Barnes suspended 4 games for throwing at Machado
- Thread starter Red(s)HawksFan
- Start date
I actually said both teams are hypocrites. I think they are both being stupid macho idiots who are continuing to try and one up each other. It's stupid. I am no way are "protecting the laundry. Here is my post for reference.
You then brought in the Jones situation which is ridiculous. One is a major issue that we are still currently struggling with in society. The other is about people sliding and throwing baseball's at each other. It's cheap. They have nothing to do with each other. If you have to bring in the Jones incident to try and prove your point then your point fucking sucks.
Nah, throwing at Machado and his "I'm so innocent and they're trying to kill me!" bullshit is where it's at. If they could throw at Showalter, I'm sure he'd get his, too. I'm done with people defending the slide into Pedroia. And I do not care if Pedey clears Machado of all wrongdoing. The man slid dangerously late and spikes up into a defender who was essentially defenseless. Machado could see that. He's a former middle infielder, he knows without a shadow of doubt that that slide was dangerous. Maybe he wasn't trying to hurt Pedroia, fine, ok - but he still decided to slide in a dangerous way and it did injure Pedroia. How is that any different than Barnes making a decision to throw one at him later, even though no one is trying to injure him, and it gets away and accidentally does injure him? (Which, of course did not even happen. Machado is bitching and moaning like he's been hit with 15 fastballs in 15 days in the same spot - but he has thus not actually been hit). Yes, making a mistake at the head could conceivably kill him. It's a bad mistake to make, which is why Barnes was suspended and did not appeal, even though he did not hit Machado. But sliding like that into a position player at the bag, absolutely could end a season or career. It's also a bad mistake to make. So you do it, you get thrown at. You wear yours (or, you know, don't actually wear yours, but act like you have worn it) and it's done. Machado pissing and moaning and cursing to the press like he's the most wronged player ever to don a uniform is ridiculous, and it's really, really hard not to want to throw at him again because of that. I'd bet he keeps getting thrown at by the Sox all year because he has shown zero respect to the "unwritten rules" ands thus to the Sox, starting with Pedroia, throughout this situation, and whether we agree or not, guys don't like that. Mangers don't like that. And they way they think he'll eventually learn to shut up and take his medicine when it is warranted is to keep giving him the medicine.
My point about the Jones situation is it should have *ended it.* If it's the "major issue" you admit we're struggling with as a society (Boston, more than many other northern cities, it seems), then on-field "grudges" should have gone to the back burner, or dropped altogether.
I'm not saying they're directly related - your straw man is saying that - what I'm saying is the organization should have shown restraint and a desire to get focus back on baseball. But instead, a day after yet another racially-charged fan incident at Fenway, leading to all sorts of questions as to why the Sox have done little to squash it in the past (IOW, narratives suggesting they're not the classiest organization), they go out and continue throwing at players that never really did anything wrong and continue to get caught up in senseless macho beanball bullshit.
Remember - they could have killed Machado a couple weeks ago. This is the kind of message they want to send at this point in time? Given the off-the-field questions that are surrounding the fan base and have historically followed the team?
They're not directly related, but there's a big picture when it comes to how you want to represent yourself as an organization and team, and they're missing the point...
...as are many of the posters caught up in laundry-first "groupthink."
This is the kind of stuff that lead to you know who winning the you know what. The players, coaches on the Sox justifiably feel no responsibility or connection to the racism in the stands. Explain to me where JBJ, Mookie, Chris Young, Hanley, etc need to step up take responsibility for a nutjob in the stands. In the twisted logic of collective identity responsibility I am sure some people could say if they did not respond that they almost killed the guy when a white player got hurt, but when a black player, even though he is the best player on the team, got hit they did nothing.
If anything Buck reignited this thing when the Sox had every reason to let it go. (Content in italics is a parody of quoted post, as if written by a self righteous O's fan)
So Buck in his infinite privilege completely ignores the pain his own player, a person of color, went through and rather than allow time for healing, or understanding reignites the tension by choosing to put at risk not any of his privileged white brothers on the Sox but targets a respected black member of the Sox sending a message that despite what happened in the stands he is complicit or at the very least tone deaf to the numerous micro and macoraggressions. Stay Classy Buck!
Bradfo sums it up well
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/rob-bradford/2017/05/03/why-there-was-nothing-wrong-chris-sales-timin
With the understanding that the tribute to Jones was a piece of the night, there was also the recognition that everything else done on the baseball field that night had to do with the game. And part of this game was going to include something that had nothing to do with racism or real life.
Two baseball teams were going to continue the next progression of of their rivalry, and that's why Sale threw behind the knees of Manny Machado. And once that first pitch was thrown to Jones after the ovation, baseball was back at the forefront, hence the action taken by the Red Sox pitcher.
Should he have waited for two more batters? Two more innings? Two more days?
And with the understanding that this was a baseball game now being played, I would make the argument that this was the obvious timing by Sale. In fact, from the Red Sox' point of view it was the perfect timing.
The Orioles can make the argument that Machado's slide into Dustin Pedroia didn't warrant retaliation. And, as Duquette pointed out, there was some thought that Dylan Bundy's fastball Monday night wasn't intended for Mookie Betts' leg. But the Red Sox didn't agree with either assessment, and their case wasn't a weak one.
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/rob-bradford/2017/05/03/why-there-was-nothing-wrong-chris-sales-timin
With the understanding that the tribute to Jones was a piece of the night, there was also the recognition that everything else done on the baseball field that night had to do with the game. And part of this game was going to include something that had nothing to do with racism or real life.
Two baseball teams were going to continue the next progression of of their rivalry, and that's why Sale threw behind the knees of Manny Machado. And once that first pitch was thrown to Jones after the ovation, baseball was back at the forefront, hence the action taken by the Red Sox pitcher.
Should he have waited for two more batters? Two more innings? Two more days?
And with the understanding that this was a baseball game now being played, I would make the argument that this was the obvious timing by Sale. In fact, from the Red Sox' point of view it was the perfect timing.
The Orioles can make the argument that Machado's slide into Dustin Pedroia didn't warrant retaliation. And, as Duquette pointed out, there was some thought that Dylan Bundy's fastball Monday night wasn't intended for Mookie Betts' leg. But the Red Sox didn't agree with either assessment, and their case wasn't a weak one.
FWIW, my take on the curveball hbp last night. First off Torre got involved and teams were warned prior to game, which means pitchers knew they'd get tossed for a hbp. It's different from Sale's attempt at Machado b/c teams weren't on notice the night before and warnings were issued after that pitch. So while Sale threw 98 trying to hit Machado, he knew he wasn't getting run if he hit him. Gausman was on notice, so he knew. What do you do in that situation if you still want to retaliate and you know you'll get run? You throw a curveball and say it slipped. There have been many times pitchers who received warnings threw a CB and weren't ejected. But Torre set the tone before the game and there wasn't any discretion on determining intent. He hit him, he was gone, and IMO he did it on purpose. Sets the post game comments up perfectly. "But, but, but, it was a 77 mph curveball...if I was trying to hit him, I wouldn't do it with a curveball." The answer to that is yes you would if you were trying to stay in the game after being warned.
Anyway I hope this shit is over for now.
Anyway I hope this shit is over for now.
Last edited:
The Orioles complaining about Gausman getting ejected is just so rich. They note that Sale didn't get ejected the night before, but conveniently leave out that neither did Bundy or Machado.
Better late than never that MLB finally slaps the O's for their role in all of this.
Better late than never that MLB finally slaps the O's for their role in all of this.
"The simplest answer is usually the correct one". (Stated differently, the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.)
William of Ockham, circa 1300
Something else has been bugging me re. this whole mess. The Saturday game after Pedroia got hurt, Gentry of the 0s slid late and hard into Hernandez at second with spikes up and got him pretty good. That has been all but forgotten. But looking back it sticks out in my mind and makes me question if that was intentional.
Does anyone else remember that play? Am I reading too much into it? (Genuinely want to know)
Does anyone else remember that play? Am I reading too much into it? (Genuinely want to know)
I know there's lots of grousing that the players "should have been allowed to handle this on their own". But the reality is that they've had multiple games to "handle this on their own", and about the only thing the two teams showed was their ability to continue the escalation.
I have no problem with Manfred getting involved and Gausmann getting tossed last night. I'd feel the same way if Pomeranz got tossed for a hit-batsmen, intentional or not. Sometimes player safety trumps the sanctity of Cafardo's "unwritten rules".
I have no problem with Manfred getting involved and Gausmann getting tossed last night. I'd feel the same way if Pomeranz got tossed for a hit-batsmen, intentional or not. Sometimes player safety trumps the sanctity of Cafardo's "unwritten rules".
If this was just an old-fashioned beanball war I wouldn't really have any issue with it even though I think most of baseball's "unwritten rules" are pretty stupid. What is really annoying about the whole thing (and this is not new to Orioles under Showalter) is how the O's demand that they get the benefit of the doubt on every incident and the Red Sox get none.
Machado's slide? Clearly unintentional because he said it was. Mookie getting hit? Clearly unintentional because of the game situation. Xander getting hit? Clearly unintentional because it was a curveball.
Meanwhile, Barnes' and Sale's throws were clearly intentional even though they didn't hit anyone. (I'm not saying they weren't - because they probably were - but it's ridiculous that the O's are trying to have their cake and eat it too.)
I would have way more respect for Buck if he just said something like "we're going to do everything we have to do to protect our players." But no, they have to claim total innocence despite being just as much at fault as the Sox in all of this.
ETA: And for those quick to throw blame on the Sox, it's worth pointing out that the O's have been involved in multiple "feuds" over the past few years, all of which centered around Machado feeling aggrieved. He threw his bat at Josh Donaldson, he charged the mound against the Royals, and now his hard slide into Pedroia...at a certain point otherwise isolated incidents morph into a running theme.
Machado's slide? Clearly unintentional because he said it was. Mookie getting hit? Clearly unintentional because of the game situation. Xander getting hit? Clearly unintentional because it was a curveball.
Meanwhile, Barnes' and Sale's throws were clearly intentional even though they didn't hit anyone. (I'm not saying they weren't - because they probably were - but it's ridiculous that the O's are trying to have their cake and eat it too.)
I would have way more respect for Buck if he just said something like "we're going to do everything we have to do to protect our players." But no, they have to claim total innocence despite being just as much at fault as the Sox in all of this.
ETA: And for those quick to throw blame on the Sox, it's worth pointing out that the O's have been involved in multiple "feuds" over the past few years, all of which centered around Machado feeling aggrieved. He threw his bat at Josh Donaldson, he charged the mound against the Royals, and now his hard slide into Pedroia...at a certain point otherwise isolated incidents morph into a running theme.
Last edited:
Not targeting you, LG, but your comment brings this up...Crying "player safety" when writing about these little feuds is a way for baseball writers to get all moralistic and make this into a bigger issue than it is. In the era since players have been wearing actual helmets (not the little helmet-hats they wore when Tony C got beaned), how many players have been seriously injured by the thousands of HBP that have occurred?
Slides like Machado's the other day are much more of a player safety concern than throwing at someone as part of a beanball war.
I wish I could find a post from a few days ago that, for me, really summed up the reason for some of these unwritten rules. Whoever wrote it, sorry I can't give you proper attribution.
It basically said that players are always looking for an edge, trying to push the boundaries of what is fair & legal & that sometimes, they go too far. It's then that the other team retaliates, hopefully in a manner proportional to the original offense, to let them know, "Too far, don't do it again"
Had it been any O's player other than Machado, I would have thought, "Tough break, these things happen" but Machado has a history so he got no benefit of the doubt from me. He should have been plunked, below the shoulders, the next day, even with Wright pitching. He does, on occasion, throw a fastball and curve ball and that would have been sufficient retaliation. Instead, Barnes, whether stupidly or incompetently, throws behind his head & is rightfully suspended.
I find some of the unwritten rules to be head-scratchers but over the decades of baseball play, some mutually agreed upon norms have developed so everyone knows what the consequences of their actions will be.
Oh yeah, fvck Buck and the O's.
It basically said that players are always looking for an edge, trying to push the boundaries of what is fair & legal & that sometimes, they go too far. It's then that the other team retaliates, hopefully in a manner proportional to the original offense, to let them know, "Too far, don't do it again"
Had it been any O's player other than Machado, I would have thought, "Tough break, these things happen" but Machado has a history so he got no benefit of the doubt from me. He should have been plunked, below the shoulders, the next day, even with Wright pitching. He does, on occasion, throw a fastball and curve ball and that would have been sufficient retaliation. Instead, Barnes, whether stupidly or incompetently, throws behind his head & is rightfully suspended.
I find some of the unwritten rules to be head-scratchers but over the decades of baseball play, some mutually agreed upon norms have developed so everyone knows what the consequences of their actions will be.
Oh yeah, fvck Buck and the O's.
When you post a video that shows you standing in for a 98 mph splitter coming at you head high, I'll sign on. Until then, I can't imagine anything more dangerous, I I really don't care about comparing mortality statistics today against the bad old days with Sal Maglie and Don Drysdale playing the edge. And I very much include Barnes in that, too. My understanding is that a ball thrown slightly behind the batter's head can be lethal, because - as others have pointed out - the instinctive tendency to back up.
And even if you accept that (which I understand you don't) isn't another one of the unwritten rules that it's acceptable to punish players for reckless behavior? If you're a pitcher and you don't have good control and throw inside and drill a guy or two, someone on your team is getting drilled to send a message - don't throw inside if you are wild. Same thing here with Machado, perhaps - regardless of whether it was intentional or not, Sox players (particularly Barnes) probably felt it was reckless. Add to that the fact that Pedroia got hurt, and that Manny didn't show any remorse for the act, just the consequences. So Barnes sent a message - slide like that and there will be retaliation. That message shouldn't have been sent up around Manny's head, of course, but just because a player didn't intentionally try to hurt someone doesn't mean all is forgiven in baseball.
This is exactly correct. The Orioles seem to be engaging in a lot of very dangerous behaviour "unintentionally", while simultaneously taking great exception to the Red Sox doing same. If Machado ends Pedroia's career going into 2nd, or Hart maims Benintendi by hitting him in the head "by mistake" who really cares. Which was precisely Machado's (and everyone else's) point with Barnes' pitch: no one f'in cares if you "didn't mean to" throw one one up around someone's head. Take more care with your dangerous behaviour if you want that reciprocated. The fact that the Orioles (and many others) cannot see the absurd inconsistency in their supposed victimhood is remarkable.
And frankly I think the Gausman ejection was probably the right call, as it served as notice to both sides that, given the circumstances, and the imminent threat to player safety from a fight or further beanballs (intentional, reckless or otherwise) the authorities were going to punish without regard to arguments about intent. In other words, in this scenario, extra caution regarding opposing team safety was the rule. This was the best possible way to "end it", without someone getting hurt or suspended as each team sought the last word. Let's see if the Os are content with that, or they "unintentionally" engage in more dangerous player conduct today.
And frankly I think the Gausman ejection was probably the right call, as it served as notice to both sides that, given the circumstances, and the imminent threat to player safety from a fight or further beanballs (intentional, reckless or otherwise) the authorities were going to punish without regard to arguments about intent. In other words, in this scenario, extra caution regarding opposing team safety was the rule. This was the best possible way to "end it", without someone getting hurt or suspended as each team sought the last word. Let's see if the Os are content with that, or they "unintentionally" engage in more dangerous player conduct today.
That curveball reminded me of the Sam Rothstein line in Casino when the slots hit back to back.
That might be your understanding, but it's never actually happened, despite lots of balls being thrown at and behind people's heads. The one scary beanball I can remember in my lifetime as a fan is Dicky Thon, and I don't even remember if that was an intentional one (I think not?).
I'm not defending throwing at someone's head, because you can accomplish the silly goals you're trying to accomplish in these cases by hitting someone in the thigh. But people are acting like Matt Barnes or Dylan Bundy are borderline attempting murders, which is a bit overblown.
I was shocked that Hart wasn't tossed. IMO, that pitch was much worse than Barnes' toss behind Machado's head - literally almost taking Benintendi's head off. And as I recall, at that point in the game both teams had been warned, yet there was silence after that pitch. Strange stuff.
Video here
://cdn-e2.streamable.com/video/mp4/2z905.mp4?token=1494985471_41207c2cfc0f3b9d5f2b4b6a685a1a8e2c2f24ef
Agreed. and instead had Benintendi charged the mound, both would have faced discipline. Because JF didn't come running out of the dugout screaming, the O's get a pass.
Some of the players (on both sides I guess) are trying move on. Others seem to be trying to work the system and be careless/reckless/unintentionally wild or dangerous and then complain about the results it brings. It's always a sequence for these things - but the O's are saying ignore when our players act within the sequence - but punish the Sox for their acts. Pedroia gets hurt, Mookie gets hit, Benintendi gets one at his head, Gauzman hits Bogaerts - let's just move on. Boston responds in any way - there needs to be a suspension for this egregious behavior.
1) The league needs to be even handed here. The original slide should have been penalized for reckless/dangerousness regardless of intent: "players have an obligation to not carelessly risk injury to others in their zeal to make a play". 1 game, and none of this other stuff happens.
2) The Sox pitchers (and all pitchers) should stop throwing at heads for any messaging attempts. From the letters down only - the vertical strike zone should be the only acceptable target areas.
3) Both teams need to move on a this point and stop running their yaps.
from SABR's BioProject article on Early Wynn by David Fleitz
...With his large frame, grizzled appearance, and willingness to knock down opposing hitters, Wynn stood out as one of the most intimidating pitchers in the game. Roger Kahn, in his book A Season in the Sun, described how the pitcher once brushed back his teenage son during a batting-practice session at Yankee Stadium. “You shouldn’t crowd me,” snarled the elder Wynn. As he explained to Kahn, “I’ve got a right to knock down anybody holding a bat.”
Wynn hated losing, and was never afraid to throw at batters who got too close to the plate, or hit line drives at him. Some called him a headhunter, but Early regarded close pitches as part of the game. “If they are going to outlaw the inside pitch,” said Wynn in an article he wrote for Sport magazine in 1956, “they ought to eliminate line drives and sharp grounders hit through the pitcher’s box.” To those who suggested that he would throw at his own mother, Early famously replied, “I would if she were crowding the plate.” One day Mickey Mantle drilled a liner through the box for a single. Early then fired several pickoff attempts at Mantle’s legs....
In the early days of the game hitting was more like tee ball; the batters could call for a high or a low pitch; curveballs and overhand pitches were illegal. Once the rules changed so pitchers were an "active" part of the game, things changed and they realized that brushback pitches were useful.
Batters began wearing shinguards and ankle protectors while healing from a previous injury. This soon extended to elbow protectors. Eventually, it became commonplace for batters to wear these items during each at bat. Where once batters kept farther away from the plate to avoid brushback pitches, they began hanging over the plate and inside pitches were deemed more dangerous. Another thing is that although there has been a rule in the books for a long time that says the batter must make an effort to avoid being hit by the pitch, umpires almost never call that today. The batter's box is four feet wide and some batters once stood with part of their feet outside the line; today, they crowd the line close to the plate so the pitcher has almost no room to throw inside when he once had about three feet.
While there has only been one death in the majors as the result of a batter being hit in the head by a pitch, there has been some careers ruined. It has happened more often in the minors (of course, there have been many more minor league players throughout the years). Obviously, you don't want to hit people in the head but I do think that allowing armored players to crowd the plate and having umpires who don't properly call the rules have taken the brushback pitch away from the pitchers.
...With his large frame, grizzled appearance, and willingness to knock down opposing hitters, Wynn stood out as one of the most intimidating pitchers in the game. Roger Kahn, in his book A Season in the Sun, described how the pitcher once brushed back his teenage son during a batting-practice session at Yankee Stadium. “You shouldn’t crowd me,” snarled the elder Wynn. As he explained to Kahn, “I’ve got a right to knock down anybody holding a bat.”
Wynn hated losing, and was never afraid to throw at batters who got too close to the plate, or hit line drives at him. Some called him a headhunter, but Early regarded close pitches as part of the game. “If they are going to outlaw the inside pitch,” said Wynn in an article he wrote for Sport magazine in 1956, “they ought to eliminate line drives and sharp grounders hit through the pitcher’s box.” To those who suggested that he would throw at his own mother, Early famously replied, “I would if she were crowding the plate.” One day Mickey Mantle drilled a liner through the box for a single. Early then fired several pickoff attempts at Mantle’s legs....
In the early days of the game hitting was more like tee ball; the batters could call for a high or a low pitch; curveballs and overhand pitches were illegal. Once the rules changed so pitchers were an "active" part of the game, things changed and they realized that brushback pitches were useful.
Batters began wearing shinguards and ankle protectors while healing from a previous injury. This soon extended to elbow protectors. Eventually, it became commonplace for batters to wear these items during each at bat. Where once batters kept farther away from the plate to avoid brushback pitches, they began hanging over the plate and inside pitches were deemed more dangerous. Another thing is that although there has been a rule in the books for a long time that says the batter must make an effort to avoid being hit by the pitch, umpires almost never call that today. The batter's box is four feet wide and some batters once stood with part of their feet outside the line; today, they crowd the line close to the plate so the pitcher has almost no room to throw inside when he once had about three feet.
While there has only been one death in the majors as the result of a batter being hit in the head by a pitch, there has been some careers ruined. It has happened more often in the minors (of course, there have been many more minor league players throughout the years). Obviously, you don't want to hit people in the head but I do think that allowing armored players to crowd the plate and having umpires who don't properly call the rules have taken the brushback pitch away from the pitchers.
The most recent of these was 43 years ago. Since the newer-type helmets with earflaps were required, I can't think of a single instance where someone was thrown at and seriously injured.
Ellis Valentine had his face shattered in '81 or '82. Brilliant RF for the Expos, he was never the same. What a talent, a sheer joy to watch, one of the 2 or 3 best OF arms I have ever seen. Was never the same.
Was it the beanball or the later nerve/wrist/hip injuries that derailed him permanently? He OPS'd .950 after returning from the beanball until the other injuries ended his season.
Cocaine was a big factor for EV. He made some ridiculous throws.
He Winfield, Dave Parker, we're 25% of the NFL rf. There was much talk the 6'4+ athlete would be the prototype rf of the future.