From: masoo	Date: May 29th, 2004 01:57 am (UTC)		(LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)

This would make an excellent topic for a paper ... I have no idea who'd want to read it, though.

The actual fact is that it is a bad idea to intentionally walk Barry all the time. It results in more runs being scored by the Giants. But managers do it nonetheless, because losing via the walk isn't as visually impressive as losing via the homerun.

Last night, Barry came up in the bottom of the 10th of a tie game, one out, no one on. Brenly walked Bonds intentionally. Two batters later, Barry crossed the plate with the winning run.

Tonight, Barry came up in the bottom of the 9th of a tie game with a man on. Hurdle pitched to Bonds, Barry blasts a homer, Giants win again.

The result was the same, but the homerun inspires ecstasy amongst bloggers and embarrassment for the opposing manager. So they walk him, and walk him, and walk him, and no one blames them ... even though IT IS STUPID AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

I tell ya, it would make a good paper.

	From: cbertsch	Date: May 29th, 2004 10:25 am (UTC)		(LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
	To Walk or Not To Walk

Ever the voice of reasons, Steven points out that it makes more sense to pitch to Barry than to intentionally walk him.

But what about the romance?!

Seriously, I wonder whether the best option isn't to give him balls without "intentionally" walking him. He'll still walk most of the time, but will sometimes get impatient, right?