We're All Mad Here - Cubs 9, Rockies 7

We all know that games in Coors Field don't adhere to the normal rules. Things just get weird there, and I don't need to use any jokes about what's legal there to explain why. There's going to be runs, there's going to be cheap or goofy hits, it's going to take a while, and your pitchers are going to come out of it feeling like they did too many shots of whiskey (there is a such thing, people). And when it ends pretty much everyone is happier it's over than whatever the result is.

Thankfully, the Cubs got two of three from this and they should run for the exit.

This game featured Bryant getting domed, a near fight about where Javy Baez was standing (there was no footage of Gordon Wittenmeyer running out to protect DJ LeMahieu but I'm sure it happened), Jason Heyward struggling with the sun for multiple innings that cost two runs, Albert Almora making two incredible catches, two runs scoring off a hit that kneecapped Carl Edwards Jr., three third basemen for the Cubs, Cishek getting a hit on a bunt when the Rockies tried to fool him into thinking the ball was foul by not having anyone cover first (I assume), it ended on a wild pitch where the runner was actually thrown out, and probably one or two other things I'm missing.

I'm physically tired.

-Once again, it came down to the Cubs having Javy Baez and the other team not having Javy Baez. He had one homer to center that I'm sure has a comedic launch angle because there's no way a ball that left his bat on that angle should have gone out, much less to center. He had the killer two-run double in the 7th that it turned out the Cubs really needed. What was exciting about that AB was that it came with two out and two on, a spot where we've seen Javy go Tasmanian Devil on. But he got a hanging slider, didn't try to turn into plasma, and lined it down the line. If his approach remains this cool with runners on, there's no telling where this could go.

-Jose was unfortunate. If Heyward hadn't lost a ball in the sun he probably doesn't give up a run, as that would have been the third out in that inning. And maybe his fifth inning would have been a little smoother, who knows? The important thing is one walk, and the Cubs need to have far more starts with low walk totals.

-Cishek had his first wonky outing, but hey that'll happen when you're on pace for 90 appearances or whatever. Would have been fine if the ball that lined off Edwards's leg had rolled just one or two feet less away and he could have made that throw to first.

-Once again the Cubs getting the ball in play made a huge difference in Coors Field, because there's so much open space to find. At least early it did, as they once again found runs in the first by the 1000 cuts variety.

-The fear is Bryant, who passed all the concussion tests he took after being taken out of the game. These things can show up later, though certainly not always, and while concussions have ruined some careers the majority of the time they're just a blip and you never hear about it again. Clearly the off day tomorrow couldn't be more well-timed.

-Marquez was clearly spooked from going inside after hitting Bryant, which led to a lot of opposite field singles for the Cubs who clearly caught on pretty quickly.

Here's your FanGraphs chart:

chart

Onwards...

Filed under: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Great outing by Q! Battled through adversity (ie, Baez error, Heyward/sun, the pickoff that wasn’t). Baez is on fire! Schwarber, Almora, Heyward: that suddenly is a potent offensive outfield. Almora with the globe work. Oh, and I love the fire from Chili Davis. I also liked that Joe didn’t order Q to plunk Arenado. Go Cubs!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cubswin09:

    I don't recall exactly what Mr. Simmons criteria for Cards vs Cubs OF, but I am pretty sure the Cubs are ahead.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    Greg said their OF was better than the Cubs OF in every offensive statistic. IMO Greg is very good at providing bulletin board material. :-)

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John57:

    So all it would take would be one obscure stat and he loses the bet. He gave us "the field." I think if there were money on the line I am sure we could get someone in the Cubs outfield to eat more hot dogs or something like that.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    I am not sure eating hot dogs is a baseball offensive stat, but I like our OF better than theirs.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John57:

    Depending on the etiquette observed it could be offensive or not.

  • In reply to Cubswin09:

    I was listening to the game on the radio at the time of the plunking...so why did Chili go nuclear? There is no way the pitcher was throwing at Kris there...the ball just got away. I get being upset your top dog got hit, but to get to the point of being thrown out? I don't get it. What am I missing that didn't translate over the radio?
    And of course Joe isn't going to order Arenado plunked...there is no reason for it. This wasn't on purpose...you don't start a bean ball war there cause you are going to get Rizzo plunked next. There was no intent...anyone that thinks so doesn't understand the game.

  • In reply to Pappy:

    It really doesn't matter that it wasn't on purpose. The guy hit our guy in the face with a 97mph pitch! Javy was buzzed in the game before high and tight. The cubs have been hit most in the league. Chili and Andy wanted to show support for their guys.. I thought maybe that Q would plunk Marquez. I know that some of the Cubs stand close to the plate but it seems that teams are going high and inside to a lot of of them. I don't want to see anybody get hurt, Kris was so lucky.

  • In reply to jefeggs2542:

    Oh and Rizzo was hit anyway without the cubs retaliating.

  • In reply to jefeggs2542:

    If Q had retaliated they would have likely lost that game. A win is far more important than some unwritten "rule".

  • In reply to jefeggs2542:

    You don't want to see anybody hurt, yet you want to initiate a bean ball war when there was no intent.
    I stand by my last sentence.
    Yes, the cubs stand very close to the plate...especially Rizzo. And yes, Rizzo got plunked. Pitchers are going to come inside on them...they are going to get hit. There is a difference between pitching inside and hitting someone standing close to the plate, and purposely going after someone.

  • In reply to Pappy:

    Who really knows what the intent was? JD or Len made a comment about could that be retaliation from Wilson hitting the guy in the back on the called third strike or bunt (cant remember) the night before. Also there is a difference between coming inside and drilling someone in the helmet. I'm fine that the Cubs didn't hit anyone, but that is our Franchise player! Is just winning the game enough or do you make a statement both in the media and on the field. This is how I feel. I have no idea how the team feels about any of this though.

  • In reply to jefeggs2542:

    Did you see the kid's reaction after he hit him??? He was mortified. He couldn't pitch inside to anyone any longer. In that situation, there is ZERO chance he is hitting Bryant on purpose, and his reaction to it showed that as well.

  • In reply to jefeggs2542:

    Kris is one of our guys who DOESNT stand on top of the plate. I agree in the sense I doubt Marquez was trying to hit him either. Why bring up Rizzo with a runner on in a tie game? BTW Im thinking if Maddon does want to "retaliate" . wait for the time you have a 10 run lead and 2 outs in the 9th.

  • In reply to Pappy:

    "you don't start a bean ball war there cause you are going to get Rizzo plunked next" BTW, Rizzo did get plunked next.

  • In reply to picklles:

    And one has nothing to do with the other. I don't believe that was intentional either, and Rizzo, as we all know, stands right on the plate. Yes, he was hit, but I don't believe it was intentional. There is a difference between getting hit on accident, and the pitcher throwing at a guy for retaliation. Here is the scenario I think you avoid by NOT throwing at Arenado after Bryant gets hit. First, understand the situation. Marquez was 100% not trying to hit Bryant. Ball got away and unfortunately hit Bryant in the head. Now we will take the suggestion to have Q hit Arenado. Understand, you are not RETALIATING at this point, you are INITIATING. Now the Rockies will look to get pay back, and they will likely throw on purpose at our next stud Rizzo. Let's say that goes wrong and instead of him getting plunked in the back, he takes it in the arm and breaks his wrist. Was it worth it to throw at Areanado for something that wasn't intentional now?
    Yes, I get that Rizzo got hit, but that (IMHO) was an accident and not intentional...that happens. If Bryant gets drilled like that on purpose, 100% I agree with you, Arenado goes down next. After that, the Rockies are not likely to retaliate again and hit Rizzo on purpose...just not the way it was done. But if you go after Arenado after what happened to Bryant today, you are initiating the incident, not retaliating, and that calls for retaliation. That leads to the possibility two of your stars go down and for what? An accident? Not worth it.

  • In reply to Pappy:

    *just not the way it IS done...not was done...

  • In reply to Pappy:

    Maybe Chili wanted the umpire to warn the pitcher?

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    Yeah, I read I think on ESPN where Chili said he was pissed Kris got hit in the head, so he (along with a lot of other guys) were blowing off steam (rightly so). After he was done the ump basically told him to shut it or else. Chili was like, or else what, GFY, etc, and that is when he got the heave ho. Madden was pissed cause he was all "dude, stay out of my dugout...nothing was going to happen, just stop looking for issues". Same thing with the 2nd base ump...as someone else here said he should have just shrugged and stayed out of it, but there are a lot of umps that feel the need to be a part of the show. Totally get where Chili was coming from now.

  • It will be interesting to see how Bryant handles that scary head shot. I've seen players that become afraid to hang in. It can take awhile and sometimes hitters are never quite the same.

  • I was just listening to some of Javy's comments about his dust-up with DJ at second base. He was pretty upset. He said LeMahieu admitted stealing the signs, and told Javy that if the Cubs didn't want him stealing signs they should change them. Of course this admission came after Javy busted him doing it, because nothing gets by Javy on a baseball field. He even unleashed this classic line that is so perfectly Javy:

    "I'm smart."

  • In reply to BarleyPop:

    I watched the recap of the episode on MLB.com and it featured the Rockies announcers. They were making Javy out to be a whiny little-leaguer, kept saying "stealing signs is part of the game, it's always been part of the game..." I found it comical. DJ is the one that came off like a whiner.

    Did DJ and Javy spend any time together in the minors?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to JohnCC:

    I don't think so. LeMahieu made his MLB debut in 2011 and Baez was drafted that year. Then before the 2012 season he was traded to the Rockies.

  • In reply to JohnCC:

    The are worthless as announcers. They insisted there was no way the review on the last play would be overturned, as it was VERY clear he was safe. When the first time I looked at it on the view from the front you can clearly see he tagged him, then the foot goes down. Bunch of bums...

  • In reply to Pappy:

    Arenadios foot never touched home, of course the homer Rox announcers convienently chose to overlook that fact.

  • In reply to mutant beast:

    I saw it as his foot only touched because the tag forced the foot down. Either way it was clear the tag happened before the foot was even to the plate, much less on it. Totally agree with you

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to BarleyPop:

    I have never understood the etiquette against "stealing signs" if it is the players that are doing it. I disagree with the stories of Bobby Thomson's "Shot" and that the Giants had a guy in CF with a telescope or something like that. But if LeMahieu was able to steal signs then shame on the Cubs for not changing them.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    I have no problem with stealing signs without outside assistance. I just love the fact we have an on-field general who caught it and called him out on it. "Not against my team." Javy takes every play personally and will not be beat in any phase of the game. These are the little things that players and teams remember, and I'm curious to see if it lingers.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to BarleyPop:

    My other question is, "What was LeMahieu complaining about?" And what did the umpire say to Javy. There is no rule about where the SS must stand. I can get my head around LeMahieu shrugging. But he should have just let it drop.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    I thought it was fun, DJ was trying to gain something , Javy blocked it, Stupid Ump got involved, Joe came out, inning ended as Arenado got distracted in the process.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to rnemanich:

    Maybe LeMahieu was complaining that Baez was "distracting" Arenado. Or maybe he was saying Baez was in his way. But there is no rule about where a fielder must stand at any given point in the process, or when he must stay put.

    The umpire should have probably just "shrugged."

  • Hopefully the cubs can put together a good week or 2 & win 3 out of 4 or 5 out of 7 and break this staying at .500 trend

  • Exactly! I don't remember a player catching someone stealing his team's signs and intentionally doing something about that, until today. We are lucky to be Cubs fans today. This is something I learned for the first time ever as a baseball watcher. We need our players to be salty at the right time. That is exactly what happened.

    And then El Mago drives in the deciding runs of the game. Good for him. Better for the Cubs.

  • In reply to HefCA:

    I'm glad he's on my team.

  • No man loves baseball then A-Roid. To have a few hundred million dollars in the bank and sit in the ESPN Sunday night booth with Jessica Mendosa and Matt Vasgersian. Maybe ESPN should get rid of A-Roid and replace him with Harold Reynolds?

  • In reply to 2016 Cubs:

    Not following this post?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to rbrucato:

    Good. I'm not the only one. I re-read it several times. I am pretty sure it is sarcastic but not sure where it lays.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    It almost appear to be a "butt dial" of sorts for a post. Haha!!!

  • In reply to rbrucato:

    A "butt dial" would of been more readable. Always reread before you post boys and girls. LOL

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to 2016 Cubs:

    LOL. Now I'm curious. What did you mean?

  • I don't mean to start a war here (you'll see how clever that was in a moment) between old-school curmudgeons and enlightened advanced-metric fans, but some of Javy's unmeasurable contributions on the field got me thinking.

    With his big game today, his WAR total for the 2018 season is up to a nice, round 1.0. That is awesome through the first 19 games of the season, and puts him on a path for several MVP votes if he maintains this pace. But...

    My understanding of WAR is wins created above a replacement-level player. That definition is still blurry to me, but I think it equates to a AAA call-up. For argument's sake, we'll call him Mike Freeman.

    Can anyone, with a straight face, tell me that if Javy hadn't played a single game this year, and Freeman had every opportunity in his place, that we'd only see a 1.0 difference in our W-L record?

    I'm not trying to completely discredit the stat, just pointing out that there are many things in the game of baseball a computer can't measure.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to BarleyPop:

    BP, you have nailed my "understanding" of WAR. What's a replacement player anyway? If it's someone like Mike Freeman (not to pick on him) Javy is several levels higher in all phases of the game. Does WAR include defense and baseball IQ too? Again, even those Javy has made a number of errors he is still a GG type infielder and we've already seen over the years his intelligence on the base paths. So, I go by my eyes and they tell me he's one of the best playing right now. WAR, SMORES, he's good. My only regret is that he won't get to play tomorrow, but it really is good for the team to take a day.
    What a series!

  • In reply to BarleyPop:

    Here is the definition from the Fangraphs glossary.

    https://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/

    Pretty self explanatory and covers the points you and Jonathan discuss.

    Bottom line is it is not a perfect stat. However it is directional and attempts to cover batting, baserunning, and defense.

  • In reply to BarleyPop:

    Thanks for bringing up this point. I'd say the same thing about a good manager only being worth 2-3 wins, or whatever the number is. There is no way Maddon was worth only 2-3 wins in 2015. The team was young and didn't have the confidence they have now. Maddon had the confidence and he led his team well and pushed the right buttons and gave them many more wins than 2-3. I imagine people who read this may disagree, but I do think a manager can impact the game in more ways than many acknowledge.

  • In reply to David23:

    Christian Villanueva is leading he NL is WAR. Yes our Christian Villanueva. Happy for that kid in SD. (OK, he's tied for 2nd, but still).

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to BarleyPop:

    I don't think you are going to start a "war" with this post. I think it does take "WINS above replacement" a little literally. As if "If Mike Freeman were playing SS/2B for the Cubs we would have a 9-10 record." That isn't necessarily true. What it tries to do is quantify a players contribution to a team. It does not include "baseball iq" probably because there isn't a good way to quantify it. And stat heads look askance at stats that include an "intangibles" variable. Because while it has "value" it does not really lend itself to being counted. How many runs do you think Baez's baseball IQ is worth? I would guess the answers you would get to that question if you ask a lot of knowledgeable baseball fans would be very varied.

  • In reply to BarleyPop:

    We're dealing with a classic SSS problem here. I tend to think of WAR on a team basis. Statistically, a team of replacement level players (AAA/AAA players easily available to any team at minimum salary) would win (if memory serves) about 44 games a season. If you add up the individual player WARs a team, and add 44, it should APPROXIMATE the actual team win total. It is an imperfect stat, and is especially subject to SSS distortions. Currently Rizzo is at -.3 fWAR, below replacement level. Does anybody expect that to continue?

    If you have a team that wins 100 games, we would all agree that it must have a number of stars. How do we then distribute 100-44=56 WAR among 25 players? The average WAR/player on a 100 win team would "only" be around 2. So, in context, a player like Bryant, with 6.6 2017 fWAR, leaves 50 to be distributed among the remaining 24 players, etc. Stated differently, a team of 25 Kris Bryants should theoretically win around 209 games a season.

    In short, a WAR of 6+ indicates superstar/MVP level (2017 Bryant), 4-6 All-Star (Rizzo), 2-4 excellent regular (Baez), 1-2 solid performer (Russell), 0-1 above average utility (LaStella), 0- candidate for replacement (Freeman) -- all using 2017 fWAR (Fangraphs).

  • In reply to BarleyPop:

    WAR is limited, but one thing I'd say is that if Mike Freeman got the same amount of playing time as Javy it wouldn't shock me to say he's a negative WAR player. Ideally you're talking about replacement level being 0 WAR. Plus I also think it works better over a large sample size, but it is never going to be perfect. The theory is that a team with all zero WAR guys would win about 47 games (I've seen a few numbers there though) and I did a spreadsheet a couple of years ago on all thirty teams and how their WAR numbers added up correlated with their actually win total. The largest variance from that number, this was the 2015 season I analyzed, was 6%. The Cubs that year won 97 games and their team WAR (with those 47 wins a given) added up to the same number. It was a fun exercise, and I'd do it again, but ain't nobody got time for that ;)

  • In reply to BarleyPop:

    Jave's 1.0 for 19 games puts him at 8.5 for the season, which would have led the majors in 2017 (Judge had 8.2 fWAR). And remember when we were recently discussing Jave's BABIP being in the .100's? That was not likely to continue (and hasn't). Nor, unfortunately, is his 8.5 rate.

    It's a long season -- just settle in.

  • In reply to wthomson:

    Here's a fWAR stunner: Want to know who had the lowest fWAR in 2017? None other than Albert Pujols, a sure first ballot HOFer, who checked in at -1.9. How is this possible, you ask? Pujols, who on three occasions had the HIGHEST fWAR in baseball, won 3 MVPs, and by all accounts was a generational talent, has clearly been among the most elite to have ever played the game. That, however, ironically led to the -1.9. In 2017 the Angels played Pujols in 149 games, giving him 636 PAs. Keep in mind that fWAR is a cumulative statistic, and since he played so much, he had ample opportunity to demonstrate just how far he had fallen (and just how wise the Cub FO was not to sign him as a free agent). It is inconceivable that a true replacement-level player would have been given that opportunity.

    Pujols remains in good company, however. Other players who have gone from being best to worst in a career include Mel Ott, Alex Rodriguez, Ken Griffey, George Sisler, Ricky Henderson, Jim Rice, Ernie Banks, Derek Jeter, Nap Lajoe, Tris Speaker, Jimmie Fox, Jim Rice, Lou Gehrig and Fred Lynn. Like Pujols--Rodriguez, Henderson Lajoie & Speaker were #1 on 3 occasions, Foxx and Gehrig did it twice.

  • In reply to BarleyPop:

    Agree Barley....guess there is a place in the saber world for this stat but just to sit back and think it only equates to Baez getting us a single win so far seems flat out goofy. Javy in the lineup so far this year has directly accounted for at least 4 of the Cub wins to date.

  • In reply to Wickdipper:

    I appreciate all the replies, but I think yours best captures the point I was trying to make. I understand how WAR works and can be a useful guide to compare players as long as it isn't taken literally. The subjective baseline and differing weighted factors leads to varied results (as evidenced by fWAR, bWAR, etc.) and doesn't reflect the direct impact a player's entire game has on wins and losses.

    I'm a fan of advanced metrics. I remember looking at my baseball cards as a 10-year-old and noticing that walks didn't count to a player's batting average and some players had a much higher ratio of extra-base hits compared to others. I was calculating my own crude versions of OBP and SLG before the world had heard of Bill James.

    My problem with some numbers isn't the numbers, it is the way some fans use them. They tell a historical story for sure, but ideally they are used to try to predict future performance. In order to do that, they must be taken in context with an understanding of how they feed into one another.Years ago the argument was "player A is better than player B because his WAR is higher". Thankfully the numbers and fans understanding of them have come a long way.

    And of course my main point: much of what a player does to impact wins and losses can't (yet, if ever) be measured by numbers.

    Go Cubs!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to BarleyPop:

    Generally if the WAR is higher it does indicate that player A is better than player B. But this, too, can be taken too literally. For instance, "Player A has a 2.0 fWAR and Player B has a 1.6 fWAR." Likely there is not particularly much difference between them or other "intangibles" or "versatility" can over-ride the difference in contribution. However, if one has a 4.5 fWAR and the other has a 1.6 I will take the guy with a 4.5 fWAR and live with their shortcomings.

    Very few stats are particularly "predictive." Some stats tend to stay relatively steady/stable (for instance, a batter with a high BABIP one year will likely, but not guaranteed, have a high BABIP the following year as well, someone who strikes out a lot one year will likely strike out a lot in a following year). What drive me nuts is when someone says, "He is a .250 hitter, that means he has a 25% chance of getting a hit in this PA," or even, "He is likely to go 1-for-4." If someone makes that proposal to me I will make that bet in a heartbeat.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    Generally, yes. If it comes down to a 4.5 - 1.6 spread that is pretty definitive. It is a useful tool when comparing players, I just think it's not truly reflective of a particular player's actual impact on his team's W-L record. I think there are too many intangibles to measure that. A player's influence on his teammates or ability to stifle a base runner are a couple random examples.

    Very few stats are predictive, and that's where the fun lies, IMO. Trying to correlate hard-hit rates with swings in and out of the zone and guessing where those numbers may go has turned into a business, and a lucrative one for those who are good at it.

    I love numbers, but I also believe in the old-school eye test and the reality of players being human and subject to peer influence and emotion. I'll stick by a comment I've made many times: the only numbers that truly matter in baseball are the ones under the "R" column at the end of a game, and there are many ways to get there.

  • Baby steps, won a series on the road vs a contender who beat the Cubs last year in season series. The runs scoring is what I expected when the year began, SP'ng is a concern as it realtes to innings pitched. Thinking Cubs might bring up Giminez for Darvish.

  • In reply to rnemanich:

    Bringing up Giminez is worth a try. I have complained that SPs don't go 7 innings anymore, but ours seem to have a problem going 5... I sure hope that changes soon...

    Winning a series on the road is a great step (that very nearly didn't happen...) and I hope the Cubs can keep it up!

  • After Bryant avoided certain death by a millisecond and millimeter, did one we throw one even one inch inside? I can't believe we didn't knock some one down, let alone hit em. Quite frankly someone should have drilled Arenado - don't throw at his head, but one in the leg, glut, arm whatever.

    I'm not always eye for eye, but we need the league to know that we are sick and tired of the them hitting our best players. Cubs lead NL by far in HBP. In fact, KB, Rizzo and Contreras are TOP 3 (!) in league: Yes, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in NL in getting hit. That's outrageous! We need to stop that and there's only way.

  • In reply to TTP:

    Teams can overdue retaliation, but not letting the opposition run over your team has merit as well. When teams channel hbp into victory, it's is the best way unless the headlining gets obvious. It's starting to look like that's the case..

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TTP:

    I don't think he was trying to hit Bryant. If he were then hitting one of their guys would be justified. But sometimes a pitch gets away. I remember last year there was some bad blood in a game and, late in the game Jon Jay got plunked in the helmet. He went down but popped right back up and motioned to the Cubs bench to stay seated as it was a curve ball that didn't break. If he hadn't done that I think benches would have cleared. But sometimes one just gets away.

  • In reply to TTP:

    This way of thinking is wrong. This is how guys get hurt. Cubs hit Arenado, they open up Rizzo to be thrown at. You can hit their best player in the butt, but you can't take for granted that they're going to play by the same rules. Maybe they decide to throw at Rizzo's head. Maybe they aim for his back and accidentally break his wrist.
    Honestly, what does it solve to hit someone back? Especially when Marquez clearly hit KB on accident? The best way to end it is to accept the free base runners and beat them. Not to keep meaningless bean ball wars going (not to mention giving the other team free base runners) where everyone just stays mad and tries to get the last lick. It's senseless.

  • In reply to Kramerica20:

    Not totally senseless. Teams can't just let teams run roughshod over your team. Umpires can only intercede after the fact. It's not that kind of world in baseball or anywhere else. Cardinals would rather play the Cubs AAA team and pitch inside until the big dogs are all injured.

  • In reply to 44slug:

    Cards ALWAYS retaliate intentional of not. LaRussa and Matheny too.

  • In reply to 44slug:

    There is a time and a place for it and to me the Cardinals doing that every time, and you're right they do, is some low rent garbage. If by doing so, especially in a tight game, you are giving the other team a chance to win then you don't do it. Period.

  • In reply to TC154:

    Agree

  • In reply to 44slug:

    Right, because when one team hits a guy, and the team retaliates, the instigating team always takes an introspective look at themselves and realizes they behaved poorly and should stop throwing at people.

  • In reply to Kramerica20:

    Maybe you mean this as satire, but my experience as a psychologist suggests that "eye-for-an-eye" is the most common response. Introspection, if it occurs at all, comes MUCH later.

  • In reply to wthomson:

    That's exactly my point. Eye for an eye is the natural response, but it doesn't solve much. It just makes the instigator react, and then it's a never ending contest of getting the last word (HBP) in. It sounds corny, but in my opinion the best way to end it is to take the high road.

  • In reply to Kramerica20:

    I agree - take the high road and win the game

  • In reply to Kramerica20:

    Like I said, I'm not normally into the whole you hit our guy, we'll hit yours. And Marquez definitely did not intend to hit Bryant. That doesn't matter.

    Everyone is pitching KB inside. That's there prerogative. But they need to know that we are sick and tired of our top guys -- especially Bryant getting hit. He leadsthe lead in HBP and unlike Rizzo he's not crowding the plate. We do need to send a messages. We need to protect Bryant -- before someone breaks his hand, wrist or something worse.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TTP:

    The problem I have is that I think teams are pitching Bryant inside in order to get him out. They believe that they are more likely to get him out by throwing inside. Noticeable by its absence in this line of thinking is hitting him.

    So, in order to "protect" Bryant we are going to throw at another team's player (I don't really care who). Let's say we hit this unfortunate player in the leg. The other team is not likely to say, "Man, we deserve that. Even though we didn't mean to hit Bryant this calls for retaliation. We need to 'protect' our guy." So they throw at Rizzo. Now the Cubs are really steamed. So they throw at another player for the other team. And it goes on and on. Some people may think that there is some kind of cosmic justice, or "eye-for-an-eye" type situation, but it is just as likely that the other team will see themselves as a victim. As one philosopher put it in a similar situation, "One side thinks that the score is even, the other side thinks that they are one shot behind." And it goes on indefinitely. This is how "family feuds" continue for generation with each side claiming they are doing nothing more than evening up the score.

  • Apropos to nothing, I hate Coors field and am glad we only play there one series a year. There is nothing fun about watching baseball played in that park.

  • In reply to TC154:

    I'm glad we don't play there regularly. But, by golly, you can't say that was not a fun game. It was all sorts of fun. (Although, I might feel differently if we hadn't taken 2 of 3).

  • "there was no footage of Gordon Wittenmeyer running out to protect DJ LeMahieu but I'm sure it happened". That's pure gold right there. Pure gold.

  • Almora was brilliant!

Leave a comment