User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.3357 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
It also has little to do with the size of the dent it might make in Youkilis's forehead.
I think Andy's position on this is clear: no, he was not trying to, but obviously did throw at him. Is that hard to understand?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying I'm saying that Andy's saying.
Anyway...
Anyway....
You don't say!
I see. So no harm no foul. Ok. Whatever.
I think Andy's position on this is clear: no, he was not trying to, but obviously did throw at him. Is that hard to understand?
Joba was pitching him inside to learn him the usual lesson, and the ball got away. And judging by Youk's feeble swings after that, I think the lesson was learned. Bravo, Joba.
But no, I don't think Joba was trying to bean Youk, or even trying hit him. It was a 1-0 game, in case people have forgotten. If anything, he likely wanted to give him something to think about. I can see why Youk and the Red Sox might not agree, but that's all in the heat of battle. And it's not as if they've never put any Yankees out of commission before with equally little provocation.
Again, this shlt has been happening since the days of Chesbro and Cy Young. Nothing to get excited about.
Just like I said.
There's plenty of Youkilis below the neck to pitch "inside" to. If you can't command your fastball up in the zone, you shouldn't be delivering it in the vicinity of a guy's coconut. That'd be extremely reckless (see also complaints re: Hansen's retaliatory plunking of Rodriguez).
Given that Chamberlain was so wild he'd walked all of one batter in the game, I am tempted to believe that he knew exactly what he was doing with that pitch to Youkilis. The history between the two of them reinforces that belief.
Piazza v. Clemens, career: .421/.500/1.105, for a 1.605 OPS. I don't know if it worked.
Piazza v. Clemens, following the beaning: .100/.250/.400, for a .650 OPS. (Including Game Two of the 2000 WS.)
(1 HR, 1 RBI, 2 BB, 1 K in 12 plate appearances)
Even if I were to accept that this was baseball wisdom
If you don't, I don't know what to tell you. Andy is 100% correct. This is why a pitch going behind someone's head is going to provoke a large reaction almost every single time. The natural reaction to a pitch coming at you is to duck down and back. If the pitch goes there, the head moves directly into the path of the pitch.
This is "baseball wisdom", without question.
Agreed, but that doesn't make the claim that it's not accepted "baseball wisdom" that it's more dangerous to throw behind a guy's head than it is to throw directly at it, because of natural physical reactions to things flying at your head (ie move!) combined with baseball specifics (you rarely see a guy move forward to get out of the way of a pitch that's not way behind him, for whatever reason) any more acceptable or any less nonsensical.
Batters have the right to be aggressive in claiming the plate. Pitchers have a right to pitch inside to dissuade them. Sometimes inside pitches get away and sail further inside on a batter. If this happens to an aggressive hitter, it often happens that there's a close call.
This shlt happens. It doesn't mean it was intentional. And the circumstances of the incident---a 1 to 0 game in the seventh inning---hardly support an inference of intent on Joba's part. If anything it's the opposite. But some of you all have it in your head that he's a "headhunter," and the only evidence you need is your internalized Holy War against the Evil Empire.
Whether he was trying or not, his actions obviously had repercussions for his teammates. Pitchers have all the right in the world to throw inside, but if you can't do it without throwing at one dude in particular's head and putting your team at risk, then I wonder if it's such a great strategy. If I was A-Rod, I'd probably be telling Joba to cool it. Or at least pointing to my bruise and throwing balled up socks at Joba's head.
Chamberlain's obviously a pitcher in the Clemens mold, hardthrowing and aggressive. He doesn't have perfect control, and he's under no obligation to play Walter Johnson just because an inside pitch gets away from him now and then.
As for the repercussions, that's certainly a point to consider, especially since there's an equal chance that someone like A-Rod will wind up on the DL. The only way to gauge this, though, is in hindsight, and the last thing you want to do is to tell Joba not to pitch aggressively inside. For the obvious reason that that sort of a concession, once it became known, would turn him into a batting practice pitcher.
BTW, do you think that the Red Sox told Pedro to cool it after he plunked Jeter and A-Rod in the same inning? Or did they just let Pedro be Pedro? Three guesses.
(As it happens, I just served on a jury last week, and the judge clearly explained this for those people as confused as Andy: the prosecution has the burden of proving intent, but is not required to present direct evidence of intent, since such would be impossible. Instead, he can present evidence of conduct, from which the jury can infer intent.)
Where "now and then" seems to be "when Kevin Youkilis is at the plate." And the "inside pitch" is actually at Youkilis's head. But you go right on pretending that since Joba didn't issue a press release saying, "I am going to throw a baseball at Kevin Youkilis," we don't have evidence that he was throwing at Youkilis.
This is Andy's usual nonsense argument, made to make him sound sophisticated without actually making any sense at all. The same "logic" could be applied to a charge of attempted murder. "Yes, he pointed a gun at him and shot him, but you're just assuming he was trying to kill him, and this 'assumptive leap' is 'wholly unsuppored by anything other than speculation about motive.'"
I'm not sure what "sophistication" has to do with any of this. You might as well drag out "elitism" while you're at it. But the last time I looked, it was a lot easier to aim a gun with precision than it was a baseball. Blind as we are, either of us could kill a man from 60 feet with a pistol a lot more easily than any pitcher on Earth could intentionally hit a batter in the head from that distance, especially knowing that the batter gets to move away from the pitch.
(As it happens, I just served on a jury last week, and the judge clearly explained this for those people as confused as Andy: the prosecution has the burden of proving intent, but is not required to present direct evidence of intent, since such would be impossible. Instead, he can present evidence of conduct, from which the jury can infer intent.)
I have to laugh at the thought of you trying to sneak yourself onto a jury that was trying any case involving a member of the Yankees---"Of course I can keep my prejudices out of this! I swear that I'll only consider the facts! Why, some of my best friends are Yankee fans."
[At this point David sweats visibly; lets out a gulp heard clear across the courtroom; heartbeat registers on the Richter scale]
Not to mention that I'd like to be able to call about a hundred pitchers to the witness stand and ask them how they'd aim a pitch if they really wanted to bean a batter. The only way you'd ever get a conviction of Chamberlain in this case is by restricting the jury to Red Sox fans and people who've never played a game of competitive fast pitch baseball in their lives. People like yourself.
Chamberlain's obviously a pitcher in the Clemens mold, hardthrowing and aggressive. He doesn't have perfect control, and he's under no obligation to play Walter Johnson just because an inside pitch gets away from him now and then.
Where "now and then" seems to be "when Kevin Youkilis is at the plate." And the "inside pitch" is actually at Youkilis's head. But you go right on pretending that since Joba didn't issue a press release saying, "I am going to throw a baseball at Kevin Youkilis," we don't have evidence that he was throwing at Youkilis.
And you go right on pretending that Joba has some kind of a vendetta against Kevin Youkilis. I sure as hell hope Youkilis is thinking along those lines the next hundred times he faces Chamberlain, but unfortunately for the Good Guys, he's probably not as stupid as that.
The point here is that you're pulling your usual stunt of "Why would he do X?" and then when people respond with possible reasons, you say, "Well, you're just speculating. You don't have any proof he was thinking that."
There's no stunt in Andy's presentation of reasons why Joba clearly would not have wanted to throw at Youk. Further, you can see in his "conduct" right after the pitch that he acts like the pitch got away from him.
I'm not smacking Jeffy around here, but is this normal? I have a favorite AL team and that's about it. I find it easy to love or hate an NL team or two every year (but almost never the same one or two), and my hatred of other AL teams is largely predicted upon the degree to which they lay down for the Yankees. An example of this is that I was a mild Indians fan early this decade, but them knocking the Yanks out of the playoffs last year likely means that I won't be forgiving them for at least five years.
Lately I'm liking the Twins.
You do know the difference between speculation (which in this case is the inference of motive solely on the basis of selected evidence) and proof, don't you?
There's no stunt in Andy's presentation of reasons why Joba clearly would not have wanted to throw at Youk. Further, you can see in his "conduct" right after the pitch that he acts like the pitch got away from him.
Don't confuse David's one track mind with any contradictory evidence, JC. He'll say that it's all part of the act. He may not actually know a damn thing about what Joba was trying to do, but he knows what he saw. He's the Potter Stewart of BTF, who sees a porno mag under every pinstriped uniform.
It's also kind of funny how David's standards of proof seem to vary from "smoking gun required" (Bonds) to "Youk had to duck, therefore we can plainly see Joba's intent" (the Great Youkilis Attempted Murder case).
This mightn't have anything to do with David's selective fandoms (pro-Bonds, anti-Yankees), would it?
Nah, he's just a rational, objective truthseeker. The Diogenes of BTF who finds his man only by looking in the mirror.
I don't think it's normal, no.
Really? I have this in every sport. There's my team, a few teams I root for against anyone but my team, a whole ton of teams I couldn't care less about, and a bunch of teams I hate.
Baseball: Rangers, Cardinals/Giants, everyone else, Yankees
NFL: 49ers, Saints, everyone else, Rams/Raiders/Bucs/Giants/Redskins/Eagles
CFB: Texas, LSU/BC/others, everyone else, Miami/Nebraska/Oklahoma/Texas A&M;/Texas Tech/Arkansas/a bunch of others not current or former rivals of UT
NBA: Mavs, nobody, everyone else, Spurs/Jazz/Rockets/Lakers
The teams I root for against anyone besides my team are usually circumstance (Born in Shreveport, LA, Giants' AA team for many years, Dad was a huge Cards fan, etc.) and hate is just some thing or another about that team, like hating the Eagles because of Buddy Ryan.
Which, IIRC, Andy expressly denied, David. Let's not resort to worn-out tricks of stating things people never said. Andy said the same thing I did and believe: sure, he's thrown at Youks before and intended to throw at him, but I (we) don't think he intended to this time, reasons for such conviction being the game situation and Joba's immediate reaction (watch the video).
I thought one couldn't see intent? How could millions of people witness his intent? No one denies that Joba threw at Youks.
Which, IIRC, Andy expressly denied, David. Let's not resort to worn-out tricks of stating things people never said. Andy said the same thing I did and believe: sure, he's thrown at Youks before and intended to throw at him, but I (we) don't think he intended to this time, reasons for such conviction being the game situation and Joba's immediate reaction (watch the video).
JC,I've almost given up on expecting David to put words into my mouth, but again, just to make my position clear:
Joba's nearly hit Youk on several occasions.
If Joba had been really trying to hit Youkilis, as opposed to trying to send him the same sort of timeless message that thousands of pitchers have always tried to send to thousands of aggressive hitters, you'd think that at least once he might have succeeded. He could have taken lessons from a real pro like Craig Hansen, who knows how to get the job done.
If Joba really had wanted to hit Youkilis in the head, he would have thrown in the classic manner of behind and below, and waited for Youk's normal instinctive reaction to cause him to duck into the pitch. David doesn't seem to understand this, or chooses to ignore it.
I understand that David's likely never played a game of of baseball in his life where pitches have been thrown at more than lob speed, so I can understand this ignorance on his part. But usually when a lawyer doesn't know something, he consults people who might.
And in this case, he might ask any pitcher who's ever pitched in a game of competitive hardball. He might ask them: "If I want to bean a batter, do I aim at his head, or do I aim behind and below?"
Of course they may not tell him what he wants to hear, but that's his problem.
I don't think that Joba has ever tried to hit Youkalis. It's not really that hard to do if you want to. I think he's just trying to intimidate him, in the manner of pitchers from time immemorial. And he doesn't have perfect control---if the pitch had been all of a foot closer to the plate, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And certainly I don't think he was trying to bean him.
David's evidence to the contrary consists of a few close calls and a lot of inference based on cherrypicked evidence.
And as for those "millions of witnesses" on "multiple occasions": Do a bit of jury screening to keep Yankee haters and Yankee fans off the panel, and sit the remaining fans down in front of a group of expert witnesses, and you wouldn't get a conviction in a million years. And the only way you'd take a case like that yourself would be for the publicity value, since you know damn well what the result would be.
I'm sure that Red Sox fans everywhere will dittohead that---the same Red Sox fans who expressed so much outrage when Mike Timlin hit Derek Jeter 3 times in 35 PA's. The same sort of Red Sox fans who posted this sympathetic video when Jeter got beaned. We appreciated their kind words of sportsmanship on those occasions.
David also seems to think that a brushback pitch is the moral equivalent of "throwing at" a batter. Hence his confusion about what Joba was doing.
On Friday afternoon Mike Francesa repeatedly predicted that the situation between Chamberlain and Youkilis would flare up again that night. Then Chamberlain "missed" with a pitch at Youkilis's head. Either that's a huge coincidence, or one only needs to be as smart as Mike Francesa to realize that Chamberlain was throwing at Youkilis's head.
Well, maybe I don't agree with you. Joba threw at Youks on Friday. I don't think he intended to, but I do think he has intended to throw at Youks in the past. I think, on Friday given the situation and his reaction, he thought he hit Youks and did not intend to do that on a 2-0 pitch, lead off hitter late in a 1-0 game. I think he lost the ball.
Chamberlain doesn't mind maiming Youkilis, as long as the game situation is right?
It's not irrational to throw at a batter. There are plenty of situations where it's rational to do so. I don't accept your premise at all, and thus am not compelled to agree w/your conclusion.
But it is to throw at a batter's head, which is what I said.
Aren't you the same guy arguing that the skill of the starting pitchers that Manny has missed facing are just a huge coincidence? How can you justify calling Manny's situation as coincidence, but Joba's situation as maliciousness?
It's silly games w/Ray time? My "rational" explanation was not for this occasion. I claim he did not intend to throw at Youks', head, buttocks, chin, or otherwise, so my explanation is not meant to apply to the choice to throw at his head.
You're now in the odd situation of having to account for a bout of irrationality on Joba's part without any evidence for it, whereas my explanation rests on the surer ground of human imperfection - he missed his target. I can't wait 'til you apply your evidentiary skepticism to your claim of momentary irrationality.
Well, maybe I don't agree with you. Joba threw at Youks on Friday. I don't think he intended to, but I do think he has intended to throw at Youks in the past. I think, on Friday given the situation and his reaction, he thought he hit Youks and did not intend to do that on a 2-0 pitch, lead off hitter late in a 1-0 game. I think he lost the ball.
Just one point of clarification: How can one "throw at" a batter, but not "intend to" hit him?
Perhaps you mean to say the same thing that I am: He was intentionally throwing inside, but unintentionally almost beaned him. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you here.
I think that Joba, like a million other pitchers, throws inside, and like a million other pitchers, doesn't always aim a baseball with precision. I think he undoubtedly wanted to brush Youkilis back on more than one occasion, but
(a) So what? Brushbacks are legitimate; and
(b) If he were really trying to hit Youkilis, why didn't he succeed? If wild man Hansen can perform such a simple task, why can't control artist Chamberlain?
Ray seems to think that Joba has the skill and the intent to aim a ball precisely at Youk's head, but neither the skill nor the coldbloodedness to actually hit him---which it seems he would have done if he'd really wanted to.
But of course if we didn't have conspiracy theories and Designated Villains, what would be the fun of the game?
*gets mad*
One is a description of a physical event, like "The dog chased the squirrel up the tree." The other is an imputation of motivation which may or may not apply to the description of the physical event, "The dog did not want the squirrel to run up the tree."
Without question as a description of a physical event Joba threw at Youks. Did he intend to? I don't think so, as I've said.
*gets mad*
Count da ring, babee. And go fetch that single that you just misplayed into a triple.
One is a description of a physical event, like "The dog chased the squirrel up the tree." The other is an imputation of motivation which may or may not apply to the description of the physical event, "The dog did not want the squirrel to run up the tree."
Without question as a description of a physical event Joba threw at Youks. Did he intend to? I don't think so, as I've said.
Got it, and there's nothing in there that I'd disagree with.
No. I wasn't moved at all by the overall ERA of the starting pitchers he missed; I thought it was a random selection of pitchers, not anything that needed to be explained by "coincidence."
Again, Gammons's argument was that Ramirez purposely sat out against good pitchers A, B, C, and D. I pointed out that:
1. Ramirez also "sat out" against bad pitchers D, E, F, and G.
2. In addition to missing a game that pitcher A (Felix Hernandez) started, Ramirez was in the lineup for a different game that pitcher A started, and performed quite well in that game.
3. Ramirez also has faced good pitchers H, I, J, and K (etc.) this year, and didn't sit out.
4. On at least a couple the occasions he's being accused of avoiding certain pitchers, Ramirez also missed a surrounding game, thereby indicating that he had some sort of injury after all.
Contrast the theme of the above (especially item 1) with my argument against Chamberlain, which is that he has thrown a pitch at a batter's head three times, wherein each time (to my knowledge) that batter was Kevin Youkilis. It's not like it's happened 12 times, and 3 of them just happened to be Youkilis.
Just give me the licensing rights to the video game.
Funny. He was 1-3, right? On May 6. He ducked the 2 next games he pitched, playing in the games surrounding the 1st and ducking Joba in the game after the next time.
As DMN will point out, your conclusion does not follow. It indicates nothing and certainly doesn't dispell the notion he consciously chose to avoid a particular pitcher. It may indicate only that sometimes he hides his ducking better than others.
But, again, this analysis is coming from the guy who believes Manny "slipped" on the triple play and didn't just take 3 pitches against Mo, who'd only done that 2 other times in a 12 year career and who himself immediately after the play thought it was strange that Manny never swung.
And, a quick review of his game log shows that he already hit Jack Wilson and Ryan Sweeney this year. Oh oh...how will Ray switch his logic in order to make his case?!!!
I've asked people to cite other occasions of a Chamberlain pitch going at a batter's head, and thus far nobody's been able to do it.
If there are non-Youkilis examples that would be strong evidence against my position, but so far all we have is:
# of Chamberlain pitches at Youkilis's head: 3
# of Chamberlain pitches at anyone else's head: 0
# of times Chamberlain has faced Youkilis: 8
# of times Chamberlain has faced anyone else: 406
With a walk, a run, and an RBI. As I said, he performed quite well in that game.
?? I don't recall commenting on the Rivera incident at all. I certainly never said I thought it was strange Ramirez didn't swing.
in regards to your citing the frequency of said events versus their frequency versus other people, i would ask that you apply the same frequency test to games that Manny has sat out versus bad pitchers and good pitchers. He has missed a very very high percentage of the games that volquez (or whatever his name is) chamberlian and hernandez have started. compared to games started by say, sidney ponson.
not that i blame him, after watching chamberlain embarass his teammates, i'd be inclined to skip him as well.
No switching of logic necessary, since my argument has never been that Chamberlain has hit no other batters.
My argument is that Chamberlain has never "missed" at anyone's head other than Youkilis's. (And I've asked people to cite other examples.)
You're not paying attention to what's actually being written, Steibferno.
Hey, I'm just happy you concede that you think Manny slipped on the 3b. I think that pretty much vitiates any claim you make to being impartial on this.
With a walk, a run, and an RBI.
Super (though you're aware the run and rbi are functions of his teammates' success?). I have no idea why he's ducked him since then. Perhaps Operation Shutdown dawned on him later?
He is. It's just hard to keep the nonsense straight. We're supposed to impute impeccable control to Joba, except he's walked 34 guys, had 3 WPs, hit batters, and yet, if it's up and in on Youks, it MUST BE INTENTIONAL b/c Ray doesn't recall him doing that to anyone else and b/c his control's incredible. But, Steib is showing (1) that his control is not impeccable, or (2) if Joba wants to hit someone, he might just be able to.
I think it remains plausible that (a) Youks has intended to intimidate Youks and (b) this time, he didn't mean it, but the ball slipped.
That's correct. I think Ramirez slipped. Or, more accurately, I haven't seen evidence to the contrary.
Um, yes, I'm aware. But we're talking about Ramirez's state of mind, not mine.
1. Ramirez also "sat out" against bad pitchers D, E, F, and G.
2. In addition to missing a game that pitcher A (Felix Hernandez) started, Ramirez was in the lineup for a different game that pitcher A started, and performed quite well in that game.
3. Ramirez also has faced good pitchers H, I, J, and K (etc.) this year, and didn't sit out.
4. On at least a couple the occasions he's being accused of avoiding certain pitchers, Ramirez also missed a surrounding game, thereby indicating that he had some sort of injury after all.
And the guy whose "sick" days just happen to fall 90% on sunny Fridays:
1. Works *some* Fridays
2. Also takes off some Mondays
3. Sometimes takes two consecutive "sick" days.
How do you figure?
Monday and Friday represent 40% of the normal working week.
Yeah, Joba's got such perfect control he can miss Youk's head every time, even when he's trying to kill him.
Which of course makes Joba an even more heinous villain, because he gets to perform repeated acts of attempted murder while remaining free to twirl his waxy moustache with carefree and laughing abandon---and just wait and see what he's got in store for Youk's wife and children.
Which of course makes Joba an even more heinous villain, because he gets to perform repeated acts of attempted murder while remaining free to twirl his waxy moustache with carefree and laughing abandon---and just wait and see what he's got in store for Youk's wife and children.
See, you can tell Joba is the bad guy because he has shifty eyes.
I thought I did. See my #269.
I don't even see why Chamberlain would be brushing Youkilis back 3 times in 8 PAs. Is Kevin Youkilis Hank Aaron?
Again I ask you, if Joba throwing at Youkilis way more than he throws at anyone else proves intent, then how come manny skipping joba way more than anyone else (100% if i'm doing the math correctly...wait a second, let's see here, 2 divided by 2 is...carry the two, yeah it's 100) isn't indicative of the same "intent". just answer that.
Cute and deliciously inconsistent with your normal ######## requirement of iron-clad evidence, but I, at least, have no interest in denying that Joba has intended to throw at Youks in the past. I do, however, deny it this time, as I've explained above. Now, why don't you apply your logic and intellect to showing Ray just how ludicrous it is to claim that Manny slipped on that play in LF? Or, why don't you explain how millions of witnesses could see the intention in Joba's pitch?
Are you saying you think Joba has intended to throw at Youkilis's head in the past -- or just at Youkilis in general? (If the latter, at which part of Youkilis, specifically?)
Explains a lot.
Batshit crazy is batshit crazy.
Television.
You mean, how could they deduce his intention? You mean, you can't tell the difference between a ball slipping and a ball going approximately where it was intended, by watching?
Very easily. Three attempted brushbacks to an aggressive and dangerous hitter, three pitches that sailed, and three close calls---with no bruises to Youkilis other than the beneficial psychological ones. Big f*ck*ng deal. Joba has every bit as much right to try to take Youkilis out of his rhythm as Red Sox pitchers have to play similar games of their own---which by the numbers they do far more than the Yankees.
Believe it or not, most baseball people understand this, which is why you don't usually hear this sort of pious cluck-clucking from the players in the broadcast booths.
BTW what's your explanation for Timlin's hitting---not "throwing at," but hitting---Jeter 3 times in 35 plate appearances? That would roughly translate to 60 times in the course of a normal Derek Jeter season.
Does this mean that Timlin's got better control than Joba, or worse? Was Timlin's intent more benign than Joba's, or more benevolent? Is there more to be discerned from Timlin's callous squirting of tobacco juice, or Joba's evil squint? Please consult your millions of Massachusetts mindreading experts and straighten us out on this one.
Very easily. Three attempted brushbacks to an aggressive and dangerous hitter, three pitches that sailed, and three close calls---with no bruises to Youkilis other than the beneficial psychological ones. Big f*ck*ng deal. Joba has every bit as much right to try to take Youkilis out of his rhythm as Red Sox pitchers have to play similar games of their own---which by the numbers they do far more than the Yankees.
Believe it or not, most baseball people understand this, which is why you don't usually hear this sort of pious cluck-clucking from the players in the broadcast booths.
BTW what's your explanation for Timlin's hitting---not "throwing at," but hitting---Jeter 3 times in 35 plate appearances? That would roughly translate to 60 times in the course of a normal Derek Jeter season.
Does this mean that Timlin's got better control than Joba, or worse? Was Timlin's intent more benign than Joba's, or more benevolent? Is there more to be discerned from Timlin's callous squirting of tobacco juice, or Joba's evil squint? Please consult your millions of Massachusetts mindreading experts and straighten us out on this one.
EDIT: Sorry for the double post.
Bzzt. Wrong answer. The correct answer is "Ray is right."
Thanks for playing.
I'm not JC, but my contention is that take a peek at Manny doing anything baseball-related outside his comfort zone of swinging a bat -- be it playing or being a teammate -- and you're witnessing a dog for the ages.
Woof.(**)
(**) I love the huge grin.
What it does address is why three brushback pitches that didn't even graze one batter deserve so much more attention than three pitches in 35 plate appearances that actually hit Jeter, including one that knocked his helmet off and sent him to the hospital for a CT scan.
But of course Jeter's only a Yankee, so in that case intent, not to mention execution, is of no interest.
It'll take more than a mere brushback pitch to get that out of me. But what's that they say about real estate?
That's a favorite tactic of Andy's :-)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main