PDA

View Full Version : Lackey tossed after only two pitches


DumpJerry
05-16-2009, 07:14 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9581944?GT1=39002

What is it about Ian Kinsler?:scratch:


Maybe it's because he went to high school with Brian Anderson.....

Brian26
05-16-2009, 07:18 PM
His first two pitches of the season, no less. He's been on the DL all year. That's crazy.

Railsplitter
05-16-2009, 07:42 PM
One of these days, somebody's going to be ejected for farting.

SoxGirl4Life
05-16-2009, 07:44 PM
Talk about over reactions! :kukoo:

Frater Perdurabo
05-16-2009, 08:18 PM
One of these days, somebody's going to be ejected for farting.

:tiphat:

bridgeportcopper
05-16-2009, 08:21 PM
Why are the Rangers all of a sudden becoming Public enemy #1?

Noneck
05-16-2009, 08:30 PM
Nice to see a pitcher protecting his batters, If he was.

ChiSoxFan81
05-16-2009, 09:12 PM
One of these days, somebody's going to be ejected for farting.

May be closer than you think.

http://deadspin.com/5200335/soccer-player-receives-yellow-card-for-farting

manders_01
05-17-2009, 12:12 PM
Why are the Rangers all of a sudden becoming Public enemy #1?

They're slowly making their way to the top of my list.

TDog
05-17-2009, 12:56 PM
Nice to see a pitcher protecting his batters, If he was.

It likely had nothing to do with protecting hitters, and it it was it certainly justifies the ejection.

I looked at the replay on mlb.com and don't know if he got a warning after the first pitch. It looks like the first pitch, although it was behind the batter, was considered to have gotten away from Lackey. The second pitch left no doubt of his intention. If Lackey's control was that bad, that close to the hitter, he had no business pitching that day anyway.

An umpire can eject a pitcher at any time if he believes he is throwing at a hitter. No warning need precede such an ejection.

If it happened when White Sox opponents throw at White Sox hitters (I am taking the word of people who post here that this is happening -- I don't know that it is), there would be a lot less whining and asinine statements asserting White Sox pitchers should throw at opposing hitters.

pythons007
05-17-2009, 01:19 PM
It likely had nothing to do with protecting hitters, and it it was it certainly justifies the ejection.

I looked at the replay on mlb.com and don't know if he got a warning after the first pitch. It looks like the first pitch, although it was behind the batter, was considered to have gotten away from Lackey. The second pitch left no doubt of his intention. If Lackey's control was that bad, that close to the hitter, he had no business pitching that day anyway.

An umpire can eject a pitcher at any time if he believes he is throwing at a hitter. No warning need precede such an ejection.

If it happened when White Sox opponents throw at White Sox hitters (I am taking the word of people who post here that this is happening -- I don't know that it is), there would be a lot less whining and asinine statements asserting White Sox pitchers should throw at opposing hitters.

Yeah well the umpire should have given Lackey a little bit more of a leash than 2 pitches, especially coming off the DL. I think that was a little overboard.

What about the series we just had with Texas where 6 Sox hitters got beaned and no warnings or ejections were given out. Bobby then throws behind Kinsler and gets a warning. I mean ***!?!

There needs to be more consistancy on these things. I mean the pitcher has as much right to the inside corner as does the hitter. Sure you have to protect the hitter but with all the battle armor they have these days its almost like the catcher is coming up to hit with full gear on.

TDog
05-17-2009, 01:33 PM
Yeah well the umpire should have given Lackey a little bit more of a leash than 2 pitches, especially coming off the DL. I think that was a little overboard.

What about the series we just had with Texas where 6 Sox hitters got beaned and no warnings or ejections were given out. Bobby then throws behind Kinsler and gets a warning. I mean ***!?!

There needs to be more consistancy on these things. I mean the pitcher has as much right to the inside corner as does the hitter. Sure you have to protect the hitter but with all the battle armor they have these days its almost like the catcher is coming up to hit with full gear on.

Giving a pitcher a warning does nothing to penalize the pitcher, although in Lackey's case it might have improved his control a bit. Everyone is much better off if umpires eject a pitcher if he throws behind a hitter or obviously hits one intentionally before warning everyone else.

It comes off as nothing but silly whining when Sox fans complain about Jenks' warning. If Jenks had pitched inside, he might have even hit Kinsler without prompting a warning. Jenks deserved a warning. It wasn't much of a penalty for him to be warned. And if a Rangers pitcher had been warned earlier in the game, the umpire would have ejected Jenks in the ninth.

I am beginning to think Kinsler is the type of player who, through his actions, is asking for pitchers to throw at him.

pythons007
05-17-2009, 02:47 PM
Giving a pitcher a warning does nothing to penalize the pitcher, although in Lackey's case it might have improved his control a bit. Everyone is much better off if umpires eject a pitcher if he throws behind a hitter or obviously hits one intentionally before warning everyone else.

It comes off as nothing but silly whining when Sox fans complain about Jenks' warning. If Jenks had pitched inside, he might have even hit Kinsler without prompting a warning. Jenks deserved a warning. It wasn't much of a penalty for him to be warned. And if a Rangers pitcher had been warned earlier in the game, the umpire would have ejected Jenks in the ninth.

I am beginning to think Kinsler is the type of player who, through his actions, is asking for pitchers to throw at him.

That still doesn't answer for the six hitters who were hit by Texas pitching without any punishment. They continued to be allowed to throw inside and hit players at will. I remember Ramirez twice in one at bat doing his best impression of the limbo. (I'm not a complaining Sox fan, because I'm talking about Lackey's situation and I'm using references to what I've been able to watch. Not to mention its a pretty good reference.)

How could you say that Jenks deserved his warning when, a lot of balls were thrown at the Sox heads in that series? Whats the difference from behind a player and nearly hitting him in the head?

On a side note, I saw on Baseball Tonight that beanballs are at a dramatic increase this year.

TDog
05-17-2009, 04:22 PM
That still doesn't answer for the six hitters who were hit by Texas pitching without any punishment. They continued to be allowed to throw inside and hit players at will. I remember Ramirez twice in one at bat doing his best impression of the limbo. (I'm not a complaining Sox fan, because I'm talking about Lackey's situation and I'm using references to what I've been able to watch. Not to mention its a pretty good reference.)

How could you say that Jenks deserved his warning when, a lot of balls were thrown at the Sox heads in that series? Whats the difference from behind a player and nearly hitting him in the head?

On a side note, I saw on Baseball Tonight that beanballs are at a dramatic increase this year.

In the American League the pitcher doesn't have to worry about being on the business end of inside pitches. That is one of the criticisms of the DH. If umpires are getting stricter on pitchers that were obviously meant to knock down hitters, it is because they are aware the problem is getting out of control. But not every hit batsman is being thrown at. I've seen umpires not eject pitchers after hitting someone after warnings were issued in the game.

The hitter most often hit on the White Sox is Quentin, and I doubt pitchers are throwing at him. They pound him inside while he crowds the plate, and he isn't quick about getting out of the way.

If a pitcher threw behind Quentin, I would advocate his ejection on the spot, whether there has been a warning issued or not.