The Poscast With Bill James
So, I was in Toronto last week working on this Jose Bautista story that could run next week -- more on that fun experience when the story runs -- and I saw something that drove me nuts. Anyone who cares would know just how much I despise the intentional walk. I despise it because it's often (usually) illogical. I despise it because it's always (always) anti-competitive.
Here was the situation: The Blue Jays and White Sox were tied in the eighth inning. The series was a cavalcade of small-ball gobbledygook*, infields played in, suicide squeezes blown, the sacrifice samba.
*Part of the ongoing series: "Using words that are supposed to be out of date."
In any case, score was tied, two men were out, and Corey Patterson singled. This brought Jesse Crain in to pitch for Chicago. And this brought Jose Bautista to the plate. Now, I happen to think there are ten thousand good reasons to go to the ballpark. But there's little question that "watching Jose Bautista hit with the game on the line," is one of the better ones. The man is utterly locked in. His plate appearance in that moment creates all the tension and excitement and drama that baseball can offer.
Two things then happened, one after another, that destroyed the moment.
1. Corey Patterson stole second base without a throw (and to Chicago's unrepentant glee).
2. Jose Bautista was intentionally walked.
There are vague comparisons in other sports. But I would argue this is no killjoy in football, basketball, hockey or soccer quite like THAT killjoy. It may be true, as John Updike wrote, that every true story has an anticlimax. But only baseball can suck the life out of a moment quite to that degree. I cannot stand that Patterson stole second base in that situation ... and yet, how can you argue with getting a runner into scoring position. I cannot stand that the White Sox intentionally walked Bautista, but with the score tied and probably the best hitter in the game at the plate, how can you argue with facing Juan Rivera (who promptly hit a weak grounder to short to end the inning).
It's a flaw in baseball's rules, I believe, that allows the intentional walk. The walk -- as Bill James has said many times (and says again in this week's Poscast) -- was supposed to be penance for a pitcher not throwing strikes to the hitter. In 1879, it took nine balls for a walk, and in 1880 it was reduced to eight balls. It became six balls in 1884 and five balls in 1885. As you can tell by the year-by-year rule chances, pitchers -- as you would expect them to do -- were using as many balls as they had to get hitters to swing at bad pitches.
In 1887, walks qualified as hits. Baseball's rules-makers were trying to do everything they could to get pitchers to throw the damn ball over the plate. Finally in 1888, four balls equaled a walk. In those years, the feeling was that a walk was something entirely controlled by the pitcher. In the years since then, we have come to see that the batter, more than the pitcher, is responsible for walks. Bill explains this too on the Poscast.
In any case, the walk in most situations is a suitable sanction for the pitcher (or reward for the hitter). A walk, after all, is almost as good as a hit.* Most of the time, the pitcher wants to avoid the walk and this will get him to attempt to put the ball over the plate
*One more aside: While in Toronto, I saw Adam Dunn come to the plate eight times. He struck out four times. He walked four times. So I asked Bill the question: If you had a player like Adam Dunn who did that for a whole season -- struck out half the time and walked half the time -- would it be worth having that player in the lineup. Bill said that even if the player played defense like Adam Dunn and ran like Adam Dunn, it would STILL be worth having him in the lineup with his .500 on-base percentage.
But there are obviously situations where the walk IS NOT much of a deterrent . These are times when the pitcher or an especially weak hitter is coming up next, when the hitter at the plate is so good that a walk seems better than the alternative, when the manager just decides it's time impose his will on the game. In these situations, the team would prefer to simply take the punishment -- like a corporation accepting the fine rather than facing the situation.
As I told Bill, I ALWAYS root against a team that intentionally walks a hitter. Always. If my best friend was on the mound, and he intentionally walked Jose Bautista with the game on the line, I would root for him to give up 100 runs. If the Indians teams of my childhood would somehow be put back together, and they reached the World Series, and they were one out away from winning the World Series, and first base was open, and the man at the plate was Hank Aaron, and the man on deck was Yuni Betancourt, and my hero Duane Kuiper was standing in his position at second base with tears rolling down his eyes because he was so close to winning a championship ... well, OK, let's not get ridiculous ridiculous, then I would accept the intentional walk. But only then.
All that said, I don't really know what to do about the intentional walk. I have suggested the idea of four straight balls being a two-base walk, but I know that can't work. And I don't really have any other great ideas. But on the Poscast, Bill James recommends a whole different way of eliminating the intentional walk. How is that?
I understand this, in the business, is known as a tease. Come on, I'm trying to push up those iTunes numbers. Plus if you tune in you will get to hear Bill James on blocking the plate, expanded playoffs and Charles Manson (with a little Barry Bonds thrown in).
The Poscast With Bill James.
Now you're on the trolley!
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw the post about the IBB, I figured it had to be because Guillermo Mota intentionally walked Yuni B just before Lucroy hit the walk-off squeeze.
ReplyDeleteThe Apple-hating crowd can go here:
ReplyDeletehttp://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/podcasts/joe_posnanski/
Or here for the direct, .mp3 link:
http://ht.cdn.turner.com/si/joe_posnanski/audio/2011/05/31/poscast011.mp3
Haven't heard how Bill James proposes to legislate the IBB walk yet, but I've given it some thought and here is what I was thinking. The key is that you must have some criteria in which to determine whether it was a IBB or not. Assuming it is ruled a IBB, the umpire gives the manager of the hitting team the option of taking his base (with all other runners in front of him moving the same number of bases) or starting the at bat over where now a walk is worth two bases (with other runners advancing accordingly). If the pitcher intentionally walks the hitter again, now the manager can take the walk (where his hitter advances two bases) or bat again with an IBB being worth 3 bases. This will clearly force the pitcher to challenge the hitter because if he does not, he is eventually giving up a HR (a 4 base IBB) to the batter.
ReplyDeleteRestrict the catcher from getting out from behind the plate. If a pitcher wants to avoid a hot hitter or set up a double play, that's fine, just pitch outside of the strike zone. My problem with an intentional walk is that it takes the offense out of the play(s). By requiring the pitcher to still throw near the plate (and batter), it gives the offense some opportunity to be involved in the play. It still requires skill by the pitcher to keep the ball outside of the batter's reach, but close enough to the catcher to catch or block. The pitcher assumes some risk of a passed ball, wild pitch or a ball tailing over the plate and the hitter making contact. It also gives more opportunity for a baserunner to steal. The possibilities of something happening, other than a walk, are there.
ReplyDeleteThere's one way to really lessen the number of IBBs without awarding extra bases to the batter: all runners advance one base, whether or not they're forced ahead. So Patterson on second, IBB to Batista - runners on first and third. Man on third, one out - an IBB scores the runner. It would make it more difficult to avoid a good hitter with a runner in scoring position. It would also give a lot more incentive to baserunners to steal second in front of good hitters, because you wouldn't be "taking the bat out of his hands" - an expression that really outlines how vile the IBB is.
ReplyDeleteYou could always just throw four really bad balls to walk a guy anyway, which is probably why nothing ever gets done about intentional walks. They even call it "the non-intentional intentional walk" on broadcasts. You'd have to define the IBB concretely so that you couldn't fudge the ruling and have endless arguments over awarding the extra base.
I like your idea Nightfly, because even in situations in which guys make the "non-intentional intentional walk" you're still making the pitcher "pitch." There's a chance that he misses his spot just outside and the hitter crushes it, or there's a chance that the hitter goes Vlad on the ball and pops it into right field for a hit. Whereas with the intentional walk, there's very little chance of anything happening besides the walk.
ReplyDelete@stephen-
ReplyDeleteThank you!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoe:
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure the player Bill James was referring to as "Matt Palmer" during the Poscast was Dean Palmer (Rangers 3b). Matt Palmer pitches for the Angels.
Also the UNLV player he couldn't remember was probably Larry Johnson.
I like Bill James' idea for getting rid of the intentional walk.
ReplyDeleteI think managers use the IBB as often as they do because they've been burned in the past when they haven't used it.
I think the pain of watching Mark McGwire launch a titanic home run with 1st base open coupled with the incessant questioning by the media, "Why didn't you walk him?" emphatically drives home the perceived benefit of the IBB.
I think this type of experience sways manager strategy in the moment more than a book of numbers showing the lack of effectiveness of the IBB.
How about, when a player is walked, a designated runner is place on first, and then the same batter begins a new at bat? The effect is the same (a runner on base), but you can't pitch around a batter...
ReplyDeleteMaybe the dumbstruck Tommy Lasorda forgot that IBBs were legal back in Game #6 of 1985 NLCS. Why he ever had a shaky Tom Niedenfuer pitch to Jack Clark in the top of ninth inning with 2 outs, 2 runners on and first base open was beyond 54K of the 55K fans at Dodger Stadium that lovely afternoon. I can still see Pedro Guerrero slamming his glove to the turf like a left-fielder in Little League as Clark's deep drive flew over his head and well up into the left-field bleachers.
ReplyDeleteI believe Lasorda said he wanted a righty on righty match-up between Niedenfuer and Clark rather than face lefty swinging Andy Van Slyke who was on deck. However, Van Slyke was in a horrible slump the entire 1985 post-season while Clark was seeing the ball really well. Never, ever will I understand that managerial decision by Lasorda.
A bit off topic but Joe's column sparked a thought on what worked well in our high-powered weekly young adult whiffle ball games over 30 years ago....
A strike of any kind, swinging, called or foul would wipe the slate clean of any ball count. So, if on a 3 ball/0 strike count a strike could be obtained by the pitcher the count would then become 0-1. If the count was 3/2 and the payoff pitch was fouled away, the pither had the batter down 0/2. It really made for some classic whiffle ball contests. I normally pitched and I loved the concept. Walks of any kind in a fun league tend to suck.
This is why podcasts were a bad idea. Can't listen.
ReplyDeleteI love the above idea of making the catcher stay in his crouch. As the vast majority of intentional walks occur with men on base, the team could probably still get by with an intentional walk, but would have to worry about wild pitches and passed balls.
ReplyDeleteAs mind numbing as the intentional walk is, it is worse at the end of football games (or at the half) when teams take a knee or otherwise do something non competitive to run 45 seconds off the clock or force a timeout.
My fix for this would be that for the team with the lead in the last 5 minutes of the game or either team in the last 2 minutes of the first half, any running play must go beyond the line of scrimmage, otherwise the clock will be reset to where it was at the start of the play, and not restarted until the snap. Complete passes behind the line of scrimmage that were not advanced beyond it would be enforced the same way. This would force teams to play for 60 minutes and keep the defenses a factor until the end. It would make for many more exciting endings and take away the mind numbing kneel downs.
This is an argument between people who watch baseball as a series of exhibitions and those who have a more vested interest in the outcome of particular games.
ReplyDeleteSo, who was more intensely involved in the Toronto-Chicago game? The thousands who turned up at the Rogers Centre and the thousands more Toronto and Chicago fans who watched on TV, listened on radio and checked the result by other means? Or a peripatetic* journalist who's turned up solely to watch one player and could not care less about who won and who lost?
*to go alongside "gobbledegook".
There may be, as Joe says, "ten thousand good reasons to go to the ballpark", but 1 through 9000 are "to see your team win".
The joy of seeing your team win only comes when the other team is trying its best to win too.
If Bautista had not been walked in the situation Joe describes, then one of only two conclusions could be drawn . . . 1) the Chicago manager was incompetent, 2) the fix was in.
I have no trouble at all with the IBBB. It's just another strategy in a sport with a myriad of them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
One thing it does do is make baseball slightly more of a team game. "You want to base your team's chances on one star player? Fine. We'll pitch around him."
— Graphite
Another thing you could do is have a player get TWO bases if you walk him on four consecutive balls.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, maybe I've been playing too much co-rec softball.
Whenever the topic of IBBs comes up, I always think of the 1996 World Series, Game 4, extra innings, tie game, 2 out, runners on *1st and 2nd*, and Bobby Cox intentionally walks Bernie Williams. Then Wade Boggs comes up and fouls off a gazillion pitches from an 0-2 count and draws an unintentional walk off of Steve Avery to force the go-ahead run home. Ugh.
ReplyDeleteYou know what though, with runners on 2nd and 3rd a lot of people would approve of the IBB to Williams there. (See the comment on Dodgers-Cardinals 1985 above.) But loading the bases sharply narrows the margin of error vs. the next batter, and Boggs made the Braves pay for it. What if Lasorda had IBB'd Clark and then Niedenfuer walked Van Slyke to force a run home and the inning fell apart from there?
I love your work, and I don't know why this bothers me (and I certainly don't expect you to care that this would bother someone), but don't you feel a bit ridiculous renaming a podcast after yourself? Isn't it dangerously close to talking about yourself over and over in the third person, even if it is done with a wink, although I can't really tell whether there is a wink?
ReplyDeleteI read and enjoy you regularly and grew up reading the Baseball Abstract, so I must say I was extremely disappointed listening to your and Bill James' uninformed discussion around the Buster Posey injury.
ReplyDeleteYou were primarily to blame, because you led off the subject with a blatantly false premise: That the issue was catchers blocking the plate. Posey wasn't blocking the plate. He was two feet in front (up the 1b line) of the plate, on his knees trying to field a thrown ball, and turning his upper body around to attempt a swipe tag on the runner (and he had dropped the ball, so Cousins would have scored).
The actual issue is that baseball doesn't enforce runner's interference rules at the plate as it does at other bases. If Cousins had done the same thing at 1b (which is similar to home because you can run through the base without penalty) he would have been called out for interference and probably fined and suspended.
I am beginning to love the podcast.
ReplyDeleteThe mechanics for posting comments, however, is so bad as to be comical.
Hilarie:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your comment about a similar play at 1B. The difference is that a 1Bman would never stand astride first base while catching a throw, which would be similar to how catchers stand astride the plate.
I think the solution to reduce home plate collisions is pretty simple (and maybe this is what James suggested in the Pozcast). Strictly enforce the obstruction rules at the plate. If a catcher puts any part of his body in the baseline prior to catching the ball, obstruction will be called and the runner ruled safe. If the umpires do that, then runners won't feel the need to "get" to the plate through the catcher, because it will be rare for the catcher to stand in the way, knowing that he is giving the run away that way. I supposed that there will still be occassions when the throw beats the runner by so much that the catcher has time to catch it, move back into position in the baseline for the tag and then there could be a collision, but that is very unlikely and in that case, yeah, the ump could then enforce the rules about interference against the runner. But most collisions would be avoided by stringently enforcing the obstruction rule.
WRT Adam Dunn. Consider a team where everybody strikes out 50% of the time and walks 50% of the time. One time in eight (statistically) you will get three strikeouts in a row, and one time in eight three walks. Thus, in a 9 inning game, you are likely to have one 1-2-3 inning, but also have an inning that starts with three walks, leading to a likelihood of three runs in that inning. Expectations would be for about 5-6 runs per game.
ReplyDeleteIn real life, though, it's far better than that. The best average outcome for a pitcher is lots of innings with three walks and three strikeouts (for zero runs). Even if every walk is four wide ones and every strikeout is three whiffs, that's 21 pitches per inning. Starters would leave the game after five innings, forcing the bullpen to over work. That's a huge strategic advantage. Given a real batter or three interspersed, even with all hits singles, some outs would also drive in runs.
What if the batter had the choice to accept a free base from a walk, intentional or not, as well as a HBP? There would have to be some slight consequences to declining the free base though, so that it wasn't abused. There could be restrictions placed on how many times or under what circumstances this could be allowed to keep it from getting out of hand.
ReplyDelete1) The batter would have the chance to decline when either the fourth ball is thrown to him, the catcher signals for an intentional walk, or he is hit by a pitch.
2) The batter would not be allowed to change his mind during an AB after he has chosen to decline a free base.
3) Consequences of a batter declining a free base:
a) If a batter hits a foul ball when he has two strikes against him and after declining a free base in the AB, the batter is out as if it was a bunt.
b) If the batter swings and misses at strike three and the ball gets away from the catcher, the batter is out and any existing base runners would not be able to advance.
c) Any existing base runners would not be able to advance on a wild pitch, passed ball, or stolen base until the AB in question is completed.
d) If the pitcher hits the batter with a pitch in an AB after a free base is declined, no base would be awarded and the umpires could still use their discretion to determine intent as they would on a normal HBP. If a substitution is made due to an injury after an HBP and a free base has already been declined in the AB, then the subsitute batter is under the same restrictions as the batter he is replacing.
4) Ways for an exising base runner to advance after a free base is declined:
a) If the pitcher commits a balk, then any existing base runners would still be awarded a free base.
b) The fielding team could still attempt to pick off a base runner, however if a pick off attempt is made any base runners are free to advance normally until time is requested and granted.
brhalbleib --
ReplyDeleteThe catcher collision topic came up specifically because of the Posey injury. The error I pointed out was that J. Posnanski framed the question in that event as being catchers blocking the plate.
But that was not the issue. Posey was not blocking the plate. He was outside the base path fielding the ball.
That is why the 1b comparison is apt: At 1b, a runner who crashed into a fielder outside the basepath, facing away from the runner, and on his knees trying to field the ball would be out, fined, and suspended.
At home plate, baseball fans call it a "clean play."
@Graphite
ReplyDeleteIn what other sport does a team get to decide to just ignore the best player from their opponent?
Its anti competitive. Much like Joe, I don't like it when my team does it and I don't like it when done in any other game.
Bautista is hitting what, .350? So 65% of the time he's making outs. When the best hitters make outs 2/3 of the time, I just can't wrap my head around the idea of ever intentionally giving them a free base.
Just have a rule that the batter does not have to advance on a fourth ball - or on a HBP, for that matter.
ReplyDeleteOnce you've declined it, you can still take the walk next time there's a ball, but you can't change your mind after a strike - so you go 4-0, then the pitcher gets two strikes, and you can't then decide to go back and take the walk. Take the next pitch as a ball, and you get a walk; take it and find it's in the zone and the umpire's ringing you up.
Basically, you would just revert the count to three balls after the walk is declined.
@Chris: Actually, Bautista's on-base percentage is .502. So he makes an out just under half the time. A little of that is due to his 7 intentional walks, but even so.
ReplyDeleteGiven Bautista's power and the weak lineup around him, an intentional walk CAN be a good move in some situations. That's a really extreme case, though.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI do not know whether you will read this so far down on the post list, but I just want to say that, for me atleast, you don't need to tease the Poscast, especially with Bill James as the guest. I listen to a few different sports podcasts (some from the four-letter network) but as soon as I listened to yours it quickly moved to the top of my "must listen to" list. The guests are great, the insight great and banter is great. I just want to say well done and keep up the good work!
Frank in Newark, NJ
I think a simple solution would be for mlb to impose a rule much like the foul ball rule with an 0-2 count, where a 3-0 ball simply results in the count staying 3-0. That way the hitter would get at least one pitch to swing at (or a ball to chase). Most likely this would have the pleasant and game-speeding effect of pitchers going at hitters earlier in the count. After the batter's picked up a strike, if they want to walk him, so be it - at least the hitter has gotten a chance to hit, which is after all the whole point of the thing.
ReplyDeleteI like listening to the Poscasts, but was disappointed to find out this week that I must download ITunes first. I don't like ITunes and I don't particularly like being forced to use it in order to listen to a simple mp3 file. I didn't think this was that kind of blog.
ReplyDeleteMethinks basketball's end-of-game foul strategy is quite a bit worse. It makes otherwise good games become drawn-out and boring in the last minute, and it happens much much more often than the intentional walk.
ReplyDeleteI am a big fan of Joe, but I don't understand all the IBB-hate. I just consider it strategy. You are exploiting a weakness in the opposing team. Namely, the guy who hits behind Bautista. A wRC+ of 82 hitting cleanup? Come on. It's still a team game, you simply can't have Bautista and 8 replacement players and expect to succeed (not that the Blue Jays have that, but you get my point).
Also, the intentional walk is not used properly in many cases. We all know this. It blows up in a managers face all the time. Aren't they just getting punished for their own foolishness? How can you hate that? Why not just sit back and enjoy it?
Even worse than taking a knee to end the half or the game in football -- when a layer is about to score, then stops and kneels at the 1. Or a team on defense allowing the other team to score a TD so they can get the ball back with some time left on the clock.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there is another sport where you can give a free pass to a player on the other team: See "Hack-a-Shaq"
@Gnu the Gnarly: You don't have to download iTunes. See the third comment up there; I provided the page link and direct, .mp3 link. Bookmark the first link, because each week's Poscast can be found there (and if you're somewhat savvy, you can extract the .mp3 link from it or change the variables in the link for each new one so you don't have to use the pop-up player).
ReplyDeleteAnd about this being "that kind of blog", I think Joe just really likes Apple products, however flawed/annoying/ridiculously overpriced they are.
Joe, you make it sound so enticing to listen to the Poscast. However, I have listened to a couple of them, and I know the truth. As I've said before, you should stick to what makes you great. Long form recorded interviews are not what makes you great.
ReplyDeleteHey guys, I'm not American and don't understand quite everything about baseball, but could someone explain to me why the steal was a mistake? How would things have been better if the guy remained at first?
ReplyDeleteArnold, received knowledge says that if Patterson hadn't stole, the White Sox would have pitched to Bautista, because managers are loath to advance lead runners with intentional walks.
ReplyDeleteIf you then said that this is funny when you consider that the Sawx didn't contest Patterson's steal, I'd say you're right.
IMHO, the *real* stupid thing about Patterson's steal is that he took some small amount of risk taking second when he was likely 1) going to get there anyway, as a result of the intentional non-intentional walk that Bautista would have most likely gotten with the runner at first 2) going to score as well from first as from second on Bautista's tie-breaking homer.