MLB Proposes Raising Strike Zone and Eliminating IBB

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,838
Boston, MA
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18631714/mlb-proposes-scrapping-intentional-walk-raising-strike-zone

I'm all for raising the bottom of the zone to the top of the knee. The pitches below that are barely hittable and the umps have been doing a really good job of calling the high strike in recent years. I don't think we'd go back to the 1990s zone that's wider than it is tall. But getting the pitchers to agree to give up a weapon like that is the tough part.

I don't see the point of eliminating the four pitches that have to be thrown for an intentional walk. As long as there are times when the pitchers screw it up or a Vlad Guerrero reaches out and swings for one, it's worth the 30 seconds every couple games it comes up.
 

Curll

Guest
Jul 13, 2005
9,205
I don't mind the low strike zone. I think it makes hitters like Dustin Pedroia and Jose Altuve more effective and proves out great hitters from good hitters. But, obviously, it is absurd for someone 6'4" or up to have a shot to hit a ball low and away.

Maybe this is where MLB could push their tech? Basically create a custom strike zone for each hitter via computer data, and have a buzzer that helps umps make calls? I know they won't do it, but that'd be really great to see.

IBBs are fine. Strategic. They'll just non-intentional intentional walk. Or bean them.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I don't see the point of eliminating the four pitches that have to be thrown for an intentional walk. As long as there are times when the pitchers screw it up or a Vlad Guerrero reaches out and swings for one, it's worth the 30 seconds every couple games it comes up.
Same reason they moved the PAT back. The once in a blue moon play wasn't worth it.
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,

I give you reasons that eliminating the intentional walk is a mistake.....

Exhibit A, Exhibit B & Exhibit C
Things like this are why I'm opposed to getting rid of the pitches being required for an intentional walk as well. Yes, more often than not an intentional walk is a boring play. Every now and again the baseball gods smile from above and gives us gems like these.

It will barely make a dent on "pace of play" and the whole "its antiquated" argument is kinda dumb too, like its intentional walks that are keeping all the kids away or something...
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
I don't mind the low strike zone. I think it makes hitters like Dustin Pedroia and Jose Altuve more effective and proves out great hitters from good hitters. But, obviously, it is absurd for someone 6'4" or up to have a shot to hit a ball low and away.
Are you saying it is easier for a short guy to hit a pitch on the black outside at the knees than it is for a tall guy to do the same?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,078
An intentional walk takes like 30 seconds. Why is it even a problem they they happen every now and then?
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,566
02130
I don't care about this much, but I wonder what the signal will be. They will have to be careful to avoid "false positives".

It is also strange that they are making this decision in February and that's it when MLB is usually so conservative about any change (we still don't have pitch clocks, which would be a much more impactful change on the pace of the game). Did they test this out in the minors and I didn't hear about it?
 

hbk72777

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,945
Same reason they moved the PAT back. The once in a blue moon play wasn't worth it.

They moved it back, they didn't give them the point. The equivalent would be making the pitcher throw the Int walk pitches from 2nd base
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,838
Boston, MA
They should have to point to the crotches of two players as the sign. Three if Mike Lowell and John Kruk are involved.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,591
Pittsburgh, PA
I still prefer the proposal that would let a batter opt to decline an intentional walk, thereby resetting the count, with the benefit that if he is walked again, he is awarded second base, advancing runners accordingly.

Intentional walks suck because they take something exciting (an at-bat) and turn it into something about as exciting as watching paint dry. And managers over-use them because it makes them look smart and reduces the amount of blame they take. While they're eliminating the extra time that the farcical "throw 4 looping pitches ten feet outside" process takes, they ought to eliminate some of the tactical incentive for teams to do it in the first place.

Face batters. Try to get them out. That's why people watch.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,705
Michigan
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Sabermetric angle on new IBB rule. I'd expect letting managers signal an IBB would slightly increase their frequency, which is the opposite of what Sabermetric analysis suggests, that IBBs are rarely a good idea (only when the batter being walked is significantly better than the next one or the walked batter's potential run won't count.)

So to the extent that some managers make mistakes when issuing IBBs and others don't, it is a competitive play.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,838
Boston, MA
Oh, I have no doubt intentional walks are going to spike now that managers have a new toy to play with. Every part of this idea is unnecessary.
 

MakeMineMoxie

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
722
The floor of Punter's Pub
Whoo whoo! 2 hour baseball games are back! Yeah, right.

Why is it so hard for MLB to get the umpires to enforce the pace of play rules already in effect? That would help through the entire game, not just one, rare play.

InstaFace has a great idea that should be implemented now instead of this joke.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,705
Michigan
Does the new IBB rule mean managers must call for IBBs by signal? What stops a pitcher from throwing four balls, far outside of the strike zone, as usual? There are occasions where IBBs are used to give a pitcher in the bullpen more time to warm up. This rule is dumb in so many ways.
 

pedro1918

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
5,131
Map Ref. 41°N 93°W
Under the new rule, when a batter gets intentionally walked, will the on deck hitter be expected to forgo his warm up swings/stretch/pine tar routine to speed up the pace of games? Just like a last second pinch hitter, I think we will be sitting there waiting for the next batter go get ready to hit.

I realize that in most cases getting ready to hit doesn't take that long, but neither does throwing four balls.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
I still prefer the proposal that would let a batter opt to decline an intentional walk, thereby resetting the count, with the benefit that if he is walked again, he is awarded second base, advancing runners accordingly.

Intentional walks suck because they take something exciting (an at-bat) and turn it into something about as exciting as watching paint dry. And managers over-use them because it makes them look smart and reduces the amount of blame they take. While they're eliminating the extra time that the farcical "throw 4 looping pitches ten feet outside" process takes, they ought to eliminate some of the tactical incentive for teams to do it in the first place.

Face batters. Try to get them out. That's why people watch.
I'm not familiar with that proposal. Is the suggestion that a batter can opt to decline an IBB under the new "signal from the dugout, no pitches thrown" format? If you mean to suggest that a batter could decline under the standard format, it would lead to the umpire having to determine intent.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,842
Alexandria, VA
"Bill James and others" aren't MLB itself, which is what I was referring to.
People close to MLB and known and discussed in the media have been advocating this for over a decade. Much like extending the field goal posts upward (which everyone from ESPN to Adam Carolla were talking about for years), there's no way that MLB hasn't heard them and considered it for quite a while.

There may be other reasons to criticize, but it isn't likely that it was a sudden out of the blue decision.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,437
Canton, MA
I'm not familiar with that proposal. Is the suggestion that a batter can opt to decline an IBB under the new "signal from the dugout, no pitches thrown" format? If you mean to suggest that a batter could decline under the standard format, it would lead to the umpire having to determine intent.
You could just say the batter can decline any 4 pitch walk.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
In 2015 there were 2429 games played and the average length of time per game was two hours and 56 minutes. Disregarding any rounding errors, that is 176 minutes x 2429 games, or 427504 minutes of playing time for all games.

There were 951 intentional walks during that season.

If we make the assumption that it took two minutes for each of those walks then total game time for the season would have been reduced by 1902 minutes, or the time reduced to 425602 minutes. Dividing that number by 2429 gives you a total game time for the season of 175.217 minutes per game, or a savings of about 47 seconds per game.

I am stunned by the brilliance of the people running Major League Baseball. How much time does Dustin Pedroia and others waste adjusting the Velcro straps on their batting gloves between each pitch? How much time did David Ortiz and other sluggers waste pimping home runs and ambling their way around the base path after hitting them? How much time is wasted with players exchanging their body armor, changing batting gloves for sliding gloves when they reach base. How much time is wasted because the umpires don't enforce rules about batters staying in the box, pitchers making their pitches within the required time? How much time is wasted on instant replays? How much time is wasted in mound visit stalls to get the reliever more warm-up time?

Commercials aside, you must have a certain amount of time between halves of innings...for the defensive team to get to their dugout and ready to bat; for the offensive team to shed their armor, pick up their gloves, and get out to their positions. Catchers have to put on their gear and divest themselves of it.

I go to far more minor league games than major league and I have been noticing in recent years that game time for Triple-A games is starting to follow MLB and now Double-A games are getting up there in length. They watch "The Show" and say this is how the game is played or maybe they've been to "The Show." MLB can try experiments at the lower levels but unless they are enforced all the way up the line, will they really do any good?
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,838
Boston, MA
I am stunned by the brilliance of the people running Major League Baseball. How much time does Dustin Pedroia and others waste adjusting the Velcro straps on their batting gloves between each pitch? How much time did David Ortiz and other sluggers waste pimping home runs and ambling their way around the base path after hitting them? How much time is wasted with players exchanging their body armor, changing batting gloves for sliding gloves when they reach base. How much time is wasted because the umpires don't enforce rules about batters staying in the box, pitchers making their pitches within the required time? How much time is wasted on instant replays? How much time is wasted in mound visit stalls to get the reliever more warm-up time?
I see where you're going with this, but one of these things is not like the others. Pimping home runs and rounding the bases is part of the game. A ball is in play and the runner has to circle the bases. A slower trot gives time for the fans to react and the TV broadcast to show replays of the home run. So I have no problem with those.

All the others are dead time in between action. But even recognizing that, it seems like the biggest thing that slows down the game is that it's played in front of thousands of people. The empty ballpark game in Baltimore this year was finished in two hours, but wasn't played under different rules at all. It seems like the mound visits, adjustments, and timeouts are really just focusing exercises for the players who are feeling the pressure from the people watching. Taking those away by rule is going to have a long transition period with some profoundly unhappy and uncomfortable players.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,591
Pittsburgh, PA
I'm not familiar with that proposal. Is the suggestion that a batter can opt to decline an IBB under the new "signal from the dugout, no pitches thrown" format? If you mean to suggest that a batter could decline under the standard format, it would lead to the umpire having to determine intent.
My mentioning of this is entirely separate from whether MLB changes the rule - whether issuing an IBB takes 4 perfunctory "pitches" or a signal from the dugout.

The problem they're addressing is the wasted time in the game. This of course won't make a meaningful difference in average time of a game, but it's an easy-to-eliminate part of the problem, small though it is. But my real problem with the IBB is the tactical impact on the game.

The proposal in question, which I'm sure I've read about in here before but probably originates with Posnanski or something, goes as follows:
- Any batter who is issued a walk, intentional or no, may promptly turn to the umpire and say that he declines it.
- If a walk is declined, the count is reset and the at-bat proceeds as if it were starting anew...
- ...with one exception: if the batter is walked again, then he is awarded second base, and all runners will advance accordingly.

This would mostly eliminate walking the #8 batter to get to the pitcher in the NL, and greatly reduce situations where a great hitter is coming up in a key moment late in the game, and the paying audience doesn't get to see him hit.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,131
Another option that might speed up the game....offensive manager signals that he intends to sacrifice; defensive manager has option of taking the out without throwing a pitch and moving the runner up a base, or playing as usual. If the latter, the offensive manager is not bound by his earlier declaration.




:cool:
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
My mentioning of this is entirely separate from whether MLB changes the rule - whether issuing an IBB takes 4 perfunctory "pitches" or a signal from the dugout.

The problem they're addressing is the wasted time in the game. This of course won't make a meaningful difference in average time of a game, but it's an easy-to-eliminate part of the problem, small though it is. But my real problem with the IBB is the tactical impact on the game.

The proposal in question, which I'm sure I've read about in here before but probably originates with Posnanski or something, goes as follows:
- Any batter who is issued a walk, intentional or no, may promptly turn to the umpire and say that he declines it.
- If a walk is declined, the count is reset and the at-bat proceeds as if it were starting anew...
- ...with one exception: if the batter is walked again, then he is awarded second base, and all runners will advance accordingly.

This would mostly eliminate walking the #8 batter to get to the pitcher in the NL, and greatly reduce situations where a great hitter is coming up in a key moment late in the game, and the paying audience doesn't get to see him hit.
Gotcha, thanks for explaining.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
I see where you're going with this, but one of these things is not like the others. Pimping home runs and rounding the bases is part of the game. A ball is in play and the runner has to circle the bases. A slower trot gives time for the fans to react and the TV broadcast to show replays of the home run. So I have no problem with those.
I seem to recall Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio circling the bases rather rapidly with head down...and others. Gives the fans time to react? Are they so busy doing other things that they aren't aware the batter hit a home run? Why does TV need to show a replay? Isn't that what ESPN, NESN, MLB.com and the like are for? Jeez, I read books or do crossword puzzles when I watch a game on TV and I can follow they play.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,131
I seem to recall Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio circling the bases rather rapidly with head down...and others. Gives the fans time to react? Are they so busy doing other things that they aren't aware the batter hit a home run? Why does TV need to show a replay? Isn't that what ESPN, NESN, MLB.com and the like are for? Jeez, I read books or do crossword puzzles when I watch a game on TV and I can follow they play.
According to those who track such things, the slowest trot in recent times is 33 seconds or so. The fastest is 15 seconds or so. So if you cut the difference in half, you'll speed up a small portion of HR trots by 9 seconds each. I have never heard of anyone complaining that home run trots are slowing down the game. "Disrespecting the game," yes (especially by those whose slacks don't come within 3 inches of their white socks.) But not slowing the game down.

OTOH -- There are at least 250 pitches in a game. Decrease the time between them by 5 seconds. That includes keeping the batter there and making the pitcher pitch. And allowing the pitcher to throw at the hitter's front knee without penalty if the hitter calls time once the pitcher has started his windup. That'll save time -- 10 mins a game -- and increase the pace.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,920
Hingham, MA
OTOH -- There are at least 250 pitches in a game. Decrease the time between them by 5 seconds. That includes keeping the batter there and making the pitcher pitch. And allowing the pitcher to throw at the hitter's front knee without penalty if the hitter calls time once the pitcher has started his windup. That'll save time -- 10 mins a game -- and increase the pace.
Yep this is the crux of it for me. I don't care about length of commercials. I deal with it for the NFL just fine. But when the game is back from break, I want crisp action. It's not the length of game that is the problem, it is the pace of play
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
According to those who track such things, the slowest trot in recent times is 33 seconds or so. The fastest is 15 seconds or so. So if you cut the difference in half, you'll speed up a small portion of HR trots by 9 seconds each. I have never heard of anyone complaining that home run trots are slowing down the game.
They probably slow the game down more than IBBs. You cut some time here, some time there, and there, etc., and maybe you get some significant time cut. As I see it, MLB thinks it has found the magic solution when it doesn't have a clue.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,705
Michigan
Yep this is the crux of it for me. I don't care about length of commercials. I deal with it for the NFL just fine. But when the game is back from break, I want crisp action. It's not the length of game that is the problem, it is the pace of play
I do care about length of between-inning commercials and the total length of games, but you're right, pace-of-play is more important, and slow pace-of-play is more irritating.

The solution, it seems to me, is simple: umpires should enforce the existing rules on stepping out of the box in between pitches and the "pitch clock." And stop granting time every time a batter asks for it, especially when a pitcher has already started his motion. That's a pet peeve of mine.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,131
They probably slow the game down more than IBBs.
Well, yes, that's true. And eating glass is probably better for you than jumping out of a plane at 35000 feet with no chute. But neither one is part of a plan for healthier living.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,365
Make every visit to the mound (by manager, catcher, pitching coach, infielder, whatever) count as an official visit. Keep the injury check exception as it is now.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Someone on SABR-L noted that there were 932 IBB last season but 5610 HR so why not have the batter and all runners head straight to the dugout when a fair ball is hit out of the park.

I suspect the players would scream but it would cut more time off games than the IBB rule.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,591
Pittsburgh, PA
David Ortiz would have liked that in his final few seasons, that's for sure. Take a mighty swing, take a bow, and a few ginger steps back to the dugout.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,007
Someone on SABR-L noted that there were 932 IBB last season but 5610 HR so why not have the batter and all runners head straight to the dugout when a fair ball is hit out of the park.

I suspect the players would scream but it would cut more time off games than the IBB rule.
Remember Ventura's grand slam single. That would never happen again.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Geez, I'm getting old, I guess. My main opposition to the no-pitch-IBB is simple: I like it when they Play. The. Game. Crazy shit happens. Pitcher throws the ball over the catcher's head, Miggy/Vlad/Mantle reaches out and slaps a base hit, runner on base steals, etc. Even the NFL makes the winning team run meaningless plays to run out the clock. And as others noted, it's not going to save any significant time.

I'd rather they eliminate all mound visits by coaches/managers except to remove the pitcher. And limit catcher mound visits to one per pitcher. Would that hamper "strategy"...? A little, although it would probably impact the less prepared more (which is ok). They could also communicate what defense they want to play, etc., with hand signals.
 

CarolinaBeerGuy

Don't know him from Adam
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2006
9,389
Kernersville, NC
Someone on SABR-L noted that there were 932 IBB last season but 5610 HR so why not have the batter and all runners head straight to the dugout when a fair ball is hit out of the park.

I suspect the players would scream but it would cut more time off games than the IBB rule.
I like this idea. Makes more sense than getting rid of the IBB.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,415
Not here
Changing the rule so that on any four pitch walk, every batter advances a base would virtually eliminate the intentional walk, which would be a good thing.

Eliminating all songs between the start of the game and the end of the game save for Take Me Out To The Goddamn Ballgame during the stretch would also be a good idea.

And for that matter, eliminate the damn national anthems before every game. Save it for special occasions.

Oh, and bring back bullpen carts.