Talk:Intentional base on balls

Origin

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) 02:34, 15 July 2006.

• 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)

• The "Jouett Meekin" Page credits him with the first intentional walk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njj4 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge

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)

Also agree. The grains of information are too fine here. One combined article would be more useful and interesting. Hult041956 20:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

These articles should not be merged. They are two very different things. Kingturtle (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these should be merged. Although an Intentional Base on Balls is different, it is still a base on balls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashiellx (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge - This would make an excellent subsection of Base on Balls but by itself, it's not a very good article. Additionally, this page itself should definitely redirect to the subsection of Base on Balls to ensure continuity. Dachande (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Banning

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)

That's interesting. I've never heard it. Do you have a reference? Hult041956 20:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Merged

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)

That merge was reverted 2009 January. --P64 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Intentional Walk with Bases Load List

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)

This source[1] makes the Dalrymple claim. That needs further research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The game in question, an 11-2 Chicago win over Buffalo, occurred on August 2 of 1881, not August 21.[2] 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)

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)

Miguel Cabrera

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)

Removed speculative section

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)

New MLB dugout signal

Just a heads up: Going forward, the MLB will no longer include intentional walk by pitches. Instead, there will just be a signal from the dugout to keep up the pace of the game. (I'm curious to see if the batter intended to be walked will even approach the plate.) I know this article isn't MLB-specific, but much of its content will be irrelevant/need to be updated because of this new rule.Pistongrinder (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I edited the article generally, to unify references to the "intentional base on balls by declaration," especially as it says Little League doesn't do so and they do. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Reorganization

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)

Ruth bases-loaded IBB

I seem to recall a story about a bases-loaded IBB being ordered against Babe Ruth. Ruth supposedly became enraged, and struck out swinging at the all-but-impossible-to-hit pitches. If it's a true story, I would certainly think it rates mention here. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Posters on an Internet forum say it is proven, and that it is "debunked." The source is Creamer (I don't have it) and the date is given as July 26, 1926. That's the best I can do with a quick Google search. The outcome, of course, was not an IBB but if true, it does deserve mention. Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting! I also note they omit Bissonette and add Mel Ott in 1929. I suppose a bases-loaded IBB has technically happened only twice: Bonds and Hamilton. IBB wasn't a stat when the others occurred. Sources seem to agree concerning Dalrymple, Lajoie, and Nicholson. They disagree concerning Bissonette and Ott. Very few credit Ott with a bases-loaded IBB, calling it a pitchout by modern standards. The majority do seem to credit Bissonette, but some call that one a pitchout too. Also interesting is that the source for Dalrymple's bases-loaded IBB says, "the manager ordered seven consecutive balls to be thrown", yet in 1881, 8 balls were needed for a walk under National League rules. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Pitch-out? That is peculiar. They would not yet have the modern rule that an "intentional" walk requires that the final pitch be an intentional ball, but a pitch-out is a ball where the intention is to retire a baserunner, which you would not if the effect of pitching a ball is four free passes. In my book, you can't pitch out on a full count (of balls). Did the catcher catch the "pitch-out" standing and prepared to throw to a base? Why? Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what caused me to write "pitchout". "Pitch around" is what I meant to say. Not out-and-out intentionally walking the batter, but not giving him anything to hit either. The article I was reading said that the Bissonette and Ott bases-loaded IBB's would more than likely be considered pitch arounds (pitches around?) by modern standards, but as IBB wasn't an official stat at the time, it largely comes down to a matter of opinion. A pitchout is something very different, and I have no idea what caused my foggy brain to confuse the two. I'm making a lot of work for you, aren't I? Not only are you cleaning up after me when I edit the article; now you have try to make sense of my lorem ipsum on the talk page! Sorry for the confusion. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Then, as these IBBs were before the modern rule codifying how we measure "intention," whether they were or weren't would be a matter of opinion, even if you were at the game. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

PS--I'm thinking about how that section might be rewritten. When IBB started being tracked, in 1955, was this the same time that Baseball codified that the final pitch needed to be an intentional ball? Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You had asked me to comment here. I found that same forum discussion (much of which was 10 years ago) that was cited by Spike. The one guy claimed it happened on July 26, 1926, vs. Cleveland off a pitcher named Santi. That is easily proven false, because they didn't have a game that day,[3] and the Indians pitcher was named Joe Shaute, not Shanti. However, in a matchup with Cleveland on July 10, Shaute walked Ruth purposely 3 times. Ruth was also called out once for stepping out of the batter's box. That was mentioned in multiple reports of the game which I found via Newspapers.com (a pay site). That could be where he tried to get a hit instead of an intentional walk. There's no indication that they tried to walk him with the bases loaded. Indeed, two of the three times he walked it filled the bases. Gehrig batted after him, and the gamble paid off until the bottom of the 12th, when Gehrig got a bases-filled base hit which drove in the winning run. One thing I discovered is that Ruth definitely hated being intentionally walked. There was an article on Aug 14, 1920, in which Ruth, supposedly writing a regular column (whose tone sounded suspiciously like the way the average sportswriter of that era would write), ripped the intentional walk as being unsportsmanlike, essentially "cheating". He proposed that an intentional walk should move everyone up two bases, as a deterrent. Not really workable, but an interesting idea. So it's entirely plausible that he would reach out to try to hit an intentional wide one, risking stepping out of the box. He was an "eager" hitter who both "crowded" the plate and had a tendency to stride forward out of the batter's box. I've seen this in more than one picture, but the most obvious was the "called shot" in 1932. I think he had his right heel still on the chalk line, but he did push the envelope. As to being intentionally walked with the bases loaded, I haven't found any solid evidence that it ever happened. Of course, he certainly walked with the bases loaded a number of times, and some of them could have been "unofficially" intentional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I also ran across a blurb from Feb 17, 1921, discussing the intentional walk. It used to be that a catcher might line up well past the reach of the batter. The rule was changed around that time to require the catcher to start every pitch within what we now call the catcher's box. Ruth or his writer argued that if a catcher can go out of his box to catch it, the batter should also be able to go out of his box to try to hit it. And on at least that one occasion in 1926, that's kind of what he did! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It sounds as though the text I added about the Babe Ruth case should do even more than qualify it as "a disputed story". You are welcome to post-edit me. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a small change, to, "may not have been intentional" regarding Ott; the 2 strikes could have come from Ott swinging at bad pitches. We have a source that it happened, but we don't have a pitch-by-pitch recap. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's better that way. I'm going to check Newspapers.com to see what was said about the Ott game. I wonder if you saw my comments about the alleged intentional walk to Abner Dalrymple in 1881. It's not clear from the newspaper account whether it was on purpose. Regarding Ott, on the next-to-last day of the 1929 season, in the first game of a doubleheader between the Giants and the Phils, Klein homered to take the league lead in homers.[4] In the second game, Ott walked 5 times, but no RBI is indicated.[5] Clearly there were some mild shenanigans going on, because the final game of the season, in Boston, they had Ott in the leadoff spot, presumably to possibly give him an extra at-bat. It was to no avail, as he did not homer in the game. Klein ended the season with 43, and Ott with 42. Ott's last homer had come on Sep 24. Klein hit 4 since that point, to take the lead on Ott, and the Phillies did their best to prevent Ott from catching Klein again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I know we discussed the Dalrymple walk at the reference desk years ago. The newspaper article that was discovered said, "at one point the manager ordered seven consecutive balls to be thrown". We were attempting to reconcile the quote with the fact that 8 balls were required for a walk under National League rules in 1881. A bit mysterious, but it doesn't seem to rise to the level of calling the intention into question. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The eighth one could have been "unintentional". But obviously if the manager ordered it, it was intentional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec)One reason the Phils were anxious to keep Klein atop the leaderboard is that his 43rd homer broke the previous National League record of 42, set in 1922 by Rogers Hornsby. In 1930, that record was obliterated by Hack Wilson's 56, a league record which stood until the juiced McGwire hit 70. OK, the Philadelphia Inquirer game report for Oct 6, 1929, says that with the bases full in the top of the ninth, and the Giants already ahead 11-3, the Phils bench ordered their pitcher to walk Ott. With a 3-0 count, he then swung at a couple of them and missed. He was then walked, which forced in a run. (I guess that didn't count as an RBI in those days.) So, if the writer's observations were correct, there was no "maybe" about it - it was an intentional walk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems good enough to me to move it out of the "disputed" section, and add Ott's name to the list of bases-loaded IBB's. I seem to have missed your comments about the Dalrymple walk. Why is it that you feel its accuracy is questionable? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's about 6 sections up from here, and the quote from the Inter-Ocean is "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." And I'm saying that because sportswriters game reports were filled with personal opinions, this might simply be sarcasm. However, if you have a source that says the manager ordered it, then it's good. By the way the phrase "give Dalrymple his base" simply refers to getting on base. He got his base... on balls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The Ott incident was on Oct 5, the paper reported it on Oct 6. Sorry about the confusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Catcher's box

One factor I'm finding hard to isolate is more detail about the old-style catcher's box prior to the 1920 rule that defined the current catcher's box. But there are examples. File:Ray Caldwell pitching in the first game at Ebbets Field, April 5, 1913.jpg shows the wide triangle that was the earlier version of the box. For an intentional walk, the catcher would stand well off to the side. And because the batter still had to stay in his box, a walk was guaranteed as long as the pitcher or catche didn't get careless. This was the thing Ruth was griping about. The objective was to stop the intentional walk, but the catcher only had to start inside the box. The pitcher would go outside with it and the catcher would jump out to get it. And that's how it was for well over 90 seasons, until the "automatic" intentional walk was introduced this year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I found a pre-1920 rule book (hard copy in my library, not online) which illustrates the catcher's lines. The catcher's "box", so to speak, was a triangle formed by extending the foul lines back through the circle around home plate, and intersected by a line 10 feet back of the plate, perpendicular to the imaginary line running from second base through home plate. Hence, the triangle was 20 feet across the hypotenuse and each leg was a little more than 14 feet long. Plenty of room to set up far enough outside to keep the batter from having a chance at it. The 1920 rule was intended to discourage that practice, though not to prohibit it. The Spalding guide for 1920 has a lengthy discussion of why this will improve the game, as it at least gives the batter a theoretical shot at it. (Apparently the writer didn't consider that the pitcher could simply throw wide of the plate and the catcher would have to take a step or two to catch it - but that at least added a greater element of uncertainty to the process.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that catcher's box seems as misshapen as the Polo Grounds. But it is very hard on my screen size to make out this triangular catcher's box at all; could you crop the photo so the lines show up more clearly?

I pared down some of your other edits, assuming that the story you are retelling remains available in the cited sources, and retaining the essentials that relate to the intentional walk. Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where you did the paring. The apparent misshapedness is due to the location of the photographer. And as for cropping, is there any way to "frame" a given picture so as to have the effect of cropping, or would I need to upload a new picture? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to force Wikipedia to display only a portion of an uploaded photograph, except by cropping it at home and re-uploading a piece. Separately, this shows the detail you added that I pared back. If you didn't notice it from re-reading the text, then good; that suggests I left the essence intact! Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That, I saw. About the 1926 story, I think it's important to state there was no game on July 26, 1926. As to the picture, I'll see what I can do about uploading a cropped version. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

How much detail?

I don't think it is important to give the refutation of July 26, and in fact we should state as little as possible of the refuted assertions. We should just give the correct data and references. Separately, I think you have shown that Ott is in the confirmed list and I'll add it. I have made your box scores say more than [1] and [2], have taken the postscripts out of bulleted-list format, and have flipped them, so as to give the details on the confirmed Ott case before the details on the doubtful Ruth case. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow, as far as "stating as little of the refutation as possible" goes. In fact, I think it's important to include it. The presentation should be as balanced as possible. Obviously, we should avoid conjecture in Wikipedia's voice, but we should still present any facts we have, in an effort to give the reader as much information as possible with which to form an opinion. Something as glaring as there not having been a game on one of the reported dates certainly seems to rate mention. I'm also a bit confused about Ruth supposedly striking out. If he was called out for stepping out of the batter's box, I believe that under Rule 6.06, this is considered put out due to "illegal action". I could be wrong, and of course there's always the possibility that the rule was different at the time. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The game account is unclear for the Ruth incident. Until we find a better description, we're stuck with the "alleged" July 1926 story. One thing I'm wondering is whether it would be good to give the specifics for each case, rather than just listing names. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of that, and I think if we were to do that, bases-loaded IBB could actually be a stand-alone article. The walk to Ott, and the disputed walk to Ruth could be mentioned here in passing, and the details could be moved to the new article. The Lajoie walk is interesting, because it happened with no outs. Nicholson's walk is interesting, because it took place in the middle of the game (I believe the other 6 were all in the 9th inning). The Bissonette walk is interesting, because there's some disagreement among sources as to whether it was an IBB, or a pitch around. The Dalyrmple walk is fascinating, because it was a forgotten piece of history for 130 years. A baseball writer came upon it by accident, while doing analog research, studying old newspapers. When he stumbled upon the incident, he assumed it was likely incorrect. After researching it further, fact-checking and cross-referencing confirmed that it was in fact true. Just to be clear, if others don't think a separate article is in order, I'd still be in favor of adding the details here. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, poring over the details of individual baseball plays is suitable for a book on baseball, and not for an encyclopedia, where we make a digest for the reader desiring to get acquainted. Pointers to the sources should do the rest. That's why, on encountering a post referring to a rumor, on a web forum, which a Wikipedian can refute, I felt it was ill-advised to get specific about the rumor, and least of all say, in essence, "Here is why this guy is obviously wrong." Our mission here is not to document everything that is known. In particular, the fact that one occurred with 0 out is as inappropriate to include as the fact that one occurred when it was starting to rain.

The list of seven cases might be better set out as a wikitable, with a right-hand "Notes" column explaining (with footnote) why the case is interesting. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I would include the specific date and possibly the two teams, to allow others to research further if they want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, change "Year" to "Date". Perhaps a link to the box score for further details. Please flesh out my table below with the information you have. Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I must vigorously disagree with both points. I don't see how you can equate the intentional walking-in of a run with no outs to a change in the weather. In the other examples, 1 out was needed to end the game (or in Nicholson's case, the inning). Obviously, a bases-loaded IBB is the rarest of the rare in the 1st place, but intentionally walking in a run with no outs makes it all the more remarkable. As far as the Ruth incident goes, it isn't a Wikipedian refuting it; the newspaper is. If Bugs were saying, "that can't be true; I was at that game, and that never happened", then yes, I would agree. This is not the case. He's provided a WP:RS that confirms it couldn't have happened on the date alleged. That the source where we found it calls it both "confirmed" and "debunked" amplifies our responsibility to provide the reader as balanced a presentation as we can. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed a Wikipedian refuting an assertion with citations is better than a Wikipedian refuting an assertion with personal testimony. I disagree that that means an article should give full details of a counter-assertion shown to be untrue. The article says that one point of an IBB is to set up an inning-ending doubleplay; an IBB with the bases loaded does not change the base situation, no matter how many are out. But I've added the zero-out factoid to the table below. Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

A double play wouldn't have ended the inning with no outs, and setting up a double play is never one of the reasons for a bases-loaded IBB. It's already set up. There's a force at every base. Conceding a run with 2 outs is one thing, but conceding a run when the next 2 batters can score a run with a sacrifice fly or a ground out is quite another. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Date	Batter	Score sheet	Notes
1881-08-02	Abner Dalrymple	[6]	Team using the strategy did not go on to win the game; case neglected by historians until 2007.
1901-05-23	Nap Lajoie	[7]	There were no outs.
1926-07-10	Babe Ruth	[8]	Disputed; see below.
1928-05-02	Del Bissonette	[9]	Disputed; might have just been pitched around.
1929-10-05	Mel Ott	[10]	Details below.
1944-07-23	Bill Nicholson	[11]	The strategy was used not near the end of a game.
1998-05-28	Barry Bonds	[12]
2008-08-17	Josh Hamilton	[13]

Citation needed

The table is now in the article, and the 'bot has been by to attach a date to my use of {{Cn}} 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)

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)

I have repeated the citation into the table. I agree re: questionable. Spike-from-NH (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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.[14] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It was Joefromrandb 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)

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)

So we leave Nicholson in the table but delete the note. Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Some links

• A Jerome Holtzman article from 1992[15] dates them as follows:
  • Lajoie, May 23, 1901. Retrosheet: Line score but no box score.[16]
  • 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.[17]
  • Nicholson, July 23, 1944. Retrosheet: Box score and play-by-play, not described as intentional, but there was officially no distinction until 1955.[18]
• Baseball Almanac has a lengthy discussion on the subject:[19]
  • Dalrymple, August 2, 1881. Retrosheet: Final score only.[20]
  • 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.[21] 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.[22]
  • Hamilton, August 17, 2008. Retrosheet: Box score and play-by-play.[23]
• 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)
  • I don't think the Ruth incident belongs in the table. It definitely should be covered here, but I don't believe anyone claims Ruth was actually intentionally walked with the bases loaded. It's an "honorable mention" sort of thing, like Haddix's perfect game that wasn't a perfect game. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree. I've not found any contemporary evidence so far which indicates he was walked with the bases full, or even attempted to be walked with the bases full. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Intent?

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cross Reference (talk • contribs)

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)