Got holes in my shoes

Ytown Tribe fan · 10-28-2002, 07:21 AM

Bill James had an idea once that seems appropriate now.

The "walk" rule came into effect over a century ago to force pitchers to throw hittable pitches. The idea at conception was to penalize the pitchers by awarding first base to a hitter that they refused to pitch to.

This rule was made when homers were the dramatic exception. Nowadays, of course, the walk is used nearly as often as a defensive weapon as an offensive reward. This probably started happening right after the rule was made way back then; it certainly became common in the Ruth era and ever since.

James' idea was simple and in keeping with the original intent of the rule: allow the batter an option. There were several ways to do this, perhaps the best being: if a pitcher has thrown "ball four", the batter may refuse the walk (actually, it would be a managerial decision) and start with a fresh count (or start with 1 strike on him) and if the pitcher walks him again, the batter would be awarded SECOND base, with any runner on first advancing to third.

I agree with James that if the original creators of the walk rule had envisioned baseball in the Ruth era and beyond, in contrast to baseball of the 1880's, they would have done nearly the same thing when making the rule.

People complain about "too much offense" in big hitters' eras, and "too little offense" in big pitchers' eras, but baseball is an offensive game at heart and the rules of baseball are designed to stimulate offense, and they always have been (with a few exceptions that lasted for short times).

The '60's were an anomaly that went against the grain of baseball for about 7 years. It's time to go back to what baseball was intended and designed to be by really penalizing pitchers for not throwing strikes. After all, you don't get defensive gems from walks either.

VNV Nation · 10-28-2002, 07:52 AM

Agree *

tortured angel · 10-28-2002, 09:58 AM

For about 10 years, the umpires did a pretty good job of penalizing pitchers for throwing strikes. 2 inches above the belt and it was off to first base.
The first time a hitter took a close ball 4 and refused to go to first, the next pitch would be between the numbers. Overall, I can't believe anyone would turn down a free trip on base. Every baeball saberhead since James has done nothing but rant about on-base percentage. What percent of hitters refusing walks would end up making outs? If you believe Voros McCracken it would be close to 70.

SmedIndy · 10-28-2002, 10:02 AM

Only in rare instances would I turn down a walk - there must be a better way out there.

KCBOOMER · 10-28-2002, 10:09 AM

The walk is simply too ingrained in how the game has been played for 100+ years too tamper with the rule. As pitching gets better the need for this will subside.

moose · 10-28-2002, 10:22 AM

it's an interesting idea, but how about expanding the strike zone a bit?

10-28-2002, 10:28 AM

I think the best idea is - if a pitcher throws four unhittable pitches, the batter should be awarded first base. I think the rules are quite perfect the way they are, except for the NL rule outlawing the DH.

Actually, in all seriousness, I would be opposed to any rule that adds complexity to the in-game workings of the batter-pitcher matchup. The simplicity of it all is what makes it so great.

JamesI · 10-28-2002, 12:15 PM

just change the rule to be that if you throw 4 balls with no strikes, the batter gets 2 bases. You can still throw around people, but its more costly. Most of the time, batters should not refuse a walk (other than maybe the batter with the pitcher behind him and runners on with 2 outs)

moose · 10-28-2002, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JamesI
just change the rule to be that if you throw 4 balls with no strikes, the batter gets 2 bases. You can still throw around people, but its more costly.

hey, just because people are scared of barry bonds, that doesn't mean we should punish rick ankiel

JamesI · 10-28-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moose
hey, just because people are scared of barry bonds, that doesn't mean we should punish rick ankiel

true. Didn't think of him. Well, he'd learn control in a hurry or be back in the minors.

TGwynn19 · 10-28-2002, 11:05 PM

Geeez, why dont we just play t-ball?

I have no problem with Barry Bonds walking 200 times in a season. Teams gave the Giants an extra 1.2 outs per game. If they want to do that then fine. It is a team game and it is up to Barry's teammates to make the other teams pay for it.

10-28-2002, 07:21 AM	#1
Ytown Tribe fan Guest Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Scrappers territory Posts: 2,515	Got holes in my shoes Bill James had an idea once that seems appropriate now. The "walk" rule came into effect over a century ago to force pitchers to throw hittable pitches. The idea at conception was to penalize the pitchers by awarding first base to a hitter that they refused to pitch to. This rule was made when homers were the dramatic exception. Nowadays, of course, the walk is used nearly as often as a defensive weapon as an offensive reward. This probably started happening right after the rule was made way back then; it certainly became common in the Ruth era and ever since. James' idea was simple and in keeping with the original intent of the rule: allow the batter an option. There were several ways to do this, perhaps the best being: if a pitcher has thrown "ball four", the batter may refuse the walk (actually, it would be a managerial decision) and start with a fresh count (or start with 1 strike on him) and if the pitcher walks him again, the batter would be awarded SECOND base, with any runner on first advancing to third. I agree with James that if the original creators of the walk rule had envisioned baseball in the Ruth era and beyond, in contrast to baseball of the 1880's, they would have done nearly the same thing when making the rule. People complain about "too much offense" in big hitters' eras, and "too little offense" in big pitchers' eras, but baseball is an offensive game at heart and the rules of baseball are designed to stimulate offense, and they always have been (with a few exceptions that lasted for short times). The '60's were an anomaly that went against the grain of baseball for about 7 years. It's time to go back to what baseball was intended and designed to be by really penalizing pitchers for not throwing strikes. After all, you don't get defensive gems from walks either. Last edited by Ytown Tribe fan : 10-28-2002 at 07:25 AM.

10-28-2002, 10:09 AM	#5
KCBOOMER NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Home of the T-Bones Posts: 11,116	The walk is simply too ingrained in how the game has been played for 100+ years too tamper with the rule. As pitching gets better the need for this will subside. __________________ KCBOOMER *Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball*

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

10-28-2002, 07:52 AM	#2
VNV Nation Membership Suspended 11/19/02 Join Date: May 2002 Location: VNV Nation Posts: 2,952	Agree *

10-28-2002, 09:58 AM	#3
tortured angel Guest Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: middle east Posts: 573	For about 10 years, the umpires did a pretty good job of penalizing pitchers for throwing strikes. 2 inches above the belt and it was off to first base. The first time a hitter took a close ball 4 and refused to go to first, the next pitch would be between the numbers. Overall, I can't believe anyone would turn down a free trip on base. Every baeball saberhead since James has done nothing but rant about on-base percentage. What percent of hitters refusing walks would end up making outs? If you believe Voros McCracken it would be close to 70.

10-28-2002, 10:02 AM	#4
SmedIndy NetShrine's Historian Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Zionsville, IN Posts: 10,569	Only in rare instances would I turn down a walk - there must be a better way out there.

10-28-2002, 10:22 AM	#6
moose Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Socs Posts: 3,400	it's an interesting idea, but how about expanding the strike zone a bit?

10-28-2002, 10:28 AM	#7
CpUltravox Posts: n/a	I think the best idea is - if a pitcher throws four unhittable pitches, the batter should be awarded first base. I think the rules are quite perfect the way they are, except for the NL rule outlawing the DH. Actually, in all seriousness, I would be opposed to any rule that adds complexity to the in-game workings of the batter-pitcher matchup. The simplicity of it all is what makes it so great.

10-28-2002, 12:15 PM	#8
JamesI Netshrine Vacuum Cleaner Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Potsdam, N.Y. Posts: 3,723	just change the rule to be that if you throw 4 balls with no strikes, the batter gets 2 bases. You can still throw around people, but its more costly. Most of the time, batters should not refuse a walk (other than maybe the batter with the pitcher behind him and runners on with 2 outs)

10-28-2002, 11:05 PM	#11
TGwynn19 Guest Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Naples, FL Posts: 2,087	Geeez, why dont we just play t-ball? I have no problem with Barry Bonds walking 200 times in a season. Teams gave the Giants an extra 1.2 outs per game. If they want to do that then fine. It is a team game and it is up to Barry's teammates to make the other teams pay for it.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)