I don't agree on the "anti-competition" angle (that, in Joe's words, "you are showing no confidence," "taking away a potentially exciting moment from the fans, "refusing to take the game head on," and "inviting bad karma.")
In that sense, an IBB is not unlike a quarterback opting never to throw in the direction of a shutdown cornerback, or a basketball team double-teaming a star post player so he never gets the ball, or a tennis player consistently hitting the ball away from his opponent's lethal forehand, etc. All are valid strategies that may frustrate the fans but increase the chances of victory. I don't think you can criticize the move on that basis.
As mentioned, I have thought quite a bit about this -- trying to figure out why I dislike the intentional walk so much compared to similar strategies in other sports. I came to two conclusions which you may disagree with, but hey, it's my blog.
1. I don't think there ARE similar strategies in other sports. I think baseball is, at least among the most popular American sports, the only one that offers an opportunity quite like the intentional walk. That's in part because baseball is the only sport that forces a set lineup on a team. You have to go in order in baseball. Every player in the lineup must get the same opportunity. You don't do that in football, in basketball, in hockey, in tennis, etc. In basketball, you can get the ball to Wilt every time and he can score 100 points. In football, you can give the ball to Emmitt Smith every time and he might gain 300 yards. In hockey, you can get the puck on Wayne Gretzky's stick every time. Nothing in the rules prevents these things. In baseball, Albert Pujols comes up when he comes up, and there's nothing you can do about it. I think the intentional walk is a unique strategy that plays upon the uniqueness of baseball.
2. The most similar-sounding of strategies -- like the ones Keith mention -- are actually in my mind not similar at all. I've thought a lot about this, thought a whole lot why triple teaming a receiver is any different from the intentional walk.
Here's why, I think: triple teaming a receiver is an attempt to DEFEND that star player. Same with double-teaming a star-post player. You are not trying to avoid the player. You are actively trying to shut that best player down. That, for me, is at the heart of competition.
Keith's examples -- hitting a ball away from a player's forehand or not throwing to a receiver covered by a shutdown corner -- are I think utterly non-comparable. Not throwing to a covered receiver is simply an obvious part of being a quarterback. And hitting away from a player's best stroke in tennis is an attempt to EXPOSE THE WEAKNESSES of an opponent. You also want to block Joe Frazier's left hook. These are all at the heart of competition.
I think the intentional walk is quantifiably different. You are not attempting to defend the other team's best player. You are not attempting to expose his weaknesses. You are not doing anything at all except simply granting him a base in any and all efforts to avoid facing him.
No other sport has this. There is no strategy in tennis that allows you to give your opponent a free point if he promises not to hit his first serve hard. There is no strategy in football or basketball that allows you to give the other team free points if they promise not to let their star player touch the ball. Even Hack a Shaq -- which is a crappy strategy that makes basketball dreadful to watch -- is an attempt to expose a player's inability to make free throws.
Point is, these are STRATEGIES to beat a team. Baseball has plenty of strategies. You bring in a lefty to get out a lefty hitter. You throw sliders to a hitter who has shown an inability to throw sliders. You study a pitcher's motion to get a good jump on a stolen base attempt. These are active strategies used to BEAT an opponent.
I don't think the Intentional Walk is a strategy. I think it is a bargain. It is, fortunately, not an especially good bargain which is why we don't see more of it. But it's like a backroom deal you cut -- we'll give your guy first base but he's not allowed to hit.*
*Even the sacrifice bunt is not a bargain -- because both teams still have to DO things. You have to get the bunt down. The other team has to field it. A variety of things can happen. They can get the lead runner. You could beat out the bunt. It's not a straight out for base trade. You don't do anything in the intentional walk.**
**I just thought of this, so I'm adding it: Maybe this is what it comes down to ... the intentional walk takes no skill. Maybe that's at the heart of things. Every other-sport example that people bring up ... it takes skill. Double teaming a receiver or defensive end still involves skill -- receivers beat double teams all the time. Punting out of bounds to avoid a punt returner takes skill (though kicking off out of bounds does not -- I think THAT would be a close equivalent, kicking off out of bounds and giving them the ball at the 40 -- I'd hate that too). Putting 8-men in the box and actually stopping the run takes skill. But throwing four pitches off the plate, well, I can do that. No skill involved. No opportunity for the opponent to counter. Maybe that's at the heart of what bugs me so much about it.
Look, I know deep down that there's nothing to be done about the intentional walk. If it was discouraged by the rules -- if, as I have at times wished, an intentional walk awarded TWO bases instead of one -- then teams would just PRETEND to pitch to someone. The walk as avoidance is simply locked in the fabric of the game. But I do think it's a flaw in the game. It's a a cheap way for managers to avoid the other team's best hitter in big situations. That's why I hate it. And that's why I love when it blows up in a million pieces.
While I obviously cede you the right to hate the intentional walk, I think you're taking your analogies a little too rigidly. Intentionally walking a guy is in fact comparable to double-teaming a receiver (or putting as many guys on him as it takes). Or, if you aren't digging that one, compare it to stacking the box to stop the run and daring an opponent to beat you with the pass. You are giving up something; it's just not literally the same thing as a base, because football doesn't have bases. You might want to say the base is analogous to a first down, but the rules of the games are different, so that doesn't work either.
ReplyDeleteI think your mistake is saying that in walking a guy, you're not trying to defend the team's best player. You're not trying to expose his weaknesses. I think it's better put like this: In walking a guy, you are trying to defend the team. You are trying to expose its weaknesses.
I agree with troy -- the analogy breaks down because you're treating the team sport as individual components; the IBB is a strategy employed by a *team* to defend against a strength of the other *team*.
ReplyDeleteTo use the language you used in the article, it's an attempt to expose the weakness (presumably the better matchup behind the person being walked) of the other team.
They're directly analogous, IMO; but I still think the IBB is a terrible, coward's move (...and strikeouts are fascist, but that's a different point entirely).
What about punting out of bounds to avoid a lethal return man? Does that analogy work?
ReplyDeleteTo the last point that Joe makes, why don't teams just 'pretend' to pitch to someone, why use the intentional pass at all?
ReplyDeleteIf someone's up, and you'd rather pitch to the next guy - just keep the balls outside and away from the hitter - hey he MAY swing.
(Of course, with someone like Vlad, he MAY hit it out from way outside the strike zone.....)
Would it mess with a pitcher's mechanics? (trying to miss the strike zone on purpose)
I hate the IBB 95% of the time and agree with Joe 99% of the time. But this time we disagree. The IBB is exposing a weakness.
ReplyDeleteIf I double team Andre Johnson and choose to let the team beat me with single coverage on Jacoby Jones or Kevin Walter I think thats pretty darn similar to intentionally walking Adrian Gonzalez and choosing to let Miguel Tejada and Chase Headley beat me.
I understand the differences but the similarities are real.
I think the doubleteam analogy is close, but still think there's a minor difference.
ReplyDeleteEven double-teamed, the QB can still throw the ball to the receiver (even triple-teamed); depending on the QB and receiver, he might still catch it.
With the intentional walk, there's little to no chance the hitter is going to swing at one of those pitches. The pitches still have to be made, but as long as he keeps them away from the strike zone, the batter is taking first base.
How about the Hack-a-Shaq? You take a chance that he'll beat you at the line, same as the IBB takes a chance of a bigger inning if it's wrong, in return for limiting the chances that he beats you down low.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the Hack-a-Shaq has some instances of having worked. For the same reason the IBB sometimes works.
The only thing worse than an intentional walk is in soccer when players use their hands to block a certain goal, like in the World Cup when that guy on that team did it, leading to a missed penalty kick.
ReplyDeleteThe Prevent Defense certainly has some similarities. For starters both are equally despised...
ReplyDeleteI think Ron and Av are on the correct trail here. The IW is a strategy employed by a team that takes away -- absolutely -- the other team's ability to do what it would otherwise be permitted to do under the rules. I.e., try to get a hit. In this regard, the IW is unlike triple teaming the best receiver, because he could still beat the triple team and make a catch.
ReplyDeleteI like Av's punting out of bounds example because it is: a) permitted under the rules and b) absolutely prevents the other team from doing what it would otherwise be permitted to do under the rules -- run the kick back.
The big difference with Ron's example, of course is that unlike the IW and the out-of-bounds punt, fouling Shaq intentionally so he has to shoot foul shots is not permitted under the rules. It simply is a risk/reward analysis that sees greater risk in Shaq dunking that it does in Shaq shooting foul shots. Similar examples would include a defender in hockey or soccer deliberately tripping a offensive player about to start a break away or any other situation in which an intentional rule violation is preferable to what is perceived to be a "sure" bad result.
And for the record, I don't hate the IW, but I don't see why the four "pitches" are necessary. Just call time and put him on first.
I agree that Joe is trying to make a bright line distinction between the IBB and every other sport's way to minimize the impact of the great player on the opposition. But we're in this fortunate situation: people who are morally opposed to the IBB can join with those who just think it's usually a bad strategy in condemning most IBB's. The dilemma baseball would face would come if the IBB actually made sense a lot of the time. If it were actually issued quite frequently, the IBB would make baseball a much duller sport. The only time that almost happened was at Barry Bonds's absurd early 2000s peak. In 2004, Bonds was IBB'ed 120 times and probably semi-IBB'ed several dozen more times. Tom Tango did a good study on this and found that the walks made sense a fair amount of the time, though nowhere near all of the time. Basically a player with a natural (i.e., taking out IBB's) OBP/SLG in the 500/800 range comes close to blowing up the game of baseball. If offensive levels get to the point where those players aren't a generational rarity, baseball will have a real problem and may have to take extreme measures against the IBB. For now, it's not a big deal IMO.
ReplyDeleteSide note: probably the most egregious non-baseball attempt to neutralize a star I ever saw was in college basketball a couple years ago, when Davidson had future NBA sharpshooter Stephen Curry. They were playing Loyola, whose coach implemented the ridiculous strategy of doubling Curry all the time, regardless. Eventually Curry just went over and stood in the corner, leaving his offense to play 4-on-3. He was scoreless, but his team won by 30. The Loyola coach could not have sounded more ridiculous in how happy he was. Story:
http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2008/11/26/loyola-md-holds-stephen-curry-scoreless-still-lose-by-30/
Being down by 1 with no timeouts and the clock under 2 minutes and when the other team runs a play, stepping out of the way and letting them score a TD is pretty darned close to the IBB, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteTaking a knee to prevent a fumble when the game is assuredly over is also very close to the IBB.
Brent
Well, one of the things about the differences in the other sports is that trying to take away the star player means that the lesser players have greater opportunities. If you put three guys on Reggie Wayne, you are welcome to do so, but then Dallas Clark is going to run wild on you. You can guard Lebron with three guys, but then Boobie Gibson is going to clang corner threes all night (ok, bad example), and if you try to pick on a guy's backhand, he isn't going to have to run as much and will be able to be in better position and so on.
ReplyDeleteBut I think the analogy does work for the IBB. If you walk a guy, the next guy does get a greater opportunity - he gets an extra guy on base to hit with. And that will make him a more productive hitter.
The analogy isn't perfect, but it works well enough for me. At some point it is a matter of taste, and that's fine. And at some level, maybe the penalty should be greater. Like if you walk a guy without throwing a strike, the next guy starts with a 2-0 count. That might be fun.
Paul hit the nail on the head pointing out the key reason why the analogies don't work. The offense can still counter the double/triple team. The Hack-a-Shaq is closer but still not similar. When you foul Shaq down low you are saying instead of allowing this contested layup for two points, I want to force Shaq to make 2 uncontested shots for the same two points. The maximum scoring potential on the play with no hacking is two points. The max scoring potential at the free throw line is also two points. Shaq is given the opportunity to counter the strategy by making the shots. With an IBB, the batter has zero opportunity to maximize the plate appearance. He's forced to take a single base without the chance for a bigger result.
ReplyDeleteI would love it if there were some rule change to penalize (in addition to just the base on balls) a pitcher for throwing zero strikes in an at bat. I think getting two bases might be good. Or, what if after 4 straight balls they brought out a tee?
ReplyDeleteAll very interesting. I think Joe's point is that the IBB just FEELS so wrong. The pitcher doing everything he can to keep the batter from reaching base, and the batter doing everything he can to get on base -- that's the primary battlefield of baseball. For the pitcher to just LET the batter get on base seems like the game itself is being undermined, in a way that is different than other strategic moves.
ReplyDeleteBut I still disagree. It's still a strategy, and not completely unique to baseball. I like the punt returner example. For a fan, watching a Devin Hester run out on the field on 4th down and feeling that anticipation is not unlike when Albert Pujols steps into the box. And the air goes out of the game for a moment when the punter kicks it short and out of bounds to keep it out of Hester's hands. But even though GIVING the other team yards concedes the central battlefield of football (the location of the ball on the field), sometimes you do it.
Thanks, Joe, for taking the time to read the comments and engaging with me on this issue.
People will hate this because it would get the fabric of the game good and disheveled, but you could change the rules to allow any team receiving a walk the option of using a Designated Runner to take that base, with the batter receiving a new at-bat, e.g. count reverts to 0-0. Once the Designated Runner leaves the basepath either by scoring, making an out or when the inning ends he’s removed from and cannot re-enter the game.
ReplyDeleteThe intentional walk would still be useful for setting up the force or the double-play, but would be less so for pitching around a star hitter.
I suppose if there arose a future scenario wherein the league wanted to discourage use of the intentional (or unintentional intentional) walk, the league could implement a rule where the next hitter is automatically awarded a ball after an intentional walk (or after any 4-pitch non-intentional walk).
ReplyDeleteDidn't they have a scene in Pride of the Yankees where Lou Gehrig hits a home run by standing at the edge of the batter's box in order to reach a pitch as he was being intentionally walked?
ReplyDeleteThis seems like the type of post that invariably leads to someone making an analogy involving some obscure sport, such as cricket. So wherefore art thou, cricket guy?
ReplyDeleteI think the best way to make Joe's point is that it's a way of basically avoiding to face a player at all rather than attempting to shut him down. Let's say we had some kind of ridiculous mega-athlete, like Lebron and Wilt and Fitzgerald and Megatron and Bonds and Federer and Usain Bolt all rolled up into one dude. He can shoot (and make) buckets against a double team, can catch footballs over triple coverage, has a deadly forehand and backhand, as well as a perfect free throw record. Also, he will hit a home run every at bat. In every sport, this player will absolutely beat you no matter what crazy strategy you use to defend him, barring completely unrealstic things like an 11-on-1 defense. But in baseball you can just give the guy a base. Unless maybe this guy is so good that he swings and connects on the intentional balls. Which is a dumb ritual to begin with...there's really no way in baseball to just like, give the guy first base? I'm not a math expert but to me this kind of means that your slugging percentage can never really reach above 1.000 over a long season, since you'd just get walked every time if that were the case. Maybe that ceiling is what's bothering Joe.
ReplyDeleteOne poster got it right...it is very similar to just kicking the ball out of bounds, but to me there are some key differences...one, kicking OOB takes some skill (while anyone can issue an IBB), and two, the kickoff is only a small part of football. But I see the point.
A friend and I regularly discuss how incredibly odd baseball is in the current landscape of sports, and point #1 comes up regularly. Another point that has been brought up is that Baseball is the only popular sport that is not played in a "linear" format, rather is played "out into space," and where out of bounds (foul territory) is actually in play if the player is on the ground or in the air. Just some quirks I thought I'd shed light on, and some more reasons to love the game.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a pitcher, I would not want my manager to put me in a situation where I can't walk the next batter.
ReplyDeleteIf I put myself there -- by choice or mistake -- or I'm the reliever who comes in with the bases loaded, okay, my problem.
But when the hitter knows I have no place to put him, that gives him an advantage, and it puts extra pressure on me. If I'm somewhat erratic and subject to a control problem (like Burnett), that's something I don't need.
Another major difference between baseball and the other major US team sports is that its playing field has only one axis of (near) symmetry. If you have a large mirror (and ideally a cold beverage of your preference) handy the next time you watch a game on the tube, situate the mirror so that you can watch the proceedings in the mirror. Then just kick back and chuckle as batters run to third base after putting the ball in play, look on in awe as the speedburner on 2nd base takes off and swipes first base (yes, baseball scribes, it is possible to steal first base when watching in a mirror), curse the family name of one of your local nine when he violates a cardinal rule of baseball-in-a-mirror by making the first (or third) out of an inning at first base, blog that your team's first base coach might be the worst first base coach in MLB history after he holds a runner at first base that surely would have scored had he been sent home on the play, weigh whether reteJ's lack of range at second base is problematic enough now that he should be moved over to shortstop for the remainder of his career, take a bathroom break (or grab another cold beverage) every time notgnihsaW noR brings in one of his righthanded relievers to turn around a switch-hitter to the left side of the plate, etc..
ReplyDeleteAre you sure it takes no skill to intentionally walk a batter? This guy might disagree.
ReplyDeleteWhen you double team a center or a wide receiver, it exploits a weakness in the other team: the power forward, or the other receiver, or what-have-you.
ReplyDeleteThe trade-off is that not-as-good other player is now UNDERcovered and might burn you.
When you IBB a player, it exposes the weakness of the opposing team: the next hitter (or two, or three). And again, the tradeoff is that the not-as-good next guy in the lineup might burn you.
I didn't read all the comments, so this may be a duplication. The IBB is good for setting up the double play, it doesn't always have to be about avoiding the opponents big bat. Must happen a lot in the NL, walk the #8 man and make the pitcher beat you with his bat.
ReplyDeleteI loathe IBBs about 95+% of the time.
ReplyDeleteYet that doesn't make Joe's analysis here correct in my view. While individual players come up one at a time in a set order, there is no obligation to "beat" any of those players. In fact the obligation is to "beat" the other team.
Forcing a team to win with a lesser option is of equal validity whether you are double teaming a star player in football or basketball or walking a star in baseball to force a lesser player to beat you.
It isn't fun as a fan to watch the star get walked or double or triple teamed or hack a shaq'ed etc. etc. etc. But they are each at least somewhat viable strategies for beating the other team.
The three things that I thought of as possibly being analogies were from football (and came from the anti-competition theme), (1) what Brent mentioned about a football defense intentionally allowing the other team to score near the end of the game as a means to get the ball back with time still on the clock, (2) a player intentionally choosing to fall down rather than score to allow more time to come off the clock, and (3) a football team opting for an intentional safety.
ReplyDeleteI think all 3 are rare (I can only think of 1 example of the last...NE Patriots against Denver in 2004 I believe). The first and third are essentially giving the other team points by intentionally choosing to not compete on the play. The middle one is a choice to sacrifice getting points by stopping competing on the play. Anyway all 3 would seem to share the theme of avoiding competition for that particular play.
Anonymous (October 20, 2010 1:07 PM) said...
ReplyDelete"This seems like the type of post that invariably leads to someone making an analogy involving some obscure sport, such as cricket. So wherefore art thou, cricket guy?"
When limited overs cricket (40 or 50 overs a side, team with highest number of runs wins regardless of number of wickets taken) took off in a big way in the 1970s, a team trying to defend a low total would often resort to the negative tactic of bowling wide of the leg stump, i.e., behind the batsman. You wouldn't need to know much about the game to realise that scoring from this type of delivery would be difficult. The problem was overcome by the umpires being instructed to call "no ball" on any delivery wide delivery – batting side is awarded one run, the ball has to be bowled again. Stamped the problem out pronto.
Point of order: "Wherefore art thou" means "Why are you".
In Cricket it's not possible for the bowler to avoid the coonfrontation with the batter. If the bowler bowls the ball too high or wide for the batter to hit the umpire awards the batting team with a run and the bowl is redone. Thus attempts to avoid the batter isn't possible (you have to re-do) and if you try then you gift the batting team a run.
ReplyDeleteThe only way for the bowler to bowl to a batter he doesn't want to is to bowl balls that the batter has trouble with (eg balls that swing inward or outward) or in legal places that the batter has trouble being productive with (eg at his head or at his toes). Translated to baseball if the batter crushes inside fastballs work with bendy off spead stuff on the outside. Or in other works pitch well and smart or pay the consequences.
I was also pleased to see the IBB punished. But I'm not opposed to it. From the run expectancy figures Joe put up earlier if you IBB the batter you are also gifting the other team a higher run expectancy. So it is a strategy that comes at a competitive cost.
1. It's near-universal that the IBB stinks, and takes a lot away from the game.
ReplyDelete2. Easy fix: simply award the batter 2 bases. This takes away the possible double play ball. This immediately puts the hitter into SCORING POSITION. This moves baserunners up two bases, which will often result in a free RUN. It therefore eliminates almost any possible advantage for the pitcher, and thus, the vile IBB will vanish immediately.
And it's hardly a radical rule change; things like introducing the DH were SIGNIFICANTLY wilder and more far-reaching.
Simple fix, no more hideous IBB's.
I think the closest thing to an IBB in another sport would be when a basketball team has a 3 point lead with only a few seconds left and they foul on purpose to force the the other team to foul line negating the possibility of a game tying 3 point shot. Like the IBB it take no skill to bear hug a guy as soon as the ball is inbounded. Like the IBB it prevents the trailing team to do what it is otherwise allowed to do, which is take a shot. Just like the IBB where a "player is given a base to prevent him from hitting" an intentional foul is in effect "give a player a trip to the line so that he can't tie it with a 3."At least with hack-a-shaq there is some real strategy involved because if shaq is fouled intentionally without the ball he gets 2 shots and his team gets the ball back. Who ever is coaching shaq knows he's taking a calculated risk by leaving shaq in a tight game because there is a chance that he will be fouled upon getting a touch in the low block or after a defensive rebound. In other words the guy coaching shaq can at least take measures to PREVENT it by subbing shaq on the defensive end in a tight game or running the offense through another guy. The hitter has now way of preventing the IBB and likewise the manger can't change his the order of his lineup. I agree with joe that the other sports comparisons like double teaming wide outs and preventing a great tennis players from using a forehand are poor ones because those are at least somewhat preventable. A wide out could be sent in motion or the coach could play more 4 and 5 WR sets forcing the defense to change its approach. Or the tennis player could hit more angled shots to force his opponent to return shots to his forehand side. The ibb is and the intentional foul of the guy receiving an in bound are virtually unpreventable. If something is unpreventable it kills the suspense because we all know the end result before it happens. Ain't suspense what makes sports so great?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ron...sorta. I don't think the Shaq analogy works, but I do think it is similar to when a team is up by 2 points with, say, 5 seconds left and they foul a guy so his team does not have the opportunity to shoot a 3.
ReplyDeleteDamn.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is extremely easy to IBB someone, the pitcher still has to execute. I can think of numerous times where that hasn't happened off the top of my head: Miguel Cabrera reached out and sharply hit a ball that came too close to the plate on an attempted intentional ball a couple years ago, and a long time ago the orioles lost a game when the pitcher made a wild pitch with the winning run on third.
ReplyDeleteI haven't given this subject half as much thought as Joe has, but I have hated intentional walks since I was about 9 or 10 years old. I had just started watching baseball and obviously had no sort of strategic understanding of the game. I think the exchange went something like this:
ReplyDelete10-yr-old me: "Dad, what is he doing?"
My father: "They're walking the batter on purpose."
Me: "Gee, that's dumb."
It was an ingrained, instinctual, primal reaction. Several years later, in a high school game, my coach called for an IBB and I almost walked off the mound (unfortunately, in our league, you didn't have to throw the 4 balls; the manager just had to come out and tell the umpire to award the batter first base). I think a big part of the reason Joe and I (and the rest of you in our camp) feel this way is that baseball, at its heart, is the individual battle between pitcher and hitter. Your first experience with the game as a child isn't as part of a team on a field with umpires and uniforms; it's in your back yard, and your dad is tossing you a wiffle ball underhanded. You're swinging your big red Fred Flintstone bat, and the only rule you know is Three Strikes and You're Out. The intentional pass is cowardly and statistically untenable, sure. But the real reason we hate it is that it antagonizes the very first thing we ever learned about the game - hitters want to get on base, and pitchers want to get them out.
Also, Joe is spot on with his kickoff-out-of-bounds analogy. That's the only example here from any other sport that comes close to the IBB. You give up field position (first base) to prevent a score from occurring on that particular play, but in doing so, you increase the opponent's likelihood of scoring later on that drive (or inning).
I agree with Brent- a quarterback taking the knee is saying, in effect, "I don't want to run an actual play, because that would give the opposing team a chance to accomplish something. I'd rather just waste time and make sure they DON'T get a chance to make a nice play that would enable them to get the ball back and score."
ReplyDeleteAnd, in the old days of college basketball, a team playing stall-ball was doing much the same thing.
Oh, and I also find it pretty hilarious that everybody who commented so far in defense of the IBB has completely and utterly ignored the statistical data that Joe provided in his original post, which demonstrates pretty clearly that if you intentionally walk batters, you give up more runs over the course of a season than you would if you pitched to them.
ReplyDeleteMany good comments on the strategic analogs of the IBB. But let's think of it from the fan's point of view. It is deathly boring. It eliminates the central confrontation of the game; batter vs pitcher.
ReplyDeleteWith the effect on the fan in mind. I think the best analogy is to the four corners in basketball. Which, of course, led to rule changes that eliminated that strategy.
The IBB is rare enough (average 32 per team in the AL this year, 48 in the NL), that I don't think it is worth while changing the rules, but if it became much more common I could support a rule change.
Somebody with great data manipulation skill could go through an entire league season and try to see how many IBBs really make sense. (Using regressed park adjusted platoon figures and Win Expectancy based on that.) My guess is that the results would show that the number of correct IBBs would be less than we are seeing.
The IBB of the number 8 hitter to pitch to the pitcher may look good at first glance, but we have to remember how very much better off you are when the pitcher leads off, not the top of the order.
It isn't true that an IBB takes no skill. I remember Miguel Cabrera getting an RBI base hit when the pitcher left the intentional ball too close to the plate. I don't remember exactly when, but it was when he played for Florida.
ReplyDeleteThe only play more abhorrent for me is the kneel down in football. I think they should institute a rule that in the last two minutes that if the ball is not moved forward the clock stops. Make a team hold the lead for 60 minutes. Also, like the rest of the game, the player should not be down until touched, which would allow a defensive player a free shot at the QB if they tried the "victory formation".
ReplyDeleteIBBs are no fun to watch and may indeed be a bad strategy. But the team is responsible for trying to win the game under the existing rules, not for make the game fun for me to watch. I think this applies equally to all the strategies Keith, Joe and others have discussed. It's MLB'S job to write the rules.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, I get fed up when a team using five pitchers in the eighth inning, complete with mound conferences, warmup tosses, etc. It sucks the life out of watching the game. But a manager is completely within their rights to do this if he thinks he's giving his team the best chance to win.
Whether IBBs, kneeldowns, etc. are a good strategy is an entirely separate issue from whether they make the game fun to watch.
What if the rules said that for each additional new pitcher past the second in an inning, the opposing team is credited with a run on the scoreboard? (I'm not seriously proposing this, but it would certainly make a lot of seventh innings shorter and more fun for me to watch, obviously at the cost of creating other problems.) Details aside, it is the league's responsibility to set up the rules so as to prevent a strategy that they/the fans think is boring.
The four-corners analogy that kds mentioned is a good one. When Dean Smith was using it, it was perfectly legal. For that matter, you could argue that it ultimately improved the game by forcing the league to implement a very good rule change, namely the shot clock.
Count a vote here for hack a Shaq as most similar
ReplyDeleteYou just need to make a rule requiring the catcher to stay in his box when the pitcher is in a set position. The penalty could be a "balk" allowing the runners to move up one base.
ReplyDeleteYou'd still have plenty of "don't give him anything to hit" walks which add up to the same thing. But the symmetry would be better, even if the results would likely be similar.
One of the many things that makes baseball unique is that it's an individual sport wrapped up in a team sport. That's why I have a problem with solely losing advanced metrics because I think that ignores too much of the team aspect. IBB is chicken on an individual basis, but is good strategy for a team. The guy you are trying to get to might be the weakness of the team that you're trying to expose.
ReplyDeleteThe skill involved isn't the throwing of the 4 pitches (which is why they shouldn't make them do it) the skill is dealing with the situation you just created.
I hate the IBB and also love it when it blows up in someone's face.
I wonder which teams incurred the nost intentional walks this year? Maybe the solution is not to have crappy hitters surrounding your best hitter.
Joe, you are dead wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe IBB is a legitimate strategy. Would you deny a pitchers right to pitch around a great hitter? What about throwing only curve balls to a fastball hitter? What makes baseball so great, are the finesse tactics and subtle moves on the field and the IBB is certainly one of them.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteI love your insight on sports, snuggies, infomercials, basically anything under the sun. But this playoff season in baseball is exhausting me. I can only handle so many of these new-age statistics, and what I think of as a liberal/modern approach to baseball.
BABiP? What does that matter? If a hitter fails to put the ball in play on a consisten basis, the point is irrelevant. Fielding zones, WAR, OPS+... while they seem useful in concept, they are so abstract (and the ingredients to these formulas invisible and seemingly subjective) that they will never become mainstream in baseball.
And the intentional walk has its merit. Managers realize the chance for a big inning goes up the more men they put on base, and there are without question some big innings given up following allowing a free base runner (see: Molina example). While there are some big-inning IBB failures, managers walk a guy to get the match-up they want, and try to hit the defensive homer with a double play.
I see the numbers posted on run expectations. I get that. But, the IBB is generally a last-ditch effort to end a threat with a double play. Most managers will take the threat of a weaker opposing hitter getting an extra base hit against a tough pitching match-up in exchange for the opportunity to get out of a jam with one pitch.
The IBB has its place in the late innings. It would be insane to pitch to a solid hitter with RISP and 1st base vacant with a 1-run lead and less than two outs.
Taking the next step on the "Balk" Idea (@BellyLard), what if every walk also advanced the all runners one base? (every walk, not just IBBs)
ReplyDeleteIMO, the reason games are too darn slow is because we don't put a premium on putting the ball in play. Increase the penalty for avoiding the strike zone (O/T: I also think pickoff throws should be counted as Balls.) Not only would that end the IBB as we know it, imagine how much faster the game would go if every pitcher pitched like he played for the Twins...
Without the IBB we wouldn't have had one of greatest plays in baseball & WS history:
ReplyDelete"Oct 18, 1972 - With the rainout yesterday‚ game 5 is quickly re-scheduled for this afternoon. With runners at 2B and 3B and a 3-2 count‚ the A's fake an intentional walk and strike out Johnny Bench looking. Blue Moon Odom strikes out 11‚ but Cincinnati's Jack Billingham is the winner 1-0."
[http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=johnny_bench_1947&page=chronology]
Can anyone explain why Ross Gload is the only Phillies player allowed to pinch hit? Send in Sweeney!
ReplyDeleteRemember, though, that run matrices are based on generic situations - the hitter(s) you face next are the exact same as the one you walked. There are also situations where you can increase the "average" number of runs scored, but reduce the chance of scoring one run (and vice versa). Runs come from bunching of events, i.e. you don't get .72 runs for drawing a leadoff walk.
ReplyDeleteBut essentially, remember that you are always exchanging the free base for (in addition to the double play scenario) the opportunity to face a weaker hitter. Always. If you take away the double-play possibility, it means you're removing the 4th hitter to face the 6th, or maybe the 5th to face the 7th. That can be (I'm guessing) 300 points of OPS.
So, basically what Kevin said. In entertainment terms, I hate the IBB - I like the mano a mano part of the game a lot. Bypassing that with a non-event event (either way you look at it) takes a lot of the armchair enjoyment out of a game.
I agree with anonymous: Four straight balls, the batter takes second and runners are forced up accordingly. Make it hurt.
ReplyDeleteThis goes for any four straight balls, intentional or not, so there is no judgement call involved. If you can't throw even one strike, it should really hurt.
It might have stopped all the shenanigans when Bonds couldn't get a pitch to hit. Or maybe not. But either way, the defense would pay.
2 things: closest analogy to intentional walk is a football team, backed up in their own end zone, intentionally taking a safety to try to get the onside kiick on ensuing kickoff and avoiding potential touchdown.
ReplyDeleteSecond, one comment from origian IBB column. The A-Rod situation was not analagou because he had 1st and 2nd. When watching game with my friend I made comment that you don't walk him there and put an extra man in scoring position. As I said at time, if it were 2nd and 3rd that late in game with Cano on deck, dollars-to-donuts they IBB Rodriguez.
QB spikes the ball to stop the clock.
ReplyDeleteYou can do that, too, Joe. It's a bargain. I give you one of my downs, but you'll stop the clock from running.
I seem to remember George Brett being intentionally walked with the bases loaded. Wasn't this a legitimate strategy to reduce the number of runs he drove in?
ReplyDeleteHey Joe,
ReplyDeleteWatching the Yanks/Texas game 6, and the Yankees just intentionally walked Hamilton with 2 outs and a man on third. Hamilton promptly scored from first(!) on a double hit by Vlad Guerrero to put Texas up 3-1, and I thought of you immediately. Another good IBB day.
P.S. Nelson Cruz just followed that up with a 2-run homer-- the IBB karma continues!
I thought of this blog too.
ReplyDeleteJoe, I think the bigger point is that there is no defending AGAINST the IBB. A tennis player can try to run around the backhound and hit an inside-out forehand, negating the effect of trying to avoid it. A QB can throw into double-coverage; a basketball player can force a shot. In all of these instances, the team/player that is the object of the supposedly non-competitive move still has a strategic decision to make and a chace to negate the non-competitive move. But an IBB is a finality in and of itself. If there were something, anything the batter could do to combat against it, then it would be more akin to these other scenarios. Maybe this isn't your beef with it, but it's precisely what's always bothered me.
ReplyDeleteIan,
ReplyDeleteI think your link sums most of it up.
For all of you fine folks who seem to think punishing the pitcher for losing the plate by setting up a hitters count immediately... get your asses off the couch and go pitch! Or try anyway...
tools-of-ignorance
Never thought I would find a Joe Posnanski post so unconvincing. Let's take this selection:
ReplyDelete"Keith's examples -- hitting a ball away from a player's forehand or not throwing to a receiver covered by a shutdown corner -- are I think utterly non-comparable. Not throwing to a covered receiver is simply an obvious part of being a quarterback. And hitting away from a player's best stroke in tennis is an attempt to EXPOSE THE WEAKNESSES of an opponent."
I have no idea why you couldn't just as easily say "pitching around a team's best player is simply an obvious part of being a pitcher. And avoiding a team's best player in baseball and pitching instead to the crappy #5 hitter who follows him is an attempt to EXPOSE THE WEAKNESSES of an opponent."
I hate to say it, but unless Joe comes up with some better arguments, Keith wins this round.
Didn't the Yankees also IBB twice in a rown to load the bases with 1 out in Game 6? I mean, I guess Murphy(?) could have GDP'd, but man... that's a whole lot of hoping the s#!t doesn't hit the fan.
ReplyDeletePoz says,
ReplyDelete"I don't think there ARE similar strategies in other sports. I think baseball is, at least among the most popular American sports, the only one that offers an opportunity quite like the intentional walk."
How 'bout, in football, the "Prevent Defense"? As the IBB gives up a base, the PD gives up the "underneath" pass.
With the IBB you're giving the opponent a higher probability of scoring, in exchange for, in your mind, a higher probability of getting an out.
With the PD you're giving the opponent a higher probability of completing a pass, in exchange for, in your mind, a higher probability of winning the game.
Both strategies can backfire.
How about a major rule change. Every time a player is walked, the team has an option of sending in a surrogate runner to go to first base, and have the same batter start over again with a new at bat. This would completely eliminate not just IBB, but the whole practice of "pitching around" a strong batter. It would mess up forever all the old stat comparisons, but it would make the game so much better it would be worth it.
ReplyDelete