| 0 |
Subject: Sick of Stark
Posted by: Razor
- Donor [411149818] Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 14:04
Intentional walk rule should be changed
I'm so sick of Stark and has useless statistics and his love affair with Bonds and italics. I don't think he's written an article in 3 years that went more than one paragraph without using italics or talking about how amazing Bonds is. Usually it's both. |
| 1 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 14:31
|
That is, without a doubt, the lamest article I've ever read in a major publication. He was dumb idea, basically admits that his dumb idea is unworkable and unenforceable, and then proceeds to try to foist his admitedly dumb and untenable idea off as some kind of plan to make more people watch baseball with about 1000 wasted words.
|
| 2 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 554192913
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 14:34
|
Surprise, surprise. Razor doesn't like Jayson Stark because he has the audacity to enjoy the most amazing offensive player in the history of baseball.
I just read the collumn and think it raised some great points which I had not considered before, which is why ESPN hires people to write.
Exactly where in the top 10 did you put Bonds last year in your MVP ballot again, Razor?
|
| 3 | beastiemiked
Sustainer
ID: 2711292917
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 14:38
|
I agree, it was a waste of my time to read it.
|
| 4 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 40029714
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 14:57
|
I don't often disagree with Seattle Zen, but I also think there was a significant amount of fluff in this article. I mean, who cares if the pitcher fakes to third and throws to first? Most of the time, he's ridiculed, which is punishment enough.
You can't limit the mound visits per game or pickoff attempts. You can, however, enforce timing rules or the out-of-the-box rule. Instant replay is the only real significant case here, and I think that's still a while away.
|
| 5 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 17:06
|
I wouldn't have voted for Bonds because I think he's juiced up. I've said that a million times.
I think most of Stark's articles are largely fluff. His writing is something to read if you're incredibly bored, but otherwise, every other columnist on ESPN is light years better. I've actually come to respect Campbell and Gammons a lot more using the argument "at least they're not Stark." For a while, Campbell infuriated me with his unwitting Peter Vecsey impersonation - "My sources tell me that Sammy Sosa will be a Yankee within the next 24 to 48 hours." He said this for a week straight. Sosa remains a Cub.
|
| 6 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 17:13
|
Very good stuff by Stark, one of the more informative writers around. A good summary of the various options for a possible rule change.
I'm one of the 6.0% in favour of allowing a player to turn down a walk.
Stark didn't mention 2 key questions about such a rule -- if you turn down a walk, do the strikes rest to zero or stay on the count when reset. If the latter was the case, the likely effect would be, as Bill James has argued, that the team that really wanted to intentionally walk a player would have to throw him a strike first.
There is also the question of what happens if the player is walked the second time, after turning the first one down. Presumably something dramatic, like the player going to second and everyone moving up two bases.
Toral
|
| 7 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 554192913
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 17:39
|
You don't have to be one of the 6% in favor of a rule change to think that an article bringing the subject up for discusion is a worthwhile endeavor.
I like the idea of at ball four, the player is "asked" if he would like to take first base. If he declines, the count remains what it was (3-0, 3-1, or 3-2) and the pitcher throws again. Another ball, another opportunity to take first or decline.
|
| 8 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 20:17
|
That's beyond ridiculous. I can't believe anyone would advocate such a ludicrous rule. So a player who is capable of getting a walk just gets to sit at the plate for as long as he wants? Baseball has been around for over 100 years and now we decide that a getting a free base for not swinging the bat isn't good enough? There is a penalty for issuing a walk or intentional walk, that being that the team has an extra runner on base. Baseball is a team game and has always been the consummate team game. If the guy hitting the behind the walkee can't get the job done, well, get a better team.
If you ask me, this is just another tiny step towards Homerun Derby.
|
| 9 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 23:08
|
I think that there should be a rule in place that the catcher is not allowed to stand prior to the pitcher lettting go of the ball. I realize, as Larussa points out that there are still "unintentional intentional walks" but atleast this means that the risk is greater for the defensive team of a wild pitch or a pitch that isn't quite far enough outside.
Stricter restraints should be put on the catcher as to where he can move prior to the ball being put in play by the batter. If a slightly wider catchers box was put in place that he could not leave at the expense of moving base runners up this may just encourage a slightly more competitive stance on when to institute an intentional walk.
And for all the "purists" like Razor, I think Stark makes a great point. The reason baseball is loosing fans has a great deal to do with the fact that to the untrained eye it is an extremely boring game to watch. Free passes do not help to alliviate this boredom.
|
| 10 | The Left Wings
ID: 1668298
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 02:39
|
The most important premise that Jayson Stark made was that "Most fans watch baseball because they want to see Barry Bonds hit homeruns." I think that is fundamentally not true. And when something stems from a false premise, it'll be totally BS.
Who in the blue hell cares how many times he gets walked? I believe that it's totally hyped up by the media and that the general public don't care, as proved by the TV ratings of the World Series. It's just another thing the media and statisticians made up so that they can fill up their shows.
All the Giants have to do to stop teams from intentionally walking Bonds all the time is to get a good leadoff hitter and to have another premier hitter right behind Bonds. Santiago is just not intimidating. I think if you put Santiago behind Berkman, Sosa or another other high-average power hitter, they'll be walked just as much.
I basically agree with Myboyjack. Granted, it is usually a good idea to show the other side of the problem when you try to convince people of something, but you simply shouldn't bash your own idea as if you believe that it's a stupid idea.
Also, some of the adjectives Stark used to describe Bonds ("The Greatest Player of His Times", "most magnetic", "magical", etc.) are simply biased opinion. It's bad journalism because he's exaggerating things. Unfortunately, this happens way too often in journalism today.
This is also why I seldom read these columnists. Most of them are just BSing to get their paychecks. Maybe I'm biased against them, but I believe that most people who can spell, have good grammar, and have followed the sport for a few years would be able to write up something like that.
And by the way, did you guys see that over 60% of the people voted against the rule change?
If you support a rule change, it's like doing the homework for your kids because they can't figure it out by themselves. It's true that Bonds got walked way too many times when compared to other players. So let the managers figure him out. Don't do the homework for the managers... they're already earning too much.
|
| 11 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 589301110
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 03:07
|
The managers have figured him out. They walk him, making him a singles slap hitter with a 1.000 average. It makes sense to do that sometimes, because he is just too good. He IS the greatest player of his times. It isn't biased opinion. It is fact, with a wealth of evidence to back it up. He is so far above everyone else that managers have made rules just for him.
|
| 12 | Whitey
Sustainer
ID: 5020228
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 09:39
|
The reason that the article is an absolute waste of space is as Stark points out himself.
A pitcher can ALWAYS walk a batter if he wants to even if he doesn't make it look intentional. End of story.
I think there are other issues that need to be focused on that carry much more weight.
I am amazed that some of you would even waste an ounce of thought on Stark's ideas in the article. It is a total fluff article and it seems he had absolutely nothing else to write about so he forced this one out.
|
| 13 | Rogue Nine
ID: 5511222
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 10:00
|
Even Neyer seems to write about crap these days. Its the off-season guys, its not like they have GAMES to write about... Treat a off-season article as it should be treated; as entertainment for people bored out of their minds.
|
| 14 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 554192913
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 12:16
|
Left Wings
You argue thus
I believe that most people who can spell, have good grammar, and have followed the sport for a few years would be able to write up something like that.
then state this
I think if you put Santiago behind Berkman, Sosa or another other high-average power hitter, they'll be walked just as much.
completely dispelling your initial argument.
I'm sure the lot of you were decrying the day football allowed the forward pass and basketball placed a "lane" with a three-second rule. What's next, they won't let you jump across the free-throw line when you shoot free throws?
Razor
There is a penalty for issuing a walk or intentional walk, that being that the team has an extra runner on base.
When Bonds is at the plate, putting him on first isn't a penalty anymore, it is more attractive than offering him a strike. The only thing that is ridiculous is the fact that you get blue in the face at the mere suggestion of a rule change.
|
| 15 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 15:05
|
"When Bonds is at the plate, putting him on first isn't a penalty anymore, it is more attractive than offering him a strike."
Isn't that the point of every intentional walk? You'd be better off putting the guy on first and pitching to the next guy? You guys are nuts. SF has Benito Santiago batting behind Bonds and you wonder why he gets pitched around. He wouldn't have gotten 200 walks last year if Kent had batted behind him more. All it takes is one Kent 3-run HR for a manager to say "Screw this idea." If Bonds wants to see pitches, he should whine to Brian Sabean instead of to the media.
|
| 16 | Rogue Nine
ID: 2404357
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 15:43
|
Zen's point isn't that Stark's idea is great. It may or may not be stupid. But Stark isn't dumb for bringing it up. That's how progress is made. Either you agree and try to change the rules, or you don't and leave the rules the way they are. By discussing it you can progress forward, even if that progress is determining that everything is fine the way it is.
|
| 17 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 22:05
|
This thread makes it sound like he proposed the ideas. He didn't. He posed them to Alderson and LaRussa.
This thread also makes it sound like one of the proposals was to let a batter refuse to accept a walk. That's not what it says at all. The proposal was to allow a hitter to decline an INTENTIONAL walk.
Of course the probelm with ALL the proposals is that all a pitcher has to do is unintentioanlly walk a batter and they are moot.
|
| 18 | The Left Wings
ID: 1668298
Thu, Feb 06, 2003, 18:26
|
That's right. Pitching into the ground and just throwing the ball 10 feet away from the batter isn't that much different.
How about I throw the first three balls intentionally, and then completely misses the strike zone with a 95mph fastball?
You just can't stop people from walking intentionally. It's easy to fake the "unintention".
And Seattle Zen, I don't understand how I was disspelling my argument. As Razor agreed, one of the reasons Bonds got walked so much was that the hitter behind him was a much better target.
Personally, I have no problem at all with all the walks Bonds is drawing. I just don't see how changing any rules only because of Bonds would help the game. He's only one player. You don't have to fall in love with his swing.
What I find ridiculous is the fact that some people, like Stark, get blue in the face whenever Bonds get intentionally walked.
|
| 19 | The Left Wings
ID: 1668298
Thu, Feb 06, 2003, 18:29
|
And looking at the fan poll, it is obvious that those who agree with changing the rules all because of Bonds are in the minority. Almost two thirds (65.3% so far) of the voters are against rule changes on IWs.
|
| 20 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Feb 06, 2003, 18:48
|
TLW And looking at the fan poll, it is obvious that those who agree with changing the rules all because of Bonds are in the minority.
TLW, as Neyer pointed out, discussion among baseball analysts about changing the walk/intentional walk rule has been going on for years; some years ago, Bill James said, in a discussion about changing rules generally, that changing the walk rule (by allowing a batter to turn one down) was the most radical rule change that he was prepared to endorse. The Bonds situation last year just underlined the farcical nature of the current situation. Being allowed to go to first base after four pitches out of the strike zone was intended as an inducement to pitchers to throw strikes and a penalty to those who couldn't. In certain situations it has now proven not to serve that purpose. There's nothing sacred about it.
As to people not liking or wanting to read articles about proposed rule changes -- well then don't. Baseball from time to time will make rule changes, and it's good to have discussion about them. I used to consider myself a "purist", but now find that I don't even come close to making the cut.
What surprises me is that people who don't like Stark's article seem to prefer the regular run of off-season sportswriter BB articles. Supposedly serious speculations about what the move of Cliff Floyd means or whatever that are no more informative or insightful than what most of the posters in this thread could write. Reading the general off-season crap, I am thankful for Stark.
OK, so we've learned from the polls that most fans are happy with the status quo (as always in baseball, which is a conservative game), and from the thread that there are many people who resent Barry Bonds. Let's not dump on Stark for a good article (and note the accompanying article on other possible rule changes).
Toral
|
| 21 | AirSteve
ID: 2411382319
Fri, Feb 07, 2003, 20:16
|
Some other suggestions:
-Eliminate the "ball" call. You get 3 swings; you can take them whenever you want. Pitcher just needs to keep pumping away out there until you feel like taking that third swing.
-Place the ball on a tee. This has all the "no walks" benefits of Stark's plan, without resulting in a slowdown of the game. As an added benefit, rosters could be cut to about 12 players per game (by eliminating the pitcher position - you'd still need the catcher to block the plate sometimes).
-Attack the Bonds issue from a more democratic angle. He's the only guy out there drawing 200 walks, right? Can over 300 professional Major League pitchers be wrong? Heck, no! Rather than changing all the pitchers' behavior, just change Bonds! After the 3rd called ball, all pitches to Barry Bonds are strikes, as long as they're airborne, below the bill of the cap, and between the outer edges of the batter's box. Then we'll see how good this guy really is.
|
| 23 | Valkyrie
Leader
ID: 47042413
Fri, Feb 07, 2003, 23:02
|
As a practical matter I think the only workable intentional walk rule would require the batter to get two bases on any 4 pitch walk.(intentional or otherwise). This may be a little too drastic but it would insure that every batter get at least one pitch at which to swing before he was walked or that the walking team be punished substantially.
On second thought I am not sure that I wouldn't just give Bonds second base too rather than pitch to him. I believe Bonds walked proportionately 50% more than Babe Ruth.
Even though baseball is just expensive urban fishing (a good excuse to hang out with your buddies and drink beer) watching intentional walks is no fun -the beer notwithstanding.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|