MLB to eliminate four- pitch intentional walk, walks now will be signaled from dugout

So, we choose to delay a pivotal competitive at bat in the game because there’s a chance someone’s going to fuck up a game of catch.

My company just had me work on a week long process improvement project, trying to shave time off of our work flow. Anything that appeared to have value was considered, once you add a few seconds here, a few seconds there, you can recognize real gains.

This is one of those minor items that has small value but is easy to implement, you just do it and move on to the next item. It doesn’t fix anything by itself, but it’s part of the larger project.

But see, I’m not seeing the problem others do. So some games go one for an extended period. Big deal. To me this is a stupid idea to try to solve a relatively non-existent problem. I don’t want my baseball game to scurry by. I want to savor them.

If everybody else has a problem, then, as mentioned by just about everybody, cut back of the stupid commercials and limit pitching changes. Hell, just enforcing the existing rules on remaining in the batters box would make more of a time difference than the intentional walk.

No way the owners or union lobbies for a decrease in revenue with a reduced commercial time.

But tv watchers and fans ARE so voting. We’ll see how it works out for the owners and players long term. Lots of other things to do these days…

Or the runner in scoring position steals third since there’s less than two outs, and now a sac fly scores in the winning or tying run. (Although, yes, in the video I linked, there were two outs, so less reason to steal, but still done.)

Just no on this.

I can’t imagine the union would ever agree to a rule that would essentially eliminate playing time for some players and would result in more pitches thrown per pitcher.

Yeah - I thought of this last summer. Proposed rule:

My initial thought was “must pitch three outs” (so potentially across innings), but if some guy comes in and is getting shelled, there should be a way to yank him.

Then you’d have to change your rule as written.

It could be as simple as "A pitcher inserted into the game after one or more at bats of an inning have already taken place must either
a) Complete the inning, or
b) Pitch to three batters.

A pitcher inserted mid-inning and removed prior to meeting either of these conditions shall not be permitted to play in his team’s two subsequent championship season games.*"

  • = in the rulebook “Championship season game” is the term of art for a regular season game.

If you really must have a rule change like this, this is really all you need. Now you can’t have two switches in an inning unless the second pitcher pitches to three people.

The rule change is abhorrent, but orders of magnitude better than the notion of starting extra innings with runners on first and second. That will be the end of baseball.

There aren’t that many intentional walks. Want to speed the game up? Shorten the breaks between innings. But this will never happen due to commercial concerns.

Wait. Is this a serious proposition?

With an idiot like Manfred, who knows?

Thanks - I think that does exactly what I want. Now I just need to become commissioner, and we’re all set.

Of course, as written playoff games are still going to go on forever - but maybe that’s OK. Plus, managers and players will be used to regular season strategy, so perhaps they’ll be less likely to abuse things (and I’ve got a bridge for sale! Cheap!)

The current proposal is just for a man on second, not both first and second, but it’s being trotted out in some minor leagues and the WBC. Id’ confidently say that it won’t go any further, but that’s what I always think about terrible rules changes that can only hurt a sport. Hello, “The All-Star Game counts!”*
*Or, rather, goodbye, and good riddance.

It’s in place for the World Baseball Classic. Just wait for some chump in MLB (commissioner) to decide it would be a good idea.

I somehow completely missed the existence of the World Baseball Classic, so I had to look that up, but please, dear God, no. It’s not like I’m a complete purist–I’m fine with robots calling balls and strikes, but not this.

With this scenario, you could throw a 10 inning perfect game but throw two wild pitches and lose. 30 up, 30 down, 1 loss.

The baseball trivia nerd in me just found a reason to like this potential change.

I kid, I kid… I think.

What I want to see:

When the batter unzips and rezips his battling gloves (after a ball!), the pitcher fires one in there. No waiting until the batter is “ready”. When the batter is taking 10 practice swings, and pointing the bat at the pitcher, the pitcher fires one in there. Hey, he’s in the batter’s box, he should be ready!

That actually makes sens, i dont like it as compulsory, but strategy on both sides? I am ok with that.

There would never be any reason for the OM to ever consent, except when there’s no one on base. And there are very, very few intentional walks with the bases empty even amongst intentional walks, which are fairly rare in themselves.