Thought experiment: $100k charity donation for giving up leadoff walks

[UBstrange]

The reason the Angels lost, you might think, was because Mike Trout struck out to end the game.  On the surface, this appears to be true.  Looking deeper, the problem was Jose Suarez's lack of incentive. He walked the leadoff batter in the 6th inning and they scored on a HR.  Even with Trout striking out and Suarez giving up the HR, had he not walked the leadoff batter before the HR, we would have gone to the bottom of the 9th in a 4-4 game instead of the game ending, 5-4.

Imagine if you could fine any Angels pitcher $100,000 every time he walked a leadoff batter.  If you're about to lose a bunch of money, that's a very strong motivator.  You might think that they already have an incentive, which is to stay on the team and not get cut.  True, that is some basic everyday incentive, but it's not enough to prevent leadoff walks.  You have to attack their wallet.  Enter the player's association.  And now you see another problem with why we can't fix certain issues:  The player's association prohibiting it.

Ron Washington should tell every pitcher on the staff that for every leadoff walk that they give up (only the walks to start an inning), they should donate $100,000 to an Angels charity as a personal punishment, not as a fine.  The economist in me says that would work almost instantly because the incentive is too strong not to do it.  You'd see more leadoff HRs and other hits, but you'd rarely see a leadoff walk.

Question:  Would you rather see more leadoff HRs and hits if it meant there was almost never a leadoff walk?

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

And then you have pitchers shaking off catchers and managers to control what they throw to avoid a fine. No thanks. 

[Halo in Chicago]

Appropriate user name. 

[Tank]

2 hours ago, UBstrange said:

Question:  Would you rather see more leadoff HRs and hits if it meant there was almost never a leadoff walk?

[Junkballer]

2 hours ago, UBstrange said:

The reason the Angels lost, you might think, was because Mike Trout struck out to end the game.  On the surface, this appears to be true.  Looking deeper, the problem was Jose Suarez's lack of incentive. He walked the leadoff batter in the 6th inning and they scored on a HR.  Even with Trout striking out and Suarez giving up the HR, had he not walked the leadoff batter before the HR, we would have gone to the bottom of the 9th in a 4-4 game instead of the game ending, 5-4.

Imagine if you could fine any Angels pitcher $100,000 every time he walked a leadoff batter.  If you're about to lose a bunch of money, that's a very strong motivator.  You might think that they already have an incentive, which is to stay on the team and not get cut.  True, that is some basic everyday incentive, but it's not enough to prevent leadoff walks.  You have to attack their wallet.  Enter the player's association.  And now you see another problem with why we can't fix certain issues:  The player's association prohibiting it.

Ron Washington should tell every pitcher on the staff that for every leadoff walk that they give up (only the walks to start an inning), they should donate $100,000 to an Angels charity as a personal punishment, not as a fine.  The economist in me says that would work almost instantly because the incentive is too strong not to do it.  You'd see more leadoff HRs and other hits, but you'd rarely see a leadoff walk.

Question:  Would you rather see more leadoff HRs and hits if it meant there was almost never a leadoff walk?

The underlying point that leadoff walks are especially damaging is correct, and you did phrase it as a thought experiment.  It's not anywhere near a plausible scenario though, being that the players union would nip that in the bud immediately.  Perhaps if you proposed an incentive rather that a penalty it might gain more engagement in the "thought experiment".

[BTH]

I’m sure the MLBPA would love that.

/s

[BTH]

On 4/14/2024 at 3:26 PM, UBstrange said:

Question:  Would you rather see more leadoff HRs and hits if it meant there was almost never a leadoff walk?

Would I rather see a run on the board or runners at 2B/3B and 0 outs than a runner at 1B?

No.

[CaliAngel]

$1,000 if you get the first out of an inning without giving up a walk, or a run.

[Taylor]

I like it.

[UBstrange]

On 4/15/2024 at 10:18 PM, CaliAngel said:

$1,000 if you get the first out of an inning without giving up a walk, or a run.

Would $10,000 be better?  I figure that they make so much money that $1000 might not be that much incentive.  

Also, I'd rather see the guy get a hit and earn it than automatically put him on first base.

I didn't think of the reward incentive over the financial penalty incentive because again, they make so much money that sometimes giving them a few extra bucks doesn't really "hit home" like losing their money.  But that would be an interesting experiment!
 

[Blarg]

So what kind of fine would be appropriate for making a stupid premise thread? Make your check payable to Chuck Richter. 

[Stradling]

15 minutes ago, Blarg said:

So what kind of fine would be appropriate for making a stupid premise thread? Make your check payable to Chuck Richter. 

I said something similar and my post was hidden. So obviously I agree. 

[Jeremiah]

I would imagine that the Angels still have a kangaroo court where players are fined for various in-game offenses, such as lead off walks, or being thrown out on the base paths. The fines often go to funding team activities on the road, the batboys/clubhouse staff, or local charities. Teams already have ways of dealing with things like that by making it more of a teachable moment than something so punitive.

[Jeremiah]

31 minutes ago, Blarg said:

So what kind of fine would be appropriate for making a stupid premise thread? Make your check payable to Chuck Richter. 

Perhaps the best “fine” would be not posting in it, which makes it more visible. Ignoring it allows it to be buried under threads you find more interesting.

[CaliAngel]

8 hours ago, UBstrange said:

1) Would $10,000 be better?  I figure that they make so much money that $1000 might not be that much incentive.  

2) Also, I'd rather see the guy get a hit and earn it than automatically put him on first base.
 

1) Sure. Whatever the number needs to be to make it a reward.

2) And I agree, which is why I said a walk, or a run, because let's face it...if the pitchers are doing their jobs, the batters *should* hypothetically be getting themselves out 70+% of the time.

But if you're giving up a run, without a walk, without getting an out...well...you're just having a textbook poor inning, and shouldn't be rewarded for that, either.

[ScottT]

The internet is a great thing and a horrible thing..