So I was thinking about the poem “Casey at the Bat” the other day, and it occurred to me that the only problem with it is that it wouldn’t have happened IRL. I mean… look at it from the standpoint of the visitors. You’re up by two runs in the bottom of the ninth, and there’s two out with men on second and third, and the other team’s star slugger comes up to the plate. You’re not going to throw STRIKES, are you? You’re going to throw around him – maybe even issue an intentional walk. Right?
Of course, the poem was written in the 1880’s, and I don’t even know what differences there were in the rules back then that might affect that. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
In the 19th century, pitchers didn’t really pitch intentional walks, and I think the rule was that a pitcher had to pitch around a batter. It took something like 8 or 9 balls to walk someone back then, and walking a batter was seen as unsportsmanlike, cheap, or just a sign that you were a bad pitcher.
In 1920, baseball tried to get rid of the intentional walk altogether, but didn’t succeed. The New York Times called the intentional walk “the most unpopular play in baseball.”
Here’s a site listing some of the differences between modern baseball and 19th century baseball, with some rules in play there that have changed:
Martin Gardner (who did The Annotated Alice and The Annotated Rime of the Ancient Mariner, among other annotated books ) annotated this poem in, of course, The Annotated Casey at the Bat. My copy’s at home, and it’s been a few years since I read it, but he references the surprisingly voluminous literature on this poem. He might have something to say on this issue.
When I read your title I thought you were going to call into question the poem’s batting order which for sure has been criticized before.
Casey is evidently the clean-up hitter and most likely batting in the traditional four spot in the line-up. Yet preceding him in the poem are “Flynn” described as a “lulu” and Jimmy Blake, a “cake”. While linguistically these terms may have fallen out of a fashion it’s clear by connotation that both of these guys are schlubs who have no business going to bat before your power hitting clean-up man since their primary task is to get on base.
Casey might have been the leadoff hitter, with Flynn and Blake at 8 and 9. It’s not unheard of to put your only decent hitter in the spot where he’ll get the most AB’s.
Anyway, the guy hitting behind Casey might have been pretty good with the stick, too. Walking Casey would have put the tying run in scoring position, and that in an age when averages were higher and errors were much more frequent.
Not to mention that there were reports of pitchers wanting to strike out a certain batter. Like the story of Satchel Paige walking guys in order to strike out former teammate Josh Gibson.
I seem to recall a story of Babe Ruth coming to bat and taking the first two pitches as strikes like Casey but I don’t remember if anyone was on base.
There’s nothing to indicate that there were any players on the Mudville team were any better than them, either.
.
I thought the same thing as I watched it after finding the link (after describing it as “wonderful.” “Quaint” may be better). Then I clicked on the sequel, not remembering it. But I did. I remember every single thing in it as it happened, which was a strange feeling. (Who knew Casey was Irish?)
Maybe so, but it’s probably at least safe to say that he was the best slugger Mudville had, since he was “the pride of them all”. Therefore by walking Casey, you’re pitching instead against someone worse than Casey.
Then again, though, the only way Casey would have won it all would have been if he hit a home run. If he hits a single, the other team is still ahead, and even with a double or triple they’re tied, and Casey’s probably not coming up again in the tenth. So the pitcher might have thought that throwing strikes to Casey wasn’t all that terrible a risk, and it does, after all, still give the opportunity for an out.
Does anyone have a link to a cartoon version of Casey which came out in the 40s or 50s called something like “Yamashita At The Bat” which presents the story as it would have occurred in a Japanese baseball game?
And keep in mind that home runs were much, much rarer in the 1880’s than today.
There are sporadic reports of deliberate walks from the 1880’s and even earlier, although they weren’t called “intentional walks” and weren’t as distinctive as an intentional walk today, because most catchers didn’t crouch so they didn’t have to make a special effort to stand up and field wide pitches.
By whatever name, deliberate walks weren’t as common in that era as they are today. They were still sometimes considered unmanly, and there was as I mentioned less fear of power hitters. But, “less common” doesn’t mean “unknown”, and the opposing manager and pitcher would certainly have been aware of the option.
So why didn’t they do it? I’m with garygnu–Casey wasn’t as good as he and the Mudville “cranks” thought he was. (Flynn and Blake weren’t as bad, either–most likely they were suffering little slumps, so right away one was a “lulu” and the other a “cake”. Only our terms of abuse have changed!) The opposing pitcher went right after Casey, and there was no joy in Mudville.
Maybe the pitcher was trying to walk Casey, throwing right at the knife edge of the strikezone. The logic being that one of four things could happen:[ol][li]Casey swings, connects poorly, fouls or tips the ball for an easy out. []Casey swings and misses. Strike. []Casey refuses to take the bait, ump calls ball.Casey refuses to take the bait, ump calls strike.[/ol][/li]
So in other words, the pitcher was playing a fake-out game where he figured the worst that would happen would be that he’d end up walking Casey. I’ve often heard the poem interpreted that Casey was showboating- ignoring two good pitches to prove how great he was. I don’t get that; from the text of the poem, Casey (and the fans of Mudville) were convinced the pitches were bad but the umpire didn’t agree.
