Or as Pitch Williams said on the MLB Network…“Why didn’t Youkilis charge Edwin Jackson the day before…Huh? (insert blank stare here) Huh?...BECAUSE HE FELT HE COULD INTIMIDATE A 20-YEAR OLD, THAT"S WHY!”
“There are two real culprits in this Tigers-Red Sox mess, when a brawl broke out in the bottom of the second,” wrote ESPN.com’s Keith Law on Tuesday.
“First is Kevin Youkilis, who showed once again that he can’t keep his emotions in check by charging the mound without a moment of hesitation after he was hit by a pitch. Tigers starter Rick Porcello backed off and raised his hands as if to ask why Youkilis was rushing the mound. Those of us in the scouts’ seats had the same reaction.”
“Huh?” you’re asking. Wait, it gets better.
...let’s get to Law’s assessment of the event in question.
Youkilis “can’t keep his emotions in check”? Now, I won’t disagree with the fact that Youk—an All-Star for the second time in his career this season—gets a little hot under the collar every time he strikes out. That’s his M.O. It’s not completely out of character for people who are great at what they do to be hard on themselves. But, quick, name the last time he did anything inappropriate to another player. I didn’t think you could.
Next, Law—and the rest of his Ivy League cronies in the luxurious scouts’ seats—couldn’t understand why Youkilis was rushing the mound? Really?
OK, I agree that Porcello did look incredulous and scared half to death, wondering why the angry-looking, barrel-chested Sox third baseman was headed his way. Maybe the pitch did get away from him.
Repoz
Posted: August 12, 2009 at 10:19 AM |
183 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
red sox,
tigers
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.
On this we agree. It seemed to me that once that wide zone was established Tazawa started pitching to that spot for strikes the rest of his outing. We'll need more evidence to see if that was a smart adjustment on his part, or if he was unintentionally missing the zone and just getting lucky with calls.
Richie Sexson got six (reduced to five) when he charged the mound and threw his helmet a couple years ago.
That being said, it is hard to win consistently as a righty starter when you top out at maybe 91 on the NESN gun, which IIRC, clicks fast.
I don't know. Three would be the standard for charging the mound and starting a brawl, but the helmet toss might get him an extra game or two.
That's a touch lower than his usual velocity in the minors this year. The scouting reports on him have his fastball at 91-93, and that was roughly the velocity he recorded in NY over the weekend. It's possible he was a bit nervous and didn't have his best heater. More evidence is needed, of course.
Eh. If you have a plan, a couple good complimentary pitches, and command, you can do it. Maddux defines the extreme of what you can do with a low-90's fastball as a righty, but I think we'll all be elated if Tazawa can be halfway between Maddux level and replacement level.
Two words for that...Awe Some!
As for charging the mound, I don't think there's any situation in which that's a reasonable response. If you think they are throwing at your guys, you throw at them. The whole charging the mound thing is just over-dramatic and risks injury to your guys. Throw at them and only risk injury to their guys.
Joba didn't actually hit Youkilis, and the umpire did throw Joba out of the game for throwing at him. I think those are big differences.
I don't remember Piazza PUNKing out, but I'm not really sure what "PUNK'D out" means. Piazza went 0 for 3 against Clemens after Clemens threw the broken bat at him, although he did hit a HR off a reliever in that game. He also hit a HR off Clemens the next time Clemens faced the Mets.
Wha? There's a lot of Ivy League scouts out there?
Brawls are generally pretty stupid. Baseball should adopt the hockey/basketball rule of no players can leave the bench/bullpen. If someone wants to charge he's on his own.
That's considered acceptable terminology now? I would have thought not.
That's a good story. Once in three pitch softball there was a dustup when I slide into second and because the base wasn't nailed down the guy standing there wiped out. He was pissed and tried to fight me then. Later in the game another guy on their team was at first and I was at shortstop with the game out of hand. There was a hit to the outfield and instead of running to secondbase he ran straight at me and blindsided me. I got up, whacked him in the face a couple of times before everyone broke it up.
Having been in that situation the clear answer is that the other players shouldn't break up the fight. If the other players hadn't arrived I would have put that guy in the hospital and he never would have done it again.
Best I can tell it stayed that way until sometime in the 50s. I've read stories of Joe Adcock chasing a much smaller man (Ruben Gomez IIRC) all over the field while his teammates laughed. The chasee came back with a knife for round two. As I've heard it, Willie Mays talked him into putting the knife away.
I'm not sure encouraging 9 on 1 fights (or at most, 9-4) is a realistic solution. There's a reason hockey and basketball can do that, because there's always (or close to always) an identical number of players on the playing field at the same time.
When is it ever going to be 9 on 1? The nine aren't going to gang beat the one unless he does something stupid like charge the mound, in which case the one deserves what he gets for being a moron.
This could be stopped for two reasons. The first is the code. You don't jump into a fight to gangup on another guy. The second is the rule that backs up the code. The third man into a fight gets massive punishment.
Now the real reason this wouldn't work is that MLB umpires are too fat, slow and weak to break up a fight whereas NHL linesman are all in superb physical shape. This could have the additional advantage of winowing the umpire herd.
Does it? I'm not doubting the statement at all, just noting that I'm pretty sure I never noticed any until the last, I dunno, maybe 20 years. Maybe that's attributable to the scarcity of TV games, lack of highlights shows, etc. during my first couple of decades of paying attention to baseball.
Except it's also code for catchers to protect their pitchers. So it's potentially 2 on 1 right there. You're not going to stop catchers from jumping in.
And what happens if it's a non-charging incident, where the shortstop and second baseman start a brawl with a runner who came into second too hard? Do we have different charging the field rules in that scenario?
Baseball fights are stupid. But, due to the rather uncommon nature of the sport, I suspect any ironclad rule designed to stop them will have even dumber consequences.
Well in theory, but not in practice. For it to actually 'be' aikido Porcello shouldn't have planted his leg and then pulled with his arms upper body and fallen backwards. That's more of a wrestling approach. An aikidoist would actually either step back or move in slightly to pivot and turn his hips while redirecting Youks with less arm strength.
that requires the batters box chalk not being demolished early
they should replace the chalk with a hard clay outline
Because I don't want Porcello to face KC
It may seem so, but He works in mysterious ways.
It's become a ritual in recent years. And as I've said I'm pretty sure you can trace it back to Farmer/Cowens.
But it wasn't uncommon before then. I mentioned 2 earlier in the thread and there's also Bob Meusel/King Cole (with a Babe Ruth/Ty Cobb screaming match as a side event). This was followed by a riot (as in game called, order could not be restored).
One other instance from the 60s. Bob Gibson knocked down Dennis Bennet twice. Jack Baldschun hit him. Gibson threw his bat at Baldschun.
There were other cases. Not rare but generally newsworthy.
ask Roseboro that question, 1965 seems to be more than 20 years ago.
Which is why Marichal went after Roseboro.
You definitely know more about it than I do, but I was mostly saying that using the other guy's momentum against him is an Aikido principle.
As a bonus you would have had plenty of time to read Nietzche in jail.
I agree. I thought the most telling thing was when they showed a replay (I think it was on NESN--I was watching on MLB.TV) from behind home plate and you can see Porcello's immediate reaction after the ball hit Youkilis. He looked pretty frustrated with himself and looked away from Youkilis. If he'd done it on purpose, I don't think he'd have done either of those things. He would have been ready for what was coming.
Also, I couldn't tell for sure, but the pitch looked like a breaking ball that got away. Why would Porcello hit Youkilis with a breaking ball?
On the NESN slow-mo replay, the pitch looked like a fastball. Tough to tell of course if the pitch really did slip, but certainly that's the way it appeared after a couple of replays. Breaking balls that get away often sail way over the batter's head, or they don't break enough to get into the zone and out of the batter's box. This pitch didn't look like either of those cases.
EDIT: Dammit, the clip is not loading on the redsox.com website. I was hoping that there would be a radar gun reading on the pitch.
Wheeling around & clubbing the catcher, a few inches away, with your bat is not quite the same as charging a mound 60 feet away, IMHO.
As always, YMMV.
I think Youkilis threw his helmet because that's what Tom Sizemore does in "Saving Private Ryan."
My favorite reaction to an HBP has to be in the famous clip of Babe Ruth getting hit, then trotting down to first while flicking at his arm and mouthing off at the pitcher: "Seriously, is that all you got?" or something similar.
Okay, cool. I'll admit to being horrible at identifying pitches, so thanks for clearing this up.
Replay is up and I just watched it a couple of times. Real tough to tell; the pitch didn't register a radar gun reading, but just going by eye appeared to be a fastball based on velocity. It did tail towards the end a bit though.
And your observation about Porcello's reaction is correct based on the replay: he looked away for a second as if he was disgusted with himself. Interestingly, on the pitch that buzzed Martinez, he did NOT do this, but rather stared in at Martinez after the pitch went by. So maybe intent was there, but on a different batter? I dunno.
I think that's a fair assessment. I think he got a raw deal getting tossed from the game, but, as a Twins fan, I'm all for the Tigers' bullpen being overworked. It's easier than beating Kansas City, apparently.
What rule is that again? According to rule 7.09 (f) and (g):
(f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.
(g) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference.
Source: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/07_the_runner.pdf
I see no place in the rule book where it mentions a runne rmust be able to reach and maintain second base. Seems to me Eck is full of it.
Now I know that a 5 game suspension for a starting pitcher is basically meaningless but why should he be suspended at all. He shouldn't even have been thrown out of the game.
The intentional HBP should be an allowed and recognized part of the pitchers arsenal.
MLB.com represent!
There is absolutely nothing appealing about Youkilis.
"I was pitching winter ball for Mayaguez and was the starting pitcher on a Sunday afternoon that saw us hosting Caguas, a bitter rival from a neighboring town. Eliseo Rodriguez, a major-leaguer with the Milwaukee Brewers, was the Caguas catcher.
...It was a slider that got away from me in the seventh inning that brought us together. Rodriguez was hanging over the plate, guessing sinker. When the ball ran in on him, he was unable to get out of the way, and it clipped him on the elbow. Stepping out of the batter's box, Ellie rubbed his arm and started yelling at me in Spanish. I didn't comprehend a word of it, so I just shrugged, hoping he understood the hit wasn't intentional. I don't think he got the message. Dropping his bat, he took two steps toward first, turned, and charged toward me on the mound. I had an immediate understanding that he was not coming out to tell me what great stuff I had that day. Especially since his entire team had emptied the dugout and was following behind him. I felt like Davey Crockett at the Alamo. As Rodriguez reached the mound he lunged at me. Stepping to one side, I set myself and caught him with a quick left lead, laying him out on the mound.
...The next day, the headlines read MAYAGUEZ LOSES, BUT LEE TKO'S RODRIGUEZ IN THE SEVENTH. That was embarrassing for Ellie, who was a former Light Heavyweight Golden Gloves champion of Puerto Rico."
New to me. I enjoyed it, thanks for posting it.
Fortunately MLB disagrees with you.
I would've done the same thing if I was him!
Seems unfair that Porcello only has to miss one actual game (and not really even that since he can just start a day or two later than he would have before) while Youk has to miss 5 actual games just for basically defending himself and his team mates.
I don't mind if a guy is just pitching inside and hits someone by accident but hate it when huys are actually throwing at people and trying to hit them. I think if the umpire thinks a starting pitcher is doing it deliberately he should be suspended 25 games (5 starts). That would make them think twice.
Some of you guys think this is cool and funny until someone gets hit in the head and their career ended by it.
Like Dickie Thon
Why? There is no reason to disallow and plenty of reasons to allow it. This is elementary.
Career ending injuries are part of all sports. Once you outlaw the HBP you outlaw pitching inside as well since the difference is only a matter of control.
Considering the efficacy of diving out over the plate as a matter of strategy for the hitter the game needs to have an allowed counterstrategy. Once again this is elementary.
It was an intentional HBP. Incidental HBP's are part of the game. Intentional HBP's are a serious death/injury risk to highly paid, highly valued employees of the MLB enterprise.
If it hadn't been blindingly obvious that Porcello was throwing at Youkilis, and that Porcello had been throwing at Martinez in the previous inning, he wouldn't have been suspended. 5 games (reduced to 4 on appeal no doubt) isn't a real suspension for a SP anyway.
De nada. Naturally, that story made me look up Ellie Rodriguez. Played from '68-'76. I know nothing about his defense, but for a few years, he was quite the hitter for a catcher. Couldn't take a hit, though.
This is a strawman - no one is saying outlaw HBP, but they are saying that the practice of throwing at people on purpose to "make a point" or retaliate is a bad thing. Throwing inside to establish yourself there or set up another pitch and missing is certainly part of the game, and you'll find no good argument against this. Throwing at someone on purpose, however, is not the same thing, and whether you or I agree with it or not, a valid argument can be made against it, for the reasons already put forth on this thread.
Edit: seems I owe a HRN a carbonated soft drink.
This is totally false. Punishment has nothing to do with justice in these cases. The pitcher is always suspended when the batter charges the mound. There is no evidence that MLB makes any effort to discern intent.
Most of us disagree. The happenings of the past beanings within a small time frame, plus the fact that it wasn't just high and tight, he nailed him right in the back...it was blatantly obvious. However, I don't think Youk should've charged the mound either, though it might just turn out to be one of the motivational things that gets the club really going for the run to the playoffs.
This statement is true, and does have an impact on the game. Once the situation between teams has escalated to a certain point, a pitcher is powerless to pitch inside. Any HBP is likely to lead to an ejection, and any aggressive position taken by the other team is going to lead to a suspension for the hitter.
I am not for intentional HBP; I do think they should be met with discipline by MLB. TO that extent, I disagree with Gaelen.
But his other point, namely, how MLB makes a poor showing of evaluating intent or meting justice is sound. I agree with his example. I'm not sure why RamRam's HBP merited an ejection. With Procello, I can see surrounding circumstances that might lead to a conclusion of intent. (I am a Braves fan, so I don't think its Sox bias, unless that is just coming through from watching the telecasts).
I'm still not sure it was. The pitch at Martinez was, but based on Porcello's reaction I think Youk was unintentional. He may have been trying to throw up and in, but the way he looked away it seemed like he was disgusted at himself, not the other team.
Better him than you, Gaelan.
Also, he was given the power of capricious judgment? He isn't one of the Wonder Twins. He may have capricious judgment, but it isn't something you can be given by someone else. His power is judgment, period. That's his job.
What is capricious is the power to use his mindreading abilities to decide when a pitcher is throwing at a hitter. There is a clear difference between making a judgement between a strike and a ball and the case where the umpire goes out of his way looking to throw someone out of the game.
Pitchers are thrown out of games all the time for no reason at all. And the warning nonsense is no better since that effects the game just as much if not more. The game would be much better off if we just accepted that HBP were part of the game and moved on. The reason hitters charge the mound more now is because they've been taught that being hit by a pitch is not acceptable. The ironic result is that in the effort to make the game safer the game is in fact more dangerous.
Because unrelated to that point I also think there is a place for retaliation and message sending.
Hey, did you guys hear that Keith Law is a scout, and not just a stat guy?
We'll just chalk this one up to "my organization's awesome, and yours sucks" and move on.
One quibble with this, Smiling Joe: Sheff did not take a swing at the fan. The fan hit Sheff.
Other than that, carry on, but please, stop feeding that filthy troll, Yankee Redneck. What a ####### maroon.
edit...Do you know how I can tell how the Red Sox are just another team in the league, no more liked or disliked by any other teams? Infielders always exchange pleasantries with baserunners during their games, just like during any other teams' games. If the rest of the league agreed with stupid moron troll YR, you wouldn't see opposing players yucking it up with Youkilis when they reach 1B.
Words fail me. Seriously, anybody who truly believes this has something seriously wrong with them.
And anybody who believes that it's OK to throw at batters but sees steroids as some kind of evil has their priorities seriously out of balance.
But there's no reason to make them more common.
And here's a thought for you. Stipulating that it's actually effective to throw at a batter rather a gesture of petulance -- why shouldn't the batter escalate? Go Cowens on the pitcher but take his bat with him. I flat guarantee this would happen.
Hell, why not take bring a handgun with him. Or take hostages.
We know where your notion will lead. It's the way the game was played in the 1890s. Thankfully Ban Johnson and the Sporting News (and others) prevailed. We don't need regular riots and beanball wars.
The fan hit Sheff. Then Sheff shoved his glove into the fan's face, which was hard to describe. It was somewhere between a shove and a punch, closer to a shove. He didn't pull a Ty Cobb, he didn't forget about the baserunner. The only egregious act was by the fan, not that you were saying otherwise.
Ok, #56 is 100% Grade A trolling, but Yankee Redneck isn't a troll. Sure, you won't find them in this thread, but he does often make intelligent, well-reasoned posts.
I don't believe this is the case. For example, I don't believe Ryan Rupe was suspended after Trot Nixon was suspended for his post-HBP antics 5-6 years ago (A while ago and insignificant, so my memory is fuzzy). I don't believe there's a comprehensive database for suspensions, but if you know of one please let me know.
One major problem with MLB's "justice" system is that it seems to only react to altercations. It's just about impossible for a pitcher to be suspended without some sort of on-field altercation/delay, but an on-field altercation/delay arising from a HBP does not always lead to the pitcher being suspended. Padilla was waived then released by the Rangers for intentionally hitting batters this season, but the league office never investigated him.
Umpires also need to start ejecting the first pitcher who throws a ball with intent to hit a batter, rather than letting the other team drill one guy intentionally before issuing a warning. The current state of affairs is barbaric and will get someone killed, fancy new helmets or no.
If MLB were better about policing its pitchers I doubt we'd ever see these HBP-sparked altercations. Pitchers also wouldn't feel the need to "protect" their teammates by engaging in ### for tat HBP exchanges.
I can't imagine a world in which pitchers were punished more than they are now. As it is pitchers are thrown out of games all the time for situations in which there was no clear intent.
I guess I don't see it as that dangerous or that common. I don't see how you can be fine with brushing a guy off the plate but not ok with him getting hit. The two events go hand in hand. Now obviously there are limits but in the pendulum of things right now the hitter is completely secure and owns both sides of the plate and then on the rare occasion he gets hit has the temerity to be upset about it. I'd gladly trade more hit batters if it would limit opposite field homeruns.
This isn't about intentionally injuring players its about restoring balance to the game and if someone like Padilla gets out of control players policing their own is both effective and just.
Point of fact: They don't. The only difference between now and then is instant visual publicity.
It'd make for a much more meaningful discussion if you agree on what time frames you're talking about. I agree that it's happened with broadly similar frequency for the past 2 1/2 or so decades -- through a variety of disciplinary policies.
I remember when Darryl Kile would presumably be told to hit a batter. He clearly didn't like to do it, so he always slopped a slow, fat curve right at their back. You could see the batter instinctively turn away and then seemingly wait and wait for the pitch to finally get to him, lol.
It was very obvious because none of his normal pitches were thrown that slowly.
In one case you're not trying to hit him. In the other case you are.
See the difference?
Agree with Ron's point, fully. The position "steroid use is Evil but pitchers should be allowed to intentionally hit batters" is lunacy.
Maybe I'm a weakling, but having been hit by 65 mph fastballs in low level amateur games, I'd have to say that those hurt enough that I wouldn't like to know what it feels like to get hit by a big league fastball.
Check out the numbers of HBP per game over time:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/bat.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/bat.shtml
The level the last ten years or so is about twice the historical average, and about 3 times what it was in the 1940's. It hasn't been this high since the dead ball era. For the record, I do agree with your point that pitchers need to be able to pitch either inside or outside to be effective, and that if they can't pitch inside because of the body armor and the rules about throwing at people being enforced even when they weren't throwing at someone, then they won't be able to pitch outside either, because guys will hang over the plate. I'm just not sure that more HBPs will get the job done, since we're already getting more HBPs than we've had in a long time.
Point of fact: They don't. The only difference between now and then is instant visual publicity.
It'd make for a much more meaningful discussion if you agree on what time frames you're talking about. I agree that it's happened with broadly similar frequency for the past 2 1/2 or so decades -- through a variety of disciplinary policies.
Fair point, but I was actually thinking back into the 1950's and 60's, when beanball brawls were also a fairly common occurrence. Some of the more legendary examples involved Joe Adcock's chasing Ruben Gomez clear across the field at County Stadium after he'd been conked, and of course the even more famous incident between Juan Marichal and John Roseboro, which wound up with Marichal slamming Roseboro with a bat.
And then you also had a form of delayed beanball brawl that took place when a batter seeking revenge didn't charge the mound immediately, but instead waited until his next at bat, dragged a bunt down the first base line, and slammed into the pitcher who was covering first. Jackie Robinson, one of baseball's best bunters, used this plenty of times, most notably against Sal Maglie. This doesn't happen much today, probably in part because so few hitters have mastered the art of bunting.
Back then the equation was slightly different from today. The batters didn't lean over the plate as much, but OTOH pitchers were less reluctant to brush back hitters, so the overall result wasn't all that different. And human nature being what it is, you wound up brawls all the same.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main