Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Carlos Carrasco drills Kevin Youkilis in first game back from suspension

Carrasco and the crowns: Synapse gap.

Carlos Carrasco made his season-debut Tuesday night after serving a long-delayed six-game suspension for intentionally hitting a batter. After his performance against the Yankees, it won’t be a shock to see him serve another.

Carrasco was ejected from the game with two out in the fourth inning after he drilled Kevin Youkilis in the back of his left shoulder one pitch after Robinson Cano took the righthander deep.

“No one ever knows if a guy truly does it on purpose, but he just came back from a six-day suspension,” Joe Girardi said. “If it was on purpose, it’s probably going to be longer and it’s not a good idea. If it wasn’t, it looks like it was. Either way, it doesn’t look good.”

Carrasco was suspended six games for an August 2011 incident in which he drilled a batter following a home run. Carrasco underwent Tommy John surgery before he could serve the penalty, so it carried over to this season.

Youkilis stood at the plate and shook off the drilling while home plate umpire Jordan Baker tossed the Indians hurler. Terry Francona came out and argued briefly, but the decision had already been made.

“He was throwing 96-97 all night and, I think if you look at the video, he slipped and he threw it 90,” Francona said. “I can see, under the circumstances, that it didnt look good.”

Carrasco, who went to Francona and apologized for the ejection, said after the game he felt bad about hitting Youkilis, insisting there was no intent behind the pitch.

“I don’t want to do anything bad,” Carrasco said. “I waited a year and a half to get my suspension [done] and everything. I don’t want to do that again. I don’t want to be suspended.”

Repoz Posted: April 10, 2013 at 04:22 AM | 82 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: indians, yankees

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.

   1. Blastin Posted: April 10, 2013 at 07:40 AM (#4409509)
Nothing like a little Cleveland pitching to push the Yankees in the Major League home run lead.
   2. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: April 10, 2013 at 07:56 AM (#4409520)
No one ever knows if a guy truly does it on purpose

Then make it automatic. Hit a guy, you're out of the game. Do it again, you're suspended 15 days. Do it again, you're suspended for the season.

"But that's not fair!"
Why not? Throwing hard spheroids at people's heads at 90+ mph is dangerous. Wanna stop it? Then stop it.

"But you'll have to take out your pitcher!"
So? Don't major league teams carry about three dozen pitchers these days? Make 'em earn their keep.

"But you'll make it too easy on hitters!"
Then raise the mound, or move the fences, or something. Or let it be easy for the hitters. Teams score more runs, more fans come to the games, more overpriced beers get sold...everybody's happy.
   3. Blastin Posted: April 10, 2013 at 08:00 AM (#4409521)
Hit a guy, you're out of the game.



I'd say "above a certain line." I wouldn't throw someone out for hitting someone in the buttcheek.
   4. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 10, 2013 at 08:15 AM (#4409526)
Then make it automatic. Hit a guy, you're out of the game. Do it again, you're suspended 15 days. Do it again, you're suspended for the season.


And watch offense skyrocket. Pitchers have to be able to come inside and sometimes that's going to get people hit. This is particularly true for players like Youk who dive out over the plate. Take that away from pitchers and guys will be loading up.
   5. Blastin Posted: April 10, 2013 at 08:21 AM (#4409529)
I'm pretty sure he addressed that in his last point.
   6. depletion Posted: April 10, 2013 at 08:33 AM (#4409533)
Why not? Throwing hard spheroids at people's heads at 90+ mph is dangerous

It is rare for a pitch to be directed a batter's head. Brushback ("please move slightly further back from plate") and retaliation ("Pardon me, I believe one of our batters was hit by a pitch") pitches are almost always above the knees and below the chest. Interviews with managers pretty much universally back this up, anyway. I think that HBP's immediately after a home run are the most punk-ass act in baseball, however (Roger Clemens=***hole). And I'm glad Carrasco was ejected.
   7. Dale Sams Posted: April 10, 2013 at 08:44 AM (#4409542)
Then raise the mound, or move the fences, or something. Or let it be easy for the hitters. Teams score more runs, more fans come to the games, more overpriced beers get sold...everybody's happy.


If you want softball, then go watch softball.
   8. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 09:05 AM (#4409556)

Then make it automatic. Hit a guy, you're out of the game. Do it again, you're suspended 15 days. Do it again, you're suspended for the season.

"But that's not fair!"
Why not? Throwing hard spheroids at people's heads at 90+ mph is dangerous. Wanna stop it? Then stop it.


I don't think I agree, but I do agree that the current system right now is not enough to deter, and all it seems to do is suspend players, depriving fans of seeing their teams at full strength, so I don't see what the point is.
   9. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 09:11 AM (#4409559)
And watch offense skyrocket. Pitchers have to be able to come inside and sometimes that's going to get people hit. This is particularly true for players like Youk who dive out over the plate. Take that away from pitchers and guys will be loading up.

This. Automatic ejecting for an HBP is probably the worst suggested rule change I've heard this year.

How about we stop players from hanging over the plate? Move the batting boxes 3 inches further from the plate, and enforce it.

If any part of the batter, besides his arms and hands, leaves the box before contact is made, he's out automatically.
   10. SoSH U at work Posted: April 10, 2013 at 09:29 AM (#4409572)

How about we stop players from hanging over the plate? Move the batting boxes 3 inches further from the plate, and enforce it.

If any part of the batter, besides his arms and hands, leaves the box before contact is made, he's out automatically.


I'm OK with that (though I'd say hit anywhere above the plate is an out, anywhere outside the box but not in the zone is merely a ball). However, I'd couple if with my preference that would remove the largely ignored "make an effort to get out of the way of the pitch" rule. If the ball hits you while you're in the box, that's an HBP.
   11. Morty Causa Posted: April 10, 2013 at 10:00 AM (#4409595)
No one ever knows if a guy truly does it on purpose

Then make it automatic. Hit a guy, you're out of the game. Do it again, you're suspended 15 days. Do it again, you're suspended for the season.


When you're doing something inherently dangerous, intent for untoward effects shouldn't be the dividing line between responsibility and non-responsibility. Especially when the other participant is essentially at your mercy. You are held to a standard of having to control what you're doing, and if you can't/won't (it doesn't matter which), you're prohibited from engaging in that behavior that leads to that which is intolerable. It shouldn't matter if it's criminal assault and battery, an intentional tort, or a mere negligent tort.
   12. Morty Causa Posted: April 10, 2013 at 10:01 AM (#4409597)
How about we stop players from hanging over the plate?


Okay. If a batter is hit outside the batter's box, that's his lookout. If he is hit inside the batter's box, that's the pitcher's.

EDIT: Unless it is a pitch thrown outside the box but behind the batter, of course.
   13. Nasty Nate Posted: April 10, 2013 at 10:21 AM (#4409613)
Automatic ejecting for an HBP is probably the worst suggested rule change I've heard this year.


Agreed.
   14. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM (#4409627)
Automatic ejecting for an HBP is probably the worst suggested rule change I've heard this year.


It was just a couple days ago that someone suggested reducing strikeouts by penalizing hitters who strike out with an automatic 0-1 count in their next at-bat!
   15. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4409630)
When you're doing something inherently dangerous, intent for untoward effects shouldn't be the dividing line between responsibility and non-responsibility. Especially when the other participant is essentially at your mercy. You are held to a standard of having to control what you're doing, and if you can't/won't (it doesn't matter which), you're prohibited from engaging in that behavior that leads to that which is intolerable. It shouldn't matter if it's criminal assault and battery, an intentional tort, or a mere negligent tort.

You just banned football, boxing, MMA, Karate, Judo and Taekwando.

Players accept risk playing basbeball. Hell, fans accept the risk of getting hit by a ball.

As long as the act isn't intentional, there is no violation of any sort committed. If an errant pitch strikes and kills a batter, ump, or fan, the pitcher has done absolutely nothing wrong. You can't criminalize wildness by a pitcher.
   16. tshipman Posted: April 10, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4409631)
I think an automatic ejection for any HBP above the letters is okay. There's no reason to throw there in the first place.
   17. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM (#4409632)
It was just a couple days ago that someone suggested reducing strikeouts by penalizing hitters who strike out with an automatic 0-1 count in their next at-bat!

That wasn't serious was it?
   18. Nasty Nate Posted: April 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4409639)
I think an automatic ejection for any HBP above the letters is okay. There's no reason to throw there in the first place.


The problem with this is that a relatively low pitch can hit a batter "above the letters" if he is contorting himself to avoid the pitch, or crouching to bunt etc...
   19. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4409647)
I think an automatic ejection for any HBP above the letters is okay. There's no reason to throw there in the first place.

It's called a mistake. If you try to pitch inside at the top of the strike zone, you will sometimes hit a guy above the letters.

How about the batter is out and ejected every time he loses his grip on the bat and it goes flying. That's dangerous.
   20. Squash Posted: April 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM (#4409679)
Hell, fans accept the risk of getting hit by a ball.

I've always thought that, if we hadn't been made used to it by 100+ years of its being commonplace, if we introduced a brand new sport today that involved a hard, dangerous spheroid ricocheting at very high speeds from distances not that far away into the fan area without any protection or webbing 15-20 times a game that people would look at you like you're insane.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4409683)
I've always thought that, if we hadn't been made used to it by 100+ years of its being commonplace, if we introduced a brand new sport today that involved a hard, dangerous spheroid ricocheting at very high speeds from distances not that far away into the fan area without any protection or webbing 15-20 times a game that people would look at you like you're insane.

Well we have become huge wimps, that's true. Full body armor for kids to ride bikes or skate, cars seats for 8 y.o.'s. Absurdity after absurdity.
   22. ColonelTom Posted: April 10, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4409684)
I'm not sure if Carrasco meant to hit Youk, but I'm 99% certain he didn't mean to hit him that high. Check out his reaction in the video clip at 0:37 as the ball sails up and in.
   23. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4409694)
How many guys get hit in the head when a pitcher was trynig to throw at him on purpose (but perhaps was aiming for the body)? I can't really recall any incidents. I'm not sure this needs a solution other than self-policing.
   24. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4409706)
How many guys get hit in the head when a pitcher was trynig to throw at him on purpose (but perhaps was aiming for the body)? I can't really recall any incidents. I'm not sure this needs a solution other than self-policing.

I agree, very rare. An intentional HBP is basically a grooved fastball aimed at the batter's ribs or hip rather than aimed a the middle of the plate.

Very few MLB pitchers will miss by 2 feet+ on a grooved pitch.
   25. cardsfanboy Posted: April 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4409716)
Then make it automatic. Hit a guy, you're out of the game. Do it again, you're suspended 15 days. Do it again, you're suspended for the season.


That sounds like an overreaction that is on par with the NFL defense of the quarterback. Looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

And watch offense skyrocket. Pitchers have to be able to come inside and sometimes that's going to get people hit. This is particularly true for players like Youk who dive out over the plate. Take that away from pitchers and guys will be loading up.


Agree, but if you enforce a few of the rules, most of those problems would disappear.

   26. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM (#4409732)

Agree, but if you enforce a few of the rules, most of those problems would disappear.


Yes, lets trust the gentlemen that can't even get the balls and strikes right.
   27. JJ1986 Posted: April 10, 2013 at 11:48 AM (#4409740)
How many guys get hit in the head when a pitcher was trynig to throw at him on purpose (but perhaps was aiming for the body)?


Mike Piazza did.
   28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 11:51 AM (#4409744)
Mike Piazza did.

Oh, Clemens was aiming for his head, let's not kid ourselves.
   29. Morty Causa Posted: April 10, 2013 at 11:53 AM (#4409749)
You just banned football, boxing, MMA, Karate, Judo and Taekwando.


No, I haven't.

Players accept risk playing basbeball. Hell, fans accept the risk of getting hit by a ball.

What risks they accept, or, really, are imposed on them, is a matter of law (or rules). These can be changed and tweaked. For instances, quarterbacks were once subjected to risks they aren't now. Striking your opponent is endemic to those other sports. That is not so with baseball--as a matter of rule. So, what we're talking about is how to effectuate the rule and its intent. Pitchers are a position to take advantage of the fact that intent is almost always impossible to prove as the conventional wisdom has it. That has consequences. Recognizing that and acknowledging that pitchers are encouraged to use the state of affairs to his benefit (he can't be caught), why not do away with the pointless--determing intent?

As long as the act isn't intentional, there is no violation of any sort committed. If an errant pitch strikes and kills a batter, ump, or fan, the pitcher has done absolutely nothing wrong. You can't criminalize wildness by a pitcher.


Well, I answered that above, but let me add that we don't require intent in all criminal or civil matters. If you're careless or negligent that can be enough--especially when it is all in your power to control. I may have only been fooling around when I fired those shots to make you dance, podnuh, never intending to hit you, but that is still in and of itself forbidden. The examples are many.
   30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4409769)
No, I haven't.

Yes you have. Every football tackle, and punch/blow to the head risks paralyzing or killing someone.

Well, I answered that above, but let me add that we don't require intent in all criminal or civil matters. If you're careless or negligent that can be enough--especially when it is all in your power to control. I may have only been fooling around when I fired those shots to make you dance, podnuh, never intending to hit you, but that is still in and of itself forbidden. The examples are many.

That's an absurd comparison. There's no negligence in throwing a baseball, unless you close your eyes.
   31. Morty Causa Posted: April 10, 2013 at 12:18 PM (#4409795)
Negligence can be imputed. Read.

Yes you have. Every football tackle, and punch/blow to the head risks paralyzing or killing someone.


And like I said that is intrinsic to the sport. It isn't to baseball. Read. (and there are rules about hitting in football.)
   32. Moeball Posted: April 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4409797)
How about we stop players from hanging over the plate? Move the batting boxes 3 inches further from the plate, and enforce it.

If any part of the batter, besides his arms and hands, leaves the box before contact is made, he's out automatically.



Well, part of the problem can be laid directly at the eyes of the umpires:

1)Pitcher throws pitches outside a foot off the plate - batters take them, pitches get called strikes anyways
2)If batters are back in box further away from plate, with regulation length bats, they cannot reach pitches a foot outside, which they shouldn't be swinging at anyways
3)Once umpire has established he's calling those outside pitches as strikes, batters have no choice but to crowd the plate, knowing they have to try to reach outside pitches or the umpire will call them strikes anyways

I have seen this exact scenario take place dozens of times over the years. Eric Gregg is the most notorious example of this kind of abysmal strike zone judgement, but I have seen lots of other umpires almost as bad.
   33. Dale Sams Posted: April 10, 2013 at 01:00 PM (#4409854)
Baseball is fine. It doesn't need changing. Except calling the high strike. Call the high strike.
   34. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 01:04 PM (#4409860)
And like I said that is intrinsic to the sport. It isn't to baseball. Read. (and there are rules about hitting in football.)

And throwing baseballs near the batter at very high velocity is intrinsic to baseball, and can not be done with the accuracy required to never hit a batter.

Baseball is fine. It doesn't need changing. Except calling the high strike. Call the high strike.

Agrees. What is the problem we are trying to solve? When are the serious injuries caused by HBP? If Derek Jeter loses 2 month with a broken hand because he dives, who cares? You can count the life altering injuries due to HBP on one finger (Ray Chapman). Even career altering is Tony C, Dickie Thon and ????
   35. Morty Causa Posted: April 10, 2013 at 01:13 PM (#4409874)
And throwing baseballs near the batter at very high velocity is intrinsic to baseball, and can not be done with the accuracy required to never hit a batter.


The first part of that, yes; the second part doesn't have to be. You pays your money and takes your chances. Pitch close if you want, but if you hit someone, out you go. A batter is as vulnerable as a quarterback or kicker. Know asks if the contact in question was really meant. In the case of the pitcher that can't be known. Thus, he bears the burden.
   36. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4409875)
The first part of that, yes; the second part doesn't have to be. You pays your money and takes your chances. Pitch close if you want, but if you hit someone, out you go. A batter is as vulnerable as a quarterback or kicker. Know asks if the contact in question was really meant. In the case of the pitcher that can't be known. Thus, he bears the burden.

Yet batters almost never get seriously injured. Why do we want to upset the balance of the sport to address a non-existent problem?
   37. SoSH U at work Posted: April 10, 2013 at 01:23 PM (#4409886)
Yet batters almost never get seriously injured. Why do we want to upset the balance of the sport to address a non-existent problem?


I wouldn't call it non-existent. When a guy gets injured with a pitched ball, it's a concern. When a guy suffers a career-altering injury, it's a major concern, regardless how infrequently it happens.

I just don't see the solution that was offered (quite possibly in jest) as doing anything to resolve that issue. Getting hit with a pitched ball can hurt. Most HBPs are merely accidents of trying to pitch inside, which is usually necessary to be successful as a big league pitcher. Ejecting a guy for hitting a batter might change the number of intentional hit batsmen (but won't eliminate them), but it won't have much effect on the total number of hit batsmen. Guys will still get hit. And it will, on occasion, still hurt.

   38. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 10, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4409888)
You can count the life altering injuries due to HBP on one finger (Ray Chapman). Even career altering is Tony C, Dickie Thon and ????


Paul Blair. Several others I'm sure.

Changing that number doesn't change the result. Major League pitchers miss their spots a LOT. If we start ejecting/suspending/etc...pitchers for HBPs on a regular basis the game is going to be vastly different. The knuckleball will be completely elimiinated from the game. Hell, curveballs will be virtually useless. If you start it in the middle of the plate it's a ball, if you throw it inside it becomes an HBP. I'm with Dale up above, it would become softball.

A batter is as vulnerable as a quarterback or kicker. Know asks if the contact in question was really meant.


And I know a lot of people who find the NFL rules on protecting to the QB to be a joke. There is a reason that all manner of passing records have been shredded in the last decade.
   39. Tom Nawrocki Posted: April 10, 2013 at 01:25 PM (#4409892)
Even career altering is Tony C, Dickie Thon and ????


Cass Michaels. Mickey Cochrane. Paul Blair.
   40. Morty Causa Posted: April 10, 2013 at 01:27 PM (#4409894)
Then change the rule. And if pitchers throwing at batters is okay, change that rule. If not, it should mean something--for that to be, it should be possible for it to be clearly and decisively effectuated. It can't the way it's viewed and utilized now.
   41. Morty Causa Posted: April 10, 2013 at 01:29 PM (#4409895)
Tony C.
   42. Mattbert Posted: April 10, 2013 at 01:44 PM (#4409912)
Did anyone else find it odd that Baker threw the ball back to Carrasco and then tossed him?
   43. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4409970)
Did anyone else find it odd that Baker threw the ball back to Carrasco and then tossed him?

Well, if he had the ball is his "ejecting hand", he had to get rid of it somehow.
   44. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 10, 2013 at 02:35 PM (#4409978)
Usually when a batter does get injured by a pitch it's a hand or wrist injury, right? Almost none of which result from the pitcher trying to intimidate the hitter.
   45. rlc Posted: April 10, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4409982)
Even career altering is Tony C, Dickie Thon and ????


Nomah?
   46. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4409989)
Usually when a batter does get injured by a pitch it's a hand or wrist injury, right? Almost none of which result from the pitcher trying to intimidate the hitter.

Yup. And those are basically 90% avoidable if you don't dive. The standard "turn your back, but don't really move" defense protects the hands very nicely.
   47. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 02:45 PM (#4409998)

Well, I answered that above, but let me add that we don't require intent in all criminal or civil matters. If you're careless or negligent that can be enough--especially when it is all in your power to control. I may have only been fooling around when I fired those shots to make you dance, podnuh, never intending to hit you, but that is still in and of itself forbidden. The examples are many.


The SC has already ruled on this in Hackbarth vs. Cincinnati Bengals. As long as its in the ordinary course of the sport, its fine. Its when a player goes well out of the accepted behavior of the sport (like say charging the mound and using the baseball bat as a weapon) that you can have civil or criminal redress.

The mere act of throwing a baseball negligently would never give rise to a civil or criminal case, and it is unlikely even an intentional throwing of a baseball at a batter would.
   48. Morty Causa Posted: April 10, 2013 at 02:48 PM (#4410003)
That doesn't mean you can't make it so. You could maybe make it all right to forearm a quarterback when he's throwing a pass and totally at your mercy. That doesn't mean you should, or that you can't make a rule against that. See how hard that is?
   49. Mattbert Posted: April 10, 2013 at 02:49 PM (#4410008)
Well, if he had the ball is his "ejecting hand", he had to get rid of it somehow.

He didn't. Baker came out from behind the plate to get in between Youkilis and Carrasco and then reached into his ballbag (sorry, there's no other word for it that I know), threw a fresh baseball to Carrasco, and ejected him as the ball was settling into his glove.

Maybe he was trying to make a grand metaphorical gesture. "As this ball is tossed to you, sir, so are you hereby tossed from this game. Now begone!"

I don't know, it gave off the impression of a guy who wasn't completely sure of what he was doing. The ejection appeared to be a bit of an afterthought. "Wait a minute, should I run you out of here for that? Oh, what the hell, why not."
   50. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 02:57 PM (#4410013)
He didn't. Baker came out from behind the plate to get in between Youkilis and Carrasco and then reached into his ballbag (sorry, there's no other word for it that I know), threw a fresh baseball to Carrasco, and ejected him as the ball was settling into his glove.

That's pretty funny.

Maybe he wanted to give Carrasco a parting gift?
   51. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 10, 2013 at 02:58 PM (#4410015)
I'm not sure if Carrasco meant to hit Youk . . .

Extra Innings carried the Cleveland broadcast, and the Indians' announcers didn't have much doubt about Carrasco's intent. Seemed to think he was an idiot, too, for throwing at a batter coming off a suspension for throwing at a batter.

Worth noting that this was the Yankees largest margin of victory in Cleveland since 1931! These grity, gutsy, scrappy underdogs surpassed the Yankees of DiMaggio, Berra, Mantle, Jackson & and the record-breaking 1998 team. And Andy Pettitte had another great game. It's early, but those burying the 2013 Yankees may have jumped the gun.
   52. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4410019)
It's early, but those burying the 2013 Yankees may have jumped the gun.

Eh, even a dead cat bounces.
   53. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4410037)

That doesn't mean you can't make it so. You could maybe make it all right to forearm a quarterback when he's throwing a pass and totally at your mercy. That doesn't mean you should, or that you can't make a rule against that. See how hard that is?


I suppose, but I don't really see the problem of players getting beaned necessitating such harsh penalties, particularly if there is no intent behind the beanings.
   54. Morty Causa Posted: April 10, 2013 at 03:33 PM (#4410072)
What's the benefit of allowing the batter to suffer that exposure? Why should an activity like that come down to an indeterminate like intent? Knowing that it does, think of the license this gives the miscreant. If someone drives recklessly, we don't have to prove they intended to endanger anyone, or, indeed, that anyone was in danger. If someone shoots at someone just to send a message, a warning, does that pass muster? (Dance, podnuh.) Why should this be different? If a pitcher hits a batter in the box (or throws behind him) he's too dangerous to drive. We don't want to see your excuse from your mother. It's a dangerous enterprise. There needs to be a line.

   55. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 10, 2013 at 04:15 PM (#4410094)
As has already been said above, Morty Causa, outlawing the act of pitching would be bad for baseball.
   56. Moeball Posted: April 10, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4410095)
In the game where Pedro was pitching a perfect game but then nailed a batter - didn't he essentially admit later that he hit the batter on purpose, even at the cost of the perfect game? It seemed pretty clear that it was more important to Pedro to establish who was boss than it was to pitch the perfect game. Intimidation was part of his mantra for success.
   57. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 04:29 PM (#4410104)
In the game where Pedro was pitching a perfect game but then nailed a batter - didn't he essentially admit later that he hit the batter on purpose, even at the cost of the perfect game? It seemed pretty clear that it was more important to Pedro to establish who was boss than it was to pitch the perfect game. Intimidation was part of his mantra for success.

I would guess that was him making himself look better, after screwing up and losing a perfect game he really wanted.
   58. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: April 10, 2013 at 04:41 PM (#4410119)
I know Pedro said 90% of the batters he hit were done so intentionally. I don't know what he believes but I doubt that to be true. Here's a video of the infamous hbp he had against Sanders. After he does it, he looks to the sky in disbelief. It's like he couldn't believe he had done it. That one wasn't intentional. I'm sure he hit guys intentionally at times but 90% of the time seems excessive.

Link
   59. SoSH U at work Posted: April 10, 2013 at 04:48 PM (#4410124)
I know Pedro said he hit 90% of the batters he hit were done so intentionally. I don't know what he believes but I doubt that to be true. Here's a video of the infamous hbp he had against Sanders. After he does it, he looks to the sky in disbelief. It's like he couldn't believe he had done it. That one wasn't intentional. I'm sure he hit guys intentionally at times but 90% of the time seems excessive.


I can believe that 90 percent of his HBPs were either intentional or cases where he was trying to throw inside and was indifferent to that particular outcome.

But he's the only pitcher I've watched regularly where I knew he was plunking guys on purpose. For everyone else, except in rare cases, it seemed like mostly guesswork, our conclusions influenced overwhelmingly by laundry.
   60. SoSH U at work Posted: April 10, 2013 at 04:48 PM (#4410125)
DP.
   61. Ron J2 Posted: April 10, 2013 at 04:55 PM (#4410127)
#47 There have been a few hockey players charged and some convicted. Always for things like an intentional stick to the head (McSoley/Brashear for instance) The NHL lobbied very hard to keep McSorley/Brashear out of the criminal justice system -- without success. (likewise Bertuzzi/Moore. Again not successful though Bertuzzi was able to negotiate a plea deal)
   62. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: April 10, 2013 at 04:55 PM (#4410128)
I can believe that 90 percent of his HBPs were either intentional or cases where he was trying to throw inside and was indifferent to that particular outcome.

That I believe. Pedro pitched inside and he wasn't going to lose any sleep if he hit guys. I also believed he plunked guys on purpose as well, just not 90% of the time.
   63. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 10, 2013 at 04:58 PM (#4410130)
Worth noting that this was the Yankees largest margin of victory in Cleveland since 1931! These grity, gutsy, scrappy underdogs surpassed the Yankees of DiMaggio, Berra, Mantle, Jackson & and the record-breaking 1998 team. And Andy Pettitte had another great game. It's early, but those burying the 2013 Yankees may have jumped the gun.

Or maybe it's just that they'll have a bit of company in their coffin. This team once won 9 in a row, all on the road, and some of you might even remember when this team put together an 11 game winning streak.
   64. spike Posted: April 10, 2013 at 05:07 PM (#4410135)
Robby Thompson. That was a bad one.
   65. Morty Causa Posted: April 10, 2013 at 05:13 PM (#4410139)
As has already been said above, Morty Causa, outlawing the act of pitching would be bad for baseball.

And as I think I've adequately refuted, throwing at batters is not necessary to the act of pitching.

Pedro admitted to hitting batters on purpose 90% of the time--and that's just the times he hit them. That probably applies more or less to all pitchers in general. Careless indifference amounts to the same thing.
   66. Walt Davis Posted: April 10, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4410140)
What year was it that Sosa got beaned? I recall that coinciding with a major slump on his return but memories suck.
   67. SoSH U at work Posted: April 10, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4410144)
And as I think I've adequately refuted, throwing at batters is not necessary to the act of pitching.


Nope, but it's an occasional byproduct, usually accidental. I just don't see any reason that an ejection should follow such an accident. You've certainly expressed why you think otherwise. You just haven't done a particularly effective job of convincing others, as far as I can tell.

   68. Dale Sams Posted: April 10, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4410182)
I'm surprised little leaguers aren't required to wear some kind of 'heart guard'.
   69. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: April 10, 2013 at 08:41 PM (#4410261)
What year was it that Sosa got beaned?

2003.

I recall that coinciding with a major slump on his return but memories suck.

The HBP was on April 20; he was lifted from that game hitting .333/.518/.683, which is pretty good. He then played until May 9, hitting .274/.357/.403 in the interim, which is not nearly as good, and then hit the DL for unrelated reasons, if I recall correctly. Your memory is roughly correct, although the samples aren't exactly enormous.
   70. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 10:09 PM (#4410357)
I'm surprised little leaguers aren't required to wear some kind of 'heart guard'.

Is that an actual thing? How dangerous can a kid throwing 50-60 MPH be? I must have gotten hit 20 times a year in little league. I don't think I ever got so much as a bruise.
   71. Walt Davis Posted: April 11, 2013 at 12:22 AM (#4410435)
As to HBP ... I don't think anything needs to be done but if they did anything, just make a small tweak to the current system. When a pitcher hits (or even doesn't) a batter with a "dangerous" pitch (say too high), it's either ejection if the ump thinks it was on purpose or an _automatic_ warning to the pitcher and he's gone if he does it again. The only difference is that currently the warning isn't necessarily automatic. You can justify it without intent under the argument that if a guy has this little control today, he's a danger today. Suspension only occurs when the umpire deems there was intent.

Sosa ... for what it's worth, for the rest of that season he put up a 885 OPS all resulting in a 25-30 point lower OPS+ for 2003 than he had in the previous years. 2004 saw him at 114 and then he was basically done. Of course there are other potential causes (age, testing, the other injuries) but from the time of the beaning he was back to being bad Sammy and the walk rate plummeted. (Amazingly, to start 2003, he had 21 walks, only 4 intentional, in the first 19 games.) I do recall us talking about him seeming to move further off the plate and give up more of the outside corner afterward but, again, memory could be off.
   72. Dale Sams Posted: April 11, 2013 at 12:43 AM (#4410450)
Is that an actual thing?


I have no idea. But I had heard that all teams want external defibrillators on hand in case a kid gets hit in the chest and goes into arrhythmia.
   73. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: April 11, 2013 at 12:53 AM (#4410456)
I'd change the design of the batters box and make it a permanent part of the diamond, instead of being outlined in chalk. No more obliterating it by the hitters.
   74. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 11, 2013 at 02:51 AM (#4410483)
Speaking of not hitting guys, what's up with Jeff Samardzija's salary? Every year for seven years the Cubs have paid him between 2m and 3.4m. Never seen that before.

He didn't. Baker came out from behind the plate to get in between Youkilis and Carrasco and then reached into his ballbag (sorry, there's no other word for it that I know), threw a fresh baseball to Carrasco, and ejected him as the ball was settling into his glove.

That's pretty funny.

Maybe he wanted to give Carrasco a parting gift?


It's actually a pretty crafty move. Occupy the guy's hands. Make it a little less intuitive to fight, now that he has to throw his glove away and drop the ball. It also gets the ump out onto the field. Players are a little less inclined to go after each other if it means running over the ump. Smart, now that I think about it.

Yeah--after I look at the video again, it makes sense. The ump not only throws the ball to Carrasco, but continues to move down the first base line, interposing himself or making it easier to do so.

And the correct term is "ball sack".

Baseball is fine. It doesn't need changing. Except calling the high strike. Call the high strike.


This would be a very significant change.
   75. Dale Sams Posted: April 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM (#4410650)
This would be a very significant change.


How? That's a very hittable pitch. Bigger strike zone for pitchers, more to hit for batters.
   76. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: April 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4410655)
Speaking of not hitting guys, what's up with Jeff Samardzija's salary? Every year for seven years the Cubs have paid him between 2m and 3.4m. Never seen that before.

I believe he signed a major league deal when drafted. That money was basically to buy him out of an NFL career. It's definitely weird, though. According to BB-Ref, he is arb eligible for the first time this off-season after six years.
   77. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM (#4410744)
Automatic ejecting for an HBP is probably the worst suggested rule change I've heard this year.


Worse than the DH in the NL?

Splitter!
   78. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 11, 2013 at 01:03 PM (#4410824)
Is that an actual thing? How dangerous can a kid throwing 50-60 MPH be? I must have gotten hit 20 times a year in little league. I don't think I ever got so much as a bruise.


I think the issue is more about the pitchers than the hitters. Some of these kids can really smoke a baseball and when you've got a kid who winds up about 43 feet away from the batter by the time he releases the ball there is just no time to react, particularly for kids who are not necessarily superathletic. I don't think it's any kind of epidemic but I have read stories about pretty serious injuries.

Just as a personal story I was umpiring from behind the mound on Sunday for a scrimmage and there were a few times where I definitely dropped back a few steps.
   79. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: April 11, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4410933)
I think the issue is more about the pitchers than the hitters.


In little league I hit a foul line drive off of the face of the guy in the on-deck circle (which was behind the first base coach's box, for some reason) and gave him a concussion and broke the orbital bone behind his eye. He was paying attention, but I was a pretty big kid and we were playing with aluminum bats and 60 foot basepaths, and so the ball got on him way too fast for him to react. It was a pretty terrifying situation.

I don't know if they still use lively aluminum bats in little league, but the combination of those things and the short bases always seemed like an accident waiting to happen.

   80. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: April 11, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4411012)
Hey, guys, what did I miss?

NO, I'm not really suggesting you should automatically throw out a pitcher for an HBP, without even allowing for location or intent. I'm just saying if you really want to get rid of pitchers throwing at guys, you can...just like you can get rid of fighting in hockey if you really want to. They won't, of course.
   81. SoSH U at work Posted: April 11, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4411020)
NO, I'm not really suggesting you should automatically throw out a pitcher for an HBP, without even allowing for location or intent.


I didn't think you were. Morty is, however.
   82. ColonelTom Posted: April 15, 2013 at 02:42 PM (#4414746)
Is that an actual thing? How dangerous can a kid throwing 50-60 MPH be? I must have gotten hit 20 times a year in little league. I don't think I ever got so much as a bruise.


Commotio cordis

Short summary - it's a condition that affects kids, largely because they don't have much muscle mass or bone between the batted/thrown ball and the heart. If the ball hits at exactly the wrong moment in the heart's cycle, it can cause ventricular fibrillation and stop the child's heart. The "ideal" speed that causes it is actually around 40 mph. This newsletter has a pretty good summary of the research, though it's a bit out of date.

My 9-year-old wears an EvoShield chest/back guard, though there's little evidence that any chest protector is effective against commotio cordis. It's taken the sting out of a few fastballs to the back, though.

Some youth leagues, especially at lower levels, use "reduced injury factor" (RIF) baseballs that have softer cores. The softer-cored balls have been shown to cut down on the risk of commotio cordis as well as other injuries. I'm still baffled as to why our local little league stops using the RIF balls after tee ball, switching to regular baseballs at age 6/7.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Ray (RDP)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBowman: A year’s worth of struggles leads reason to wonder what changes are in store for the Braves
(16 - 5:13am, Sep 16)
Last: bigglou115

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(2509 - 3:53am, Sep 16)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(17 - 3:46am, Sep 16)
Last: still hunting for a halo-red october (in Delphi)

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(36 - 3:16am, Sep 16)
Last: MelOtt4

NewsblogSteven Matz, other top minor league Mets to be honored at Citi Field on Monday
(5 - 2:28am, Sep 16)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogPapelbon blows lead, gets ejected for crotch-grabbing at fans
(61 - 1:32am, Sep 16)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(813 - 12:15am, Sep 16)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-15-2014
(78 - 11:46pm, Sep 15)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogHeyman: Mariners have decided not to retain the ice-cream buying scout
(4 - 11:45pm, Sep 15)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogSports Bog: Fans Switch From Skins to Nats
(62 - 11:41pm, Sep 15)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogCalcaterra: Derek Jeter got a bucket of crabs and a captain’s hat from the Orioles
(12 - 11:41pm, Sep 15)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(219 - 10:43pm, Sep 15)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(161 - 10:11pm, Sep 15)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!)

Newsblog10 Degrees: Why WAR doesn’t always add up
(340 - 9:46pm, Sep 15)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(245 - 9:20pm, Sep 15)
Last: spike

Page rendered in 0.7503 seconds
52 querie(s) executed