Master Index of Archived Threads


Should Casey Have Been Walked?

Edgy MD Jul 24 2012 09:52 PM

Been thinking about "Casey at the Bat" today during my evening shower, after posting about it in the IGT. Score is 4-2, with the home team up in the bottom of the ninth. They have runners on second and third with two out, the runner on second being the tying run. Casey, according to the tone of the poem, is the only batter anyone respects in the lineup. We never learn the on-deck hitter's name. You don't want to put the winning run on, but the book says to play for the win on the road, and Casey sure seems more dangerous at the plate than on first. Nothing in the poem suggests who is on deck, suggesting he's far below the level of Casey's ability. On the other hand, you just gave up a single to a pudding and a double to a fake. We all know the big guy whiffs, but based on what we knew up until he stepped in, do you agree with the visiting team's strategy? Seems to me three managers in four pitch around him, and then walk him if they fall behind 2-0. The poem came out in 1888 --- a low-scoring era in which the National League OpS'd at a Reyesque .609.

Vic Sage Jul 25 2012 11:20 AM Re: Should Casey Have Been Walked?

to pitch around him would have been... unmanly.

sharpie Jul 25 2012 11:59 AM Re: Should Casey Have Been Walked?

They've been debating this since at least 1961: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2 ... 76,4836331

Edgy MD Jul 25 2012 12:10 PM Re: Should Casey Have Been Walked?

Well, I don't connect to the internet in the shower.

Ceetar Jul 25 2012 12:17 PM Re: Should Casey Have Been Walked?

sharpie wrote: They've been debating this since at least 1961: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2 ... 76,4836331 Phillies are 33-87. WOW they suck.

MFS62 Jul 26 2012 11:02 AM Re: Should Casey Have Been Walked?

This was "discussed" with some of my cyber-friends a while back. Here is what I saved: It was written by a Cleveland Indians fan who called himself Hair Face. He was a Dick Tidrow fan. The intentional walk was rarely used and widely disdained, but was around for decades before Meekin threw four wide ones in 1896. Summarizing Peter Morris from "A Game of Inches"... The earliest newspaper reference found of walking someone on purpose was June 27, 1870, when the Washington Olympics pitcher "did his best to let George Wright take first every time on called balls, as he preferred that to George's style of hitting". However, it doesn't explain the method, whether it was a intentional walk as we know it, or just obviously not throwing him strikes. Bobby Mathews reportedly intentionally walked Lip Pike in 1874, and in 1884 came the first report of a pitcher doing so for match-up purposes -- Will White sometimes walked left-handers, since he struggled against them. John Clarkson walked Tip O'Neill twice intentionally on October 21, 1886 in a postseason game. His manager Cap Anson had told him not to. The newspaper referred to Clarkson's free passes as "contemptible". Even back then, baseball's general wisdom held that walking batters made little sense when the purpose was to get outs... of course, machismo was often considered more important to the game than strategy in those days as well.+ In an 1887 minor league game, Syracuse pitcher Dug Crothers communicated with his pitcher and then "sent in five balls wide of the plate, purposely giving [Fred] Lewis his base". Lewis was the league's best hitter, and Crothers had never had problems with the batter on deck. However, the Rochester fans booed him and called it a "baby act", and even some of the Syracuse fans booed Crothers. Anyway, this does sound like an intentional walk as we know it (5 balls were needed for a walk at the time), and also gives an idea of how unpopular the strategy was. According to other writings from Morris, offenses began the "playing for one run" strategies around 1890, so it was around that time that the intentional walk became a bit more common and accepted. Cleveland manager Patsy Tebeau was well known for the strategy during that decade. Clark Griffith still believed "The pitcher who is afraid of any batter ought to quit the business. If he doesn't it will not be long before he is proved a coward, and then he will have to quit". Decades later, when Griffith was an owner, he made various failed attempts to get rules adopted that would penalize pitchers for intentionally walking batters. They never gathered much support since umpires would then have to determine intent when pitchers pitched around a batter. Anyway, Morris never even mentions Meekin's intentional walk, probably because it was actually a well known strategy by the time Meekin first learned of it. Regardless, it appears that Casey being intentionally walked would not have been a revolutionary move, but everyone in attendance would have likely booed him and considered him a coward. Later