Ask a stupid question that can be answered about baseball

[frankbmd]

I understand that many of you know everything about baseball, even if you disagree among yourselves.

This thread is not for you. It is for those of us, who have a question, that can be answered, but you don't know the answer. Anything related to baseball is fair game. If you know the answer to one of the questions, just quote it and provide the answer. Simple.

When complete, this thread will serve as an invaluable resource. Learn it and amaze your co-workers and friends with your in depth knowledge of the game.

This is not a contest, but rather a public service. One question per post please. I will post the first question.

In the good old days before 2017, when intentional walks required four pitches before the batter was awarded first base, were those four pitches credited to the pitcher and his all important "pitch count"?

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

In the good old days before 2017, when intentional walks required four pitches before the batter was awarded first base, were those four pitches credited to the pitcher and his all important "pitch count"?

Yes. If not then the IBB that got converted because a batter swung would have gotten on base without a pitched ball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6YzVvtxoaY

[MrSeven]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

In the good old days before 2017, when intentional walks required four pitches before the batter was awarded first base, were those four pitches credited to the pitcher and his all important "pitch count"?

The pitches associated with an intentional walk do count towards the pitchers total count. With the rule change in 2017, you can either signal for an intentional walk (which is what all teams pretty much do now) or still throw four intentional balls (like before 2017).

Some people are of the thought that the rule minimizes wear and tear on a pitcher from discouraging managers and players to try to pitch around a batter during an intentional walk.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Yes. If not then the IBB that got converted because a batter swung would have gotten on base without a pitched ball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6YzVvtxoaY

Originally Posted by MrSeven

The pitches associated with an intentional walk do count towards the pitchers total count. With the rule change in 2017, you can either signal for an intentional walk (which is what all teams pretty much do now) or still throw four intentional balls (like before 2017).

Some people are of the thought that the rule minimizes wear and tear on a pitcher from discouraging managers and players to try to pitch around a batter during an intentional walk.

That's what i thought. So if I was a young starting pitcher with a pitch count ceiling of 80, I would be relieved (due to fatigue) if I issued 20 intentional walks at the beginning of the game. If softballs lobbed for intentional walks are counted, why not count the pitches thrown in the bull pen. Just saying'.

Let's see another stupid question. No question is too stupid.

[clydepepper]

Okay, Frank - I have one for you:

Assuming that, for the few late afternoon or 'twilight'- scheduled games, there would be a natural advantage, at least for a portion of that game, for batters if home plate was facing east and for pitchers if home plate was facing west due to the direct sunlight and the glare that accompanies that.

Presuming, based on that previous assumption, that a truly neutral ballpark would be sure to have home plate face either directly north or south, why isn't there are rule to so assure that all parks are designed to fit this north-south detail?

That might not exactly qualify as a 'stupid' question, but it is one I have pondered for a while.

[MrSeven]

Rule 1.04. It is desirable that the line from home base through the pitchers plate to second base shall run East-Northeast.

That would contradict your thinking completely.

http://www.fangraphs.com/tht/lost-in...k-orientation/

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by MrSeven

Rule 1.04. It is desirable that the line from home base through the pitchers plate to second base shall run East-Northeast.

That would contradict your thinking completely.

http://www.fangraphs.com/tht/lost-in...k-orientation/

This desirability would seem moot for enclosed domed stadia. However this would depend on whether you consider the meaning of moot to be debatable or irrelevant.

Miller Park has a retractable roof, but is not enclosed from the setting sun due to windows, that can create "very unusual" shadows on the field of play in late afternoon games.

I believe the home plate-2B axis runs NW-SE in Milwaukee, which is also unusual.

You'd think this could result in a home field advantage for the "Brew Crew", if they only could figure out what that advantage is.