Ronald Acuña

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by RossOK

Until they retaliate by hitting another one of your guys, which means you "have to" retaliate, which means...

Such a dumb mindset.

Not how it works. They will let you get one and then be down. Now if you try to get 2 then it’s an issue.


I think the mindset of “oh well they went after our guy but what can we do?” Is way worse

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by babybull

Question--serious question. How do you feel about hitting the other team after one of your guys get hit?

I’m fine with that. What I wish they would get rid of is having to watch fat relievers jog across the outfield to play handsies and grab a$$ with the relievers who just jogged across the other side of the outfield. They need to implement a 3rd man in rule — if you leave your dugout (or your position on the field) you are either ejected, or you have to fight. This whole I’m going to run out there but first I need to make sure someone holds me back nonsense is tired.

[atoaz12]

Originally Posted by babybull

Question--serious question. How do you feel about hitting the other team after one of your guys get hit?

Originally Posted by Wiseguy917

ALWAYS have your teammates back. Always! Don’t start anything, but you can absolutely finish it.

There are times where it is warranted.
Every time? No

But I talk to my guys about it in practice - when tempers aren’t involved.
We never go above the hip and we have to have unquestioned evidence that they went after our guy

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by atoaz12

You can command the plate and intimidate without hitting anyone.

Originally Posted by atoaz12

There are times where it is warranted.

We never go above the hip and we have to have unquestioned evidence that they went after our guy

You're funny. It's OK when you decide it's OK.

[Siberian13]

Instead of hitting a guy with a baseball, why don't these "athletes" just punch someone? Bunch of babies. I love when the headline says baseball brawl and it ends up being this....

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Not how it works. They will let you get one and then be down. Now if you try to get 2 then it’s an issue.

I think the mindset of “oh well they went after our guy but what can we do?” Is way worse

Yeah, I can imagine Andrew Heaney plunking Mike Zunino in the 2nd inning and then Mike Leake retaliating by hitting Mike Trout in the 3rd and all the Angels are like "Nah, we're even. Play ball." Having such a hackneyed and dense "code" to follow is dumb when you could just follow the "don't throw baseballs at people" rule.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by RossOK

Yeah, I can imagine Andrew Heaney plunking Mike Zunino in the 2nd inning and then Mike Leake retaliating by hitting Mike Trout in the 3rd and all the Angels are like "Nah, we're even. Play ball." Having such a hackneyed and dense "code" to follow is dumb when you could just follow the "don't throw baseballs at people" rule.

You have to go equal value. Zunino probably gets you Calhoun.

So your suggestion is to do nothing?

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

You have to go equal value. Zunino probably gets you Calhoun.

So your suggestion is to do nothing?

You said yourself to get their best player.

My suggestion is to not have guys thrown at, thus removing the need for a response. Doing things because "that's the way it's always been" is dumb when it just reinforces a harmful status quo.

[atoaz12]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

You're funny. It's OK when you decide it's OK.

Completely different and you know it

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by RossOK

You said yourself to get their best player.

My suggestion is to not have guys thrown at, thus removing the need for a response. Doing things because "that's the way it's always been" is dumb when it just reinforces a harmful status quo.

Right, cause they hit Acuna. Best player for player. And don’t tell me freeman is their best player, you get my point.

Sure don’t have players thrown at, but it happened so what’s your point?

[Wiseguy917]

Originally Posted by RossOK

Until they retaliate by hitting another one of your guys, which means you "have to" retaliate, which means...

Such a dumb mindset.

You obviously don’t understand. Baseball is a game that pretty much allows the players to police the game themselves. The reason we don’t see people getting beaned every other day out of anger is bc of retaliation. It’s the same reason why they allow fights in hockey. Take liberties, we’re coming at you. Play nice, we play nice.

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Right, cause they hit Acuna. Best player for player. And don’t tell me freeman is their best player, you get my point.

Sure don’t have players thrown, but it happened so what’s your point?

Freeman is their best player

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by atoaz12

Completely different and you know it

No I don't. If it's OK to hit a player, it's OK to hit a player. If it's not, it's not. I don't subscribe to the "Here are all the times it's OK to plunk someone" nonsense.

Ends, means, justification ... and all that nonsense. Rationalize it any way you wish; I have no problem with a pitcher setting up a fastball with an apposing players name on it. Neither do you; so long as you're guy doesn't do it first. If the intent is never to injure; how is there a difference?

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by Siberian13

Freeman is their best player

Shut it

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by RossOK

You said yourself to get their best player.

My suggestion is to not have guys thrown at, thus removing the need for a response. Doing things because "that's the way it's always been" is dumb when it just reinforces a harmful status quo.

In situations where you can't have a hard and fast rule, there has to be a code of conduct. In football, you can say "No leading with the helmet" because there are other ways to tackle, and it's in everyone's best interest to learn them. You can't make a rule that you can't hit batters because it's impossible to pitch inside and never hit someone. So it leaves a huge gray area that needs to be somehow, informally, regulated by the players. If all the players in baseball come together and agree that they won't hit each other, I've got no problem with that. But these are ultra competitive world class athletes -- it would never happen. And trust me, you don't want to be the team with the reputation of never retaliating.

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Right, cause they hit Acuna. Best player for player. And don’t tell me freeman is their best player, you get my point.

Sure don’t have players thrown at, but it happened so what’s your point?

My point is that it's a never-ending cycle if you keep perpetuating the mindset that throwing at guys is just a thing that happens and is completely acceptable.

Originally Posted by Wiseguy917

You obviously don’t understand. Baseball is a game that pretty much allows the players to police the game themselves. The reason we don’t see people getting beaned every other day out of anger is bc of retaliation. It’s the same reason why they allow fights in hockey. Take liberties, we’re coming at you. Play nice, we play nice.

It's dumb and immaterial to the game being played. Unwritten rules are stupid because they're widely interpreted and misinterpreted on account of them not being codified. If it was in the MLB rulebook that intentionally throwing at someone was an automatic ejection, it would stop happening nearly as frequently. The guys that did it would be (rightfully) looked at by their teammates as hurting the team. "Having your teammates" back would mean "not getting ejected" instead of "getting yourself tossed while also potentially hurting an opponent as well as putting one of your own guys in danger."

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

In situations where you can't have a hard and fast rule, there has to be a code of conduct. In football, you can say "No leading with the helmet" because there are other ways to tackle, and it's in everyone's best interest to learn them. You can't make a rule that you can't hit batters because it's impossible to pitch inside and never hit someone. So it leaves a huge gray area that needs to be somehow, informally, regulated by the players. If all the players in baseball come together and agree that they won't hit each other, I've got no problem with that. But these are ultra competitive world class athletes -- it would never happen. And trust me, you don't want to be the team with the reputation of never retaliating.

There are already umpires in the game and they're trusted to make judgment calls in other aspects. No reason why they can't be tasked with determining whether something is intentional or not. A rule saying "throwing at a batter with the intent to hit them is cause for immediate ejection" is enforceable if umpires are given the responsibility and authority. Just like in basketball where it's up to the referees to determine severity of flagrant fouls. If nothing else it would make their continued existence necessary should the game move to an electronic strike zone.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by RossOK

My point is that it's a never-ending cycle if you keep perpetuating the mindset that throwing at guys is just a thing that happens and is completely acceptable.

Of course it’s ending. You get ours, we get yours and it is done. It’s not rolling over and over. No one on the Marlins would have a problem if someone took one the thigh.

You have two sperate discussions going on.

Tounge and cheek question, did you get your lunch money stolen at school a lot?

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by RossOK

There are already umpires in the game and they're trusted to make judgment calls in other aspects. No reason why they can't be tasked with determining whether something is intentional or not. A rule saying "throwing at a batter with the intent to hit them is cause for immediate ejection" is enforceable if umpires are given the responsibility and authority. Just like in basketball where it's up to the referees to determine severity of flagrant fouls. If nothing else it would make their continued existence necessary should the game move to an electronic strike zone.

I see what you're saying. Personally, I wouldn't like that. If pitchers are afraid to hit a batter for fear of being ejected, they can't do their job effectively. Especially, say, if the other pitcher already hit one of your batters clearly unintentionally. Now if you hit someone, the likelyhood that the ump will assume intent goes up.

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Of course it’s ending. You get ours, we get yours and it is done. It’s not rolling over and over. No one on the Marlins would have a problem if someone took one the thigh.

You have two sperate discussions going on.

Tounge and cheek question, did you get your lunch money stolen at school a lot?

No, it all stems from the same mindset that throwing a baseball at someone with the intention of hitting them is ok. Whether it's from the extremely stupid ("This guy won't stop hitting homers." - Ureña) to the lesser but still stupid ("They hit my guy, I'm gonna hit theirs."), any justification you have for throwing at someone is stupid.

[mlbfan10]

Originally Posted by RossOK

No, it all stems from the same mindset that throwing a baseball at someone with the intention of hitting them is ok. Whether it's from the extremely stupid ("This guy won't stop hitting homers." - Ureña) to the lesser but still stupid ("They hit my guy, I'm gonna hit theirs."), any justification you have for throwing at someone is stupid.

This, Ureña threw his ball harder than he has the entire year on first pitch. I was watching the game, a guy getting hit and a guy getting him on purpose are two different things.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[mnvikingstwins]

It's a shame Urena isn't pitching against the Braves this year, would be perfectly justified for Braves to throw at his head twice for that

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by RossOK

No, it all stems from the same mindset that throwing a baseball at someone with the intention of hitting them is ok. Whether it's from the extremely stupid ("This guy won't stop hitting homers." - Ureña) to the lesser but still stupid ("They hit my guy, I'm gonna hit theirs."), any justification you have for throwing at someone is stupid.

Agree to disagree.

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

I see what you're saying. Personally, I wouldn't like that. If pitchers are afraid to hit a batter for fear of being ejected, they can't do their job effectively. Especially, say, if the other pitcher already hit one of your batters clearly unintentionally. Now if you hit someone, the likelyhood that the ump will assume intent goes up.

I dunno, it seems like we have a pretty good grip on when something's intentional or if the pitcher just has control issues. Otherwise every box score would have the exact same amount of HBPs for both teams (eye for an eye). And part of me wonders if the umps weren't saddled with calling balls and strikes, they'd have more mental energy to expend on following the tenor of the game and perceiving intent should something pop up. Plus there'd be a lot less animosity and angst built up over the course of a game if batters/pitchers don't have to hem and haw over close/bad calls.

[pgisback]

Same exact intentional hit batter, different times, different result. When men were allowed to be men. Throw the pitcher out, that’s all that is needed.