How does hitting a player in retaliation minimize the chance of their star being injured (who presumably was already hit by a pitch)?
Printable View
From their thinking, I believe they are looking into the future, and they believe if they don't retaliate there is a greater chance he will get hit again than if they don't.
A lot of the times, retaliations are in response to completely accidental HBP's, too, and those, especially, I don't understand and would not do if I was a player/order if i was a manager.
How come a manager can "order" a fellow-employee to do something that may, ultimately, hit that f-e's pocket-book?
If it wasn't Torre who ordered the hit, then maybe it was...
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images...oe_pesci_4.jpg
Weren't the Dodgers up like 17-4 when it happened? I don't think they were concerned with Prince Fielder's speed lighting up a 13 run rally.Quote:
Personally, I rarely ever want to intentionally give the other team a baserunner. You know, because my main concern is winning, not revenge.
I completely agree with you (except where 200 called me dumb, but how could I take offense to a comment like that).
most teams won't do it when it's close, but we are talking about a 13 run game which pretty much made it a given that they were going to get even....your right most are not intential, most start in a blow out game.....but really it doesn't matter if it is intential, if they throw at my best player you can bet that your best player will be thrown at intential or not....
Not saying it's right that's just the way it is.....same reasoning why you couldn't hit Gretzky without paying for it later.
Gretz was never hit much, anyway...he always seemed to know where the bodies were bearing down...