12/21/24
March 22, 2003
Barry Bonds and Intentional Walks: A very interesting solution for all the Intentional Walks given to Barry Bonds. I'm for it.
I was just thinking the same thing, dusted. In fact, we could speed things up by doing one of the following:
- Four consecutive balls to the same batter (even if two or more pitchers strung them together, due to some freak injury or coaching play) or is an automatic home run, not a walk. Non-consecutive balls do not count; or
- Every ball is an automatic base.
posted by worldcup2002 at 03:16 PM on March 22, 2003
I like a nice Swiftian comment on annoying quirks of baseball. That being said, wouldn't it speed things up for the pitcher to just declare "Intentional Walk" as the player approaches the plate, saving us time and saving his arm? As far as getting bonds back in the game, I propose that he be allowed to play with an extra long, clownish baseball bat. Ideally filled with sand.
posted by Joey Michaels at 03:54 AM on March 23, 2003
Worldcup: your idea is would take away almost all the pitchers' tools! If I'm a batter, and I know I'm getting either a strike or an extra base, I'd never swing! Most hits only result in a single base. How about giving Barry full body armor to go along with the elbow armor he wears, so opposing pitchers can just drill him? It would take less time to walk him, Barry could stand on the plate rather than halfway over it, and pitchers around the league could get revenge for the last few years.
posted by dusted at 10:56 AM on March 23, 2003
I meant your idea would, not your idea is would.
posted by dusted at 10:57 AM on March 23, 2003
Your idea is not, as you seem to think, a compromise. The point of an intentional walk is to give the pitcher the option of moving past one spot in the lineup. This rule change completely removes any incentive for the intentional walk. It's just a convoluted way of changing the rules so that they don't permit intentional walks at all. And some people would probably be happy to see that. I call these people football fans.
posted by stuart_s at 11:07 AM on March 23, 2003
We've had a few ideas thrown out here, Stuart. Which one are you talking about?
posted by dusted at 12:42 PM on March 23, 2003
Being able to intentionally walk an opposing hitter is a powerful part of a manager's arsenal. It's also a perfectly good strategy. I don't think rule changes are the way to go. What the Giants need to do is get three guys hitting before Barry that are high on-base percentage hitters, so that there are already men on base when Barry gets up. Then he needs to have protection in the lineup behind him. Barry is a freak, we haven't seen a hitter like him in decades and probably won't see another like him for decades. In my opinion you don't change a rule because of one guy. There are other rule changes that could be made which will put some power back in the hands of the pitcher without removing legitimate strategies like intentional walks. Raise the mound, start calling the rule-book strike zone instead of a 6 by 6 inch window, and test for steroids. These are the kinds of things that will embolden pitchers to face Barry.
posted by vito90 at 01:05 PM on March 23, 2003
I think they should change the rules so the catcher has to stay in his stance and the pitcher has to throw balls on regular pitches. The pitchers ought to be good enough to miss the strike zone on purpose.
posted by kirkaracha at 04:12 PM on March 23, 2003
Vito's dead-on right in this case. The intentional walk isn't some new fluke maneuver invented just for Barry Bonds; it can often be used to get passed mediocre hitter A (who's left-handed) to mediocre hitter B (who's right-handed) in a situation where you'll sacrifice the extra base-runner on first to increase, if even by 5%, the odds of an out to end an inning. Barry is just going to have to live with the fruits of being such a hitting freak. It doesn't actually hurt his production anyway; the saying "a walk is as good as a hit" is actually true- Barry's on base percentage, and thus his ability to effectively help a run score for the Giants, is sky-high because of these IBBs. This topic was covered well in a couple of ESPN columns, only one of which I could find linked. The gist is that the odds of a run scoring based on numbers of outs and men on base goes up dramatically as you add runners; if you don't walk Barry intentionally, his OBP is .513, or about 50% of the time- meaning if you pitch to him leading off, you have a 50% chance of an out, which leads to an average runs scored (1 out, nobody on) of .27, a very low total. If he hits, he'll average a hit about halfway between 1st and 2nd, increasing the average runs expected in that situation to ~1.0. So roughly speaking, if you pitch to him half the time the runs will average .27 for the inning, half the time it will average about 1.0, so about a .65 average runs per inning by just pitching to Barry. But if you put him on with a free pass, then the average runs that will score when you walk the lead off hitter is .896. Giving a typical ML hitter a man or two on base when they come up to bat effectively turns them into Barry Bonds, for that at-bat. Another way to look at it is this: Imagine a .320 hitter who got scads of doubles and homeruns and walked a good portion of the time; he might have a line such as .320 avg, .410 OBP, .640 SLG, for an OPS of 1.050. This is an extremely good hitter, unquestionably All-Star caliber and possible future HOFer. Now imagine a hitter who got walked in every single at-bat: he'd have a .000 avg, .1000 OBP, and a .000 SLG. That's an OPS of 1.000, and while it's less than our prototypical All-Star, and while the best years of Bonds or Ruth were around 1.380, it's worth remembering that there are only 5 Hall of Famers in history who managed a career OPS of 1.000 or above. In other words, while it may not seem that way, when a hitter is intentionally walked he is, for that at bat at least, offensively producing at the average level of the 5 greatest hitting Hall of Famers of all time. And giving a team all those free base-runners (a 100% chance of reaching base) skews the offensive odds of an out/hit/walk dramatically in favor of the batting team.
posted by hincandenza at 12:31 AM on March 24, 2003
Wow Hal. Now I know why baseball confuses me so much. I don't have a degree in Maths. ;-)
posted by squealy at 02:48 AM on March 24, 2003
Hal, I know what an OBP (On Base Percentage) is, but what is an OPS?
posted by dusted at 03:11 AM on March 24, 2003
dusted - On base percentage plus slugging percentage = OPS
posted by vito90 at 10:21 AM on March 24, 2003
The intentional walk is a valuable tool for any manager, as Hal and Vito so artfully explained. While Barry's the best in the business, he's no Wilt Champberlain — so the rule stays the same. Some people ask why they just don't wave the batter to first base. Surprisingly enough, a fair number of pitches during intentional walks end up at the backstop, allowing a runner to advance. The way to get other teams to pitch to Barry Bonds? Easy. Find someone to hit behind him.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:36 AM on March 24, 2003
Excuse me ... Chamberlain!
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:37 AM on March 24, 2003
Plus...don't you remember Kelly in the Bad News Bears? Legendary manager Buttersworth told him to swing at one of those wide ones and he roped it into the gap...
posted by vito90 at 12:16 PM on March 24, 2003
Exactly, Vito! I had the same situation come up in an American Legion game I was coaching and my clean-up hitter dumped a pitch into right field for a two-run double! Forget Walter Matthau ... I'M the man!
posted by wfrazerjr at 01:17 PM on March 24, 2003
The intentional walk is perfectly fine as it is. Making it into some Nintendo-game concept (extra bases!) is just silly. Walking Bonds all the time is going to kick a team in the ass eventually. You walk him only in specific cases (first base open, man on 2nd, one-or-two outs, very close score). I've briefly mentioned before the study that Bill James did about intentionally walking a guy all season.
posted by grum@work at 03:42 PM on March 24, 2003
Hal, OPS, OBS, etc. That's the problem with econemitricians, social mathemeticians, game theory lovers etc. You have to simplify your model to make your whole damn argument work. Here are the problem's with your "analysis" : 1. Bonds isn't walked randomly. It often happens with first base open and a man on second. Walking Bonds in this case (depending on the score) doesn't help the hitting team. It takes the bat out of Bonds hand and puts him on first base where his scoring of a run may be inconsequential. It doesn't make the batter behind Bond's "Barry Bonds." 2. The idea of baseball is not to create some faulty mathematical model with which you can impress some broad with thick glasses. You can do that in front of a computer if you want. Go ahead, make my day, run a bunch of chaos theory quotients all day and all night if you want. But stay away from baseball. 3. Baseball is about "mano i mano." I want to see some pitcher try to give Bonds an intentional walk and Bonds signal to him, "Pitch four more." Put that in one of your fake, distortion of the situation, equations!
posted by rl55z at 03:52 PM on March 24, 2003
1. Wrong. Wrong. No one said that. To be less verbose: Bonds has been walked leading off innings and with the bases loaded. Putting a man on base always helps the hitting team. How can you say it "doesn't help"? Who said it makes the IBBs make other hitters "Barry Bonds" (I may have missed this in the comments)? It does make them better hitters for a few reasons: they have a better chance of driving ina run (if you think RBIs are important), the infield defense has more gaps and the pitcher has to be more careful. 2. Really? Tell that to Branch Rickey. Or Billy Beane. Or whomever. The "idea of baseball" is whatever you care to take away from it. It can be enjoyed anyway you want. But you can't tell others how to enjoy it. And the chant of "Nerds!" is going to get fainter and fainter as the years go by. 3. I'll spot you two tildes if you'll use a y in "maño y maño" next time. Baseball is a team sport that features individual clashes. Football sees running backs and middle linebackers go one on one in every game. Does that mean all strategy not involving those two players should be ignored?
posted by yerfatma at 04:48 PM on March 24, 2003
Yeah, rl55z! Baseball is about mano a mano (I think your language attempt there was much further off than rl55z's, yerfatma. Mano with a tilde doesn't mean anything.), and I don't watch games to see some pitcher (or manager) chicken out everytime a star batter comes on. Aside from the length and slowness of the game, there's nothing that annoys me more than watching the catcher have to get up to catch the ball waaaay over to the side of the batter. Four times in a row. I concede that there's the possibility the catcher might miss, but that's no consolation for having to sit through someone being intentionally walked, which will happen way more often than the miss. Here's a compromise, just have the pitching team signal a walk, and do away with frickin' throwing the walk. (Of course, hitting someone still counts as a walk. However, if the batter can throw the bat and hit the pitcher, it's a home run! Oh yeah.)
posted by worldcup2002 at 04:55 PM on March 24, 2003
WC2K ... please see posts belonging to myself and Vito above. While those balls being pitched well outside aren't great chances for error, they are chances nonetheless, and mistakes are made. By the same rights, you could probably do away with the extra point in football, but then the one goof in 20 makes it worth the effort. You know, I would write a sidebar about soccer fans always complaining about baseball being boring, but let me see if I can work up a separate post on that.
posted by wfrazerjr at 05:53 PM on March 24, 2003
That would be a change from people saying soccer is boring. ;-)
posted by worldcup2002 at 06:57 PM on March 24, 2003
btw, I read every comment in this thread (altho my eyes did glaze over the stat spewage). Also, do understand, I live in the Bay Area, closer to the Giants than the A's. And we love our home runs. And Barry Bonds. :)
posted by worldcup2002 at 06:59 PM on March 24, 2003
Hey yerfatma, 1.How can you say an Intentional Walk ALWAYS helps the hitting team? Consider this. The Giants are at home. It is the bottom of the ninth. The Giants are down by one run. There are men on second and third. Bonds comes up to the plate. He is intentionally walked. Just how does this help the Giants, fat man? 2. RE Your question: "Who said it makes the IBBs make other hitters "Barry Bonds?" It was in the post you were supposedly defending. Hal wrote: "Giving a typical ML hitter a man or two on base when they come up to bat effectively turns them into Barry Bonds, for that at-bat." 3.With regard to my using "mano a mano" versus "mano y mano" and since you appear to be some kind of numbers geek, you lose on your home field here. I just did a Google search. My "mano a mano" is cited 94,300 times, your "mano y mano" is cited only 1810. Chew on those stats Fat Man!
posted by rl55z at 08:41 PM on March 24, 2003
rl55z: 1. The next guy up is walked, and you have a tie game. That doesn't happen if Bonds doesn't get his free pass. If he struck out, or flied out, or grounded out to the left side, first base would still be open. But by intentionally walking him, you've removed any chance of that happening. Pretty easy answer to your question. To expand the idea, consider this. You win the game by scoring more runs than the other team. To score runs, you have to either: 1) get men on base and have other batters score them either through hits, home runs, errors, walks or wild pitches) 2) hit a home run In case 1), you increase the chances of scoring runs if you have men on base. Putting a guy on base does not help the pitching/fielding team in any way, in the long run. In short term examples involving individual cases and constructed based on specific players, it can make sense to walk a batter. But in long term cases over the span of a season (or multiple seasons), your best chance at winning is to NOT let the other team get on base. In case 2), you increase your chances of scoring more runs if you have men on base when the batter hits a home run. More runs means better chance of winning.
posted by grum@work at 10:05 PM on March 24, 2003
I think the comments in this thread can be broken down the middle, with one half enjoying the strategy and intricacies of the game, and the other half just wanting more action! I'm on the action side. I can appreciate the strategy and the thinking side of the game, but I'll take a Barry Bonds blast over it any day, all week long.
posted by dusted at 11:26 PM on March 24, 2003
Yeeeah! Action! Action! Action!
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:24 AM on March 25, 2003
I mean, it's only from hits that you get the chance of seeing bunt sacrifice plays, the sheer grace of a diving catch, a pitcher catching a zinger directly after a pitch, someone going over the wall to kill a home run, and the team ballet of double- and triple-plays. ACTION!
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:28 AM on March 25, 2003
1. Bonds being walked gives him an OBP of 1.000 for the at-bat. Even he's not that good. It's not the best possible outcome, but being assured of not making the final out is always better. Even Barry fails sometimes. 2. I didn't see that (which was why I asked). I don't know that it turns the next hitter into Barry Bonds but it does make them a much more dangerous hitter. 3. I got exactly what I deserved for my pedantry. I saw the "i" and corrected it to "y" and completely missed the fact is should be "a". In the interests of fairness, your "mano a mano" is actually "mano i mano" and I doubt that wins any Google races.
posted by yerfatma at 06:26 AM on March 25, 2003
I can appreciate the strategy and the thinking side of the game, but I'll take a Barry Bonds blast over it any day, all week long. But you need a balance. I'm something of a stat geek myself and I still root for Nomar and Manny to go back-to-back every time they come up. The home run possibility makes baseball that much more exciting (if you think it's exciting to begin with). Would you take a Bonds blast every time he came up to bat in every game all season? The excitement of baseball is the possibility, the unknown. The fact that a home run isn't assured makes it exciting. And makes it something a manager has to plan for or against in their strategy. I'm not arguing that baseball can't be enjoyed on a purely visceral level. I am reacting to the suggestion that plays like home runs and diving catches are the only thrills. Watching a shortstop position himself before the pitch, accounting for both the pitcher's and batter's tendencies and making a routine catch because he knew where to be is just as interesting to me.
posted by yerfatma at 06:31 AM on March 25, 2003
And I think yerfatma has finally gotten down to the nub. I don't appreciate soccer because I don't understand all the little nuances of the game. I don't find guys kicking the ball back and forth to one another on defense exciting, but I don't generally see how they could be developing the play ahead of them, the same way a hockey defenseman will suddenly see open ice and shoot a pass forward. If I had a greater overall understanding of the game, maybe I could stand the lulls. The same holds true for baseball. True fans of the game are not thinking like players — they are thinking as managers. There is much more going on for us than simply whether or not Bonds will go deep. We're looking at two batters from now— who should be on the mound? Is it too early to get my lefty up and burn him out if I don't need him? Should the second baseman be shaded a hair to the right for a chance to knock down the hard grounder a lefty could pull through the hole? There are an awful lot of in-game decisions that have to be made, and those decisions have a direct bearing on every single pitch of the game. That's the thrill of baseball for some of us.
posted by wfrazerjr at 08:30 AM on March 25, 2003
Dusted; You nailed it. It's action versus strategy as to the opinions here. But also keep in mind the proposed IBB Rule change being discussed he would add BOTH action and strategy! The strategy geeks are missing this point. Maybe they are afraid of action! Grum@work: I didn't say Intentionally walking Bonds in the bottom of the ninth never is an advantage, I was responding to Yerfatma who says it ALWAYS is an advantage. Taking the bat out of Bonds' hands is not a statistical advantage, as any geek on this board will tell you. As for long-run advantage versus short-run, I will use John Maynard Keynes' defense here: "In the long run we are all dead." Fatman you write: "Would you take a Bonds blast every time he came up to bat in every game all season? The excitement of baseball is the possibility, the unknown. The fact that a home run isn't assured makes it exciting. And makes it something a manager has to plan for or against in their strategy." Are you implying that Bonds will hit a Home Run every time? You are actually arguing for a change in the IBB rule. Pitching to Bonds leads to the potential for a home run, but it is an unknown. You write:"The fact that a home run isn't assured makes it exciting" Exactly. An IBB is not only (almost 100%) boring in its execution, it is also boring in its KNOWN (almost 100%) result i.e. the batter gets first base. And this doesn't even take into account taking the bat out of the hands of one of the most exciting hitters in baseball! It's time for a change, us action guys want it and you geeks will have some new equations to work.
posted by rl55z at 09:07 AM on March 25, 2003
I didn't say Intentionally walking Bonds in the bottom of the ninth never is an advantage, I was responding to Yerfatma who says it ALWAYS is an advantage. I was just answering your example that you gave to Yerfatma. You asked "how does this help the Giants?" and I gave you the answer. And I'd never take the IBB out of baseball. The strategy involved (pitching manager vs hitting manager) is what makes the game great. If they walk Bonds, there is no reason that the next batter has to go to the plate. The hitting manager can yank him and put in a better choice (LHB instead of a RHB, or a contact hitter instead of a fly-ball hitter). Then the pitching manager can try and take THAT advantage away by switching pitchers. For those with ADD or video-game-itis, sure that sounds boring to you. But to those that like the strategy, it's excellent.
posted by grum@work at 10:27 AM on March 25, 2003
Err, rl55z, are you drunk? You're taking points out of context and arguing against things they weren't intended to mean. When you say, "you geeks will have some new equations to work," I respond, "I don't care what you say, molesting children is always wrong." John Maynard Keynes also wrote India was wonderful due to the plentiful and inexpensive nature of young boys. My quotation you pulled out of context was suggesting home runs are only exciting because they're a possibility, not the rule. It's their relative rarity that makes them exciting. Ever seen a game with more than 6 home runs? It gets boring.
posted by yerfatma at 10:54 AM on March 25, 2003
Grum, using your scenario: four balls are thrown, Barry trots to first base. The Giants manager pulls the scheduled batter and puts in a pinch hitter. Then the opposing manager trots out to the mound, has a short conversation, then takes the ball. The new pitcher trots out of the bullpen, then takes a dozen or so warm-up piches. Total time elapsed? About five minutes, with almost no action, with the outfielder wishing he had a folding chair. You don't need to have ADD to get bored (although you got me on the video-game-itis). And you know the baseball conversation is getting good when yerfatma pulls out the molestation card.
posted by dusted at 10:59 AM on March 25, 2003
Baseball is too slow I'll grant you. But there is a certain rhythm to it. It has always been a game where time meant nothing. They have taken steps in recent years to shear off minutes and have been modestly successful. But there are some rules that are part of the fabric of the game and shouldn't be messed with. If the umps called the strike zone as the rule book defines it, lots of these problems would disappear. BTW - this was a pretty damn good thread in my opinion. Kudos to rl55z for kicking it off.
posted by vito90 at 11:48 AM on March 25, 2003
dusted: Yeah! Hey, I watched every frickin' World Series game last season. I was worried about strategy the whole time, who should really be up next, which matchups are good and which are bad. But it's exactly the scenario dusted describes above that is crap and that I wanna get rid of. I'm not saying do away with the ball or the walk. Just do away with the five minutes of crap time. Call the walk, and move on to the next batter. Yeah!
posted by worldcup2002 at 11:56 AM on March 25, 2003
The "molestation card" (as you put it) was supposed to be a non sequitur-- it didn't have anything to do with the quotation it responded too. I suppose it tied in too neatly to the Keynes quotation to be clear. But we're all Keynesians now.
posted by yerfatma at 12:19 PM on March 25, 2003
yerfatma: I was kidding.
posted by dusted at 12:22 PM on March 25, 2003
Total time elapsed? About five minutes, with almost no action, with the outfielder wishing he had a folding chair. To be honest, I don't mind the break. I'm usually watching the game with either my wife or one of my baseball fan buddies. During this time: a) with the wife: I explain what is happening and why and try to help her understand the LH/RH concept and strategy. She'll complain that it's taking too long and that it should be done faster. I make snide comment about how come she doesn't say THAT when we're "together" and she shoots me any icy glare. b) with the buddy: We debate the strategy being used by the managers. He takes one side, I take the other and then it usually ends with one of us calling the other a "stupidhead". And the outfielders take time to get together in centrefield to debate which women in the stands are the hottest and which are likely to be impressed they are professional baseball players. It's all about how you use your free time.
posted by grum@work at 12:28 PM on March 25, 2003
Total time elapsed? About five minutes, with almost no action, with the outfielder wishing he had a folding chair. To be honest, I don't mind the break. I'm usually watching the game with either my wife or one of my baseball fan buddies. During this time: a) with the wife: I explain what is happening and why and try to help her understand the LH/RH concept and strategy. She'll complain that it's taking too long and that it should be done faster. I make snide comment about how come she doesn't say THAT when we're "together" and she shoots me any icy glare. b) with the buddy: We debate the strategy being used by the managers. He takes one side, I take the other and then it usually ends with one of us calling the other a "stupidhead". And the outfielders take time to get together in centrefield to debate which women in the stands are the hottest and which are likely to be impressed they are professional baseball players. It's all about how you use your free time.
posted by grum@work at 12:28 PM on March 25, 2003
Wah! How did that happen?
posted by grum@work at 12:29 PM on March 25, 2003
Grum, that comment was so spot on perfect, I don't mind reading it twice.
posted by dusted at 12:30 PM on March 25, 2003
Grum: right on, my brother. The beauty of baseball is the strategic arguments and passing of knowledge it necessitates. If you can't fill five minutes with a discussion of the decision, a recounting of earlier events of the game, an education for someone not well versed in the situation or a remembrance of something that's similar from a past game (and how this dunderhead manager will make the same damn mistake he made last time), then I don't really think you're much of a baseball fan. That approach may not recruit many new devotees, but I'm not into marketing strategies. I'm into baseball.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:41 PM on March 25, 2003
And the outfielders take time to get together in centrefield to debate which women in the stands are the hottest and which are likely to be impressed they are professional baseball players. grum, that comment was a classic but the last point won me over. Good one! Go four balls and a walk! I am off to join the pros!
posted by worldcup2002 at 02:50 PM on March 25, 2003
Sounds intriguing, but also sounds like it could take a while. The last thing I want is for baseball to get slower! The players already spend 99% of the time standing or sitting around.