New Intentional Walk/Strike Zone Rule

[Dback Jon]

New strike zone


Quote:
The committee agreed on a motion to effectively raise the lower part of the strike zone to the top of the hitter's knees, sources said. The current rules stipulate that the zone begins at "the hollow beneath the kneecap," but the change is a reaction to a trend by umpires to call strikes on an increasing number of pitches below the knees.

Intentional walk rule


Quote:
The change in the intentional-walk rule would end the traditional practice of requiring the pitcher to lob four balls outside the strike zone. Instead, a team could signify it wants to issue an intentional walk, and the hitter would be immediately sent to first base, sources said.

Keep the intentional walk rule the way it is.

Above is FArting's post.

 

[puckhead]

New strike zone


Quote:
The committee agreed on a motion to effectively raise the lower part of the strike zone to the top of the hitter's knees, sources said. The current rules stipulate that the zone begins at "the hollow beneath the kneecap," but the change is a reaction to a trend by umpires to call strikes on an increasing number of pitches below the knees.

Intentional walk rule


Quote:
The change in the intentional-walk rule would end the traditional practice of requiring the pitcher to lob four balls outside the strike zone. Instead, a team could signify it wants to issue an intentional walk, and the hitter would be immediately sent to first base, sources said.

Keep the intentional walk rule the way it is.

Agree on strike zone.

I say leave the intentional walk the same also. I love it when they overthrow or muff a lob and a base runner can take advantage. Always good for a laugh. Plus, throwing those pitches can get in the head of the pitcher or the batter on deck.

 

[Phrazbit]

I agree with both potential changes. My personal vote would be to take the ump out of calling balls and strikes entirely, but they're calling stuff waaaay too low right now, if they are not going to call the current strike zone correctly and give pitchers too much leeway, then they might as well shrink the zone.

And while I agree that when a team muffs an intentional walk effort it is funny, it's too rare an occurrence to be worth the time wasted on watching a pitcher throw 4 wide and waste a minute of game action.

 

[BC867]

I agree with both potential changes. My personal vote would be to take the ump out of calling balls and strikes entirely, but they're calling stuff waaaay too low right now, if they are not going to call the current strike zone correctly and give pitchers too much leeway, then they might as well shrink the zone.

And while I agree that when a team muffs an intentional walk effort it is funny, it's too rare an occurrence to be worth the time wasted on watching a pitcher throw 4 wide and waste a minute of game action.

I agree with a machine calling balls and strikes. Then the batter can stare at the equipment on his way back to the dugout on called strike three.

A voice should be associated with each call -- "ball one"; "strike two"; "take first base"; "you're outta there"; etc. They would have to work out how to build in calculations for a foul ball; foul bunt on strike three; etc.

It is ironic that the motivation for doing it is the bad habit umps have gotten into. Baseball is, more than any other sport, a game of tradition and should remain so. If they are not calling the strike zone correctly or being conned by Catchers who hide the umpires' view until they yank the ball back into the strike zone after it crosses the batter's box, take it away from the umps.

But I disagree with the "called" intentional walk. That is about the players, not the umpires. And the strategy of having a Pitcher intentionally throw four wide ones, then go back to the mentality of pitching strikes is part of the game.

 

[Dback Jon]

I agree with a machine calling balls and strikes. Then the batter can stare at the equipment on his way back to the dugout on called strike three.

A voice should be associated with each call -- "ball one"; "strike two"; "take first base"; "you're outta there"; etc. They would have to work out how to build in calculations for a foul ball; foul bunt on strike three; etc.

It is ironic that the motivation for doing it is the bad habit umps have gotten into. Baseball is, more than any other sport, a game of tradition and should remain so. If they are not calling the strike zone correctly or being conned by Catchers who hide the umpires' view until they yank the ball back into the strike zone after it crosses the batter's box, take it away from the umps.

But I disagree with the "called" intentional walk. That is about the players, not the umpires. And the strategy of having a Pitcher intentionally throw four wide ones, then go back to the mentality of pitching strikes is part of the game.

I am going to agree with this post

Not to mention that some batters/pitchers get differing strike zones.



While I understand it is to speed up the game, I wonder if there are stats on the hitter after the intentional walk is done - does it really affect the pitcher?

 

[FArting]

I am going to agree with this post

Not to mention that some batters/pitchers get differing strike zones.



While I understand it is to speed up the game, I wonder if there are stats on the hitter after the intentional walk is done - does it really affect the pitcher?

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-actually-happens-after-an-intentional-walk/

 

[Phrazbit]

I am going to agree with this post

Not to mention that some batters/pitchers get differing strike zones.



While I understand it is to speed up the game, I wonder if there are stats on the hitter after the intentional walk is done - does it really affect the pitcher?

I would expect that batting averages after an intentional walk are higher than the norm (unless the walk was to get to the opposing pitcher) but I also know that after any intentional walk there is almost always a runner in scoring position (because you never see an IBB with no one on) and with runners in scoring position BA generally goes up too.

 

[Dback Jon]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-actually-happens-after-an-intentional-walk/

Thanks - very interesting.

Also interesting is that there are more walks (9%) given up than double-plays.

Of course, if there are already 2 outs, no double play is available. Would be neat to see that divided by number of outs when IBB is issued.

 

[Dback Jon]

I would expect that batting averages after an intentional walk are higher than the norm (unless the walk was to get to the opposing pitcher) but I also know that after any intentional walk there is almost always a runner in scoring position (because you never see an IBB with no one on) and with runners in scoring position BA generally goes up too.

FArting's link about shows the opposite - lower BA. But you are usually walking a good hitter to get to a worse hitter.

 

[Phrazbit]

FArting's link about shows the opposite - lower BA. But you are usually walking a good hitter to get to a worse hitter.

Yeah, read that but it doesn't really get into the meat of the question, or at least how I was looking at it.

What do those guys hit when in the exact same situation in terms of runners on, but without an IBB preceding it.

 

[BC867]

It is interesting that the thread morphed from how intentional walks should be performed into should intentional walks be employed.

The article did give a lot of insight into probabilities concerning the second point.

Getting back to the first point, what will follow the proposal of a Pitcher indicating he wants to walk the batter intentionally, but not having to pitch four wide ones?

A Pitcher hitting in the National League indicating he wants to take an automatic strikeout vs. the potential of hitting into a double play?

Why not just have them all sit in the dugout and roll dice? Or play paper/rock/scissors? While the fans sit in the stands and text.

 

[Dude]

Agree on strike zone.

I say leave the intentional walk the same also. I love it when they overthrow or muff a lob and a base runner can take advantage. Always good for a laugh. Plus, throwing those pitches can get in the head of the pitcher or the batter on deck.

+1

 

[devilalum]

They need strikes and balls called electronically. The technology is already in place in every park.

sent from a fone

 

[Dback Jon]

Agreed when you have umpires calling a pitch that's well below the strike zone as a strike then they really don't need to be around