E=I*R
You're misinterpreting what I've been saying. Jumping to your own conclusions.If you take away the inside pitch for fear of a pitcher being ejected from a game because a pitch was deemed "too close" this is a major disadvantage to pitchers.
And this is a better solution? Wow...No DH. If Joba has to stand in vs Beckett reason would say he wouldn't throw at Youk.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
Every time a player's bat slips from his hands, he gets disciplined?Originally Posted by ohms_law
Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree that pitchers that intentionally throw at somebody's head need to be disciplined and suspended. Again, the issue is determining whether or not it was intentional. I really don't think you can say "Any up and in pitch near the head results in discipline." How exactly do you define which pitches? How about those pitches that were thrown to Manny Ramirez and Richie Sexson, the caused brawls, that weren't anywhere near the batter's head? As others have said, you don't punish a pitcher for a wild pitch up and away, you shouldn't punish them for a pitch up and in, UNLESS it's intentional. The ball slips, accidents happen. Sometimes, it happens near the batter's head. Other times, it happens across the plate at the same height.
With a committee, you can easily determine the likelihood that a "head hunting" pitch was intentional. Obviously, you're going to have some pitchers that accidentally did it be punished, and some pitchers will get away with it, but if the punishments are strict enough for pitchers deemed to be intentionally throwing at hitters, I think it's fine.
παραλία
I'm reading exactly what you are saying.
Where do you make these determinations?
Some pitches up and in are a strike.
Some pitches up and in are a ball.
Some pitches up and in are close to the batter.
What's the magic line that a pitcher can't cross without getting kicked out of the game?
So during a game Joe Ace pitcher throws a ball that is deemed "at the batters head" The batter is not hit nor injured. The Joe Ace pitcher is kicked out of the game and replaced by Joe Middle Reliever. The batter, none the worse for the wear hits a home run off of Joe Middle Reliever. This occurs a few times throughout the season.
There is no decrease in the amount of injuries caused by batter being hit in the head by pitches because...well...it rarely happens already. So what have we succeeded in doing?
As I've said numerous times and no one has responded to.
Show me the data:
Show me how many batters are being injured by pitches thrown at their heads.
Show me how many pitches are being thrown in the head region
Show me the increase in this happening over the history of baseball
I absolutely agree that baseball should strive to keep it's players safe, but I don't see that this is an epidimic. Yes, a player COULD be hit in the head and severley injured. Yes, a player HAS been hit in the head and severley injured. But it's an extremely rare occurance. You can't guard and regulate against every possibility of an injury.
Registered User
Here's some interesting facts:
The all-time record for a player being hit by a pitch is held by Hughie Jennings, who was hit by 287 pitches between 1891 and 1903. The modern-day record is held by Craig Biggio of the Houston Astros, who had 285 as of the end of the 2007 season when he retired. Prior to Biggio, the modern-day record belonged to Don Baylor, who was hit 267 times.
The all-time single-season record also belongs to Jennings, who was hit 51 times during the 1896 season. Ron Hunt of the 1971 Montreal Expos was hit 50 times during that year. The single-game record is three, held by many players.[7]
The career pitching record for most hit batsmen is 205 by Hall-of-Famer Walter Johnson. The season record is 54 by Phil Knell in 1891, and the game record is six, held by Ed Knouff and John Grimes.[8]
On May 1, 1974, Pittsburgh pitcher Dock Ellis, believing that his team needed motivation, decided to hit every batter in the Cincinnati Reds lineup. Ellis hit Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, and Dan Driessen, tried to hit Tony Perez but ended up walking him, and threw two pitches at Johnny Bench's head before he was removed from the game.[9]
To date, only one Major League player has died as a result of being struck by a pitch: Ray Chapman of the Cleveland Indians was hit in the head by Carl Mays on August 16, 1920, and died the next morning.
It is possible, however, to suffer serious injuries as a result of being hit by a pitch, even when wearing a helmet. On August 18, 1967, Red Sox batter Tony Conigliaro was hit almost directly in the left eye by a fastball thrown by Jack Hamilton of the California Angels. His cheekbone was shattered, he nearly lost the sight of the eye, was unable to play for over a year, and never regained his earlier batting ability. (Batting helmets at that time were not required to have an "ear flap"; indeed, it was not until 2002 that all major league batters were required to wear helmets with side protection.) Most recently, Mike Piazza, then of the New York Mets, was hit in the head by a pitch from Julian Tavarez of the St. Louis Cardinals on September 10, 2005. His helmet shattered, and he suffered a concussion. Other relatively minor injuries that are possible include broken fingers or hands, broken feet, broken ribs, injuries to the knee, or groin injuries.
On April 26, 2008, umpire Kerwin Danley was behind home plate umpiring a game between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Colorado Rockies, when Danley was hit in the head by a 96 mph Brad Penny fastball that went over the head of catcher Russell Martin. Danley was carried off the field in an ambulance, but play would resume. Danley's mother was at the game sitting in the box seats where Frank McCourt and his wife usually sit. She rode in the ambulance with him. During the 6th inning Vin Scully reported that Danley was doing well.
Registered User
Awesome job!! As I read this I do still get fired up, amazed that some of these a$$es actually have the gall to throw a fastball directly and purposely at another mans head. Why not just bring a gun to the mound?
Registered User
Yeah I am thinking more and more the head hunting needs to be an immediate ejection! Accident...oh well. Ejection. Set the tone.
Registered User
I definitely agree that pitching up and in near one's head is VERY VERY VERY wrong, and dangerous. We Yankee fans don't approve of Joba doing it. Just like I am sure that you Red Sox fans didn't approve of Pedro doing it, or Hansen, or Dice-K.
Now, time to get killed by Red Sox fans...
The thing is, though... I have read this whole thread, and I have seen Joba's name pop up about 600 times. Yes, he has thrown at "Youk" quite a few times. The 2 obviously dislike each other, but I have never seen anyone get as upset at NOT getting hit as the man you Sawx fans call "Youk." Youk gets hit (or almost gets hit) and cries about it. If A-Rod or Jeter gets hit, they just jog over to 1B. I am in NO way saying what Joba has done is good, or even fine by me. The Red Sox, though have been famous for throwing at the opposing team's players, and their heads. Joba has been suspended before, I believe for throwing at Youk's head, that one AB where his pitches 'slipped' twice (I don't know if they slipped or were intentional, but who knows?).
Dickay, I see why you're so mad at the head hunting, and I agree that is HAS to stop. I just think that the Yanks feel that the Red Sox are getting a little taste of their own medicine, seeing as how the Red Sox always bean the Yanks hitters, and the Yanks never used to really retaliate (before this year).
I would definitely agree with that, actually.
o
Head hunting, yes, as in, if you go hunting for someone's head (intentionally throwing at the head), you need to be ejected. That's different than immediately ejecting anybody for an up and in pitch at or around the batter's head.
Registered User
I actually agree with you hear. I don't have any problem with Joba or anyone beaning a sawk. Just don't aim at the head intentionally, thats bullsh!t!!Dickay, I see why you're so mad at the head hunting, and I agree that is HAS to stop. I just think that the Yanks feel that the Red Sox are getting a little taste of their own medicine, seeing as how the Red Sox always bean the Yanks hitters, and the Yanks never used to really retaliate (before this year).
And the whole "torre wouldn't let them retaliate" is a bit overblown. Maybe he did reign it in more than other managers, but although he's now in LA hes not an 'Angel'.
E=I*R
I just keep coming back to the point of who decides intent, when this is brought up. This opinion being brought up is what made me bring up the stick rules in Hockey anyway. The NHL went to a zero tolerance policy in order to ensure fairness, pure and simple.
Here's a hypothetical for you. Team A is in the field, and the pitcher "accidentally" throws a pitch inside at or above the batters shoulders. Nothing had occurred prior to this plate appearance in this game (say it's like the second inning, and there had been no runners on base yet). The batter fell to the ground, gets up and completes his plate appearance against the same pitcher. Team B comes out to field and the pitcher immediately throws a pitch up and in, above shoulder hight. Was it an accident, or intentional? What if it become known that the last game that the Team A pitcher and the Team B batter had faced each other (say, a week prior), the Team B batter had spiked the shortstop? Did the Team A pitcher have an accident then, or was he "Headhunting" then? Does there need to be some prior incident in order to make a high and in pitch "headhunting"? How do you tell what's intentional and what's a legitimate accident?
More importantly, does it really matter? The simple fact that they've implemented the stick rules in hockey that they have has had the positive side effect that players are much more in control of their sticks now, in general. They all make the same plays as they always have (half hooks when chasing down the puck handler, poke checks, battling hard for pucks in the corners, etc...), but the difference is that they ensure that they keep their sticks out of the opponents face now. The players are simply more aware, since now there's a rule stating that regardless of whether or not a stick to the face was intentional the player is going to be disciplined.
A zero tolerance policy towards "headhunting" in baseball isn't going to change pitching one iota. Pitchers will still pitch inside, and even up and in. They will simply be more aware of exactly what their doing, is all. It'll prevent intentional "headhunting", as well as significantly lessening the occurrence of "accidents". I'm actually betting that it would eliminate accidental pitches at a batters heads completely, at least at the Major League Baseball level. No professional pitcher at the Major League level is that wild.
By the way, the statistics about this subject don't make any difference to me personally. As dickay and others have been saying, headhunting is just plain wrong, especially when it's perfectly fine to just plunk a guy (which, as many others have stated, I'm not against at all. I think it's dirty, but it has it's place in the game). I don't need statistics on how murders affect anything to know that their bad, for example.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
Agreed.
παραλία
Registered User
Ridiculous!
Master of Ale!
Ozzie GUILLEN? Doing something even slightly motivated by ANGER?! Say it ain't so!
E=I*R
Note that none of them hit anyone else in the head, which just proves the point that I've been making that pitchers can and do already control this sort of thing. Note the last paragraph:
And yea... it's Guillen. Even Ozzy Guillen thinks plunking a guy in the head is wrong.The fact is, fights in baseball happen. Umpires may cut down on them by thumbing pitchers who throw inside, but the game, too, suffers. Players tend to police themselves. Unless they start throwing at each other’s heads – and with so much money at stake, that simply doesn’t happen anymore – umpires should be instructed to back off.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
