Change to strike zone, intentional walks

[Benjamin Grimm]

A new strike zone could be on baseball's horizon and the old-fashioned intentional walk could be a thing of the past after both were agreed to by the competition committee at Major League Baseball's owners meetings this week, sources said.

Sources: Competition committee agrees to changes to strike zone, intentional walks

[Guest d'Kong76]

The strike zone is a joke anyways, varies from ump to ump and game to
game. TV makes it a bigger joke with graphics that don't even line up with
where the strike zone is and doesn't adjust for size of the player. I think the
pitcher should have to throw all four pitches in an intentional walk.

Stop tinkering with my game. What's next? Aluminum bats and a mercy rule?

[Frayed Knot]

Not sure that I buy the reasoning behind tweaking the strike zone. "the change is a reaction to a trend by umpires to call strikes on an increasing number of pitches below the knees." says the article, but then several of the opinions offered after that were vague on whether they thought it would accomplish what they intend.

And as big a proponent as I've been about getting rid of the dead time in the game, I've never seen the 'automatic' IW as the place to do it, or that the IW is even dead time to begin with.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

As a fan of a heavily-pitching-predicated contender/a team which prominently employs Bartolo Colon, I have some worry.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: And as big a proponent as I've been about getting rid of the dead time in the game, I've never seen the 'automatic' IW as the place to do it, or that the IW is even dead time to begin with.

I think this is where the issue is with me. I think MLB has taken aggressive measures to shorten games without having a serious philosophical discussion about what constitutes dead time.

I tend to think of mound conferences as part of the drama of baseball, and adequately policed by umps. Now, the pitching coach has 30 seconds to confer, and the clock starts as he's exiting the dugout, and so half his time is gone by the time he arrives, and he's got to talk to a guy who doesn't necessarily speak the same language particularly well, and what can really happen during such an exchange. And all the time the clock is being displayed on the scoreboard, creating the wrong sort of artificial drama, I think, for the fan.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Didn't MLB enact a rule recently about how much time the batter has to step into the batter's box? And is MLB they actually enforcing that rule? 'Cause that's how you shorten a game without having to remove elements that many fans would like kept in. Just watch an old game; the pitches come in one on the heels of the last one. Today, a pitch is made and then the batter steps out of the box and you could practically listen to In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida the whole long version before the batter steps in for the next pitch.

[Frayed Knot]

"Didn't MLB enact a rule recently about how much time the batter has to step into the batter's box?" -- Not a specific time, but a mandate that he not step out each time, etc.

"And is MLB [crossout]they[/crossout] actually enforcing that rule?" -- Of course not, which is at least part of the reason that this season's games have given back four of the celebrated seven minutes they knocked off of games from 2014.



I'm convinced that the biggest problem with the pace of game is more in attitude rather than rule changes. Maybe the actual time limits they've put into minor league games (complete with time clock enforcement techniques) will breed a generation of major leaguers who don't come up with the intricate step-out/glove-adjusting routines that the current crop takes as a divine right that, if forced to abandon, would screw up their entire career.

[Centerfield]

Things that take too long that I would like to see MLB shorten:

1. The off-season
2. The day after Opening Day
3. Off-days in general. Can we say all off-days will only be 18 hours long?
4. The amount of time spent talking about reducing the time of games.

Things that are just fine as is:

1. The length of baseball games. When I am home watching, there is nothing I'd rather watch. When I am at the game, there's no place I'd rather be. If I'm not watching, I don't care.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: 1. The length of baseball games. When I am home watching, there is nothing I'd rather watch. When I am at the game, there's no place I'd rather be. If I'm not watching, I don't care.

I'm surprised I haven't read a thinkpiece on why the added time will be good to bring millennials to the game because it's easier to multitask.

[nymr83]

I don't really care about the "intentional walk" change.
I don't like the change in the strike zone, but until they actually start disciplining bad umpires or replacing them with a computerized strike zone i don't think it is going to matter much as they all do what they want anyway.

[Edgy MD]

This is either apparently still on the burner, or Ken Davidoff has received old information.

It doesn't strike me as the sort of thing MLB and the MLBPA would be going back and forth on a week before spring training starts.

[Frayed Knot]

It's sort of just been moved up to the front burner.
Now that the CBA is behind them the two sides time to talk about the kind of stuff that's not under a deadline the way the meat of CBA issues are.

That said, I'm still in the same place that I was last May when this thread started: if they want to quicken the pace of play there are about 85 ways I'd get to before I'd hit on automating the IW, and if they want to tweak the strike-zone for some other reason I'm willing to listen to their logic but I have a hard time envisioning how it helps with this specific issue.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure about 85, but at least 60, yeah. It's just so uncreative.

The intentional walk and the trip to the mound are not without baseball drama. A bunch of umpires walking to the area behind home plate so they can put on headsets when they could be doing their transaction through an ever present communications device that they wear, that's an easy fix. Not pausing to allow teams to do their own video investigation before calling for a review is another.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure about 85, but at least 60, yeah. It's just so uncreative.

And I'd argue that automating it would detract from drama. It's not common but IWs don't always turn out the way they're designed as we've seen hits during them, wild pitches, and even a famous strikeout of a future Hall-of-Famer during a World Series game.
Plus the savings are minuscule. There were 932 intentional walks in MLB last season, or less than one for every 2.5 games. And this'll save, what?, maybe 20 seconds per, even less if the IW isn't decided upon until after a particular count.

[Ceetar]

I don't care much about pace of game stuff because I think that arguments fraught with peril anyway, but

I'd prefer they change this rule so that catchers cannot leave the box except to chase a pitch. This means IBB must happen within a catcher's reach and therefore within a batter's reach and also means more risk for wild pitches when attempting it. It was always a subversion of the rules anyway, in that there is no such thing as an intentional walk, they're just throwing pitches super far outside and the catcher is allowed to leave the box, and the crouch, once a pitch is thrown.

[dinosaur jesus]

Ceetar wrote: I don't care much about pace of game stuff because I think that arguments fraught with peril anyway, but I'd prefer they change this rule so that catchers cannot leave the box except to chase a pitch. This means IBB must happen within a catcher's reach and therefore within a batter's reach and also means more risk for wild pitches when attempting it. It was always a subversion of the rules anyway, in that there is no such thing as an intentional walk, they're just throwing pitches super far outside and the catcher is allowed to leave the box, and the crouch, once a pitch is thrown.

That's kind of what the NFL did with the extra point, isn't it? It had gotten too easy, so they made it a little harder. Makes sense to me. And you're right about there being no such thing as an intentional walk. That is, the pitcher's intention is obviously to walk the batter, but he should still have to carry out his intention. Those little formalities are important. There's no logical reason, for instance, that you have to keep going around the bases when a home run goes over the wall. But it would feel wrong if you didn't.

They've been messing with the strike zone since the 1840s, so I'm not going to complain about that. Maybe one day they'll get it right.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: I'd prefer they change this rule so that catchers cannot leave the box except to chase a pitch.

But isn't that what the catcher is doing now during an IW, chasing a wide pitch?

[Ceetar]

dinosaur jesus wrote: There's no logical reason, for instance, that you have to keep going around the bases when a home run goes over the wall. But it would feel wrong if you didn't.

Sure there is. The original concept of a home run was one of an 'inside the park' because there were no walls. Hell, Babe Ruth lost home runs because the ground rules were that if you hit the crowd of spectators in the outfield (450 feet or so) it was a ground rule double. Once walls went up it obviously became a different thing and they legislated the home run and said fielders can't leave the field of play, but that's basically just a league-wide ground rule codified into law.

That's why the IBB thing needs to be discussed in a different vein, it's ADDING a new feature to the game. You can choose to face a batter or give him a base.

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'd prefer they change this rule so that catchers cannot leave the box except to chase a pitch. But isn't that what the catcher is doing now during an IW, chasing a wide pitch?

yeah, pretty much. I guess you'd have to legislate that he has to be in the crouch. I bet catchers leave early though. Maybe if umpires started calling the balk when a catcher leaves the box before the pitch has left the hand..

[dinosaur jesus]

When I say there's no logical reason to circle the bases when you hit a home run, I mean by the sort of logic that those who want to change the intentional walk rule are using: it's a home run, let's count it and move on. But it is logical by the logic of the game, which should be what matters. The same way having to throw those four balls is logical. You don't play or watch a game just for the result; the things you do to get to that result are important too.

[Edgy MD]

That's a pretty good analog. The play's the thing.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Frayed Knot wrote: and even a famous strikeout of a future Hall-of-Famer during a World Series game.

I don't think I know about this. When did it happen? Who was the Hall-of-Famer?

I've always thought that if I was the hitter being walked, and there were ducks on the pond that I wanted to drive in, I'd consider swinging at the third and fourth pitch. Maybe with the 2-2 count they would reevaluate their plan and give me a pitch that I could hit. And if not, I'd at least (maybe) rattle the pitcher a little bit.

[Edgy MD]

Keep in mind, without intentional walks, the dramatic and profound ending to The Bad News Bears doesn't go down that way at all.

Plays where the batter swung at an intentional ball: http://sabr.org/research/surprise-swings-intentional-balls

Kelly Leak not included.

[dinosaur jesus]

and even a famous strikeout of a future Hall-of-Famer during a World Series game. I don't think I know about this. When did it happen? Who was the Hall-of-Famer?

Rollie Fingers (on orders from Dick Williams) faked out Johnny Bench in the '72 Series. On a 3-2 count, Gene Tenace set up for an intentional ball 4, then jumped back behind the plate as Fingers painted the outside corner.

[ashie62]

Miguel Cabrera singled on a free pass in 2013. Arod has also.

[Frayed Knot]

and even a famous strikeout of a future Hall-of-Famer during a World Series game. I don't think I know about this. When did it happen? Who was the Hall-of-Famer? Rollie Fingers (on orders from Dick Williams) faked out Johnny Bench in the '72 Series. On a 3-2 count, Gene Tenace set up for an intentional ball 4, then jumped back behind the plate as Fingers painted the outside corner.

Game Five of the '72 WS.
Oakland was up 3 games to 1 but Catfish Hunter had just given up his 4th run of the game on a 2-out walk and a hit in the 5th so Williams brought in Fingers to pitch to Bench (on no, the closer coming in in the 5th inning ... the Humanity!!!!!) and try to close out the inning. But once Bobby Tolan stole 2nd and took 3rd on a wild pitch during Bench's AB the A's "decided" to issue the intentional walk. The key here is that there was a full count on Bench by this point - obviously that ploy isn't going to work if there aren't already two strikes (well, you might steal A strike but it isn't going to work two or three times in a row).

Bench always maintained that he wasn't fooled by the ruse, merely that Fingers had thrown him a "bastard pitch" which made him look as though he was. Cincy won that game anyway with Fingers pitching 3-2/3 innings. In all he threw 10-1/3 while appearing in every game of that series except for Game 6 which was the only one of the seven that was not a one-run game.

[Benjamin Grimm]

For reducing game time, I'd rather they just reduced the number of commercials between innings.

But of course, that will never happen!

[Frayed Knot]

Ashie62 wrote: Miguel Cabrera singled on a free pass in 2013. Arod has also. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6YzVvtxoaY

Jeter has 4 home-runs, 6 doubles, 1 triple, and once saved a baby in the stands from choking on a piece of Cracker-Jack, all during intentional walks.

[Frayed Knot]

For reducing game time, I'd rather they just reduced the number of commercials between innings. But of course, that will never happen!

You're right and you're right, but yet you're not totally right.

You're right about the commercial time being a big factor and about the fact that that's not changing.
But I remember noting during the 2013 post-season two very similar post-season games that were played forty years (and one day) apart.

Oct 6, 1973: Red 2 - Mets 1
3 combined runs, 9 hits, 4 walks, 19 Ks, 4 pitchers, 65 total batters Playing time = 2:00

Oct 5, 2013: A's 1 - Tigers 0
1 combined run, 12 hits, 5 walks, 22 Ks, 6 pitchers, 67 total batters Playing time = 3:23

Both games ended in bottom 9th 'walk-off' wins (the '73 game with 1 out, the other with none) and the more recent game had 2 extra batters come to the plate plus two in-innning pitching changes as opposed to only one in the '73 game. Other than that they're essentially identical games as far as the amount of "action" involved.
But even if the commercial time between innings were as little as 60 seconds back in '73 -- I don't know what it was but I can't imagine it was any less than that -- the increased commercial time could only explain maybe 1/3 of that 83 minute time gap.
The game today is simply being played at a slower pace at that comes at the cost of later nights, fewer viewers (particularly for those whose team isn't involved) and no reward for the fan except for more dead time.

[ashie62]

Events other than intentional walks seem happen more than I thought during the process of issuing an IBB. I would not trade that to save 20 seconds of time.

[Edgy MD]

Jeff Passan reporting that baseball is looking into experimenting with starting extra innings with a runner on second base.

So now we have baseball run by people who hate baseball, and the country run by people who hate the country.

Where am I anymore?