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 1.5419 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.
(I don't even know what you guys are arguing about, but I feel compelled to get involved)
I think that Football Outsiders has permanent Spygate and Brady vs. Manning Threads.
I'm not buying this, Andy. If it was just three brushbacks, then Girardi would have retaliated after A-Rod was drilled. That he didn't order a retaliation implies that he understood Chamberlain crossed a line by headhunting.
There's a difference between brushbacks and headhunting. Chamberlain has been headhunting.
Kevin, here's an exchange I had earlier in the thread with your hero (smile). You can probably guess who I'm talking about:
Except that the point has been made since time immemorial that if you want to crack a batter's skull, you don't throw at his head, you throw below and behind it---exactly what Hansen did, and not at all what Joba did.
Not to mention that Joba had zero motivation to hit Youk, given the 1-0 score; and that Hansen had a clear revenge motive as a garbage time pitcher in a game that was clearly a lost cause.
"Revenge" for what, Andy? You mean, for throwing at Youkilis's head, right?
What the hell else do you think I meant? Whether or not Joba intended to do it has little to do with what the Red Sox thought his intentions were. I've already said that in their place, I'd have thought the same thing.
The point of this is that while I don't think for a second that Joba was "headhunting," I do think that when a ball buzzes by your head by a foot or so....
---it's perfectly understandable to think you've been headhunted
---it's part of the unwritten rules of baseball that your manager is going to order a payback
---and Girardi, understanding both parts of the above, realized that not overreacting to this payback was the best way to keep everything from getting truly out of hand.
It doesn't mean at all that Girardi either thought or "understood" that Chamberlain had intended to go "headhunting." Acknowledging the appearance of the pitch in question, and recognizing the unwritten rules of retaliation, is not equivalent to any kind of admission of intent.
As I said, in Youk's place, I'd be steamed myself, and throwing out accusations right and left. It was a close call.
But if Chamberlain really had wanted Youk's head, I'm reasonably sure he wouldn't have missed him entirely, as he did. His control isn't perfect---he's no Pedro---but he's probably at least as capable of bonking a batter as Craig Hansen. IF he'd wanted to.
It's really more like this, Robin. The rest of baseball is represented by the woman, and I think you'll be able to pick out the Yanks and the Sox from the remnants of the trio.
Plus, the hair is what makes it such a cool souvenir.
I've now watched it several times. It looks to me like he charges in hard to make a play on the ball, makes an ill-advised dive and comes up empty, and then in his attempt to scramble to his feet and get back after the ball, he slips and then ultimately falls forward before he's able to find his footing, with his momentum taking him on top of the ball. After that he looks goofy -- that's why it's called a blooper -- trying to reach underneath his body and behind his back to grab it.
A blooper. Nothing more. If your contention is that he didn't give a serious effort, well, to my way of thinking, when a player isn't trying, he doesn't dive for balls; instead, he pulls up short and takes them on the bounce.
But I guess what you're really asserting is that he was trying to be an idiot, mostly _after_ he starts back after the ball. I'm not sure there's a way to resolve that question one way or the other to anyone's satisfaction. But I don't see any reason to believe that interpretation over the interpretation that he simply made a bad play on the ball that turned into a blooper, like countless other bloopers over the past 150 years. I guess if one starts with the conclusion that he did it on purpose, one can see the play that way, and if one starts with the opposite conclusion, one can see the play as innocent.
There's one problem with your interpretation, though: he clearly slips when he starts back after the ball. Whether his final fall onto the ball was ultimately accidental (since he never seemed to regain his footing) or whether it was the result of him at that moment deciding not to be serious I guess is the question.
Remind me of this the next time I take an argument of yours seriously.
I guess it's not worth arguing about anymore, but I think my description of the play is objective, and I even addressed the parts of the play I felt you were taking issue with.
As I said above, I can see how you'd think his final fall onto the ball might be suspect, but I don't see any way to resolve that.
But please: you really should stop asserting that he didn't slip. He clearly slipped as he started back for the ball. Watch the replay.
By the way, comparing my description of the play to the ESPN game recap I posted in #303, the two descriptions basically agree. Note what the ESPN writer said:
See the word "stumbled" there? I guess I'm not the only one who thinks he slipped.
I don't think Chamberlain has intended to hit Youkilis. But he's acting very recklessly and dangerously very specifically with Youkilis as Ray points out.
You can argue with that. But to continually to argue as if no one ever gets beaned when the pitcher throws in the area of the head is utterly moronic. Anyone who's watched baseball for very long has seen serious beanings when the ball comes directly at the batter's head and he is unable to move out of the way. Sane Joe pointed out two prominent examples earlier in this thread and there are many others.
As a Red Sox fan, the relevant question here would be: Were you calling on PEDRO to be suspended at the time that you say he was "[throwing] at people deliberately"? Not retroactively, but at the time he was doing it. For a Red Sox fan to offer a stiff like Timlin as a sacrificial goat can just as easily be interpreted as a cynical (or tongue in cheek) bit of strategy as a serious act of evenhandedness.
I don't think Chamberlain has intended to hit Youkilis. But he's acting very recklessly and dangerously very specifically with Youkilis as Ray points out.
That's certainly one legitimate interpretation of one outstanding example of a style of aggressive pitching you see in baseball on a nightly basis. At least now you're not singling Chamberlain out.
But in order to go from moral condemnation to action that will effectively stop this sort of thing, realize that you're going to have to issue a set of guidelines that will shift the balance of power dramatically in the favor of the batter.
There are many aspects of this, but for now, just consider the matter of interpreting "intent." On one level, it might seem that a pitcher with notably above average control---such as Pedro---should be held to a much higher standard of conduct than a pitcher like Chamberlain, who throws balls past the catcher on a fairly regular basis. It's a lot easier to see malacious intent in a pitcher who walks about two batters a game than it is in one whose rate is twice that.
You can argue with that. But to continually to argue as if no one ever gets beaned when the pitcher throws in the area of the head is utterly moronic. Anyone who's watched baseball for very long has seen serious beanings when the ball comes directly at the batter's head and he is unable to move out of the way. Sane Joe pointed out two prominent examples earlier in this thread and there are many others.
Of course I'm not saying that "no one ever gets beaned when the pitcher throws in the area of the head." My point is that (a) that's NOT the optimal way to bean a batter IF that's what your true intent is; and (b) by interpreting every close call as "headhunting," you're not only trying to read a pitcher's mind---which is bad enough---but you're also ignoring the role of the batter in all this.
Which is a key point in itself. It's a common hitting technique to lean into the pitch. It's also a fairly common practice to guess that a certain pitch is coming, and sometimes in a certain location. And from this, what you often get is the perfect storm: a pitcher who's throwing a brushback pitch that gets away, at a hitter who's anticipating a pitch on the outside part of the plate. (Youkilis got hit 15 times last year, a season total never even matched by the notoriously plate-diving Derek Jeter. The next time Youk gets hit, he'll match Ted Williams' career total---in over 7000 fewer plate appearances.)
Judging by the outcome of such a pitch---a batter sprawled in the dirt and coming up furious---it looks like a clear case of "headhunting." But the underlying reality isn't that simple.
And this is what baseball people instinctively recognize, which is why, as I said above, you don't hear a lot of "cluck-clucking" from the former players in the booth. They know that it's not simply a case of "headhunting" when an aggressive pitcher nearly conks an aggressive batter. They know that that sort of accusatory reaction is much more of a "heat of the moment" kind of thing---understandable on an emotional basis, maybe, but not nearly so clearcut upon further reflection.
Andy: What? I never did any such thing!
Detective: You threw a knife at his crotch!
Andy: So? I was just trying to scare him. How does my throwing a knife at his crotch prove anything about castration?
Detective: Tell me how it doesn't.
Andy: Look, Detective, if you throw a knife at someone's crotch, they'll jump up so that it passes below their crotch. EVERYONE knows that if you really intend to castrate him, you throw at his abdomen. That way, when he jumps up, he gets hit in the crotch.
Detective: (pauses) You're not serious, are you?
Andy: Of course I am. The fact that I threw a knife, and it went directly toward his crotch, is clear evidence that I was not trying to put a knife in his crotch. And why is everyone picking on me?
Detective: This is the third time you've thrown a knife at this guy's crotch.
Andy: So? A few years back Pedro Martinez was regularly throwing knives at people's elbows, but nobody is getting on him about castration. Heck, Derek Jeter got cut in his face from a box seat, and nobody ever accused the seat of attempted castration. I just don't see it.
Detective: You've got a point. If they wanted to castrate Derek Jeter...
Andy and the Detective, in unison: ...they'd aim at Tim McCarver's head!
And I'd like to try out your method of indirect castration sometime during a Duke game, but I'm not sure I'd want to bear the responsibility of unleashing a castrated Dick Vitale upon an innocent world of unsuspecting Carolina fans. I think I'll just go with leaving a mint in the mouth of a horse head on his motel pillow.
The Angels announcers called it pretty well: "I don't know what he's laughing about; Maicer just took him for a triple."
Maybe he slipped, maybe he didn't. His effort was abysmal, as you can see by the fact that it took him forever to get up off the ground. No great surprise, there: his effort is abysmal for every part of the game other than hitting.
Chamberlain was throwing high and tight. I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to hit youkilis in the head. i'm pretty sure he missed a little high and a little tight, but so it goes. He's not the first yankee to do it, nor will he be the last.
And kevin, sox fans can't have their cake and eat it too. you can't contend that it was obvious hansen wasn't throwing at Arod b/c his control was so bad, then turn around and say that the reason girardi didn't retaliate was because he knew that hansen's beaning of arod was justified.
Yes, and I wonder if some people formed their opinions based on the disgust shown by the Angels' announcers. In any event, no matter how disgusted the Angels' announcers were, it doesn't change the fact (not "maybe") that he slipped.
Don't forget that he's also been accused of tanking while hitting (taking three strikes -- the horror -- against the pitcher with the career 197 ERA+).
He's being attacked for pretty much everything, at this point. Slipping in the field, taking pitches, saying he's hurt... His detractors are blinded with contempt for him.
Sure. Whatever you say. He slipped and fell on the ground and rolled on top of the ball. And those damned announcers and Theo and Ellsbury, for reacting so negatively with digust on their faces and their voices. You're remarkably dishonest about this play, but as I said, it shreds your credibility and I'll keep it in mind the next time you make an argument (by which I mean you clumsily parrot an argument made by DMN).
You know what's weird? I have no dog in this hunt. I hope the Sox get rid of Manny. I'm happy Manny is doing stuff that costs your team games. The Sox lineup is much scarier w/him there than w/o him, even given his stupidity. But, I'm trying merely to call it as I see it, and there's no question that he THROWS HIMSELF ON THE GROUND AND ROLLS OVER ON TOP OF THE BALL, ALL UNNECESSARILY. And then HOLDS ON TO THE BALL as Izturis (?) takes 3rd.
Headhunted? Pedro threw at guys regularly, of that there's no doubt. It doesn't seem like he threw often at a guy's noggin, but considering his control and his indifference to hitting guys, if you've got examples of a ball above the shoulder you could probably safely call them headhunting.
I don't recall Clemens having much of a reputation for throwing at guys while he was in Boston, but if you've got cites, I'd certainly buy it. Looking at his HBP numbers, he may have become more Drysdalian during the later years of his Sox tenure, when he wasn't dominating as much with his regular stuff.
I do think, and it seems most ballplayers think, that there's a difference between throwing at a guy and throwing in the vicinity of a guy's head. If Chamberlain had drilled Youkilis in the elbow a couple of times and knocked him on his ass another time, I don't think there'd be the same level of debate. Guys don't like the ball at their head, even if it's not actually the optimal way to hit them in the head.
Of course, most of these beanball threads can generally be summarized by: My guy wasn't throwing at him because why would he in that situation/he has terrible control anyway/he was just trying to back him off the plate vs. it was obvious he was throwing at him/yes, but when our guy hit yours it was an accident/your pitcher is just a reckless and immature asshat. This one pretty much follows that pattern.
Except you don't order to drill someone for just a brushback. You order one for someone throwing at your guys' head, even if he isn't hit. So, you're right. Girardi understood both sides of the equation. He understood that Chamberlain's been headhunting. And he understood his star was going to get drilled for it.
Kevin, what Girardi understood was the heat of the moment perception that Joba was headhunting. Which, as I've said, was an understandable interpretation of the errant brushback, especially from the perspective of the one who's just come within a foot or so of being beaned. To infer malicious intent when you've almost been decapitated is perfectly natural.
And Girardi also understood that Francona was going to have to make a "statement" to "protect his players." All perfectly reasonable and kosher, even if Youkilis weren't really Jewish.
In the context of the rivalry, and in the context of the unwritten rules of baseball, that understanding was sufficient for Girardi to know that one of his stars (and likely A-Rod) was going to be drilled. And not to get too indignant about the retaliation.
But none of that is to say that Girardi "understood that Chamberlain's been headhunting," as you put it. That implies intent on Chamberlain's part.
But given Girardi's role, and given Girardi's understanding of baseball unwritten rules, he wouldn't have to think that Joba was headhunting in order for him to let the matter rest after A-Rod got hit.
It's not as if the Yankees haven't been on the other side of incidents like this before. They know the etiquette of the situation. And the dance continues.
OK, but do you have examples of Clemens actually throwing at someone's head, rather than threatening to throw at someone's head.
Nor do I and there's no question at all.(**)
(**) Lest there be misunderstanding, all the stuff that the truly uptight care about doesn't bother me a bit. I don't care if Manny wears his hat backwards all the time, I don't care how he wears his hair (in fact, the way he wears it is cool), I don't care how he wears his uniform, I don't care how he dresses off the field, I don't care if he listens to "gangster rap," I don't care if he smokes two spleefs every night and plays Guitar Hero 'til 3 am. It's still pretty hard to fathom a guy losing a base or two because he pose/loafs in an elimination game in the ALCS.
Sure, JC. Whatever you say. I've been quite respectful of you in this discussion, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to call me a liar simply because I disagree with your interpretation of the play. I guess that's your new style (I hadn't noticed it before); in any event, it doesn't serve you well.
While in this particular case I don't think Joba was trying even to hit Youkalis, given the 1-0 score, it's an indisputable fact that pitchers try to hit batters all the time. And when they want to, they usually succeed. Major League sized batters make pretty big targets for Major League fastballs.
But what I don't believe is that any pitcher ever truly goes "headhunting." To me that term implies nothing less than attempted murder, and no matter what I may think of certain pitchers' lowlife characters, I don't think that any pitcher I've seen has ever deliberately tried to hit a batter in the head. Not even Drysdale. Not even Bunning. Not even Carl Mays.
Maybe the best way to put an end to this is to award a hit batsman a triple, but to establish a rule that if a batter gets hit while within a foot of the plate (or some agreed upon distance), he gets nothing at all. This would give both pitchers and batters a bit of incentive not to press the boundaries. If nothing else, it would restore the Bonds pad to its proper function of elbow protection.
And if you really wanted to make a statement, you could also stipulate an automatic suspension for any pitcher whose errant pitch caused a batter to miss a game, the suspension to last as long as the batter remained out of action or on the DL. And if you really wanted to make it tough, you'd have the suspension apply to the best pitcher on the staff, not necessarily the pitcher who did the deed. That'd eliminate sending a garbage time pitcher out there to go after the best hitter on the team.
Kevin, you did make note, didn't you, that Jeter has never been hit in a season as many times as Youkilis was last year?
EDIT: And neither has Soriano.
There was a story from years ago, and I have no idea as to its truthfulness, but it can be summarized as such:
The Braves and the Dodgers are in the middle of a series, and Hank Aaron is hanging around on the field during some sort of warm-up (usually told as batting practice). At some point, Drysdale comes out and tells him "Hey Hank, sorry about hitting you in the back yesterday". Aaron politely responds with "Don't worry about it", or some similar dismissal. Drysdale responds with "Yeah, I meant to hit you in the neck".
Now, I don't know the truthfulness of the story, or if Drysdale was being serious or just trying to get into Aaron's head, but it's been around for a while.
Of course, the story tells us nothing as to whether or not Joba was actually trying to hit Youklis in the head.
What does that have to do with anything? What does lunging have to do with having the ball thrown at your head? Youks get hit on the wrist and arms by other pitchers. He DOESN'T have the ball thrown at his head by any other pitcher except Chamberlain.
Well, when you're lunging towards the plate, it's harder to avoid any inside pitch. Just as it's easier to get picked off first if you're leaning towards second.
And just for the record, do you honestly believe that Chamberlain was trying to hit Youkilis in the head? Because that's what "headhunters" do. Pitching high and inside is not "headhunting."
It illustrates how you're sounding.
While much of what you say is factually correct - if you throw at someone's head he'll move his head out of the way, thus reducing the likelihood that you'd hit him in the head - it's ludicrous to think that a fastball thrown at someone's head couldn't have been meant for his head on that basis. When you bring up the "if he wanted to hit him in the head he wouldn't have thrown it at his head" argument, you sound as if you believe that's a plausible defense of Chamberlain. It really isn't.
Now, the other obvious possibility is that it was supposed to go "up and in" but not directly at his head, and that he missed with his location. It's plausible in general given Chamberlain's usual control issues. It's not as plausible when you consider his general lack of control issues that day, and that - as nobody has refuted yet - Chamberlain has done this three times (in four games) to Youkilis and 0 times to everyone else he has faced.
On that point, though, it's still a matter of opinion. It's certainly no coincidence that Chamberlain brushes back Youkilis - Youkilis is among the league leaders in HBP, so on that evidence alone we can infer that he stands pretty close to the plate. Those kinds of hitters are going to get brushbacks more often, esp. by pitchers who want to work with the whole strike zone. Same is true for Jeter, Giambi, and A-Rod, as they are routinely among the league leaders in HBP and (like Youkilis) can be seen crowding the plate on any given PA. That's all fine. But it's by no means a slam-dunk that Chamberlain wasn't trying to hit Youkilis in the head, esp. given the history. It's also not a slam-dunk that he was trying to hit him in this particular instance. It's open to interpretation.
Pretty much from the start, you have seemed open to *one* interpretation. You've dismissed any suggestion that Chamberlain was trying to bean Youkilis as the whining of the overly-sensitive fans of the losing team. Then some non-Boston fans joined in, and you dropped that meme to change the subject to Mike Timlin's pitching and Manny Ramirez's fielding (which are less relevant to their arguments than my "nice" post is to yours). I'm sure you didn't mean to come across as irrational as you have - but I can't discern your intent from your actions. ;-)
I do think Joba intentionally threw at Youkilis' head that day, certainly with intent to brush him back, possibly with intent to injure. I don't know, but that's what I think. I'd also buy JC's argument that he wasn't trying on that particular day, but was trying to hit him in the head in the prior incidents. Given how things played out, it's plausible.
This is sort of all a stupid argument. Sox fans believe chamberlain was trying to hit youkilis in the head with a fastball. they believe that pedro and clemens didn't really do that UNTIL they left the sox, and that in general, sox players play the game the right way while yankees players headhunt, do steroids, and cheat and god knows what else.
Yankees fans obviously don't believe the above, and may even believe the exact opposite. either way, no one is changing their mind.
you know, kev, i think that might just catch on.
Deacon,
I'm not Kevin. I asked you politely for examples of Clemens or Pedro throwing "at a batter's head" while they were members of the Sox. I'm not ruling out the possibility, just that I don't recall either of them going at a guy's head. I know Pedro threw at lots of guys when he was with Boston, and I had a problem with some of them. I don't recall Clemens having the same reputation while he was with the Sox. You're free to prove my memory faulty, but just saying I'm not willing to admit what you're convinced of is not really doing the trick.
If they wanted to castrate Manny Ramirez...
my memory is not clear enough to pick up specific instances of throwing at heads. I remember a fight between the sox and rays c. 2000 when pedro threw at gerald williams at started a brawl. Pedro threw at Karim Garcia's head in the 2003 ALCS. Those two work for me. beyond that, they have both long has reputations as headhunters. The 617 area code didn't just impart some sense of morality on them while they played for the sox.
I can't wait for the rationalization that because it was written by CHB who is merely a schill for the current regime that this holds no merit!
"Then it got worse. After Garcia's slide into second baseman Todd Walker, and angry words with Pedro, the Yankees and Sox started coming out of their dugouts and Pedro made his outrageous threats. (Oh, I forgot, it wasn't a threat. He was actually telling Posada he needed a haircut.)
No. This was: You're next. I'll hit you in the head, too."
http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?t=14309
Sunday night on ESPN, Pedro Martinez ripped Garcia, who had to duck away from Martinez's fastball behind his head during Game 3 of the ALCS last October. Garcia screamed that day at Martinez about the purpose pitch, and Martinez apparently has not forgotten the incident.
http://www.atomicsportsmedia.com/articles/286/1/Beantown-Brawlers.html
and a nice excerpt:
"How did all this happen? Well, the animosity between these teams is anything but brand new. Everything started out fine of course; Tampa came into the league in 1998 as an expansion team, and for a few years Boston beat up on them without incident. Things changed in 2000 however, and they have continued escalating since. It all started when that pillar of manhood and dignity Pedro Martinez decided to throw one up and in to Tampa Bay outfielder Gerald Williams. In case you aren’t much of a baseball fan or you’ve just been living in seclusion since the 1970’s, please note that pitchers don’t bat in the American League. Understandably, Williams became incensed that Martinez would throw at him knowing that he wouldn’t possibly face retribution in kind. If you don’t think Pedro considered that when deciding to plunk Williams, consider this: in 33 starts with Boston last season Martinez hit 16 batters, about 1 every 2 starts. This season with the Mets in the pitcher-batting National League, Pedro has only hit 1 batter through his first 10 starts. That’s 1 hit batsmen through 71 innings pitched, and had that ratio applied to last season he would only have hit 3 batters all season, not 16."
Got anything on Clemens from his Sox days?
Edit: Yeah, I saw that piece too. But the game story says he was hit in the hand.
Thanks for admitting that you "don't know" that Joba was intentionally trying to injure Youkilis. There's an old-fashioned and distinctly retro term that comes to mind here, but let's just say that it's mighty big of you to admit this.
Bottom line, I guess, is that people will believe what they want to believe, and some people apparently need to believe in evil residing in the heart of a 22 year old baseball pitcher, evil so immense that it can override all the rational contingencies of a 1-0 game that was within three innings of completion. Whatever floats the old boat, I guess.
I think I'm kind of with Andy on this. From what I've seen, the word headhunter gets thrown around a little indiscriminately, often at pitchers who are simply unafraid to hit guys. Until Piazza, I don't recall a specific instance of Clemens throwing/hitting a guy in the head. Probably happened, as all guys have at times uncorked one up there. There's just nothing that springs to mind, and certainly not a pattern of behavior. And threatening to do it is not the same as doing it.
I do think some pitchers, such as later-day Roger and, especially Pedro, are more willing to hit guys without provocation. And I don't believe it has anything to do with what uniform they're wearing. Pedro has done it his whole career. But with Roger, through his age 29 season, he hit 1 batter every 155 batters. After that, 1 every 105 batters. I suspect it had less to do with his employer than his stuff. His HBP rate started the spike in 1993, his first really down year in Boston since becoming a Cy Young winner.
Nonetheless, I do think there is a distinction between a headhunter and a guy willing to pitch inside. And like Andy, I doubt there are very many genuine headhunters out there, unless there are more homicidal pitchers than I've been led to believe.
No word yet on whether this is the same "source" that told Gammons what "everyone in the clubhouse" thinks.
Yup, yup, and yup. When a tactic is so obvious that Manny Ramirez can pick up on it...
Damn Theo, Larry and co. and their evil ways, with the way they caused Manny to shove a 64-year-old traveling secretary, call John Henry a liar, skip the opener of the Yankee series and fail to run out any balls the other night. I think the Manny Lisa is largely a self-portrait.
ORIOLES NOTEBOOK;
Clemens's High Hard One Delivers Forceful Message
BYLINE: Mark Maske, Washington Post Staff Writer
SECTION: SPORTS; PAGE C7
LENGTH: 467 words
DATELINE: BOSTON, June 13, 1993
The Baltimore Orioles celebrated the one-week anniversary of their long and ferocious fight with the Seattle Mariners by nearly getting into a beanball war with Roger Clemens.
He sent a clear message to the Orioles' Mike Devereaux with a sixth-inning fastball during the Boston Red Sox' 4-2 victory here today. Orioles starter Fernando Valenzuela had hit Bob Zupcic's elbow with a pitch in the fifth inning. So with two outs and the bases empty in the sixth, Clemens sailed a fastball past Devereaux's head. He struck out Devereaux on the next pitch.
"That's hardball," Clemens said afterward. "I'm pitching both sides of the plate. You can take that any way you want."
"I had a feeling it was coming," Devereaux said. "I fit the situation. If he really wanted to hit me, he could have. I knew it was a purpose pitch."
Said Orioles Manager Johnny Oates: "What am I going to do about it? I never like to see a pitch thrown over anybody's head, mine or anybody else's. That's dangerous."
The Orioles took a matter-of-fact tone, not an angry one. Home plate umpire Mike Reilly warned both sides after the incident, meaning that the next too-close-for-comfort delivery could have brought ejections. But Zupcic said he knew Valenzuela hadn't hit him intentionally, and no further hostilities ensued.
Red Sox Manager Butch Hobson, at least, seemed satisfied. His batters have been hit by 24 pitches this season, while Red Sox pitchers have nailed 12 hitters. "We've got to get back to pitching inside," he said. "My club leads the league in getting hit by pitches, and we're not a threat to anybody. I was at this ballpark [as a Red Sox player] the year we hit 213 home runs [in 1977], and I hit ninth, and I was knocked on my butt a lot of times."
Which traveling secretary was shoved by Nomar? When did Mo Vaughn call the owner a liar? When did Clemens skip the Yankee opener? How many balls did Pedro fail to run out, or Boggs?
It's unnecessary to defend Ramirez in order to spot the well-worn Boston M.O. Let's hope David Ortiz is leasing his Boston home.
I was contesting your third Yup there GB. Whatever "bad guy" status Manny has now is the product of Manny's behavior, not some secret whisper campaign that everyone knows is happening despite, well, no one having proof that it actually happened.
Moreover, does an M.O. really pass through to an entirely new front office group? I'm not sure what Clemens, Mo and Boggs have to do with Theo, Larry et al.
Thanks for the cite Mayor. Obviously I didn't remember that. Interesting it starts in 1993, when Clemens started hitting more guys.
As for the Williams HBP, I haven't seen the video. You're right it could have been at his head and it hit his hands as he avoided the ball. The game story I read (from St. Pete) did not say the ball was thrown at his head, however.
For "Boston M.O.," I'm definitely lumping the Boston press in as a 50/50 partner with the Red Sox front office(s) & ownership(s). Lucchino isn't Harrington, true, and yet this week's process is very familiar.
Every team has its bad breakups. But we don't need to excavate back to Carlton Fisk or Tris Speaker to take note that, in fairly recent memory, a series of Red Sox stars have gone from "beloved favorite" to "selfish pariah." And in unusually speedy fashion. If somebody gets divorced six times in 15 years, but husband #6 was a real asshoIe, you still have to wonder about the wife's shaky marital history.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main