Talk:Intentional base on balls

message: Does anyone know the origin of the intentional walk? I'd like to know who thought of it first, who was the first player to be intentioanlly walked, etc.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.204.185.240 (talk • contribs).
* As for the origin, I don't know who was walked first, but I imagine it was not an event of note.  Since there is no separate rule for the intentional walk(it is just the pitcher throwing 4 balls really far from the plate, as opposed to the ground rule double rule), I imagine it went into history essentially unnoticed. Aericanwizard 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: Agree with the suggestion to merge into base on balls.  Much of the information here is unnecessarily repeated there and vice versa, and it's not so different as to demand its own page. Fractalchez 23:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles should not be merged. They are two very different things. Kingturtle (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This article should have some mention of the intentional walk being banned during the early 20th century.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tithonfury (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting. I've never heard it. Do you have a reference? Hult041956 20:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banning 

message: Merged with base on balls (intentional BB section); commented out remainder of text in case someone wants to put this info in other article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuyabribri (talk • contribs) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That merge was reverted 2009 January. --P64 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Merged 

message: This page credits Dalrymple with receiving an intentional walk with bases loaded; however, there is no citation for this fact and the article "Free Pass" states the first intentional walk took place in 1896. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_5_59/ai_64150752/)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Njj4 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This source makes the Dalrymple claim. That needs further research. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The game in question, an 11-2 Chicago win over Buffalo, occurred on August 2 of 1881, not August 21. Retrosheet doesn't have a play-by-play or box score, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chicago Inter-Ocean report on the game, on August 3, includes this statement: "The eighth inning was begun with safe hits by Goldsmith, Flint, and Quest, when Lynch thought it best to give Dalrymple his base on balls." On the face of it, that sounds like an intentional walk, but it's important to keep in mind that reporters covering games were very opinionated about the action, and it's possible the writer was being sarcastic. However, there is no question Dalrymple walked with the bases loaded, scoring Goldsmith. I can't provide a link because it's on Newspapers.com, a pay site. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Intentional Walk with Bases Load List

message: Does anyone know which game Miguel Cabrera was walked with the bases loaded? I did an Internet search and I couldn't find anything.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinity Project (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miguel Cabrera 

message: The header was "Risks", it had an OR tag since last year, and the gist was:
::Intentional walks ... might carry other, more nuanced risks.
::First ... the mental and physical adjustment, and/or the re-adjustment to the subsequent batter, could subtly affect or interrupt a pitcher's focus, mechanics, and/or rhythm. ...
::An intentional walk might give the subsequent batter the strategic advantage of anticipating that the pitcher will avoid walking him. ...
::Finally, a subsequent batter might perceive an immediately preceding intentional walk as a slight to his abilities. ...
This is three "mights" and a "could" (I missed one "might" in the edit summary), with no citation to, say, a coach or journalist discussing the risks of the IBB.  So I removed it as OR or speculation. It is interesting, but without a source and/or stats to back it up, just doesn't belong here. Huw Powell (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed speculative section 

message: :At the same time, I moved Strategy to the start of the article, as it explains to the reader why he cares; and moved History further down, as it feeds into the article's anecdotes.
:The list of batters swinging at an intentional ball cites a SABR article that documents 12 cases.  Someone has stuck inside the footnote a reference to Game 5 of the 2016 World Series.  I cannot find anything about it, including in articles that have enough detail that they should have mentioned it, but I do find the Gary Sanchez case a month earlier, which seems to be the most recent case.  I welcome correction.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: The table is now in the article, and the 'bot has been by to attach a date to my use of  to request details for the table's assertion that the Dalrymple case was "neglected by historians until 2007."  Rather than ask strangers, let me ask youse.  Is this assertion relevant?  Is it Original Research without a citation?  If so, can we point the reader somewhere specific?  Reply or just edit the article.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation for the Dalrymple discovery would be the Baseball Almanac article. Whether it matters how long it remained hidden, is questionable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have repeated the citation into the table.  I agree re: questionable.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The part about Nicholson not being walked "near the end of the game" is also questionable. It was the 8th inning, and in a crucial situation. They walked in a run, and then the Cubs managed to tie it, but Nicholson didn't hit a grand slam. The Giants broke the tie in the last of the 8th, and held the Cubs scoreless in the top of the 9th. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem like the Giants and Cubs were just playing for glory at that point, since they were both already 20 or more games behind the eventual World Series winning Cardinals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was  who claimed that the Nicholson case was "interesting" (also that it was "in the middle of the game") so I'll wait for him.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to wait for me. Obviously, I was at least partially wrong (I knew it wasn't in the 9th), although I would continue to maintain that any bases-loaded IBB is "interesting". Joefromrandb (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So we leave Nicholson in the table but delete the note.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The note could simply be changed to say it happened in the 8th inning, rather than the end of the game. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I think that is a detail that the reader could get from the citation, and which isn't notorious in itself.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: *A Jerome Holtzman article from 1992 dates them as follows: 
**Lajoie, May 23, 1901. Retrosheet: Line score but no box score.
**Ott, Oct 6, 1929. 6? 5? This is getting annoying. I'll check the date again. Retrosheet: Box score but no play-by-play. It was on Saturday the 5th.
**Nicholson, July 23, 1944. Retrosheet: Box score and play-by-play, not described as intentional, but there was officially no distinction until 1955.
*Baseball Almanac has a lengthy discussion on the subject:
**Dalrymple, August 2, 1881. Retrosheet: Final score only.
**Lajoie, May 23, 1901. As above. The Chicago Inter Ocean (May 24, Page 3) says "Griffith decided to chance the force-in, and calmly sent four balls over, each of them three feet beyond the Frenchman's farthest reach."
**Bissonette, May 2, 1928. Retrosheet: Box score only. The Brooklyn Eagle's game description (May 3, Page 28) only says "Bissonette was treated with extreme care and finally drew a base on balls." (from the pay site Newspapers.com)
**Nicholson, July 23, 1944. As above.
**Bonds, May 28, 1998. Retrosheet: Box score and play-by-play.
**Hamilton, August 17, 2008. Retrosheet: Box score and play-by-play.
*It's odd that Baseball Almanac overlooked the 1929 Ott incident. In fact, they mentioned Ott being a witness in 1928 and the manager who called for it in 1944. So including 1929, Mel Ott was involved in three of these incidents once way or another.
*←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some links 

message: Non baseball fan here.  I understand that the rule has changed; but in the old days where they used to pitch 4 ball way outside the plate, could the pitcher change his mind and pitch over the plate hoping for a strikeout?  So if the manager signals a IBB is that a commitment or can the pitcher ignore it? 17:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the new method of walking the batter by signal, the pitcher can still walk the batter, and this may be intentional.  A manager may have a secret signal for his pitcher to not give the batter any pitch in the strike zone.  However, if the manager makes the IBB signal to the umpire, the pitcher can ignore it, but no matter; the umpire directs the batter to take first base before any pitches are thrown.  20:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Intent?