Why doesnt a batter ever swing during an intentional walk?

[jtur88]

I am absolutely opposed in principle to any baseball play outcome that does not depend on execution. That goes for the automatic out on the infield fly, and that goes for the intentional walk without throwing a pitch. The only exception would be an administrative award or penalty for an illegal play, such as balk or interference or batting out of turn. If neither team does something illegal, proper execution should always be necessary.

[Just1Fan]

Originally Posted by wall st kid

Thanks for the help fanman, much appreciated.

The team issuing the IW WANTS the batter to get to first base. If they want the batter to get to first base, from a strategic standpoint, you would think that the batter and his team do NOT want to get to first base.

If Barry Bonds (in his prime) was being intentionally walked, do you really think that Giants fans were happy to 'get on base'?

First of all, when you say "The team issuing the IW WANTS the batter to get to first base"... that's ridiculous! To them, it's simply the lesser of two evils, i.e. sometimes it's wiser to advance a batter to first base, than to allow him a chance to get a big hit. No team wants to IW - it's a choice. Teams WANT to strike every batter out, but choose to IW, periodically.

Lastly, in 2004, Bonds had perhaps his best season. He hit .362 en route to his second National League batting title, and broke his own record by walking 232 times (including 120 intentional walks). Were Giants fans unhappy when he was IW? Sure! Because they wanted to see another home run. But, believe me, they were happy to get on base.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I am absolutely opposed in principle to any baseball play outcome that does not depend on execution. That goes for the automatic out on the infield fly, and that goes for the intentional walk without throwing a pitch. The only exception would be an administrative award or penalty for an illegal play, such as balk or interference or batting out of turn. If neither team does something illegal, proper execution should always be necessary.

So when a ball bounces from the outfield into the stands, that is a home run unless the outfielder can scramble over the wall, retrieve the ball and get it back in time to hold the runner to two or three bases?

You should not make blanket, absolute assertions as you have. There will always be smart-azz people like me who will think up exception after exception. I have a bunch more in mind if you care to play.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

So when a ball bounces from the outfield into the stands, that is a home run unless the outfielder can scramble over the wall, retrieve the ball and get it back in time to hold the runner to two or three bases?

You should not make blanket, absolute assertions as you have. There will always be smart-azz people like me who will think up exception after exception. I have a bunch more in mind if you care to play.

Sounds OK to me. There is a reason for boundary calls, to separate the players from the spectators, but if you want to remove the boundary and have a better idea about how to deal with boundary calls, I'm all ears.

But I think in all sports, experience has demonstrated that it is prudent to have a rule applying to a ball that goes out of play, where it is not longer realistic to expect players to execute, and to sort things out fairly. An infield fly does not go out of play, and should not be ruled to be out of play because of some whimsical notion that it cannot fairly be played..

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Sounds OK to me. There is a reason for boundary calls, to separate the players from the spectators, but if you want to remove the boundary and have a better idea about how to deal with boundary calls, I'm all ears.

But I think in all sports, experience has demonstrated that it is prudent to have a rule applying to a ball that goes out of play, where it is not longer realistic to expect players to execute, and to sort things out fairly. An infield fly does not go out of play, and should not be ruled to be out of play because of some whimsical notion that it cannot fairly be played..

Fine, but the above flies in the face of your original absolutist statement..you even used the word absolutely..

I am absolutely opposed in principle to any baseball play outcome that does not depend on execution.

So now we have exception # 1, no longer an absolute.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Fine, but the above flies in the face of your original absolutist statement..you even used the word absolutely..



So now we have exception # 1, no longer an absolute.

Absolute, and every other word in the dictionary, loses its meaning if some fool insists on interpreting it so narrowly as to allow for no semantic latitude. When any dimension is reduced to zero, the thing ceases to exist, and the width of every word's meaning become so narrow that it takes an infinite number of words to fill a span of meanings. Your interpretation reduces all words in the language to extinction, rendering language and discourse meaningless. And thereby, it is impossible for you to comprehend it when one states a position with clarity, because you choose to not comprehend it. Take it as you wish.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Absolute, and every other word in the dictionary, loses its meaning if some fool insists on interpreting it so narrowly as to allow for no semantic latitude. .

I do not suppose that the irony of the above statement has washed over you.

[LongtimeBravesFan]

Swinging at a 3-0 pitch during an intentional walk could freak out the pitcher and he might make a wild pitch on the 3-1 pitch. Or he could decide he doesn't like the batter being a jerk and decide to put him on base by drilling a 90 mph fastball at his head.