33 Intentional walks to Ted Williams in 1957
Wow. That’s a lot of intentional walks.
Now, I know that the intentional walk is falling a bit out
of favor these days. Why would you put any base runner on if you didn’t have
to? Recent computer simulations have suggested that if you walked Babe Ruth or
Barry Bonds every time they came to the plate, it would just mean the guy
behind them would drive in 150 runs. And, that makes sense. The more time
someone bats with runners on, the more times they would drive them in. If the
guy batting behind David Ortiz came to the plate every time with Ortiz on
first, at the very least every home run would score two.
But, if you’re going to employ the selective intentional
walk, the 1957 version of Ted Williams would be a good place to use it. Sure,
Ted was getting older. He’d only play three more seasons. But, he led the
league in batting that year, and produced a .328/.462/.584 slash line. Those
three numbers were all down from the year before when he again led the league
in hitting, as well as the other two categories, when he went .388/.528/.731.
(All three of those numbers were the second best of Ted’s career.) So, if there
was ever a hitter that would warrant some unique strategy, it would be that
guy. Adding to that argument would be the people hitting behind Williams. His
protection. I checked out a handful of box scores to see who batted fourth in
games. Dick Gernert was the Opening Day clean-up hitter. In May I saw Gene
Stephens take a turn. In June, there was a case of Mickey Vernon doing the
honors. I’m guessing that it wouldn’t take much to convince you that you’d
rather face any of them than Williams.
So, while walking Ted every time he comes to the plate would
be foolish, I think I’d have a hard time arguing against doing it every one in
a while. After all, 33 walks meant only about once every three or four games he
played in that year.
Even today, I think it would be hard not to walk him at
least that often.
33 is for the 33 intentional walks Ted Williams got in 1957
No comments:
Post a Comment