Is this too radical?

[Robotech]

Since Manfred is changing so many rules anyway, what if we put in a rule that the batter can decline a walk? One time thing in each at bat, so you can't change your mind later on in the at bat. This would mean that an at bat will either end in a strikeout or the ball is put in play. I think a lot of fans would rather see a K or the ball in play over a guy walking to first base.

And of course, it might be bad strategy most of the time to decline a walk.

 

[YourFriendGannon]

Likely too radical, yes. The way some stubborn opposing pitchers would adjust to this would probably make for some exruciatingly drawn out at bats.

 

[calsnowskier]

Since Manfred is changing so many rules anyway, what if we put in a rule that the batter can decline a walk? One time thing in each at bat, so you can't change your mind later on in the at bat. This would mean that an at bat will either end in a strikeout or the ball is put in play. I think a lot of fans would rather see a K or the ball in play over a guy walking to first base.

And of course, it might be bad strategy most of the time to decline a walk.

Imagine this scenario…

Runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, bottom of the ninth, team at bat is down by 1 run.

Batter is Barry Bonds.


How can you legislate that the pitcher has to throw a pitch anywhere near the strike zone? There simply is no incentive for the away team to pitch to Bonds there.

 

[Robotech]

Imagine this scenario…

Runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, bottom of the ninth, team at bat is down by 1 run.

Batter is Barry Bonds.


How can you legislate that the pitcher has to throw a pitch anywhere near the strike zone? There simply is no incentive for the away team to pitch to Bonds there.

Yes, enforcement would be an issue. My idea is that the walk is supposed to be a reward to the batter, so if it is a reward, then the batter should have the option to turn it down. I suppose the pitcher could protest and start throwing slow pitches out of the zone in order to preserve his arm and not give the batter what he wants, but then maybe that gives the base runner at 3B some opening to steal home.

 

[Robotech]

Imagine this scenario…

Runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, bottom of the ninth, team at bat is down by 1 run.

Batter is Barry Bonds.


How can you legislate that the pitcher has to throw a pitch anywhere near the strike zone? There simply is no incentive for the away team to pitch to Bonds there.

It would be sort of like declining a penalty in football.

 

[calsnowskier]

It would be sort of like declining a penalty in football.

I get your thought. It just doesn’t make sense.

OK, Bonds doesn’t take 1st. So the pitcher continues to throw pitches 6 feet outside. Nothing has been achieved except that now you have entered into an infinite loop.

 

[Robotech]

I get your thought. It just doesn’t make sense.

OK, Bonds doesn’t take 1st. So the pitcher continues to throw pitches 6 feet outside. Nothing has been achieved except that now you have entered into an infinite loop.

Maybe the pitcher wouldn't want to tire out his arm further by throwing pitch after pitch outside the zone. Or maybe we would punish it like a balk if the pitcher throws ___ consecutive pitches outside of the strike zone.

I know it's radical to try to force a pitcher to pitch to a batter in that kind of runners on base scenario, but since Manfred is changing a bunch of rules, I would love to reduce the number of times that a great hitter gets the bat taken out of his hands.

 

[Cedrique]

Since Manfred is changing so many rules anyway, what if we put in a rule that the batter can decline a walk? One time thing in each at bat, so you can't change your mind later on in the at bat. This would mean that an at bat will either end in a strikeout or the ball is put in play. I think a lot of fans would rather see a K or the ball in play over a guy walking to first base.

And of course, it might be bad strategy most of the time to decline a walk.

Yeah that's too radical. Don't worry, Miggy has 140 more games to get that last hit........

 

[Picklerick 2.0]

Since Manfred is changing so many rules anyway, what if we put in a rule that the batter can decline a walk? One time thing in each at bat, so you can't change your mind later on in the at bat. This would mean that an at bat will either end in a strikeout or the ball is put in play. I think a lot of fans would rather see a K or the ball in play over a guy walking to first base.

And of course, it might be bad strategy most of the time to decline a walk.

Yes, the only reason we don't see the pitcher toss 4 straight clunkers 10 feet away from the plate is because of the intentional walk rule. It only saves time, nothing more.