Is this a good idea? The Globe's Nick Cafardo can't make up his mind.
October 5, 2014:
We'll be watching the Arizona Fall League intently in October and November because it will be the testing ground for new rules regarding the pace of games. There are easy ones, such as the no-pitch intentional walk, in which the manager holds up four fingers and the umpire awards the batter first base. That will save a couple of minutes. Of course, this takes away the potential of an errant pitch, etc., but those are few and far between. ... These all seem like reasonable changes.May 23, 2016:
I don't like changing the ... intentional walk procedure. ... On intentional walks, pitchers will just signal to have the walk and will not need to throw the ball. Well, this now eliminates the possibility of a wild pitch, which we've seen, not frequently, but enough to keep it in place. And you’re saving how much time? ... [W]hy do it?
2 comments:
Too funny!
As for the rule change, I looked at this when the proposal came out in late 2014 and the time savings would be insignificant when you consider that there aren't many issued every season.
I looked at 2016 season totals to date: MLB teams have combined to play a total of 1332 games and have been intentionally walked 264 times. That means that each team on average is issued one IBB every five games.
My preference is to keep the IBB the way it is. Here's an idea: maybe hire robots to call the balls and strikes so I see less posturing from Joe West and Ron Culpa. I shouldn't know their names, MLB.
I suppose he could have simply changed his mind, but then if he did, he's too lazy to explain why. ... I await his column flip-flopping again and explaining why it's a great idea. ... (Hey, if we make shifts illegal, that will save time because the players won't move around so much.)
Post a Comment