
Philadelphia Phillies
#1
Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:49 PM
#2
Posted 21 December 2011 - 01:27 AM
#3
Posted 11 March 2012 - 10:03 AM
#4
Posted 10 April 2012 - 12:39 PM
#5
Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:51 PM
"Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Cole Hamels has been suspended 5 games for throwing at Washington Nationals rookie Bryce Harper yesterday.
Major League Baseball announced the penalty Monday afternoon..."
http://www.blippitt....t-bryce-harper/
#6
Posted 07 May 2012 - 08:39 PM
#7
Posted 07 May 2012 - 09:00 PM
#8
Posted 07 May 2012 - 10:26 PM
Five games should be one start, I think it's fair. If you wanted to do two starts, it be ten games. You have to do games for pay purposes. I think Cole got what he deserved frankly. Honesty hurt him, J-Zimm should've been suspended 3 games IMO.I noticed that. It almost seems like they should suspend pitchers for "starts" instead of "games," or something like that.
#9
Posted 07 May 2012 - 10:41 PM
Five games should be one start, I think it's fair. If you wanted to do two starts, it be ten games. You have to do games for pay purposes. I think Cole got what he deserved frankly. Honesty hurt him, J-Zimm should've been suspended 3 games IMO.I noticed that. It almost seems like they should suspend pitchers for "starts" instead of "games," or something like that.
It was good unwritten rule baseball. Until he ran his mouth after the game. He could have just "no commented" and that would have said, yep it was on purpose, but he flat out came out and SAID it was intentional and then made up some BS story. He hit him because a lot of vets didn't like his showmanship in the minors last year and they have it in their head they are throwing at him period.
I'm cool with him hitting him, Harper got him back stealing home. I'm cool with Zimm sticking up for him, that's where it should have ended. To run your mouth to the press after the game is really the only uncalled for part of this. Even the hits were done right and in parts of the body that won't cause injury. It's how the players police themselves, but the media speech was over the line.
#10
Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:27 AM
I don't think anyone is disputing he would've gotten away with it, had he just kept his mouth closed. MLB was pretty much forced to act once he opened his mouth.It was good unwritten rule baseball. Until he ran his mouth after the game. He could have just "no commented" and that would have said, yep it was on purpose, but he flat out came out and SAID it was intentional and then made up some BS story. He hit him because a lot of vets didn't like his showmanship in the minors last year and they have it in their head they are throwing at him period.
I'm cool with him hitting him, Harper got him back stealing home. I'm cool with Zimm sticking up for him, that's where it should have ended. To run your mouth to the press after the game is really the only uncalled for part of this. Even the hits were done right and in parts of the body that won't cause injury. It's how the players police themselves, but the media speech was over the line.
I'm not "cool" with it, had Harper shown up the Phillies I would've understood, but there was nothing he did that justified it.
#11
Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:58 AM
I'm cool with him hitting him, Harper got him back stealing home. I'm cool with Zimm sticking up for him, that's where it should have ended. To run your mouth to the press after the game is really the only uncalled for part of this. Even the hits were done right and in parts of the body that won't cause injury. It's how the players police themselves, but the media speech was over the line.
I couldn't agree with this more. The steal of home was especially great payback, and Zimmerman did fine by plunking Hamels back with a soft pitch.
If Hamels keeps quiet, it's over.
"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."
-Walter Sobchak
#12
Posted 08 May 2012 - 11:11 AM
#13
Posted 08 May 2012 - 11:53 AM
I already said I would've suspended J-Zimm for three games. I think MLB might have felt they didn't have enough evidence to suspend him. Thought there was probably even more obvious intent on that one than on the Hamels one.Colin Cowherd just made an interesting point. By suspending Hamels, who told the truth, and not suspending Zimmerman, who lied and said he didn't intentionally hit Hamels, MLB is rewarding dishonesty. He tied it back to how MLB got into the steroids scandal.
Sadly dishonesty is too often rewarded over honesty.
#14
Posted 08 May 2012 - 01:01 PM
I already said I would've suspended J-Zimm for three games. I think MLB might have felt they didn't have enough evidence to suspend him. Thought there was probably even more obvious intent on that one than on the Hamels one.Colin Cowherd just made an interesting point. By suspending Hamels, who told the truth, and not suspending Zimmerman, who lied and said he didn't intentionally hit Hamels, MLB is rewarding dishonesty. He tied it back to how MLB got into the steroids scandal.
Sadly dishonesty is too often rewarded over honesty.
Agreed that Zimm should have been suspended.
They're encouraging the wrong behavior.
#15
Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:08 PM
He should have been suspended for some time for the pitch, and quite a bit longer as punitive damages for going against the best interests of baseball.
As it is, the five games is a joke. He won't miss a start, since by pitching on Sunday he's just moving back two days. All suspensions for a starting pitcher should begin at nine games: the first four after the suspension, the regular start, and the next four games, skipping off days. Any pitcher can have a start pushed back.
Unfortunately, I can't decide what to do about Zimmermann because baseball has fostered an environment where pitchers can throw at batters with obvious intent and yet not receive real punishment.
#16
Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:15 PM
Not very mature.
#17
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:36 AM
That's what bugs me, too. "Welcome to the Bigs"...so you plunk the kid for no good reason?
Not very mature.
It's a time-honored tradition. The best prospects get their welcome plunking sometime in the first couple weeks. Just to put them in their place a bit.
I'm sure it happened to many of the all-time greats. It's not meant to hurt anyone, everyone agrees to that. Hamels did it exactly right. Right in the meaty part of the back, a nice stinger that'll leave a bruise that he can feel for a few days and think to himself, "I'm a member of the fraternity now."
Harper took it like a man, got his revenge, and kept his mouth shut. Now he is even more respected, both for his talent and for his maturity. It was a win-win.
"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."
-Walter Sobchak
#18
Posted 12 May 2012 - 03:52 PM
http://baseballrefle...-the-2009-mets/
#19
Posted 13 May 2012 - 11:16 PM
#20
Posted 24 May 2012 - 05:26 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users