Maybe I Am Too Old School But IMHO Crisp Should Be Given Chin Music His First AB Today

[DrungoHazewood]

You know that the player culture is vastly different these days right? I'd say the biggest reason throwing at batters has become something "old school" is free agency. Not only are players more likely to be team jumping much more than the past, but the salaries were driven up. So now players are more friendly with each other in general, and the PA is strong. Players tend to look out for each other even if they're on other teams, and what would be seen as an unnecessary danger to another player that could easily also be done to them as well starts getting discouraged.

You know that the HBP rate is a lot higher today than it was in the past. At least most eras. Every year since the mid-90s the HBP rate has been between 0.3 and 0.4 per game. In 1980 it was 0.16. In 1970 it was 0.21. In 1960 is was 0.20. In 1950 it was 0.18. Prior to the mid-90s the last time there was a HBP for every three games was 1911, and the only time the rate was higher than today was the 1890s when the game was often not much more than a 9-inning fight.

I'm sure someone will come up with reasons why many, many few batters were hit in the Golden Era, but the idea that it was commonplace to bean anyone who stepped out of line with the unwritten rules doesn't match the evidence at all.

[Tony-OH]

I don't have trouble with hitting a guy if they completely show you up, but I would never throw at someone's head.

Saying that, I saw what Crisp did and didn't have a problem with it. He hit a big home run in a big game and celebrated. I also have no issues with what goes on in the dugout. Let the players have a little fun.

[The Wedge]

You know that the HBP rate is a lot higher today than it was in the past. At least most eras. Every year since the mid-90s the HBP rate has been between 0.3 and 0.4 per game. In 1980 it was 0.16. In 1970 it was 0.21. In 1960 is was 0.20. In 1950 it was 0.18. Prior to the mid-90s the last time there was a HBP for every three games was 1911, and the only time the rate was higher than today was the 1890s when the game was often not much more than a 9-inning fight.

I'm sure someone will come up with reasons why many, many few batters were hit in the Golden Era, but the idea that it was commonplace to bean anyone who stepped out of line with the unwritten rules doesn't match the evidence at all.

Oh, I think it's easy enough to figure out why the actual numbers are higher. I can think of a bunch of reasons. Improved protection equipment having batters crowd the plate more, and less susceptible to brush backs (just taking the HBP). More teams, more games, thinner talent. I could go on.

It'd be near impossible to accurately track, but I'd be useful to track intentional vs unintentional in this case. I would imagine that if you took the uptick of unintentional HBP in to account, the number of intentional beanings would still be less, but not that much that it's a huge deal.

Not to mention that I have this weird feeling that in the "good ol' days" a pitcher wouldn't just act like he lost some control at times, and used any kind of HBP as intimidation. Especially the ones with the meaner reputations.

[Dannyboy]

You know that the HBP rate is a lot higher today than it was in the past. At least most eras. Every year since the mid-90s the HBP rate has been between 0.3 and 0.4 per game. In 1980 it was 0.16. In 1970 it was 0.21. In 1960 is was 0.20. In 1950 it was 0.18. Prior to the mid-90s the last time there was a HBP for every three games was 1911, and the only time the rate was higher than today was the 1890s when the game was often not much more than a 9-inning fight.

I'm sure someone will come up with reasons why many, many few batters were hit in the Golden Era, but the idea that it was commonplace to bean anyone who stepped out of line with the unwritten rules doesn't match the evidence at all.

Not really. It only shows the rates of the HBP's. It doesn't show the intent. The majority of the HBP in the Golden Era, could be purpose HBP while the ones from today could be accidents/ lack of control. Now, I'm not saying that Coco Crisp should have been thrown at. There's is no reason to A) possibly injure another player, 2) Put one of the o's players at risk for injury, and C) there is no reason to give the A's any extra incentive to get fired up. IMO, the guy did nothing wrong. It was no different than the Mark Reynolds bat flip last year here at home against the Yankees last September.

[larrytt]

If we throw at Crisp, all we're doing is throwing at Chris Davis, since they will likely retaliate against such an obvious tactic. Do we really want to throw at Chris Davis (or Adam Jones or Manny Machado, or whoever they choose to retaliate against)? And then we have to retaliate, etc. When someone acts like an idiot in public, perhaps the best punishment is that the person is seen as acting like an idiot in public. It can't help their reputation much. If someone is out of line, I'm guessing their teammates tell that person so, though likely in private. I'd rather we focus on winning games than sinking to the level of the lowest common denominator of an opposing team. In fact, some of the Orioles should be able to use Crisp's actions for extra motivation, since we're chasing his team for a wild card spot. Why take that away?

[DrungoHazewood]

The majority of the HBP in the Golden Era, could be purpose HBP while the ones from today could be accidents/ lack of control.

I don't think that makes much sense. For example in 1950 there were 4.1 walks per 9, compared to 3.0 today. And that with a 1950 strike zone that was knees to shoulders, and probably more batters who swung at anything close. My take is that control is far better today.

I think what's happening is mostly what Wedge says - that there are more batters crowding the plate and wearing more protection.

[Redskins Rick]

Bat flip was bad.

But, what if your control is off, then you hit the guy in the jaw, like Jason Wayward and end his season, not that, that guy was throwing at him, just saying, shaving the guy's chin is scary stuff.

[The Wedge]

I don't think that makes much sense. For example in 1950 there were 4.1 walks per 9, compared to 3.0 today. And that with a 1950 strike zone that was knees to shoulders, and probably more batters who swung at anything close. My take is that control is far better today.

I think what's happening is mostly what Wedge says - that there are more batters crowding the plate and wearing more protection.

I think some people forget that during a portion of the so called Golden Era, there wasn't even batting helmets. And then the first batting helmets were basically cap covers with no ear protection, basically what base coaches wear now but not as "modern/high tech." It's not just the arm and leg guards. I wouldn't want to crowd the plate too much if I had such flimsy head protection. Just think of old Mr. Myrtle's story in The Sandlot. He used to purposefully crowd the plate to shrink the zone (and was pleased with himself with that, with his gleeful "pitchers hate that!" Then he took a high and tight pitch and never had sight again. Depending on exactly where he was supposed to have been hit (I figured at the temple, or the orbital part of the cheekbone), even the rudimentary helmets probably would have worked. If the Negro Leagues could even afford equipment like that, anyway.

Speaking of, and I know this is kinda weird, but when I used to see footage of Mantle, I was always like "wow, he makes taking his batting helmet off look kinda cool" because he did this thing where he palmed it from the back, and lifted it off his head back to front, palming it. When HBO did their doc on Mantle, I found I wasn't alone. Several of the people talking mentioned it (with the most lengthy comment coming from Billy Crystal, which is no surprise).

[DrungoHazewood]

I think some people forget that during a portion of the so called Golden Era, there wasn't even batting helmets. And then the first batting helmets were basically cap covers with no ear protection, basically what base coaches wear now but not as "modern/high tech." It's not just the arm and leg guards. I wouldn't want to crowd the plate too much if I had such flimsy head protection. Just think of old Mr. Myrtle's story in The Sandlot. He used to purposefully crowd the plate to shrink the zone (and was pleased with himself with that, with his gleeful "pitchers hate that!" Then he took a high and tight pitch and never had sight again. Depending on exactly where he was supposed to have been hit (I figured at the temple, or the orbital part of the cheekbone), even the rudimentary helmets probably would have worked. If the Negro Leagues could even afford equipment like that, anyway.

Speaking of, and I know this is kinda weird, but when I used to see footage of Mantle, I was always like "wow, he makes taking his batting helmet off look kinda cool" because he did this thing where he palmed it from the back, and lifted it off his head back to front, palming it. When HBO did their doc on Mantle, I found I wasn't alone. Several of the people talking mentioned it (with the most lengthy comment coming from Billy Crystal, which is no surprise).

Yea, I have no doubt that batters were very reluctant to crowd the plate when an errant pitch could do some very serious damage. That's probably the genesis of the idea that you can't drive an outside pitch that wasn't really banished until the last 20 years. You really couldn't regularly drive an outside pitch if you're standing as far away from the plate as you could.

But also I think many pitchers were reluctant to pitch inside. Obviously competitiveness and plain old meanness take over at some point but you hear stories of Walter Johnson being in fear of hurting someone with his fastball.

[The Wedge]

That's true, too. For every legendary SOB in the game, there are at least 100 okay guys with consciences.

[Redskins Rick]

I am not old enough to have seen Rex Barney pitched.

But, I heard he was hard and fast, just never knew where the ball was going.

I guess somebody like this, the hitters didnt dig in and stayed on their toes.

[$Greatness$]

How about throwing a pitch at your team mates for losing 2-1 pissing away a ANOTHER quality start? Yeah, I like that one better.

[OFFNY]

Yea, I have no doubt that batters were very reluctant to crowd the plate when an errant pitch could do some very serious damage. That's probably the genesis of the idea that you can't drive an outside pitch that wasn't really banished until the last 20 years. You really couldn't regularly drive an outside pitch if you're standing as far away from the plate as you could.

But also I think many pitchers were reluctant to pitch inside. Obviously competitiveness and plain old meanness take over at some point, but you hear stories of Walter Johnson being in fear of hurting someone with his fastball.

I have the utmost respect for pitchers like Sandy Koufax and Walter Johnson, who never intentionally threw at a batter under any circumstances (actually, Johnson admitted to throwing at a batter ONE TIME in his entire career. He threw at "Home Run" Baker, because Baker intentionally spiked his teammate.)

Ironically, Johnson hit more batters than any pitcher in the history of the game (for pitchers from the 20th century forward) because opposing batters knew this about him, and would always significantly crowd the plate.

Johnson was actually afraid that he would maim or even kill a batter if he hit him. One time, Eddie Collins got hit in the back with one of Johnson's pitches, and was writhing in pain at the home plate. Johnson was horrified, as he immediately sprinted to Collins' side to see if he was OK. Collins eventually got up very slowly, and groggily limped down to first base. On the very next pitch, Collins took off sprinting for second base, stealing it easily on the unnerved and very shaken Johnson. The little bugger (Collins) was faking the entire time, and miraculously recovered in less than a minute to steal a base.

[Old#5fan]

I don't think that makes much sense. For example in 1950 there were 4.1 walks per 9, compared to 3.0 today. And that with a 1950 strike zone that was knees to shoulders, and probably more batters who swung at anything close. My take is that control is far better today.

I think what's happening is mostly what Wedge says - that there are more batters crowding the plate and wearing more protection.

Your take I believe is wrong that control is better today, and I will tell you several reasons why:

Back then they didn't have elbow pads, foot protectors, batting gloves, and heck if you go back to the Jackie Robinson day's even batting helmets, so when you got hit by a pitch virtually anywhere, it friggin HURT. There was no escaping pain by the use of equipment.

Back then, pitchers had to hit unless knocked out of a game early on. So if they wanted to throw at somebody, they would get it in return. So they were very selective who they would throw at, and instead, the use of a "purpose" pitch was common, (coming close but not actually hitting the batter).

Thee were also fewer teams so the talent pool wasn't nearly as watered down as it is today. So I would argue control was actually better back then.

[isestrex]

<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h367/isestrex/murrayswing.gif" border="0" alt=" photo murrayswing.gif"/></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h367/isestrex/Emoticons/wasnt-me.gif" border="0" alt=" photo wasnt-me.gif"/></a>