|
I know that I am not alone when I say that I can't wait to see who Mozeliak can pick up off of waivers form a team officially giving up on the pennant race. Whoever it is, I'm pretty sure Matheny will consider starting him in right field instead of Taveras.
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
the popes toes posted:It seemed as though the trade tornado was fairly well reasoned with nobody getting entirely fleeced with each side getting pretty much what they wanted after weighing the returns. Except for maybe the Giants, I can't figure that one out from a bidness angle. I don't know if I'd call the Cardinals the "victims" of a bad trade, but I'm still scratching my head over the Kelly + Craig / Lackey trade. Some of it I understand: Craig is undeniably in decline and Matheny adamantly refuses to acknowledge it, the entire clubhouse seems moribund and trades like this shake people up (hopefully in a good way), and the previously amazing rotation has been not so amazing lately, so there was a need for a veteran arm who had big-game experience. But on the other hand, Moze traded away a young but good pitcher (Kelly) whose main crime was not getting enough run support and pulling a hamstring in April, for a guy who might well not even be on the team next year. If the Cardinals' playoff position was secure, I could understand this, but that is simply not the case this year. And, I'm not sure if Lackey is the kind of hired gun who will push this team through to the postseason. I understand that there wasn't a lot of extra offense available, but that doesn't mean you trade away a young, cheap, good pitcher for a soon-to-be free agent.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
I hadn't considered the uniform color factor. That is a good point. The local pundits have been giving tons of reasons why the trade was a great thing, and when they all agree, I start to worry. These are the same people who kept talking about how great the rotation was going to be with a healthy Jaime Garcia, who promptly went on the DL. Again. and again. I think what has me bothered about this trade isn't the trade itself so much as the fact that we all know what the big problem with the Cardinals is: offense. Everybody knows it, and after all was said and done, we traded for a pitcher. I'm not very familiar with Lackey, but unless he can go out every five games and pitch complete game shutouts, it's not going to help much. Then again, if he doesn't get roughed up like Kelly was his last few road games, that could be help enough.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Having been a Cardinals fan my whole life, I saw more than one intentionally hit batsman during the La Russa era. Like everyone else, he has his own unwritten rule book he follows, and if you asked him, you'd get an answer like "Well, it's part of the game. But, we totally didn't hit that guy on purpose tonight." It's interesting to see this from the outside for once. I can't help but wonder what La Russa will say to Gibson about this incident, or if he says anything at all.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
SporkOfTruth posted:How was the run not eliminated for interference? I'm amazed Bob Davidson wasn't in on that call. I'm doubly amazed that Angel Hernandez didn't have a hand in it. He can do things no one else can do! Sees things no one else can see!!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
I'm no fan of the Pirates, but I am a Cutch fan, and if he's injured, that's trouble indeed. In the (hopefully) unlikely event that it is related to the retaliation pitch from the other day, then I'd be a little worried for the safety of some of the Diamondbacks at this point. I mean, it's one thing to have a reputation for being a hard-nosed, old-school team that's not afraid to hit a batter when there's a perceived wrong to deal with, but when that's already your reputation and then you up the ante by injuring one of the best players of the game? You know, the guy who is the superhero star of baseball's greatest story from 2013? Good luck with that reputation, DB's. Those who live by the beanball, die by the beanball.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
tinstaach posted:How does MLB not drop the hammer here? You've now got video evidence of an intentional beaning of a superstar, that likely contributed to an injury that caused him to miss significant time, all with no provocation (none that makes sense, anyway). But it'll probably be five games for Delgado and a fine for Gibson at the absolute most. poo poo, it's been two days and I haven't heard any news so it might be nothing at all. A few years back, a Reds pitcher named Johnny Cueto got involved in a scrum between the Cardinals and the Reds. It was your typical bench-clearing affair, but when Cueto found himself against the back netting (along with several other Reds and Cards), he decided it was time to fight! FIGHT!! Grrrrrr, he was mad, I tells ya, mad enough to fight like a tiny little girl! He grabbed the netting, got his legs in the air, and wildly started kicking everyone in a redbirds uniform who was within reach. Chris Carpenter got cut up pretty good, but backup catcher Jason LaRue wasn't as lucky--some of the kicks landed on his noggin, and he got a concussion, and because of it, his career ended. To recap: Cueto ended the career of another major league player by kicking him in the head with his cleats. He did this by taking an action that was indefensible, something that not even hard-nosed, old-school douche-b's like Kirk Gibson would claim is just "part of the game." His punishment? He missed a start. One. Start. So, yeah, I'm not holding my breath on MLB doing anything about this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
I'm just saying that MLB tends to look the other way when it comes to some seriously dangerous crap, particularly when pitchers are the perpetrators. Punishment for misdeeds is a joke in the league, unless you take drugs. If you get caught taking drugs, you're in trouble. Usually. But almost anything else goes. Make no mistake: if MLB really wanted this crap to go away, they'd start doing something about it. How many purposefully hit batsmen do you think there'd be if any pitcher caught doing it was suspended for 20 games (or, say, 4 starts if the pitcher is a starter)? MLB has the power to do something about this. But they won't. Why, is anyone's guess.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Ammat The Ankh posted:So why does Arkansas hate the Cubs? Arkansas is Cardinal country. For a long time, the Cardinals were the southernmost and westernmost team in the big leagues. KMOX reaches most of the lower 48, so there are a lot of places where MLB had no presence but the Cardinals did. I'd only argue with that map in regards to Illinois. You don't have to get very far south of Chicago before you find more people who hate the Cubs than the Cardinals. Of course, I happen to have a neighbor who is a Cubs fan. He has never smiled.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
heh. I was so caught up on Illinois and Arkansas that I didn't even notice that Missouri hates... the BoSox?? Sure, they have beaten the Cardinals twice in the World Series. But, that brings them up to 2-2 vs. STL in the fall classic. Neither of the losses to the Red Sox annoys us as much as the loss to the Royals, for people in my generation. He was safe at first. Safe! But if I had to pick a team Missouri hates, It'd have to be a NL team. Probably the Cubs, but maybe the Reds over the last couple of years. Or, the Brewers, this year, maybe. But the Red Sox? Uhm... no. Maybe the KC fans really hate them for some reason?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
On the 2004 loss: a lot of Cardinals fans don't feel the sting of that one very much because 1) it meant that HBO could finally stop airing their "The Curse of the Bambino" 'documentary' 43 times a day; 2) the Red Sox were kind-of due; and 3) it was mercifully over very quickly. For 2006, I think the thing that made that victory sweet when we all knew that the Cardinals had backed into the postseason thanks to a very weak division was, well, a certain Bob Nightengale's famous "Tigers in three" prediction. There's nothing quite like winning a series when you've been insultingly written off as the obvious loser. 2011 was just awesome. Epic series between two fairly matched teams, complete with epic game 6, in which you could see the happy, smiling Rangers faces in the visitor's dugout getting ready to celebrate their team's first championship morph from "I can't wait to mob the field! I'm so excited!" to "Wait, what?" to "Oh, we're back on top!" to "You have to be loving kidding me." Then there is 2013. Honestly, I'm not mad at the Red Sox for that one. I'm mad at the Cardinals. Just a sloppy effort all around. Jesus Christ, one of the games ended with our slugger at the plate and a runner who picked the Wong time to take a big lead off first. Just... terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
It is hard to believe that, in the mid 'aughts, the Astros were the team to beat in the NL Central. Well, the team to beat that wasn't named the Cardinals, I guess. The 2004 NLCS was a great series, but yeah, you never hear about it because the Yankees and Red Sox were playing, and OMG Yankees and Red Sox! Holy cow, those two teams are playing each other? Quick, everybody in the baseball media--stop what you're doing, the Yankees are playing the Red Sox in a baseball game for the first time ever! (To be fair, though, that time, it was a genuinely better story, because you just don't see a team win the first three games and then manage to lose the next four to cough up the series.) I personally remember watching my team through seven fall classics. And, of all the four losses, the 2004 one bugs me the least. And I honestly think that at the time, I just really didn't mind if the Red Sox won, because it'd been so long since they had. I think any other AL team beating the Cardinals that year would have bothered me, though. As far as large punishments for beaning batters: yeah, a manager might try to pull shenanigans like bringing up a scrub just to let the heavy suspension fall to a player nobody is going to miss. But, I bet the player's union would demand that he be paid the league minimum (at least) during that suspension. And besides that, the league could simply go after the team and manager with punishments that the front office wouldn't want to deal with. Heck, they could even write that exact scenario into the rule, and attach a ridiculous penalty to it. It's not like the NHL doesn't have a minor league system full of players who they could call up just to gently caress someone up and take the brunt of the punishment from the league. It doesn't happen, though, because it's an awful lot of work to go through just to make a tough-guy point. At the end of the day, though, there are two major problems with trying to get rid of this aspect of the game. First, of course, is proving intent, because it's only easy to determine some of the time. But also, let's face it, it's something that adds a touch of excitement to the sport. Whenever this happens, people tune in. Folks are more likely to catch the next few games between those teams to see if the simmering leads to an explosion of some kind. It intrigues people who might otherwise totally ignore a given contest. It makes people click on links, watch videos, and drive up ad revenue. I mean, we're talking about it, and it's not like this guy was the first one to ever be hit intentionally. Probably wasn't the first one this week. I can't help but think that the league won't try to excise this from the game because of this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
We can all talk about how this does or doesn't belong in the sport, but seeing as how nobody involved in the sport seems to be in a hurry to get rid of it, let's take it as a given that beanballs will continue to be a part of baseball, because that's how it'll be until someone in the league actually does something. Given that, I believe that not all beanballs are created equal. First, there are the obvious message balls: these are fast-, but not super-fast-, balls that generally hit a batsman on the side. Often, the batter is expecting, or at least isn't too surprised, by this kind of pitch. The intent isn't to hurt, it's to send a message. The message is received, and the batter takes first. The batter won't be happy about it, and the pitcher may get tossed, but it is what it is--again, because the league won't do anything about it--and most ballplayers seem to accept this as part of the game. But then, you have the dangerous message balls. These like to find the batter's head (the true, bona-fide beanball), which at any speed is not acceptable. Or, they don't find the head, but they're thrown excessively fast and due to this unnecessary speed (as we're not trying to throw a strike here), they injure the batter. The difference between this beanball and the other one is that only the pitcher and maybe his manager think this is acceptable--nobody else ever seems to agree. Something tells me that if you polled pro ballplayers, you'd find that they don't like but can live with the first kind of HBP, but that the second kind has to go. The problem is that you can't really get rid of one and not the other. Tony La Russa was never afraid to call for a beanball, but he would criticize his own pitchers if they almost hit an opposing batter's head. (I know because I actually saw him do that after a Cardinals game a few years back.) I honestly don't know how, or if, he's going to deal with this situation in Arizona, but if Cutch's injury is due to the HBP, then he may well do something. Say what you want about him, he's not a fan of seeing players get hurt.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Thom P. Tiers posted:They made (a somewhat lovely) attempt to remove collisions at home plate this year because players have been getting injured recently due to them. Home plate collisions also used to be "part of the game" and nobody seemed to care. I don't understand why they wouldn't attempt to somehow fix the issue of retaliation beanballs that can possibly injure players as well. Stiffer suspensions, fines, etc etc. Oh, I agree with you, and largely because of this point: they did attempt to reduce those collisions by changing the rules, so you'd think that they might take a look at HBPs, too. But until they do something, it's just "part of the game." I'm not saying it's a good justification. It's just the one they seem to be using. And so I guess Cutch's injury probably isn't related to the HPB? Well, if that's the case, then it doesn't really help McCutchen one way or the other, but the D-Backs have probably dodged a bullet. I expect the furor will die down if the injury isn't a result of a beanball, and Arizona will have to wait until they play the Dodgers again to try and force MLB to change the HBP rules.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
I didn't have a problem with the recent retaliation on Holliday. I can understand why the Dodgers and their fans thought it might be necessary: when a good hitter who likes to crowd the plate because he assumes every pitch he's going to see is likely to be on the outside corner of the plate, and who doesn't respond to inside pitching like most players would, gets hit a few times in the span of one year, it's obvious that it must be intentional. I can respect that. I disagree with it, but I can respect it. Or, maybe they're just doing it to send this message: "OK, look, we all know he doesn't know how brushback pitches work, so please stop throwing balls anywhere near him. Seriously, he is bound to get hurt. He's always looking for down and away, no matter how many times you pitch up and in, so if you could kindly just toss him slow fastballs right down the middle of the strike zone, we'd be much obliged. Heck, we might even teach Puig some manners, just for you guys, 'cause we know how important it is to you. M'kay? Signed, Rawlings." MLB TV looked at the latest HBP on Hanley, and they didn't seem to think it was intentional. Really, only the Dodgers and their fans do. But whatever. The guy did get hit a few times in the last calendar year by different Cardinals pitchers, so Holliday was due. And, in all fairness, the Dodgers did it right: they didn't throw a dangerous pitch. It was just fast enough so that Holliday couldn't get out of the way (meaning it was at least slightly faster than an eephus pitch), and it was only ever going to hit him somewhere unlikely to cause an injury. The same can't be said of the pitch that hit McCutchen.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
ALFbrot posted:If a team wanted to hit Holliday with a ball in a spot that would really hurt, they could just hit a fly ball to him Ha! I love how that freeze-frame makes it look like he was just hit in the nuts. Yeah, he's not the greatest defensive LF in the game. And, his lack of speed is probably a factor in the 4,216 double plays he's hit into this year. But that's not why we gave him the big contract. We did that because, well, it's nice to have a power hitter... in the 2nd half of every season.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Lorini posted:So what do you guys think if the MLB just said any hits that injure, the pitcher is suspended for two weeks? No matter what the intent. If a guy is hit by a pitch and x-rays show an injury, that pitcher isn't pitching for a while. The problem is that it's just too easy to intentionally unintentionally hit a guy. The whole NCLS was changed when Hanley was hit. Why should the Cardinals be able to get away with that, intentional or not? Otherwise next time when Wainright comes up to bat, the Dodgers could just have Haren hit him, why not? And Haren has no control, everybody knows that, so where's the problem?? But there is a problem. Teams' best players should not be injured by baseballs. Period. If it wasn't intentional, then what did they get away with, exactly? Unfortunately, in sports, you simply have to accept a certain level of risk. When the sport involves balls being thrown near you at upwards of 100 miles per hour, one of those risks is that, every now and then, through nobody's malicious intent, someone is going to get hit by a ball. It's going to happen. Why punish a pitcher when a ball gets away from him and hurts the batter? The batter knows that there is a small chance that something like that can happen. They take that risk. It's one of the reasons why they don't get paid $10 an hour, after all. When a batter hits a come-backer that nails and injures a pitcher, the batter should be suspended? What about if the batter hits a foul ball that injures a teammate who is on deck? Should the batter be suspended for taking out his own teammate?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
I see Allen Craig went on the DL. Already. I guess he figured that since the Red Sox aren't likely to contend, he might as well not wait for the postseason like he did last year.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
4/17/2010: Cardinals lose in 20 innings, 2-1, at home to visiting Mets. Felipe Lopez (infielder) pitched one scoreless inning for the Cards, and Joe Mather pitched two innings, taking the loss. Pitcher Kyle Lohse played three innings in left field. Obviously, the Mets never led by more than 1. The game was tied at 0-0 until the 19th inning, which ended in a 1-1 tie.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
You can't declare a force play where none exists, or a plethora--that's right, a plethora!--of problems will ensue. Already mentioned--what if the runner changes his mind? Runner on 2nd base, no outs. Base hit to right field. Runner rounds third, but holy shitfucker, the right fielder is Yasiel Puig, and you don't run on Yasiel Puig! No way, sir. He won't let you. Except when he does by loafing around and acting like no one would dare to run against him. But, that's not happening today--he's coming up firing! The ball is relayed to the catcher, who steps on home. The batter stopped at 1st base, and the lead runner saw that Puig was on his A game and stopped about 1/3rd of the way down the baseline. You're suggesting that it would be good if he were called out because of a fake force play rule? There is a reason that they call it a force play--it's a FORCE play. The batter absolutely must reach the base in front of him or he's out, and the rule leans toward the defense by letting a fielder simply tag the base while in possession of the ball and record an out if the runner who is forced to reach that base doesn't get there first. The runner has nowhere else to go, and thus, the force rule, as it stands, is unambiguous. I'm of the mind that non-force plays at home should be treated like non-force plays at 2nd and 3rd base: you have to tag the runner before he gets to the base, you have to let the runner have reasonable access to the base, and the runner can't purposefully (wink, wink) interfere with your ability to catch the ball. The only exception, really, is that once the player reaches home, he doesn't have to stop and hang on until time is called (and granted); he only needs to touch the base. Is it harder to call than the old way, where runners could barrel over a catcher with the sole purpose of knocking the ball out of the catcher's hands? Yeah. But it's also a lot safer, and the rules are already in play at two other bases.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
I'm just wondering why the Dodgers fans need bubbles to enjoy the game. I mean, it's not like the team is expecting them to show up before the 3rd inning or stay past the 7th. Do you really need to play with bubbles for the third of a game that you're actually there? Edit: Oh, I see, it's in the dugout. C'mon, MLB. Let the guys play with their bubbles. You wouldn't take a bubble wand away from a little kid, would you? Because this is precisely the same thing. tarlibone fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
FairGame posted:gently caress you, TLR. Just when I was starting to come around on you because I've been subjected to the horrors of Matheny. Still holding out for a Whitey Herzog return, eh? I've never quite understood the fans who seem to always hate whoever the current manager is. In Matheny's case, it's doubly confounding, because I bet you'd be hard pressed to find any other major league manager who takes over a team after it loses its best player to free agency and has a first season that ends one game shy of the World Series, and a second season that ends two games shy of winning the World Series. That said, is anyone who has followed TLR over the years really surprised by this response? He's known as a guy who has never been afraid to retaliate for hit batsmen, whether there was clear intent or not. He even has his own weird set of rules about it, which you can read about in 3 Nights in August. The one thing I will say, though, is that he's not a headhunter. I've seen him talk badly to the press about Cardinals pitchers who he thought might have almost hit someone in the head, even when there was no clear intent. Like someone said: he's a ribhunter. Whether or not that's much better, though, depends on how you feel about retaliation pitches. Besides, the last thing I read about McCutchen's injury suggests that the HBP didn't (or couldn't) cause that particular injury. Has that changed?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
I agree that he's got a problem with loyalty to players who are clearly trending downward. I only recently regrew the hair that I'd pulled out of my head every time he tried to bring Mitchell Boggs in to close out a game. It was the same problem we had with him running Craig out there when it was clear to everyone else that he wasn't coming out of his slump anytime soon. But I don't miss many games, and I don't see many screwed up double-switches. The only one I distinctly remember is the one from 2012 against the Marlins, where he eventually had to do more substituting because Ozzie Guillen claimed to be confused as to what the number 5 means. This only was an issue because Ozzie Guillen is kind-of an idiot, and the guy he complained to, umpire Bob "How Do I Still Have A Job?" Davidson, is a complete idiot. You can google that one if you like; it's actually hilarious reading. Have I missed a bunch of other similar screw-ups? I know a lot of his substitutions are questionable, but double-switching is always a risk. I'm not aware of any actual mistakes in pulling off a double-switch other than the one facilitated by one moron who's no longer in baseball and another, bigger one who still is.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Now wait... I'm starting to get the impression that there are people out there who don't like Mike Matheny. I can understand it. But really, what were the choices? Terry Francona's ignoble end in Boston all but excluded him from serious consideration, and the club was probably never considering Cubs legend Ryne Sandberg seriously. Personally, I was hoping Oquendo would be named manager, given his experience with the team as both a player and a coach. And I'm still not sure why he was passed over. Terrible though he may be, he's got his team in contention in a strong division for the third year in a row. Things could be worse.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:Tarlibone, just out of curiosity, how old are you? I spent my formative years learning to love Whiteyball, and my teenage years (and beyond) listening to fans older than me complain about anyone who managed the Cards who wasn't named Whitey Herzog. That's about as specific as I want to get. I do hold the distinction of being the only guy in Cardinal Nation who was sad to see Joe Torre get fired.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Groucho Marxist posted:A movie about a team that finishes in 3rd place sounds kind of lovely Not if you're a Cubs fan. Third place sound mighty good to a team that hasn't won it all since Mark Twain was alive.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Maybe it was just me, but did anyone else see the new 2015 ASG logo and think something like this? It makes me want to eat Pringles.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
I'll probably get blasted for this, but I see where Matheny is coming from with his decision to work Descalso and Ellis into the lineup. I think it's not a good decision, but I get it. He gets to give Holliday (or Adams or whoever) a day off from fielding, but he can use him as the DH, so we'll still have that power available at the plate. Holliday is no defensive superstar, and there aren't many downgrades in the outfield as far as defense goes (relative to Holliday). So I get why he's doing this. I'm just not sure that a series with the top team in the AL East is a particularly good time to do that. In fact, I'm sure that it's not. If you have to start a couple of players who might not end the season above the Mendoza line, maybe wait until you're playing against the worst pitcher on the worst team somewhere... not against a team that's running away with its division. And now that I've said that, Descalso will go 14 for 10, hitting a few 5-run homers in one of the games, and the local sports media will all be saying, "Matheny's gamble pays off!" Ellis will dominate the O's so menacingly that they will be forced to admit that, yes, they were, technically, the St. Louis Browns at some point in their history. Someone will make a poop joke based on that, and the Cardinals will be awarded the Stanley Cup.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
I realize Descalso won't be playing OF. But you could easily take Holliday out of left, run some combination of Bourjos/Jay/Robinson/Taveras in the OF, and replace a better-hitting infielder with Descalso. That would work. I mean, it wouldn't work, but I'm sure the home crowd would love it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
MourningView posted:what The Orioles fans. They'd love to see Descalso in the lineup. Ellis, too, if Catch-22 can work them in.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Thom P. Tiers posted:Ellis has been a pretty failed experiment and Descalso shouldn't even be on the team. Neither of them should get playing time, especially when the reasoning is "the manager doesn't think it's fair." I don't know how much of it is actually an attempt at being fair vs. how much of it is the standard practice of giving the more talented starters some rest. The Cardinals' bench just plain isn't all that good offensively, which isn't a surprise considering the starters are responsible for, what, the 2nd worst offense in all of MLB? Thom P. Tiers posted:I think I'd rather have pete kozma rotting away on our bench than descalso. Really? Except for a couple of offensive bursts, Kozma has been a massive disappointment, and he is right where he belongs until he manages to recover (if he can) from that horrible case of Bo Hart syndrome he somehow contracted.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Everblight posted:Related: Are there any rules about continuing to pitch using the same arm throughout the at-bat, like with switch-hitters? I don't know if it's ever come up before. Ever since baseballers began using gloves, you've had a situation where the glove really only fits one hand, all but forcing you to throw with the opposite hand, unless you stop and remove the glove first. Pitching is highly specialized throwing, so there's a possibility that the rule book has no say on switch-throwers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Minarch posted:Maybe if Ausmus would start beating Nathan instead of his wife... Ausmus is beating Nathan's wife?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Zythrst posted:Eh, he didn't put enough hustle in that BM. He was probably trying to avoid popping a hemorrhoid. Sometimes, you just have to relax and let BMs happen. Pushing too hard in an effort to hustle a BM is what killed Elvis. ... The More You Know....
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
ALFbrot posted:Hanley? Alexei? Aramis? Manny? Wouldn't it be at least a little funny if all of them got this injury at the same time?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
I think we all can agree that, for the safety of ballplayers in both leagues, let's just hope that the injured Ramirez isn't a Diamondback.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:Congratulations to the 2014 Arizona Diamondbacks for putting Andrew McCutchen on the DL ... wait, how do we know that was a result of the HBP? From what I've read, even from the Pirates, the type of injury that he has (an avulsion fracture) isn't something that's caused by being hit in the back with a baseball. Is there a source that can confirm that it's caused by the HBP?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:Avulsion fractures can most definitely happen because of external force, so I don't know who said that. Right, but they can also most definitely happen because of a strong muscle contraction, the kinds athletes are, well, known for. Something like trying to hit a 9-run homer, perhaps. Seeing as how the fracture didn't seem to occur (or at least it didn't affect his ability to play) until the moment he took a big swing a game after he was hit in the spine with the ball. The 11th rib is also pretty low. Did the ball even hit him there? I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that an injury cause by a pitch doesn't often wait a whole day to manifest, and even if it did, what are the odds that it would wait a whole day, move to a different part of the body, and occur right at the moment that the person was doing something else which could cause the same injury? and all at once?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Bob Gibson simply stared at the ball, which would spontaneously combust. Then he'd blow the ashes toward the batter, who would sheepishly ask the ump for a strike-out and walk back to the dugout.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Gorman Thomas posted:I vaguely remember some scout saying that a big butt is something they (scouts) look for in young players since it means they'll put on muscle easier. He could've been talking out of his rear end though. I see what you did there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 23:18
|
|