Who seriously wants to sit here and watch a pitcher throw four straight balls to intentionally walk a batter? Why not just throw one ball and put the runner on instead of throwing 4? It's still an intentional walk.

Why throw any? Give only the catcher and the Manager the authority to tell the umpire "Intentional Walk" and we are done.

Why throw any? Give only the catcher and the Manager the authority to tell the umpire "Intentional Walk" and we are done.

 

MLB tested this in the Arizona Fall League last fall.

Three perspectives on this: Pitching team or opposing team.

 

For a pitcher, this makes perfect sense. It lowers their pitch count, allowing pitchers to stay in the game longer if they have some sort of limit (which is rare).

 

For the other team, this is barely a problem. Unless a pitcher has a pitch maximum, which as stated is rare, eliminating the throws is not really an issue.

 

The third perspective is from a fan. This would speed the game up, which baseball desperately needs to do.

 

Conclusion: I'm all for eliminating it. When I played in 5th-6th grade or so we did this and it sped up the game for sure.

Some of the baseball games I've played, when I get intentionally walked, it's one pitch, take your base, why not do that instead of the 4 pitches or like others have said, just say, intentional walk, take your base without any pitches?

When I played softball, the pitcher just waived them to first.

Why make a batter run the bases after a HR? Who hasn't seen a runner at second only and one of the intentional balls thrown over the catcher's head advancing the runner to third? Don't tinker with the game - too much of that done recently already.

And for the record, I have NEVER seen a B/R miss a base when trotting around after a HR, but I have definitely seen wild pitches on intentional walks.