<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I &#9829; the IBB</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/</link>
	<description>Economic Thinking about Baseball</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:16:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/comment-page-1/#comment-102763</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 12:04:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/#comment-102763</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m jumping in late but I do like the availibility of the IBB although it is probably overused from a strategic standpoint (so are sac bunts).  Sac bunts are similar in nature.  A team intentionally trying to make an out to gain an extra 90 feet.  I guess I&#039;m just an Earl Weaver type of guy.

I know JC has written about lineup protection before, but I wonder if if JC&#039;s conclusion about protection being essentially nonexistent applies to IBB or only when pitchers are trying to record outs.

By the way, Buck Showalter gets my vote for greatest IBB ever!  Walking Bonds with the bases loaded drove the purists mad, but when you look at most of those Giant teams (Bonds, 7 clowns and a pitcher) its amazing Bonds ever got a pitch at which to swing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m jumping in late but I do like the availibility of the IBB although it is probably overused from a strategic standpoint (so are sac bunts).  Sac bunts are similar in nature.  A team intentionally trying to make an out to gain an extra 90 feet.  I guess I&#8217;m just an Earl Weaver type of guy.</p>
<p>I know JC has written about lineup protection before, but I wonder if if JC&#8217;s conclusion about protection being essentially nonexistent applies to IBB or only when pitchers are trying to record outs.</p>
<p>By the way, Buck Showalter gets my vote for greatest IBB ever!  Walking Bonds with the bases loaded drove the purists mad, but when you look at most of those Giant teams (Bonds, 7 clowns and a pitcher) its amazing Bonds ever got a pitch at which to swing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc Schneider</title>
		<link>http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/comment-page-1/#comment-102755</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc Schneider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 14:19:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/#comment-102755</guid>
		<description>To me, the IBB is no different than a football team double covering a star wide receiver or a basketball team setting up special defenses for a particular player (eg, the Jordan Rules).  Why don&#039;t those sports all outlaw special defenses?  Unless you want to turn games into exhibitions, the point is to win and you do that by making the best players non-factors.  Would the sport be better if Bonds was never intentionally walked (disregarding the points made before about how you enforce that) and hit 85 home runs?  

The rest of Neyer&#039;s points make sense but, by now, he annoys me so much that I tend to oppose anything he says on principle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To me, the IBB is no different than a football team double covering a star wide receiver or a basketball team setting up special defenses for a particular player (eg, the Jordan Rules).  Why don&#8217;t those sports all outlaw special defenses?  Unless you want to turn games into exhibitions, the point is to win and you do that by making the best players non-factors.  Would the sport be better if Bonds was never intentionally walked (disregarding the points made before about how you enforce that) and hit 85 home runs?  </p>
<p>The rest of Neyer&#8217;s points make sense but, by now, he annoys me so much that I tend to oppose anything he says on principle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff Young</title>
		<link>http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/comment-page-1/#comment-102754</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff Young</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 01:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/#comment-102754</guid>
		<description>&quot;Btw, Geoff Young, not Chris Young, no?&quot;

Yeah, I&#039;m about a foot shorter. ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Btw, Geoff Young, not Chris Young, no?&#8221;</p>
<p>Yeah, I&#8217;m about a foot shorter. <img src='http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kyle</title>
		<link>http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/comment-page-1/#comment-102753</link>
		<dc:creator>Kyle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 23:14:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/#comment-102753</guid>
		<description>The only people who dislike intentional fouls are ones who can&#039;t hit free throws.  Like the IBB, it&#039;s a part of the strategy of the game.  If people don&#039;t want strategy, go watch a game of Tic-tac-toe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only people who dislike intentional fouls are ones who can&#8217;t hit free throws.  Like the IBB, it&#8217;s a part of the strategy of the game.  If people don&#8217;t want strategy, go watch a game of Tic-tac-toe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/comment-page-1/#comment-102752</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 21:00:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/#comment-102752</guid>
		<description>One possibility is:

Four balls = first base

Eight balls = second base

Twelve balls = third base

etc.

I&#039;ll even be kind to you intentional rule-breakers and not reset the strikes.  So if you walk a guy on a full count, and the hitter declines it, the count reverts to 0-2.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One possibility is:</p>
<p>Four balls = first base</p>
<p>Eight balls = second base</p>
<p>Twelve balls = third base</p>
<p>etc.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll even be kind to you intentional rule-breakers and not reset the strikes.  So if you walk a guy on a full count, and the hitter declines it, the count reverts to 0-2.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JC</title>
		<link>http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/comment-page-1/#comment-102751</link>
		<dc:creator>JC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 18:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/#comment-102751</guid>
		<description>Doug, 

Haven&#039;t we had this conversation before? ;-) 

What happens when the batter declines his base and the pitcher continues to throw balls?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doug, </p>
<p>Haven&#8217;t we had this conversation before? <img src='http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' />  </p>
<p>What happens when the batter declines his base and the pitcher continues to throw balls?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/comment-page-1/#comment-102750</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 18:09:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/#comment-102750</guid>
		<description>I dislike intentional walks for the same reason I dislike intentional fouls at the end of basketball games.  

You&#039;re supposed to pitch the danged ball into the strike zone.  If you&#039;re not capable of doing so, the base-on-balls is supposed to be the penalty.

At no point in any game or sport should a team benefit from intentionally penalizing itself.  It&#039;s just wrong.

Football has it right.  If the penalty would be beneficial for the offending team, the other team has the right to refuse it.  

Batters should have the same option.  I&#039;m not sure exactly how the mechanics would work, but batters should be allowed to decline &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; walk, intentional or not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I dislike intentional walks for the same reason I dislike intentional fouls at the end of basketball games.  </p>
<p>You&#8217;re supposed to pitch the danged ball into the strike zone.  If you&#8217;re not capable of doing so, the base-on-balls is supposed to be the penalty.</p>
<p>At no point in any game or sport should a team benefit from intentionally penalizing itself.  It&#8217;s just wrong.</p>
<p>Football has it right.  If the penalty would be beneficial for the offending team, the other team has the right to refuse it.  </p>
<p>Batters should have the same option.  I&#8217;m not sure exactly how the mechanics would work, but batters should be allowed to decline <i>any</i> walk, intentional or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kyle James</title>
		<link>http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/comment-page-1/#comment-102749</link>
		<dc:creator>Kyle James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 17:19:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/#comment-102749</guid>
		<description>Great great stuff!  I also love the IBB and the element of strategy that is invoked around it.  For HS ball and younger I think it&#039;s ok to just allow the coach to say we are intentionally walking a guy, but for professionals they should be required to throw the four pitches because you never know what could happen.  Haven&#039;t we seen a free swinger like Vlad hit a HR on a free pass or a guy throw one to the screen that results in the winning run scoring?  

Otherwise I think all of Neyer&#039;s other suggestions are fair game and I&#039;d throw in one more.  Nothing against umpires, but I think we are at a point in time where instant replay is ok in certain situations most notably in calling a HR which we have seen a lot of need for in the last two weeks.  I&#039;d leave bang bang plays and balls and strikes in the judgement call of the umpires, because we still love to see Bobby Cox thrown out of a game every now and then.  Both a ball down the line that might have been foul or fair or a HR or ground rule double you just hate to see one of those missed.  

Speeding up games and bringing back Double Headers, and no I don&#039;t mean day/night DH&#039;s to makeup for a rain delay are definitely in the best interest of the game.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great great stuff!  I also love the IBB and the element of strategy that is invoked around it.  For HS ball and younger I think it&#8217;s ok to just allow the coach to say we are intentionally walking a guy, but for professionals they should be required to throw the four pitches because you never know what could happen.  Haven&#8217;t we seen a free swinger like Vlad hit a HR on a free pass or a guy throw one to the screen that results in the winning run scoring?  </p>
<p>Otherwise I think all of Neyer&#8217;s other suggestions are fair game and I&#8217;d throw in one more.  Nothing against umpires, but I think we are at a point in time where instant replay is ok in certain situations most notably in calling a HR which we have seen a lot of need for in the last two weeks.  I&#8217;d leave bang bang plays and balls and strikes in the judgement call of the umpires, because we still love to see Bobby Cox thrown out of a game every now and then.  Both a ball down the line that might have been foul or fair or a HR or ground rule double you just hate to see one of those missed.  </p>
<p>Speeding up games and bringing back Double Headers, and no I don&#8217;t mean day/night DH&#8217;s to makeup for a rain delay are definitely in the best interest of the game.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Houghton</title>
		<link>http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/comment-page-1/#comment-102748</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Houghton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 17:01:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/#comment-102748</guid>
		<description>Btw, Geoff Young, not Chris Young, no?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Btw, Geoff Young, not Chris Young, no?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Houghton</title>
		<link>http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/comment-page-1/#comment-102747</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Houghton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 16:55:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/i-the-ibb/#comment-102747</guid>
		<description>I love the IBB, even after Johnny Bench in the 1972 World Series.

You still have to pitch four balls out of the strike zone: in fact, far enough out that, unless you&#039;re Benching someone, the batter cannot hit it without stepping out of the batter&#039;s box.

The catcher still has to catch it.

The pitch has to be fast enough that a baserunner on second or third doesn&#039;t decide to steal.

The catcher has to throw it back--or decide that the baserunner at second or third is getting a little lazy, and try to make a play.

They&#039;re four of the most interesting pitches in the game, especially if the reason is more than runner-on-second-and-the-#8-hitter-up-in-a-Major-League-game.

Of course, I&#039;ve said before that baseball doesn&#039;t need to be faster; it needs better announcers who actually explain what is happening.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love the IBB, even after Johnny Bench in the 1972 World Series.</p>
<p>You still have to pitch four balls out of the strike zone: in fact, far enough out that, unless you&#8217;re Benching someone, the batter cannot hit it without stepping out of the batter&#8217;s box.</p>
<p>The catcher still has to catch it.</p>
<p>The pitch has to be fast enough that a baserunner on second or third doesn&#8217;t decide to steal.</p>
<p>The catcher has to throw it back&#8211;or decide that the baserunner at second or third is getting a little lazy, and try to make a play.</p>
<p>They&#8217;re four of the most interesting pitches in the game, especially if the reason is more than runner-on-second-and-the-#8-hitter-up-in-a-Major-League-game.</p>
<p>Of course, I&#8217;ve said before that baseball doesn&#8217;t need to be faster; it needs better announcers who actually explain what is happening.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

