User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
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. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.4170 seconds
50 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.
just throw it behind him, he'll get the message.
But it's funnier if you hurt them.
What's going to happen when the Nats play the Yankees and Zimmermann takes a shot at Martin?
HBP/Game:
07-11 .224 [Hamels age 23-27]
02-06 .220 [Hamels age 18-22]
97-01 .238 [Hamels age 13-17]
92-96 .282 [Hamels age 8-12]
87-91 .306 [Hamels age 3-7]
82-86 .294 [Hamels age 0-2, born December 1983]
77-81 .372
72-76 .400
67-71 .436
62-66 .442
57-61 .476
52-56 .528
47-51 .568
Looks more like something his dad grew up watching...
Hey, you learn something new every day.
The easiest call is if someone tries to hurt one of your players (spikes up into the bag, a rollblock at second abse breaking up a double play). Almost 99.9% would retaliate in this situation.
It gets murkier when you try to hit someone who is hot to unsettle them at the plate and I never heard of hitting a players because they were viewed as a hot dog or arrogant.
I never threw at anyone.
Today, you should learn how to link to other sites: "Sorry, the page you requested was not found."
Were you ever asked, or in a situation where it might have been expected? (I take it you never had a situation where someone tried to hurt one of your players and you were on the hill when he came up to the plate)
Thanks for your replies. And I think most of the normal folks here*, whether generally pro-plunking or anti, can agree that there's really no justification for this partiuclar HBP.
* One very abnormal poster being the notable exception.
Anyway, it's the box score, showing that Hamels was charged with an earned run, because in baseball, a HBP results in an earned run when the runner scores absent any errors when the runner scores absent any errors.
A HBP in baseball does not actually result in an earned run. If the bases are loaded, a HBP might results in an earned run. If the runner later comes around and scores, he is scored as an earned run.
The penalty for Hamels hitting Harper was a HBP. Not a HBP and an earned run, which was the point. The fact that he allowed that HBP to later score is separate from the punishment for the initial HBP.
I think it's a combination of all of that. I've turned around on him watching the way he's played. He seems to have grown up a lot since he first hit the scene ~4 years ago (which happens to people between the ages of 15 and 19).
I suspect within the game there is a fair amount of "pay your dues kid" but I think that is going to be true of him, Strasburg, or any other rookie if they come with this kind of hype..
Matt Wieters wraps small children in a trampoline then throws it as a beanball to hitters who swing hard in the on deck circle.
That's like saying the penalty for a facemask in football is a touchdown. It makes no sense.
Anyway, as long as we're playing pedantball, Rants never said the penalty for a HBP is an earned run. He said "It wasn't outside the scope of the sport, Hamels was charged with an HBP and an earned run." All of which is inarguable.
Your move.
What exactly did Harper do that pissed off Hamels? Did Harper complain about the strike zone previously in the series? Looks like Hamels hit Harper just because he thought he's a dick.
It does make some sense, though you have to the expand the original comment from its abbreviated version.
Pitchers aren't measured in any meaningful way by the number of HBPs they accrue, so HBP totals alone aren't necessarily a detriment. They are measured by the number of earned runs they allow. Because HBPs count as earned events in the run-scoring process (should they factor in the scoring, either as the run that's scored as was the case here, or in helping propel another run home), there is a significant statistical consequence of them, and likely why the initial poster mentioned it.
The prosecution rests. Your witness.
Not only don't hitters consent to getting intentionally plunked other than, at best, in retaliation for something they personally did (*), a private business doesn't have the authority to set up contests and atmospheres where assaults are consented to. (Boxing is, of course, excepted as it's licensed and regulated by the state.) Could I set up a bar and have a "custom" develop where the customers can punch other patrons in the face if they don't like the songs the patron played on the jukebox, and thereby have it deemed that the customer who played five bucks worth of Nickelback "consented" to being punched in the face?
Of course not.
Fanboyism is popping its head out of the weeds again.
(*) And even that's a big stretch.
In a just world you could.
Since nobody has ever been hit intentionally before, I'm surprised the umps didn't have to get together to determine whether to award Harper the base or suspend the game and have security bar Hamels from leaving the park unitl the cops could get there.
If you guys are getting this up in the air over a pitch that hit a batter IN THE LOWER BACK, I'm surprised you aren't chaining yourself outside Gary Bettman's office in protest of fighting in hockey.
And no, Zimmerman shouldn't be retroactively punished for retaliating. There was only one instigator in this incident----Hamels. I'd say 30 days should send the proper message.
Jason Heyward.
*golf clap*
That's why there is third-party authority.
Is Harper Mormon? That pretty much answers the "what'd he do to deserve it" questions right there, right?
Blatant bigotry on BBTF? Again? I'm shocked.
Even if that is so, it then comes down to who you give deference to--I go with the victim. Someone has to bear the burden. Maybe there's a way he can exempt himself, but if he can't, tough. The opposite is to impose responsibility on he who has no control of the matter at all.
How much cooler would Karate Kid have been if, instead of winning the tournament (which would be illegal as well under your standard) Daniel went to law school and got some of the lesser Cobra Kai to sue and have the dojo shut down? About as cool as Nickelback I would think.
Could I set up a bar and have a "custom" develop where the customers can punch other patrons in the face if they don't like the songs the patron played on the jukebox, and thereby have it deemed that the customer who played five bucks worth of Nickelback "consented" to being punched in the face?
If that becomes a "sport" in view of the relevant court, such that all parties are familiar with gameplay and the potential consequences of same, you'd probably be just fine. Until then the question is irrelevant.
As noted, I'm fairly sure jury nullification would cover that particular scenario in any case.
Are reach-ins in basketball- where the defender strikes the ball-handler- actionable in pick-up games? No state license (which is irrelevant of course), clearly outside the rules of the game, clearly a battery in any other context. Why isn't that actionable?
Nobody on this thread invoking "assault" actually believes the argument; they're just trolling.
I know that... now.
Anyway, the question does get asked (particularly about boxing and UFC) in good-faith fairly frequently. The primary point is that the game rules aren't the legal standard as we expect rules to be broken in all sports.
Hopefully that's where the similarities end for Harper.
I disagree. B. of d. should go to the injured party.
No one has consented to being hit--not by implication, and it's against the rules. It's about what should be presumed at the outset.
Anyone who falls back on that canard is trolling.
Many here have something to this effect. That just encourages deceit, which flies in the face of the first organizing principle of games and sporting events. Very Darwinian, though--Robert Trivers is amused and justified:
The Folly of Fools
For baseball, the first organizing principle is "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't competin'".
If you disagree, then you obviously do not know, do not understand, and/or do not like professional baseball, and should take your trollery to some other site.
No, the rule is that you can not intentionally throw at a batter. For some perspective, which seems absolutely necessary here (in the absence of Pamprin), the umpire MAY choose to eject the pitcher if he judges that there was intent. For comparison, if he carries on his person a foreign substance, he is automatically ejected and suspended 10 games.
The lords of the game apparently don't think it's a big deal.
Ah, appeal to authority. That makes it all better I suppose. And considering an ejection is the ultimate penalty an umpire may affect upon a player, I don't even see how it applies.
Of course they have. There are only so many possible outcomes of an at-bat, and a HPB is one of which every batter is aware. When the rules codify exactly what the penalty is for an action, how can you argue that the action isn't within the normal course of play?
Also against the rules, and so, presumably criminal: Mingling with spectators, warming up a pitcher while on the DL, stepping out of the batters box at will, being hit by a batted ball, runing outside the 3 foot line, intentionally dropping a fly ball, wearing a uniform that does not conform with teammates...
You are aware of the effect that the word "MAY" has on the rest of the sentence, right?
When people argue that something is so far out of the normal course of play that it becomes criminal, the relevance of how it is treated in the rules is obvious, even to the intentionally obtuse.
Not presumably criminal because none of those things are crimes. Intentionally throwing a baseball 90 mph at someone from 60 feet, 6 inches away, intending to hit them with the ball, OTOH, is.(*) The laws of civilized society do not permit intentionally hitting other people, with some exceptions -- self defense, etc. -- none of which apply here.
(*) It's also a tort and had Hamels hit Harper in the face, Harper could rightly sue for the damages he sustained. Here, Harper wasn't really damaged, so the assault will pass without incident. Of course, had that happened Hamels would not have admitted the crime/tort, making proof very difficult.
No will throw at him, they're afraid they might kill him.
Real pointless gangsta--not gangster--sh!t.
See Rizzo story. Now, someone really might get hurt. To get out of the tribal feuding is why the law was invented.
*nod*
Quit playing lawyerball indeed.
I'm very anti-intentional hitting of batters - part of it is my background growing up in Boston and remembering what happened to Tony Conigliaro.
That would probably be worth a 1-2 game suspension.
From B-R:
From 1918 to 2012, In first 1 games, (requiring HBP>=1), sorted by most recent date
Games found: 119. Selected players:
For single seasons, From 1901 to 2012, During first season , sorted by greatest Hit By Pitch
Make it 8/100, and I think he does.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main