I wish there was a way to abolish the IBB.

I wish there was a way to abolish the IBB.
Page 1 of 1 pages

why? I know people have a thing against it, but I don't understand why, it's strategy. It's a team game and the goal is to win. If it is determined it's best to walk a guy, then it's a perfectly legit strategy. Baseball isn't an individual game regardless of how easy it is to track individual performance.

Pujols most similar list, through age 28:

1. Jimmie Foxx (870) *
2. Hank Aaron (863) *
3. Frank Robinson (857) *
4. Lou Gehrig (855) *
5. Ken Griffey (853)
6. Mickey Mantle (829) *
7. Joe DiMaggio (818) *
8. Juan Gonzalez (805)
9. Mel Ott (805) *
10. Hal Trosky (795)


He certainly keeps good company.

Just because it's "strategy" doesn't mean it helps the game. The game is about the batter pitcher matchup. Any game element that takes away from that sucks.

Pujols came up today as the tying run with two outs in the 7th and was pitched to, grounding out.

Just because it's "strategy" doesn't mean it helps the game. The game is about the batter pitcher matchup. Any game element that takes away from that sucks.

a lot of things suck, but it's still part of the game, the DH sucks, inconsistent strike zones suck, bad hitters playing everyday suck. Pitchers that can't find the strike zone suck. having a team with one major league bat sucks...etc

If the team doesn't provide incentive to prevent you from intentionally walking their best hitter that is fault of ownership and the team, not something that the other team should be penalized for. I hate it when they walk Albert also, but until our fourth batter starts hitting (and Ludwick has looked better over the past few weeks even without the results) there is no reason to pitch to Pujols.

I have no idea what you're saying.

I'm just saying that personally, I hate it. I hate when my team does it. I hate when other teams do it to my team. It's lame. It's boring. I would enjoy baseball more without it.

I dont' know what "part of the game" means. There are a lot of things that were once part of the game but aren't anymore.

IBB Pujols every time, and the Cardinals will score a lot more runs over the course of the season (roughly 5 wins more than pitching to a .460/.750 hitter over 650 PA's). I'm fine with that. Especially if it advances 3 runners.

I do find it cowardly, though.

I have no idea what you're saying.

I'm just saying that personally, I hate it. I hate when my team does it. I hate when other teams do it to my team. I would enjoy baseball more without it.

I agree, but that is different than saying it should be abolished. Abolished implies a rule change saying it's against the rules, and that takes away a fundamental aspect of the strategy in the game.

IBB Pujols every time, and the Cardinals will score a lot more runs over the course of the season. I'm fine with that.

Especially if it advances 3 runners.

I don't think anyone would ever advocate always intentionally walking him, you are ahead or behind by a good amount, you pitch to him, if at best he can bring the game to within two runs you pitch to him, you just don't pitch to him with anything that can change the game. But I agree in the end the more they walk him the more runs the team is going to score.

Question: "The Machine". Good nickname or bad nickname?

El Hombre is better. It sounds cool and it has historical significance.

And besides, everyone knows that 'The Machine' belongs to Sasha Vujacic... I kid. Charlie Gehringer was 'The Mechanical Man,' according to Baseball-Reference, but I recollect him as being 'The Machine.' Not that I was there; just what I remember reading.

the IBB evolved as a way of "gaming the system"--the results it produces are clearly boring: it clearly makes the game less fun for fans, by denying them key encounters between pitchers and star hitters. so why shouldn't the rules be changed to prevent it? you wanna go back to pre-shot-clock college hoops?

suppose any 4-pitch walk advances the runner to 2nd. now, the side effect would be a big increase in runs scored, so purists will object, but--you know, the only reason I'd object is because it would mess up inter-era player comparisons. baseball fans are conservative that way. I don't like my rule change, cause I'm conservative too, but it would make the game more exciting...

Pujols with the bases loaded, career stats:

.412/.393/.814, with 10 HR and 132 RBI in 97 AB.

BTW about 2 weeks ago chuckb looked at this over at VEB, and in the comments section I compared the times Pujols had been IBB'd with what Tango's "the book" calculates as the right decision or the wrong decision from a run expectancy standpoint.

The results were remarkable; STL has (despite how it "feels"), done an excellent job of punishing managers who don't manage by "the book", to the tune of 20 runs vs an expected 10.8 following an IBB of the "typical" .460 wOBA player (as of 20 June). STL offense behind albert actually underperformed in situations where "the book" said to walk him, by a little over 6 runs.

Of course, there was some bias there because STL had just scored 6 runs the day before following a "bad idea" IBB.

The DH doesn't suck. Pitchers trying to hit, that's what sucks.

If Carlos Zambrano had singled in just one of the at bats where he made an out this season, he would have a 734 OPS, which would put him behind only 8 men who have served as DHs for AL teams this season. His 892 OPS last year would have ranked him 5th in the AL last year, and all four ahead of him had 18 plate appearances or fewer.

Pitchers who don't try to hit suck. And so does the DH.

If Carlos Zambrano had singled in just one of the at bats where he made an out this season, he would have a 734 OPS, which would put him behind only 8 men who have served as DHs for AL teams this season. His 892 OPS last year would have ranked him 5th in the AL last year, and all four ahead of him had 18 plate appearances or fewer.

So what?

Or, put another way: there are 18 NL players and 6 AL players with enough ABs to qualify for the batting race who have lower OPSs than Carlos Zambrano's 679 this season.

So what?

Well, you skipped the conclusion: pitchers who don't try to hit suck. And so does the DH.

But it seems your beef was mostly with the IBB, which I would also agree is unpleasant.

Speaking of Zambrano, I noticed during yesterday's game that he was hitting right-handed against Suppan in the AB in which he drove in a run. Of course, he is a switch hitter and would normally hit left against Suppan.

I wasn't really listening to the broadcast and don't know if any particular reason for his hitting RH was given. Does anybody know? Did he hit righty in his other ABs versus Suppan yesterday? Does Zambrano do this fairly often? Any other pertinent info to share?

Or, put another way: there are 18 NL players and 6 AL players with enough ABs to qualify for the batting race who have lower OPSs than Carlos Zambrano's 679 this season.

Sooo, the absolute best hitting pitcher that you can cherry pick, probably the best hitting pitcher in recent memory is merely 19th from last in OPS?

If anything, that's an argument for the other side...of course, AL teams can bat the pitcher if they want to.

why stop at one DH? why not go the entire football route and have 9 DH's so that we get the best hitters out there, and have 9 play defense?

I wasn't really listening to the broadcast and don't know if any particular reason for his hitting RH was given. Does anybody know? Did he hit righty in his other ABs versus Suppan yesterday? Does Zambrano do this fairly often? Any other pertinent info to share?

Afterward CZ said it was because his left wrist is hurting.

why stop at one DH? why not go the entire football route and have 9 DH's so that we get the best hitters out there, and have 9 play defense?

Because the other position classes contain enough players who are capable of doing both to a level of adequate entertainment. Pitchers are not.

But I'm not having this argument yet again. If you want to go back to talking about the IBB I am game.

Ken Macha's biggest negative is his IBB fetish. It has already blown up in his face a half dozen times. grrrrrr

Sooo, the absolute best hitting pitcher that you can cherry pick

Zambrano isn't nearly as good a hitter as Micah Owings.

I wish there was a way to abolish the IBB.

Said this before, but there is a way. The guy at the plate is under no obligation to keep the bat on his shoulders. So Pujols swings at the 0-0 intentional ball, and it's now 0-1. Still a good idea to walk him? Or does going down 0-1 make him that much worse of a hitter that you now pitch to him?

Pujols, after 0-1, career:

.315/.359/.577

Okay, they still try to walk him, he swings at the 0-1:

Pujols, after 0-2:

.257/.295/.447

Looks disadvantaged enough to now go after him, right? What if waits for the first ball, then whiffs on the next two? 1-2: .276/.324/.474.

* * * * *

Either nobody in baseball has ever considered doing this (unwritten rule?), or the offensive manager (in this case LaRussa) would prefer the free pass vs. his best hitter actually getting a chance, albeit behind in the count. In the latter case LaRussa disagrees with the opposing manager's strategy (who would indeed prefer to face the next guy), and wants the extra baserunner-given the stats I've seen showing what happens after an IBB, perhaps he is wise. Sooner or later a hitter is going to do this tho.

Afterward CZ said it was because his left wrist is hurting.

Really? Wonder if this has been bothering him a while, because he did this not too long ago--in fact, he homered in Cincinnati off a righthander (Owings?) while batting righthanded.

Either nobody in baseball has ever considered doing this (unwritten rule?), or the offensive manager (in this case LaRussa) would prefer the free pass vs. his best hitter actually getting a chance, albeit behind in the count. In the latter case LaRussa disagrees with the opposing manager's strategy (who would indeed prefer to face the next guy), and wants the extra baserunner-given the stats I've seen showing what happens after an IBB, perhaps he is wise. Sooner or later a hitter is going to do this tho

In the unintentional, intentional situation, I'm willing to bet Albert has done this. Swing at a bad pitch when they were trying to just appear to be pitching around the edges, to convince them to throw strikes. I mean sometimes the first pitch that Albert swings as at you go "wtf" and then you see the pitchers start trying to beat him and come more towards the plate. So yes I do think that outside of throwing the arm in the air, that some hitters do the strategy you propose just to force the other team to try and get them out.

Because the other position classes contain enough players who are capable of doing both to a level of adequate entertainment.

I am entertained by watching the pitcher class stand at the plate and generally fail.

Either nobody in baseball has ever considered doing this (unwritten rule?), or the offensive manager (in this case LaRussa) would prefer the free pass vs. his best hitter actually getting a chance, albeit behind in the count. In the latter case LaRussa disagrees with the opposing manager's strategy (who would indeed prefer to face the next guy), and wants the extra baserunner-given the stats I've seen showing what happens after an IBB, perhaps he is wise.

Well, wait, you're begging the question here, even if it's not phrased as a question. LaRussa doesn't necessarily disagree with the other manager's strategy of issuing the IBB just because he doesn't tell his hitter to swing at a bad pitch to tempt them into pitching to him.

1) The two are different, albeit related and close in time, things.
2) There's a spread between what the guy hits overall (or what he hits in at bats where he at some point has an 0-0 count, eg all of them) and what he hits 0-1, as you note. It is almost certain that even if it's a smart move by the numbers to issue the IBB and therefore all involved would do it if they were the team on defense, the spread means it would not be smart to do so from 0-1.
3) LaRussa doesn't "disagree" with the other guy's strategy because he doesn't get a say. This isn't "should I hit and run" simultaneous with "should we move fielders to anticipate the hnr but open up a hole somewhere else" or anything. The other guy says IBB him and by the way things work, LaRussa basically just has to reactively accept that fact, because of #2.

Finally, in the vast, vast majority of situations this would a criminally stupid thing to do. If they're issuing an IBB, you're guaranteed the --/1/-- line. Why on earth would you trade that for whatever your guy is going to hit at 0-1? It is possible for both sides to be making the correct decisions. They're not usually, but the ones being shortsighted aren't the guys taking the free walk.