And that's what it is, of course... especially with the Mets' stunningly mediocre performance thus far. Some fans (and writers) will be foaming no matter what happens.

Sideshow at Shea (espn.com)

And if Estes makes the Rocket "skip rope" on one pitch, will the umps overreact -- as they often have lately -- and eject Estes and Valentine without warning? That would be the only scenario that would outrage me...

What amuses me most about this is that it's ESTES who is expected to throw at Clemens. Estes wasn't even a Met when the Clemens/Piazza incident occurred! If Clemens is plunked, I hope he charges the mound--or at least takes another shot at Piazza!

~Adam

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:

And if Estes makes the Rocket "skip rope" on one pitch, will the umps overreact -- as they often have lately -- and eject Estes and Valentine without warning? That would be the only scenario that would outrage me...

---

We do not need a warning to eject someone. Furthermore, you're forgetting one thing: We may eject someone immediately pursuant to a directive from our superiors. If a crew gets such a directive from MLB, we may have no choice, depending on what this directive stipulates.

I know a warning isn't necessary, Ump. That's still not fair... Clemens gets to skull Piazza, then throw a bat chunk at him and never got ejected, and the Mets get heaved when they finally respond?

As to the Estes factor, Joe Morgan -- a great player who I generally think is an idiotic analyst -- says his recent arrival is irrelevant:

Attention Estes: Throw at Clemens (Joe Morgan, espn.com)


I do hate the whole macho ass**** element of this garbage, but it seems unavoidable. At least it's not hockey.

Ulp... to play my own nemesis... baseball blogger David Pinto points out today that when Piazza was hit 2 years ago, the Mets *did* retaliate, with Glendon Rusch plunking Tino Martinez. I confess this completely slipped my mind.

So as a Mets fan, I am utterly at a loss about what should happen tomorrow.

This whole thing seems to have blown up again because Clemens hit Bonds. It almost sounds like everyone wants Estes to hit Clemens because Clemens hit Bonds.

How's the Mets middle relief these days?

If I were managing, I'd give Rahg two AB's. The first AB, give him a lot of finely-tuned chin music to let him know you care, and then a strike out (to watch him skulk back to the dugout) or a ground-out (to make him run it out – if he breaks his bat, throw some splinters at him). The second AB, ya plunk him, to see if Rahg has the cajones to charge the mound. Estes gets tossed, Bobby gets tossed (then gets the funny glasses out of mothballs) and the Mets' mid-relief takes over from there.

Everybody serves their suspensions and gets on with their lives. This may be the last chance the Mets have to "settle the score." Time to drop the gloves!

Gawd, I miss hockey already...

The best thing the Mets could do is HIT THE BALL OUT OF THE PARK tomorrow, rather than trying to take Clemens' head off. Their loss tonight is indicative of the team's problems--they need to HIT THE BALL.

Also, many of the best pitchers in baseball (Randy Johnson, Gibson, Drysdale, etc.) have thrown inside and racked up a lot of hit batters. Among the best pitchers, mainly those with pinpoint control, like Koufax, Marichal and Mathewson, or who win by throwing outside, like Glavine, don't hit a lot of batters. Maddux is a control pitcher, but he wins by controlling the entire plate, and has somewhere in the range of 80-100 HBs, I believe.

The most bizarre aspect of the Clemens-Piazza situation was that tossed broken bat--Clemens was high on his own adrenaline when he did that. But yes, Rusch plunked Martinez, so the Mets did retaliate.

But their best response would be to beat the Yankees with lots of home runs. I personally hope Clemens throws his first no hitter, or strikes out 19 Mets, though he tends to get hyper in games of this sort, and may self-destruct--but a spectacular Clemens performance would more than make up for this nonsensical, machoistic brouhaha.

Bottom line this should have been rectified 2 years ago. Hampton pussied out and they lost the opportunity.

Well, I must say I like Estes' approach to getting even with Clemens!

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Also, many of the best pitchers in baseball (Randy Johnson, Gibson, Drysdale, etc.) have thrown inside and racked up a lot of hit batters. Among the best pitchers, mainly those with pinpoint control, like Koufax, Marichal and Mathewson, or who win by throwing outside, like Glavine, don't hit a lot of batters.

---

In the old days, pitchers threw inside at hitters, and everyone accepted it as part of the strategy of a game. Nowadays the hitters wear bulky equipment and charge the mound. And too many pitchers are afraid to throw inside, especially after a warning's been issued, so the hitters can stand in close and not be too worried, which makes it easier for them to hit the outside pitches.

If I recall, there was supposed to be a directive issued that players couldn't wear the elbow pads and shin pads unless they had a legitimate medical reason. Obviously that's been ignored, at least for Barry Bonds. But it's got to be enforced. And there needs to be some automatic rule that any player who charges the mound is automatically ejected and suspended for the next 5 games. That will restore some balance to the situation, I think.

[quote]The best thing the Mets could do is HIT THE BALL OUT OF THE PARK tomorrow, rather than trying to take Clemens' head off.

---

they just did. an 8-0 shutout!

hope someone drills c-lemon-s in the head!

BEAN DUH BASTARD! BEAN DUH BASTARD!

I think Estes two-run homer combined with a shutout, probably hurt Clemens more than getting hit would have.

You know, there's a lot of stuff that's "common wisdom" in baseball that is questionable. For example, the idea that AL pitchers can throw at players with impunity because they don't bat. The average AL team has hit 24.8 batters this year, the average NL team has hit 23.6. The difference was a bit bigger last year (66.9 in the AL vs 59.6 in the NL), but a good bit of that is surely because you're not going to hit the opposing pitcher very often. Not only because he might retaliate, but also because he's not such a threat that you need to waste pitches to keep him off the plate.

Another recurrent idea is that modern pitchers don't throw inside. I'd be very surprised if that's the case, because modern hitters are certainly getting hit a lot. On average, pitchers last year hit 0.39 batters per nine innings. Unfortunately, www.baseballreference.com doesn't keep track of league hit batsmen, but I suspect that that's much higher than in the sixties. Drysdale, for comparison, hit 0.40 hitters per nine innings on average. The intimidating Bob Gibson hit only 0.23. Roger Clemens, over his career, has hit 0.30--not even average for last year. He does lead active pitchers in hit batsman, but he also leads--by a considerable margin--in innings pitched. You can argue, I suppose, that modern hitters crowd the plate more because pitchers don't pitch inside enough, so batters aren't expecting it. But it strikes me that it's like arguing that an outfielder or catcher doesn't get many assists because baserunners are afraid to test their arms. When you actually look at stats, the guys with the reputations for strong arms typically still get a lot of assists. I believe that the idea that modern pitchers don't pitch inside is a myth perpetuated by managers and pitching coaches to encourage pitchers to pitch inside. It's advantageous to keep the hitter off the plate...and it always has been.

They can't retaliate against the AL pitcher anymore, so they just retaliate against someone else. The retaliation still occurs.

As for pitchers not coming inside, part of it is situational--once an umpire gives the warning, any pitcher that comes close to another hitter tends to get the automatic ejection, even if it seems likely not to be intentional (as when you have a pitcher who's walking batters a lot). Between that and the padding that Bonds and others wear, the hitters are less reluctant to crowd the plate.

A very satisfactory outcome Saturday. It'd be even better without the chest-thumping endorsements of skulling a guy with a fastball, but what do you expect from a game played (and covered) largely by male Republicans?

Re TV commentary (with a whiff of bullying and/or homophobia?): Rob Dibble is a knuckle-dragging idiot, and Joe Buck ain't far behind.

Do you think Estes really intended to hit Clemens with that first pitch? His control was great yesterday, so my guess is it was exactly where it was intended to be...he just threw it to get into Clemens' head.

Joe, you're right that if the Umps issue a warning that will make a pitcher reluctant to throw inside. But I still hold that the theory that modern hitters hit more home runs because modern pitchers don't throw inside enough is bunk. Modern hitters do crowd the plate more, but the pitchers are doing their best to keep them off.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: JC ]

Modern pitchers not throwing inside as much isn't the sole reason for more homers. It's just a part of the entire mix...along with watered-down talent, tiny homer-friendly new ballparks, steroids, etc.

But isn't this "warning rule" a relatively recent occurrence? I can't remember it coming into play when I first started following baseball in the 70s. It seems to me that there began to be too many bench-clearing brawls occurring on a regular basis and shortly after that is when this "warning" came into being. Perhaps Ump25 can enlighten us on this.

Letterman adds his two cents: "You know, ever since the Subway Series, there has been some bad blood between the Mets and the Yankees. Well, the Mets have said that they're not going to hit Roger Clemens when he comes up to bat, although Mike Piazza said he might make some bitchy remarks from behind home plate."

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
Re TV commentary (with a whiff of bullying and/or homophobia?): Rob Dibble is a knuckle-dragging idiot, and Joe Buck ain't far behind.

---

You can respect Dibble for letting his opinion fly, but don't have to agree. (Hope ESPN has a disclaimer on opinions of employees/guests not being those of the network.) But Valentine's response was even more pathetic... instead of just letting the matter rest, he had to come back with a weak attack on ESPN? Sheesh...

I forgot about the Rusch retaliation as well. If the Mets hadn't fueled the fire all week by saying the Clemens incident wasn't closed, then we wouldn't even be talking about it right now. The buildup didn't lead to the beaning that everyone was hoping for. And the Yankees-Mets rivalry continues.

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
But isn't this "warning rule" a relatively recent occurrence? I can't remember it coming into play when I first started following baseball in the 70s. It seems to me that there began to be too many bench-clearing brawls occurring on a regular basis and shortly after that is when this "warning" came into being. Perhaps Ump25 can enlighten us on this.

---

The early rules (1879) of baseball gave the umpire authority to fine a pitcher $10-$50 for intentionally striking a batter.

The rules of 1950 specified what an umpire should do in the event that the pitcher threw at "a batter's head" in the opinion of the umpire: The umpire shall call "Time" and warn the pitcher and manager of the defensive team that another such pitch will mean the immediate ejection of the pitcher from the game.

This enforcement principle prevailed until 1975. In '75, the umpire was required by rule to issue a warning to each manager and all subsequent pitchers that another such pitch would result in the immediate ejection of such pitcher.

The umpire was also given authority to officially warn both teams prior to the actual start of the game. The league president (since eliminated) was given additional authority to discipline the ejected pitcher.

These guidelines governed until 1988 when the rule in effect today was implemented. Today's rule provides the umpire with a variety of options to handle the various types of throwing situations.

Umpires actually have 4 options for handling beanball situations:

(1) Issue a warning that another such pitch will cause the ejection of the pitcher and manager. This applies to both teams and all subsequent pitchers.

(2) Eject the pitcher immediately for his unsportsmanlike behavior. No warning is given to the other team. Presumably, they will realize the potential consequences of retaliation by the umpire's immediate action.

(3) Eject the pitcher and manager immediately if the circumstances warrant.

(4) Issue a warning at home plate prior to the game that any unsportsmanlike pitching will result in the ejection of the pitcher and manager.

The purpose of involving the manager is that as field leader of that team, he should be able to control the deliberate actions of his players.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by MSUBulldog:
...Valentine's response was even more pathetic... instead of just letting the matter rest, he had to come back with a weak attack on ESPN?

---

Valentine's words:
"This is the reason people switch off ESPN, because you have people with no knowledge of the game or the English language presenting the game we love."

Every word of that is gospel to me. Except for Gammons, and occasionally Jayson Stark, nearly everyone on Baseball Tonight is a pleasant mediocrity (Harold Reynolds), an annoying shill (Ravech) or an offensive moron (Dibble).

According to the NY Times this morning, MLB did not have the umps issue a warning PRE-SERIES to the two teams, which would've resulted in Estes' and valentine's ejection. So what the Mets did had the tacit approval of baseball brass -- no other interpretation possible.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:


According to the NY Times this morning, MLB did not have the umps issue a warning PRE-SERIES to the two teams, which would've resulted in Estes' and valentine's ejection. So what the Mets did had the tacit approval of baseball brass -- no other interpretation possible.

---

I wouldn't call it tacit approval, but that is your interpretation of it.

It is true that MLB did not send a directive to the crew regarding any pregame warnings. I'm sure MLB didn't think it was serious enough, and all of us umpires have long ago given up trying to figure out what goes on in the minds of MLB.

And yet Estes *is* being fined by MLB... and I was shocked to hear ESPN pointedly suggest that the word for that is "entrapment."

Isn't a fine of $750 almost insulting to Clemens?