Skip to main content

Retaliation in Baseball

An odd situation occurred a while back in the Chicago White Sox clubhouse. Chicago's catcher, A.J. Pierzynski, was hit twice in a game against Texas, so when the Rangers' Hank Blalock came to bat in the 7th, Chicago head coach Ozzie Guillen brought a pitcher in to retaliate and bean Blalock.

Rookie Sean Tracey was Guillen's pick for the job. Tracey threw two pitches inside and then got Blalock to ground out. Usually, players and managers would be content with an out, especially against a hitter the caliber of Blalock, right? Wrong. Guillen was furious and lost it in the dugout.

What happened after that? Tracey got demoted to Triple-A. Because of the incident? That's hard to say, but some are suggesting that it is due to this incident.

Some like to say that the beanball retaliation is just a part of the game. But why? What's the big deal? Why give the opposing team a free runner on base? Especially if the game is close? That never made sense to me. If it's 5-4, in the 7th or 8th inning, retaliation is more important to some than winning the game. With the bases empty, the worst that can happen is a solo shot for a 5-5 tie. With the retaliating beanball, that puts the tying runner on base and the go-ahead (potential winning) run at the plate. With one swing of the bat, the team that was just up 5-4 could be trailing 6-5, just because they had to retaliate. I do not see the point, never have and probably never will. Retaliation gets players hurt, tempers flaring, players ejected, coaches ejected, dugouts brawling, fines going all around, players and coaches unfocused and games lost. I'm sorry, but to make all those potential sacrifices for getting back at a team for beaning one of your players is simply not worth it.

Links:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2485365

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"