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.
Today the players association voted to do away with throwing pitches during an intentional walk and just conceding the base to the runner. Pitching on an intentional walk may seem like a formality, but it's still something you need to execute properly. There's still something that can go wrong -- for instance:
I realize that the vast majority of intentional walks are executed successfully as planned, but IMO at the very least they should be forced to execute when there's a runner on base. Otherwise you eliminate a number of other possible outcomes during the process that could change the game's outcome. Maybe they could leave it to the discretion of the defense -- if they want to waive the pitch requirement and just take the base, fine, otherwise they could opt to force the pitcher to throw the pitches.
It slows the game down a bit, which is probably why MLB wanted to do away with it (several other rule changes are being proposed that will also speed up the game), and there's a negligible chance of injury, which is probably why the MLBPA was in favor of it.
But there's still the remote chance that something could go wrong to change the outcome of a game, so execution is critical. For that reason I'd hate to see it go. I'm with you, maybe they could just do it with runners on base when there's a greater chance of something going wrong.
Exactly how much do they anticipate this will speed up the average game by? Maybe a minute or two? Seems like a joke. Keep the rule as it is. Tinker somewhere else.
Last edited by biggunsmallbrains; 02-22-2017 at 04:14 PM..
I suspect we can live with this. If they had instituted this rule back in 1901 or something, we would all accept it and I doubt that anyone would be arguing for going through the four off plate pitches because of the tiny chance that something might go wrong.
Thank goodness my water didn't get spewed when I read about it the other day on my break at work (had I been drinking it...). Why are people even wanting to speed up the game?? It's utterly pointless. The current structure works just fine, and it's more fair.
What's the intention? There's not enough intentional walks to make the game shorter that fans would even notice. It's not a big deal but the change seems meaningless to me.
I suspect we can live with this. If they had instituted this rule back in 1901 or something, we would all accept it and I doubt that anyone would be arguing for going through the four off plate pitches because of the tiny chance that something might go wrong.
But they didn't institute the rule in 1901 or ever until now, so that means we've had a chance to see what can happen when an intentional walk doesn't go according to plan and some of us don't want to see that element of it removed from the game.
But they didn't institute the rule in 1901 or ever until now, so that means we've had a chance to see what can happen when an intentional walk doesn't go according to plan and some of us don't want to see that element of it removed from the game.
Of course....but I was attempting to introduce an element of relativity. So much of what we believe is right and wrong is actually just familiarity....something has always been a certain way, so we conclude that it must always be that way. In that we are trained by repetition to embrace the familiar, we may also be trained to embrace an alternative.
If we view the question removed from our trained familiarity, viewed it just on its merits alone, we may be left wondering why for the sake of that once in a blue moon screw up during an intentional walk, we must endure thousands of time wasting formalities.
We now accept all sorts of modifications to the game which took place before we became fans. Would you argue against batting helmets? When they were first proposed there was plenty of opposition and many editorials and player comments to the effect that this was sissyfying the game. Would you wish to see the color barrier reestablished or no stadiums to have lights? There were plenty of people who screamed that these changes would ruin the game.
If we view the question removed from our "trained familiarity" as you put it, they might as well change some aspect of the game every year until its something unrecognizable 10 or 20 years or now. So yeah, familiarity from year to year is kind of an important part of being a fan of the sport. And I AM viewing it on its merits, which is why I provided all kinds of examples why the rule shouldn't be changed.
If there's anything that should be changed, it's the requirement to run the bases if you hit a home run because the outcome is a foregone conclusion. The outcome of an intentional walk attempt is not. Similarly, batting helmets don't change an element of game play that could affect the outcome, so your attempt at equivalence doesn't work.
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.
). Why are people even wanting to speed up the game?? It's utterly pointless. The current structure works just fine, and it's more fair.
