Tim Schultz write me and defends eliminating the intentional walk:

David-

Though I don't take credit for the "Abolish the IBB" mini-movement, Jim Baker posted my suggestion on ESPN Insider last year, and Gammons ran something about it the week after I mailed him. The chief objections to the proposal seems to be these, and I find them both wanting:

I. "We Don't Change The Rules for One Player"

This has added salience since that one player happens to be a hated player. But I fear that the Walk The Slugger strategem will be employed with greater frequency, because 1) Managers saw it "work" with Bonds, and will confuse a causal relationship between the stratagem and the Angel's success; and 2) In high profile games, the "We Didn't Let (Sammy/Barry/Alex) beat us" is likely to become conventional wisdom, because it's essentially irrefutable.

a) "Improve the players around him." Fine. But even if that player has a 950 OPS (Kent), the IBB will apparently continue. Short of Thome, Giambi, or Sosa, it doesn't seem like *anyone* is good enough to deter the walk.

And remember, the *reason* we want to scrap it is because it's Aesthetically Repugnant. The Hack-a-Shaq strategy was ended not when Shaq became Rick Barry (or even Vlade Divac) at the line. It ended because the NBA did not want the last two minutes of each game to degenerate into "Grab the Other Guys Center, if He Happens To Shoot Less Than 70%" Because it would be aesthetically repugnant to let the Hack Device mestastasize, the NBA nipped it in the bud.

II. "It's Unworkable."

I agree that it's unworkable if the only three options are those that Stark presented. But a *hybrid* of the two could be quite effective.

Here's my Rule:
1) A player may veto any four-pitch walk. (Obviously, managers would have some say in this)

2) The veto option ends when a strike is thrown.

3) Seven consecutive balls to any batter triggers a "Two Base Walk."

Advantages:
1) The Four Sinkers in the Dirt IBB doesn't work.
2) It would eliminate Stark's fear of the "92 pitch at-bat"
3) It would leave would be Mike Sciosia's with a choice: throw the Slugger one Strike, or Concede the equal of a Ground Rule Double, after your pitcher has upped his count by 7 (because the nibble pitches would need be with effort, lest the pitcher miss over the plate with a fat one).

In Practice, 4-3 game, Barry up in the 8th with 1st and 3rd, one out:

1) Pitcher just misses on 4 straight sliders.
2) Manager faces choice...he says "keep nibbling."
3) Pitcher just misses on 2 straight slitters.
4) Manager faces terrible choice: groove one or walk him.
5) If pitcher misses again, Bonds goes to 2nd, one to 3rd and the other scores.

I believe that this *possibility* would greatly deter the IBB in the first place.

And we wouldn't miss it.

Tim makes a good case. However, I'm still not convinced. One thing I'd love to see is how the press reacted to Babe Ruth's intentional walks. As you may know, IBB were issued back then, but not recorded. Even when he was a pitcher, the other team realized what a dangerous hitter he was.

At the Polo Grounds, Babe Ruth and the traveling Red Sox stop the Yankees, 7–1. Today's game is the last stop on a 29-day road trip for the Sox. Ruth allows five hits and bangs his 2nd ML homer, a 3-run shot, again connecting off Jack Warhop. After his 2nd inning drive, the Babe is given two intentional walks. Ruth ends up kicking the bench and breaking his toe, sidelining him for two weeks.

Now, we don't sit around talking about all the times the bat was taken out of Ruth's hands. Having Gehrig behind him probably didn't help much, since Gehrig set the record for grand slam HR, and you have to think a number of those came after Ruth was walked with men on 2nd and 3rd (if anyone has info on this, I would be very interested). People like Bonds and Ruth come along twice a century. I think we can tolerate the IBB rule for that.

If you wanted to get rid of the IBB, then get rid of it. Then if a team wants to risk throwing four balls out of the strike zone to a squatting catcher, that's fine. There's more risk there, more chance of a wild pitch or passed ball. I think that would be the right balance. Don't change the 4 balls or 3 strikes rules.