http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2009/8/6...n-fielder-mota
really? anyone else hear evidence to support that he ordered it?
Printable View
http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2009/8/6...n-fielder-mota
really? anyone else hear evidence to support that he ordered it?
He shouldn't have had to order it, it should have just been done ... although I don't agree with throwing at somebodies head or knee, it should have been done middle of back.Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue9
It really shouldn't be done when the team had a 13 or so run lead.
I would say it did need to be done at that score, they threw at Manny earlier (well maybe, and my case is under the assumption that they were throwing at him although I'm not entirely sold that they did it on purpose, players are pussies now aday with anybody who throws inside).... you have to stand up for your star player.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
If it was a close game then I would say that it shouldn't have been done until later in the season.
I agree 100%Quote:
Originally Posted by kellys11
First, Torre shouldn't even have to order it, pitchers should know they have to protect and if they didn't a veteran should say something.
Second, they should have waited until the next game which was the next day. Hit him in the first or second AB
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/God.jpg
An eye for an eye...
http://sydwalker.info/blog/wp-conten...tma_ghandi.png
..leaves the whole world blind
AgreeQuote:
Originally Posted by asianinvasion
[/QUOTE]Second, they should have waited until the next game which was the next day. Hit him in the first or second AB[/QUOTE]
I don't think it would make a difference, the same result would have happened a day later.
I think intentionally beaning someone because your team's star was accidentally hit is bush league.
^^^
Has never played baseball
I don't think it's bush league. I just think it's silly.
Personally, I rarely ever want to intentionally give the other team a baserunner. You know, because my main concern is winning, not revenge.
So I can't say that doing something is bush league?Quote:
Originally Posted by asianinvasion
Conversations with you must be interesting:
Me: Did you hear about that soldier that shot a civilian? That's awful
Asianinvasion: Um, you're not a soldier, nor have you ever been, so you can't say that.
Me: Did you hear about the dude who died from eating tainted asparagus? That's really a shame.
Asianinvasion: You've never eaten asparagus, so you can't say that.
woos ^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I think it is often their thought that they want to minimize the chance of their star being injured, and weigh that greater than the value of a baserunner.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
How does hitting a player in retaliation minimize the chance of their star being injured (who presumably was already hit by a pitch)?Quote:
Originally Posted by SirKodiak
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.
Not to mention how would it feel to get called out like Teixeira/Padilla? You know..all those times Teixeira got hit because of Padilla...you know...those times..Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
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.
Fair point.Quote:
Originally Posted by xtheriot2
If you don't throw back at the other team they will continue to throw at you...so you have to get even...it's more like preventing future incidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It wasn't about the score, it was about getting even and sending a message that you can't do it to one of our guys without it happening back to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by xtheriot2
No offense, but that's a dumb explanation. That's why the Red Sox and Yankees never throw at each other in games...oh...no...wait...they still do? I thought hitting them back would prevent future incidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by kellys11
I'd rather win the game. If it's close, there's no way I gave the other team a free baserunner just to "get even."Quote:
Originally Posted by kellys11
Not all HBP's are on purpose, too, and I think you better be damn sure it was if you really need to retaliate.
Also, what 200tang said.
might be dumb but that is why they do it.....and using the redsox and yankees (or any other extreme rivalry) isn't really fair, they hate each other and will do it no matter what.......Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
I completely agree with you (except where 200 called me dumb, but how could I take offense to a comment like that).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
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...
Actually, I called your comment/logic dumb. Because it is. That would result in an endless loop if you were programming something.Quote:
Originally Posted by kellys11
Team A hits Team B
Team B hits Team A to prevent further attacks
Team A hits Team B to prevent further attacks
etc..