Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The first baseman can take a position right in front of the plate, and catch the pitch before it reaches the plate. Or the catcher can jump out in front of the plate an do the same thing. Or just reach in and touch the batter while the pitcher is lobbing the ball in.
6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put
out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when—
(c) The catcher or any fielder interferes with him.
Why doesnt a batter ever swing during an intentional walk?
Hmmm... let me help you. First of all, the batters ulterior motive is to get on base - not swing at bad pitches. Lastly, the most effective way to accomplish said goal is to stand inside the batters box, without swinging.
Why doesnt a batter ever swing during an intentional walk?
Hmmm... let me help you. First of all, the batters ulterior motive is to get on base - not swing at bad pitches. Lastly, the most effective way to accomplish said goal is to stand inside the batters box, without swinging.
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'?
He can force the starting pitcher to throw 2 more pitches to get him to first base and, he might even get the pitcher to change his mind and pitch to him with the count 3-2.
I've never seen this as long as i've been watching baseball.....well, it happened in the Bad News Bears when Inglebert/Englebert reached out during an intentional walk and hit a pitch that got too close to the plate.
Is there a benefit that i'm not thinking of to NOT swing and making the pitcher throw 2 more pitches?
Ever heard the expression "a walk is as good as a hit"? I played softball for YEARS with the Meriden Amateur Softball Association on a woman's team. Won many, many trophies over the years and had a blast to say the least. I was a pitcher and if it was a known fact that the "next batter" was going to be the team power hitter, she was far better on first base with potential to throw her out on second or third then I would walk her.
From the hitters perspective; I have been intentionally walked maybe 4 times during the 20 plus years I had played. If I could get on base "that easy" then perhaps the next batter could hit me around the bases...and it normally did happen.
Intentional walks don't happen all that often but when they do, it is a benefit to both teams if played correctly..one side plays for perhaps the force and the out and the other for getting a runner on base. Its all very strategic.
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.
That does not correctly define the two options. The batter wants hittable pitches. The defense would exchange runner on base plus different batter, for hittable pitches to same batter. Swinging at unhittable pitches does not shift any advantage back to the batter, so there is no point doing it. Except that it adds by a tiny increment the wear on the pitchers arm, and slightly increases the highly improbable risk to the defense of a balk or a wild pitch. It might also rattle some pitchers.
Although, there is the possibility that swinging at a IP delivery might raise significantly the chance that you will be HBP in your next PA, which might be to your advantage if you can duck quick.
By the way, a careful reading of the rules reveals that the umpire does not necessarily need to call a strike if a batter swings at an IP delivery. The rule book merely defines a strike as the batter "striking at the pitch" and does not say anything about merely waving the bat through the strike zone if there is clearly no effort to attempt to hit the pitch.
By the way, I think umpires are often remiss on the "half swing", which is not defined by rule. The swinging strike ought to be called when the umpire judges that the batter was intent on hitting the pitch, not merely spinning around to avoid being hit by the pitch, regardless of the actual trajectory of the bat itself and "did he go around?". An umpire can tell if a half-swing is an attempt to hit the pitch, or merely the momentum of the bat after the batter clearly abandoned his effort to hit the pitch, thus not "striking at" the pitch. In either case, it's a judgment call, so make the judgment accord with the intent of the rule, not on style points for choreographic execution.
That does not correctly define the two options. The batter wants hittable pitches. The defense would exchange runner on base plus different batter, for hittable pitches to same batter. Swinging at unhittable pitches does not shift any advantage back to the batter, so there is no point doing it. Except that it adds by a tiny increment the wear on the pitchers arm, and slightly increases the highly improbable risk to the defense of a balk or a wild pitch. It might also rattle some pitchers.
Although, there is the possibility that swinging at a IP delivery might raise significantly the chance that you will be HBP in your next PA, which might be to your advantage if you can duck quick.
By the way, a careful reading of the rules reveals that the umpire does not necessarily need to call a strike if a batter swings at an IP delivery. The rule book merely defines a strike as the batter "striking at the pitch" and does not say anything about merely waving the bat through the strike zone if there is clearly no effort to attempt to hit the pitch.
By the way, I think umpires are often remiss on the "half swing", which is not defined by rule. The swinging strike ought to be called when the umpire judges that the batter was intent on hitting the pitch, not merely spinning around to avoid being hit by the pitch, regardless of the actual trajectory of the bat itself and "did he go around?". An umpire can tell if a half-swing is an attempt to hit the pitch, or merely the momentum of the bat after the batter clearly abandoned his effort to hit the pitch, thus not "striking at" the pitch. In either case, it's a judgment call, so make the judgment accord with the intent of the rule, not on style points for choreographic execution.
Good writeup 88.
I think that each situation is different, but some players who are being walked, are getting walked even if they swung at 2 pitches and made the count 3-2.
Since pitch counts are a real major part of the game these days, to add one more pitch to the pitchers arm (or 2, depending on the situation) just gets that pitcher out of the game a little bit sooner.
And, there's always an attempt at a wild pitch.
I think you're right that if batters started swinging at IW pitches, MLB would just change the rules. In fact, maybe MLB ought to change the rules that say if a team wants to issue an IW, they should just tell the ump and the player goes to first base without any 'action' on the pitchers part. There's really no reason to throw 4 pitches to accomplish something that can be accomplished administratively.
I think you're right that if batters started swinging at IW pitches, MLB would just change the rules. In fact, maybe MLB ought to change the rules that say if a team wants to issue an IW, they should just tell the ump and the player goes to first base without any 'action' on the pitchers part. There's really no reason to throw 4 pitches to accomplish something that can be accomplished administratively.
I don't think so. The pitch and pitch count is part of the game. As others have mentioned, there is always the possibility of a wild pitch, -or- accidentally having a pitch stray into the strike zone. Also, everyone remembers the fake intentional walk with Rollie Fingers and Johnny Bench. Anything can happen, it's just part of the game.
I think you're right that if batters started swinging at IW pitches, MLB would just change the rules. In fact, maybe MLB ought to change the rules that say if a team wants to issue an IW, they should just tell the ump and the player goes to first base without any 'action' on the pitchers part. There's really no reason to throw 4 pitches to accomplish something that can be accomplished administratively.
Interestingly enough, that very move has been added, dropped, and added again thru the years by various HS associations & other youth (below college age) leagues...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Baseball 101
Hmmm... let me help you. First of all, the batters ulterior motive is to get on base - not swing at bad pitches. Lastly, the most effective way to accomplish said goal is to stand inside the batters box, without swinging.
