With all of this talk about Barry Bonds, and disregarding whether he may or may not have taken steriods which he never got caught doing if he in fact ever took them, don't you think that there should be a penalty for an intentional walk, such as the batter's team would get an automatic run? I have never liked intentional walks and would love for them to be banned or made illegal like the spitball. I say "Pitch to everybody and if they hit a home run, so be it!"
2007-05-23 21:12:16 · 14 answers · asked by jrg8smn_2000 3 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I can respect the question and I also think that an intentional walk is kind of cheap. However, awarding a run is not a realistic answer. Walking a batter is a legitimate strategy when playing baseball. I am a baseball purist and not in favor of eliminating a or controlling a strategy that has been around for over 100 years. What I would propose is that the catcher not be able to stand and jump outside the batters box. This would force the pitcher to continue to control his pitches. You bring up Bonds, and others like him often get the "unintentional-intentional walk" where the pitcher will still make a normal delivery to the plate but try and gt the hitter to chase a pitch a foot off the plate. This at least forces the pitcher to make the throw and allows a greater possibility for a pass ball, wild pitch or catching too much of the plate and giving up a big hit at the wrong time. Keep the catcher in the squat and I think it is a fair compromise, and add a little more to the game.
2007-05-23 21:23:01 · answer #1 · answered by hobbsnatural 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a penalty for an intentional walk...the batter is awarded first base for free. I don't think they should change the way it is now. This is simply a strategy used by the manager to help his team win the game. This rule has been around forever and hasn't hurt the game, at least not in my eyes. If the Giants don't like Bonds getting walked all the time they should of spent some of that Zito money on a guy who would of forced them to pitch to Barry a little more often. I know the free agent market was lacking in power this year, but they could of done better than Ray Durham. He can't offer protection for any clean up hitter in baseball, let alone Bonds.
2007-05-23 21:23:14 · answer #2 · answered by ajn4664_ksu 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not at all.
The intentional walk is one of the reasons that the manager is such a vital member of a baseball team, unlike the coach is in most other sports.
The walk is a calculated risk that DOES come with a penalty- the batter gets on base. It may seem cheap, but look at the BEST hitters and you will see through their averages that they get on base only about 20% of the time.
Walking a batter is strategy. Plain and simple.
2007-05-23 21:22:48 · answer #3 · answered by Expat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, nitwit...putting a potential run on base purposely IS the penalty. You are turning the other team's lineup over that much faster, allowing their better hitters possibly come up an inning earlier than they would have. You are putting a potential run on base. If your pitcher has settled into a pace and rhythm, you are disrupting that...and it's surprising how often a pitcher gets disrupted just once, he's out of "the Zone" for the rest of the night. The intentional walk carries it's own set of pitfalls quite well by itself, without inflicting any other penalties.
What gripes me is that if it were anybody besides Bonds, it would be a non-issue. He's not the only batter that's ever been intentionally walked. Guys like Aaron, McCovey, Mantle, Schmidt, and Mays had to deal with not getting pitches to hit as well. They weren't walked as blatantly as Bonds is, but were often issued "unintentional intentional" walks. Of course in that case, the pitcher could make a mistake and leave a pitch in a good zone to hit, but by the same token your Matthews, Maris, Killebrew, Jackson and Banks had to learn the discipline to lay off all the garbage pitches they had to put up with constantly. Quit being a Bonds apologist. If it were up to me, I would just pitch to him, because it seems to me that you are better off risking the occasional home run (which may or may not happen in a given at bat) than putting the certain base runner on (which comes around to score more often than you'd suspect).
Besides, if got into a situation where I had to put Barry on, I'd just drill him, and save three pitches vs. the intentional walk.
Did I mention I'm from Pittsburgh? Remember Sid Bream.
2007-05-23 21:53:07 · answer #4 · answered by Yinzer Power 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I do not agree. The intentional walk is a part of strategy and risk taking, and helps make the game more interesting. The penalty is already there......the batter is awarded first base and becomes a potential run.
2007-05-24 08:07:22 · answer #5 · answered by dwmatty19 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Penalty is they get to go to first base, all the time you see pitchers pitch aroud hitters, four straight low and outside sounds intentional to me, even if the catcher didn't stand up and take a couple steps to the right or left. A walk is a walk the penalty is clear for both the hitter gets awarded first base.
2007-05-24 03:59:51 · answer #6 · answered by fred l 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The pitcher's activity is unquestionably to get the batter to hit the ball to a fielder, no longer strike anybody out. besides, in Little League and intense college baseball the protection can ask for "time" and for the plate umpire to award a batter first base on an intentional walk. In professional ball, nevertheless, the pitcher has to furnish all the pitches. the reason being through requiring the pitcher to throw the pitches, the offense nonetheless gets its probability to scouse borrow bases or take income of a recoil or a wild pitch.
2016-11-05 05:19:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The walk rule, including intentional walks, has worked just fine for well over 100 years. This sort of conceptual mucking about sounds about right for the lesser sports, but baseball upholds a higher standard.
2007-05-24 00:26:41 · answer #8 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nah, I think it's OK.
What I do have a problem with is the intentional down, in the NFL, when the clock is low. That is 200% lame!
I don't know how they would force a team to play a down, though, but kneeing is so lame it's not even funny.
2007-05-23 21:20:50 · answer #9 · answered by perfectlybaked 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Automatic run for it? No way. It's an important defensive strategy. It's not like the defense is getting away with anything bc now they have an extra baserunner. They have a lot of things to consider ie. num of outs, players next up in the order (hrs, handedness, slugging...) etc
2007-05-23 21:26:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋