Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!jeff
From: jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: baserunning
Message-ID: <390@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Sep-83 17:27:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.390
Posted: Mon Sep 19 17:27:25 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Sep-83 13:25:39 EDT
References: <50@princeton.UUCP>, <459@ihuxk.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M, Toronto, Canada
Lines: 15

You did not look at the entire situation.  You said that the outcome
of an intentional walk would be the same reagardless of whether Schmidt
stayed on first, which is true.  However, you also have to consider
the alternatives.  With runners on second and third, there is no force
at second, so walking Lefebvre creates a force at all four bases
when there was previously only a force at first.  With runners on
first and third, there is already a force at second.  Having a force
at third and home is not as important as having a force at second,
so the only thing the defensive team gains by walking Lefebvre is
bringing up a weaker hitter.  While this may still be a good enough
reason to walk him, the Phillies figured it was less likely, so they
left Schmidt on first to increase the chances of them letting
Lefebvre hit.

                                  Jeff Richardson