PDA

View Full Version : Umpire ends Buehrle's streak


nordhagen
08-01-2005, 01:37 PM
Buehrle's six-inning streak ended at 49 games with two outs in the fifth thanks to dope home plate umpire Brian Gorman, who ejected Buehrle for hitting B.J. Surhoff. This was in retaliation for Daniel Cabrera hitting A.J. in the back with a 3-0 fastball in the top of the fifth.

No warnings were issued and Buehrle hit Surhoff in the back shoulder. Surhoff showed he was a pro who knew what was going on and just ran to first base and took it like a man with no glares or threats. The ejection was ridiculous. Hawk was classic as he got all fired up and called Gorman inept and nearly called him an idiot and said he was the only guy in the park who didn't know what was going on.

Rocklive99
08-01-2005, 01:39 PM
Rooney was also irate, saying on the air that KW should file grievance.

Really ridiculous, especially after hitting Iguchi last night, and that Joe West warned Ozzie right after that happened that he'd be in trouble if he retaliated.

Complete BS

PatK
08-01-2005, 01:41 PM
It's also in retaliation for the intentional beaning of Iguchi last night.

Complete and utter BS. No warning was issued after AJ's beaning, so I don't know why he got tossed. I would think they would use the "we're only up 1 run, why would I put the tying run on?" defense.

Horrible way to end a streak.

patbooyah
08-01-2005, 01:43 PM
Horrible way to end a streak.

i disagree. a horrible way would have been to get shelled in the second inning.

a great way for it to end is by putting your team ahead of your own personal records.

tstrike2000
08-01-2005, 01:43 PM
Absolutely a bunch of crap. The umpires apparently don't know when to issue warnings and/or ejections, just whatever feels right. Hopefully we can just sweep and get out of roid-viagraville.

BainesHOF
08-01-2005, 01:43 PM
Baltimore hit three batters, including two today, before Buehrle hit Surhoff. The call was one of the biggest bush league calls I've seen an umpire make. It makes no sense whatsoever.

As you might expect, Hawk went nuts. He said the league should take action against Gorman. Hawk's suggestion was a fine. Mine is a suspension. They hit us THREE times and their pitchers stay in the game and we hit ONE batter and Buehrle gets ejected?! If Gorman lacks that much common sense, and apparently he does, he really shouldn't be an umpire.

If was I was Pierzynski, I might "accidently" miss a fastball before this game is done.

itsnotrequired
08-01-2005, 01:44 PM
i disagree. a horrible way would have been to get shelled in the second inning.

a great way for it to end is by putting your team ahead of your own personal records.

What he said...

Ol' No. 2
08-01-2005, 01:49 PM
Why does everyone seem to think that warnings are the least bit relevant? If the umpire thinks you drilled a guy intentionally, you're gone. Regardless of who else was hit previously. Any ump. Any time.

soltrain21
08-01-2005, 01:50 PM
Why does everyone seem to think that warnings are the least bit relevant? If the umpire thinks you drilled a guy intentionally, you're gone. Regardless of who else was hit previously. Any ump. Any time.

So why wasn't Cabrera tossed?

Ol' No. 2
08-01-2005, 01:53 PM
So why wasn't Cabrera tossed?Because in Buehrle's case it was an obvious retaliation. You're going to get tossed 100% of the time for that.

fquaye149
08-01-2005, 01:53 PM
well...now mr. genius can tell us how an umpire didn't almost change the shape of a game.


2 outs, 2 on with a one run lead and we're forced to bring vizcaino in.

If he gives up a bomb, all of a sudden we probably lose the game, and you think a bull**** call by the ump wouldn't have played a humungous part in that?

Gremlin3
08-01-2005, 01:54 PM
That kind of call can make a huge difference. Now we just need to win and shut them up.

TimChamp
08-01-2005, 01:56 PM
Why does everyone seem to think that warnings are the least bit relevant? If the umpire thinks you drilled a guy intentionally, you're gone. Regardless of who else was hit previously. Any ump. Any time.

I don't care as much that he didn't give a warning and that Buehrle ended his streak AND that we've been hit TWICE TODAY...What I do care about is the umpire COMPLETELY UNAWARE of the situation. That HBP put runners on 1st and 2nd which PUT THE GO-AHEAD RUN AT 1ST BASE. NOW WHY WOULD BUERHLE DO THAT?!?! There is a DISTINCT possibility that it slipped his hand. The RIGHT THING TO DO would have been to ISSUE A WARNING; NOT EJECT THE PITCHER BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT HE THRE INTENTIONALLY AT HIM...

I apologize if I seem pissed at you, but it's directed more at the Ump than anything...what a bonehead...I've seen this all year where the Umps always seem to bew against us and I'm sick and tired of seeing umps do this to our team this year...:angry: :angry: :angry:


--Champ out

Ol' No. 2
08-01-2005, 02:00 PM
I don't care as much that he didn't give a warning and that Buehrle ended his streak AND that we've been hit TWICE TODAY...What I do care about is the umpire COMPLETELY UNAWARE of the situation. That HBP put runners on 1st and 2nd which PUT THE GO-AHEAD RUN AT 1ST BASE. NOW WHY WOULD BUERHLE DO THAT?!?! There is a DISTINCT possibility that it slipped his hand. The RIGHT THING TO DO would have been to ISSUE A WARNING; NOT EJECT THE PITCHER BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT HE THRE INTENTIONALLY AT HIM...

I apologize if I seem pissed at you, but it's directed more at the Ump than anything...what a bonehead...I've seen this all year where the Umps always seem to bew against us and I'm sick and tired of seeing umps do this to our team this year...:angry: :angry: :angry:


--Champ outRant all you want, EVERY umpire would have done exactly the same thing, regardless of the situation. Let's not kid ourselves. It was intentional. A plunking that appears to be in retaliation will draw an ejection every time.

TDog
08-01-2005, 02:03 PM
Why does everyone seem to think that warnings are the least bit relevant? If the umpire thinks you drilled a guy intentionally, you're gone. Regardless of who else was hit previously. Any ump. Any time.

Exactly. This has happened to the Sox in previous years. This is why you don't retaliate, even without warnings being issued. It's the umps fault for not keeping control of the game, but that doesn't mean you won't suffer from their arbitrary and capricious nature.

The difference between the two hit batters this game is that the Sox retaliated, destroying the premise that "it got away."

seventytwo
08-01-2005, 02:04 PM
Rant all you want, EVERY umpire would have done exactly the same thing, regardless of the situation. Let's not kid ourselves. It was intentional. A plunking that appears to be in retaliation will draw an ejection every time.

I'm sorry, but that's just false. How many times have you seen a guy retaliate in the past 5 years---and then warnings were issued to both benches?

A lot.

Steakpita
08-01-2005, 02:05 PM
Nah... having seen it and been an umpire, I disagree with the ejection. The real question is why wasn't a warning given when Cabrera's obviously intentional HBP took place? If you're going to eject a starting pitcher in a game like this, it's gotta be while a warning is in place. Otherwise you look mercurial and, well, like you're playing favorites. Oh well... as someone up there said, there are much worse way's for Buehrle's streak to end. Let's go out and win this game.

nordhagen
08-01-2005, 02:06 PM
Rant all you want, EVERY umpire would have done exactly the same thing, regardless of the situation. Let's not kid ourselves. It was intentional. A plunking that appears to be in retaliation will draw an ejection every time.

I would respectfully disagree that EVERY umpire would have done the same thing. I've seen plenty of games where one guy gets hit, another guy on the other team gets plunked and then the warnings are issued and everyone moves on.

The Dude
08-01-2005, 02:07 PM
i disagree. a horrible way would have been to get shelled in the second inning.

a great way for it to end is by putting your team ahead of your own personal records.

Pat, you hit it right on the head. That's exactly my take on the streak. The best possible way to have it taken away is sticking up for your teammates.
0 ER, 5 & 2/3...just 1 out from extending it. Great job Burlymon!:D:
Now lets pick up the W for him.

fquaye149
08-01-2005, 02:08 PM
Rant all you want, EVERY umpire would have done exactly the same thing, regardless of the situation. Let's not kid ourselves. It was intentional. A plunking that appears to be in retaliation will draw an ejection every time.

this is like when Gagne got run after plunking the winning run on first base, tying on second.

Who hits the go ahead run on base with two outs?

Buehrle faced three batters that inning before plunking surhoff.

it doesn't make sense. You nail the first batter of the inning...not the go ahead run with two outs and a man on.

TimChamp
08-01-2005, 02:08 PM
Rant all you want, EVERY umpire would have done exactly the same thing, regardless of the situation. Let's not kid ourselves. It was intentional. A plunking that appears to be in retaliation will draw an ejection every time.

Well, I guess that's true, but ANYBODY that's ever played the game of baseball WOULD KNOW that EVEN IF IT WAS in retaliation IT'S PART OF THE GAME...B.J. Surhoff's reaction said it all. He put his head down and went to 1st base. And as much as I hate Surhoff, that just shows me how much he knows the game of baseball. DEFINITELY better than any if those umps on the field today who never played a game of professional baseball in their life...That's what I have a problem with.


--Champ out

miker
08-01-2005, 02:15 PM
Running up the score on the O's is enough retaliation for me!

TimChamp
08-01-2005, 02:17 PM
Running up the score on the O's is enough retaliation for me!

The icing on the cake would be to put Jenks in the game with his 100 mph fastball and have A.J. "accidentally" miss the ball...Heck, A.J.'s had a ton of past balls this year anyway...So it wouldn't seem that out of the ordinary...


--Champ out to see what happens

Rocklive99
08-01-2005, 02:18 PM
Why does everyone seem to think that warnings are the least bit relevant? If the umpire thinks you drilled a guy intentionally, you're gone. Regardless of who else was hit previously. Any ump. Any time.

Then what is the point of having warnings at all? This has happened to us in the past, but you'd think we'd get a little more respect with the best record in the league, rather than continuing the trend of getting hit and not being able to retaliate (I think it happened in Oakland this year too), which in this case took out our ace and takes away part of our pitcher's plate. This was an intentional beaning, but so was the one on Iguchi

miker
08-01-2005, 02:24 PM
you'd think we'd get a little more respect with the best record in the league
Don't count on it. I'm surprised we've made it this far without getting teacup-sized strike zones every night by showing up Hunter Wendelstadt and the other rejects from the last series in Oakland.

BainesHOF
08-01-2005, 02:24 PM
Rant all you want, EVERY umpire would have done exactly the same thing, regardless of the situation.

No they wouldn't have. In fact, I doubt if one other umpire would have acted the same way.

TDog
08-01-2005, 02:35 PM
No they wouldn't have. In fact, I doubt if one other umpire would have acted the same way.

In chat last night, I warned that Garcia could get tossed even without warnings being issued because it DOES happen sometimes. The fact that it can and the fact that umpires' decisions stand is reason enough not to retaliate.

Complain away. It won't do you any good.

Vernam
08-01-2005, 02:36 PM
i disagree. a horrible way would have been to get shelled in the second inning.

a great way for it to end is by putting your team ahead of your own personal records.:gulp: Man, I could not agree more. Buehrle clearly doesn't care about this or any other record, and nothing could testify better to his team spirit than ending the streak when he protected a teammate.

Now we know what it takes to make Ozzie throw at someone, assuming Mark wasn't freelancing. I'm proud of what Ozzie did yesterday during and after the game, speaking out for Iguchi and exposing Baltimore for the bushers they are. To hit AJ in presumed retaliation for Ozzie's comments just confirms how right he was. They're going straight down the toilet, and I only wish the O's had traded for Burnett so they could flush a bunch of prospects down with their season, too.

VC

halfpricemonday
08-01-2005, 02:38 PM
So I was on the CTA and just heard about the ejection. I'm wondering what was Farmio's and Rooney's reaction immediately after the plunking. John and Ed are still talking about it right now, so I'm guessing they weren't too happy about it at the time. But were they as apoplectic as Hawk? (I'm assuming no, but just asking.)

gobears1987
08-01-2005, 02:40 PM
Rant all you want, EVERY umpire would have done exactly the same thing, regardless of the situation. Let's not kid ourselves. It was intentional. A plunking that appears to be in retaliation will draw an ejection every time.
If that were true, the Toons would've had a pitcher ejected after they hit Dye a few weeks ago.

TimChamp
08-01-2005, 02:40 PM
So I was on the CTA and just heard about the ejection. I'm wondering what was Farmio's and Rooney's reaction immediately after the plunking. John and Ed are still talking about it right now, so I'm guessing they weren't too happy about it at the time. But were they as apoplectic as Hawk? (I'm assuming no, but just asking.)

As Hawk, would sarcastically say to DJ sometimes, "YEAH! Daggum right he was!" :D:


--Champ out

PatK
08-01-2005, 02:55 PM
i disagree. a horrible way would have been to get shelled in the second inning.

a great way for it to end is by putting your team ahead of your own personal records.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that he stuck up for his teammates.

I'm just not happy about how it happened, with an umpire making an horrible call that could have affected the game.

Sxy Mofo
08-01-2005, 02:58 PM
Dye ends up on second as Surhoff loses the ball in the sun. It hit Surhoff in the shoulder. Dye is ejected from the game for that but is credited with a double. Rowand strikes out.

And for those asking, Dye wasn't ejected. Just some sarcasm.


Thought i'd share that with you guys... thought it was pretty fun considering the context of the game.

TornLabrum
08-01-2005, 02:58 PM
It's also in retaliation for the intentional beaning of Iguchi last night.

Complete and utter BS. No warning was issued after AJ's beaning, so I don't know why he got tossed. I would think they would use the "we're only up 1 run, why would I put the tying run on?" defense.

Horrible way to end a streak.

Nobody was "beaned." A beaning is hitting someone in the "bean," i.e. the head.

ChiSoxPatF
08-01-2005, 02:59 PM
Maybe I'm just a paranoid Sox fan but does this seem to be a trend for the Sox with the umps? It seems like every time we get plunked more than ordinary in a series one of our guys is the one that ultimately gets tossed, even if it was unintentional.

I'm struggling for multiple examples but with Crede's HBP in Oakland and the beanball fest against the Cubs (when they plunked like 8 batters and WE got the warning) it seems like we're always the target of the ump's ire, even when we're on the receiving end.

I'm not crying conspiracy or blaming anyone but does this seem to be a trend to anyone else?

Iwritecode
08-01-2005, 03:00 PM
I would respectfully disagree that EVERY umpire would have done the same thing. I've seen plenty of games where one guy gets hit, another guy on the other team gets plunked and then the warnings are issued and everyone moves on.

Those are the umps that actually realize that's how the game is played and allow the pitchers to protect their players.

You hit our guy, we hit yours. Fair is fair.

Not you hit 3 of our guys and we hit 1 of yours and get an ejection out of it... :angry:

Iwritecode
08-01-2005, 03:02 PM
Thought i'd share that with you guys... thought it was pretty fun considering the context of the game.
[/size][/font]

I saw that as well. It's almost sad that he actually had to put the "just kidding" because I just *knew* somebody was going to ask why he was ejected...

miker
08-01-2005, 03:05 PM
I'm not crying conspiracy or blaming anyone but does this seem to be a trend to anyone else?
When you're on top of the mountain, expect everyone will try to knock you off.

Rooney4Prez56
08-01-2005, 03:06 PM
How many batter has Buehrle hit this season? Not many. So why does hitting one batter get him ejected after three Sox hitters were hit this series?
I am P.O'd, because Buehrle is my favorite player, and I hate to see his remarkable streak end this way. I hope Buehrle will put this behind him and continue to pitch the way he has all season....now, HOW ABOUT RAFFY?

Lip Man 1
08-01-2005, 03:08 PM
Just a few thoughts....

Mark Buehrle is a stand up guy for doing this if in fact, it was deliberate. Personally I don't think it was. Nobody hits a guy to put another guy on base in a hitter friendly ballpark in a tight game or relatively tight.

On the other hand one must at least consider the possibility that Mark had enough confidence in himself to get the next hitter out, that he might have done it on purpose, to protect his teammates.

You realize of course that he may get a slight suspension over this, perhaps two or three games. He won't miss a start but it will hit him in the pocketbook.

Another amazing story in the book of Buehrle. (Not bad for a guy who got a chance to start because of the number of pitchers coming off surgery in 2001! Maybe the baseball gods do once in a century smile on the Sox...)

Lip

Vernam
08-01-2005, 03:09 PM
For people who saw the game, how did Buehrle react when he got tossed? Did he remonstrate? I can't wait to see the footage.

VC

mr_genius
08-01-2005, 03:09 PM
well...now mr. genius can tell us how an umpire didn't almost change the shape of a game.




i can't believe we were able to still win... impossible to do after a bad call

ding ding

Daver
08-01-2005, 03:10 PM
Just a few thoughts....

Mark Buehrle is a stand up guy for doing this if in fact, it was deliberate. Personally I don't think it was.


It was deliberate, AJ signaled for it.

fquaye149
08-01-2005, 03:11 PM
i can't believe we were able to still win... impossible to do after a bad call

ding ding


So you're saying we weren't handicapped?

You don't think throwing Vizcaino in the game in the middle of a rally changes things?

The outcome doesn't mean something was right or wrong. Something being right or wrong determines if something was right or wrong.

For instance if we're up by one in the bottom of the ninth in the world series and Ozzie brings Adkins in to close, was it a smart move if we win the game?

I would say no.

If the umpire ****s us over, does it not hurt our chances to win just because we won the game?

for someone named mr. genius you sure are pretty dull.

mr_genius
08-01-2005, 03:13 PM
It was deliberate, AJ signaled for it.

if it was i like picking Surhoff as the the "plunkee"

shows no respect for them by hitting one of their "respected" veterans

Rocklive99
08-01-2005, 03:13 PM
I know Buerhle did it purposely, but looking at the situations, you could make the case that last night's was more intentional. Hitting Iguchi (who was a part of a Sox lineup that has kicked the O's ass this weekend), with 2 outs and nobody on, or Buehrle hitting someone in a 1 run game to put a runner in scoring position.

fquaye149
08-01-2005, 03:14 PM
It was deliberate, AJ signaled for it.

If that's the case, then I take back much of my outrage. I only saw the gamecast on cbs and heard what posters here said.

However, when we get plunked 4 times in 2 games...have one of our key players get hurt as a result, and yet the only player tossed is our pitcher who accounted for our only hbp of the series, i'm still a little raw.

And this doesn't change my opinion that Wendlestedt and Froemmig were the MAIN REASONS we lost those two in Oaktown way back when

mr_genius
08-01-2005, 03:20 PM
So you're saying we weren't handicapped?

You don't think throwing Vizcaino in the game in the middle of a rally changes things?

The outcome doesn't mean something was right or wrong. Something being right or wrong determines if something was right or wrong.

For instance if we're up by one in the bottom of the ninth in the world series and Ozzie brings Adkins in to close, was it a smart move if we win the game?

I would say no.

If the umpire ****s us over, does it not hurt our chances to win just because we won the game?

for someone named mr. genius you sure are pretty dull.

*****!!!

yes, we were handicapped on a bad ejection. isn't the first time it has happened won't be the last. gotta play over it, which we did.

of course viz being thrown into the game changes things. your masterful art at stating the obvious is truly amazing.

as far as your right or wrong argument, ***? c'mon you post like you're 12

if ozzie brings in Adkins in a close game and we win was it a good move? :?: uh, i guess any move that works is "good"...

BTW, your whining is amusing to me please continue.

your pal,
mr_genius

TaylorStSox
08-01-2005, 03:21 PM
this is like when Gagne got run after plunking the winning run on first base, tying on second.

Who hits the go ahead run on base with two outs?

Buehrle faced three batters that inning before plunking surhoff.

it doesn't make sense. You nail the first batter of the inning...not the go ahead run with two outs and a man on.

Surhoff owns Mark. He was going to walk him anyway. So, he hit him. The call sucked, but that's baseball. I doubt Mark cares about that streak.

Cheers to Mark for doing the right thing. :gulp:

TornLabrum
08-01-2005, 03:23 PM
Just a few thoughts....

Mark Buehrle is a stand up guy for doing this if in fact, it was deliberate. Personally I don't think it was. Nobody hits a guy to put another guy on base in a hitter friendly ballpark in a tight game or relatively tight.

On the other hand one must at least consider the possibility that Mark had enough confidence in himself to get the next hitter out, that he might have done it on purpose, to protect his teammates.

You realize of course that he may get a slight suspension over this, perhaps two or three games. He won't miss a start but it will hit him in the pocketbook.

Another amazing story in the book of Buehrle. (Not bad for a guy who got a chance to start because of the number of pitchers coming off surgery in 2001! Maybe the baseball gods do once in a century smile on the Sox...)

Lip

It was deliberate, Lip. Don't kid yourself. My favorite moment was when Buehrle returned to the dugout and was knocking fists with the guys in there.

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 03:25 PM
Daver...what do you mean AJ signaled it? I didn't see the game...seriously did he point at the guy? I'm not sure how a catcher signals to hit a guy without making it obvious...you sure he didn't call an inside fastball?

This makes no sense as being intentional. Why not hit Sosa with 2 outs and no one on??? Instead you wait for the next guy to put the tying run on second??

I mean I have the urge to romanticize this as much as the rest of you...as Buerhle putting the team before his personal glory, but gimmie a break. He hit Surhoff by accident and was screwed by a bad call.

Buerhle would have done more for this team (and its overworked pen) by staying in the game and pitching 2 more innings of ball. He knows that, and that is why he did not retaliate.

This was a BS call...and anyone that actually played the game would have never made it.

mr_genius
08-01-2005, 03:25 PM
It was deliberate, Lip. Don't kid yourself. My favorite moment was when Buehrle returned to the dugout and was knocking fists with the guys in there.

totally, someone HAD to get hit today

i don't think they should have ejected Buehrle without a warning first

but i am biased

TaylorStSox
08-01-2005, 03:26 PM
If he didn't plunk him, you were going to see the "unintentional intentional walk" anyway. Surhoff was all over everything Mark threw today. Good pitchers take the better match up, despite putting the winning run on base.

Daver
08-01-2005, 03:28 PM
Daver...what do you megnals to hit a guy without making it obvious...you sure he didn't call an inside fastball?


Watch a signal sequence, if you seen the catcher point at the batters box twice in a sequence, it is generally a call for the pitcher to throw at the batter.

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 03:34 PM
Ok...well like I said I didn't see the game so for all I know thats what happened. But I've been playing baseball for 16 years now, including college, and I think the last time I heard a catcher and pitcher talk about a sign for intentionally hitting someone was fifth grade. I'm not saying this didn't happen but 1) why would mark need someone to tell him to do it...wouldn't he do it himself if he wanted to? and 2) Wouldn't Mark and AJ have discussed this in the dugout beforehand? aka..we'll hit Surhoff when he comes up.

For what its worth more often than not when a catcher points towards a left-handed batter he is pointing towards first...for a called pickoff.

zach23
08-01-2005, 03:34 PM
I think this just galvanizes this team even more. And they were already a pretty tight team before this. Mark's teammates see that he puts them above any personal streaks or stats.
After Mark did this, the team seemed to respond with energy. Mark sticks up for A.J. and he in turn goes out and hits a HR. This could be the type of thing that really ignites them (not that they haven't been playing great already). Toronto and Seattle may walk into a buzz saw this week.

Mark'sBrokenFoot
08-01-2005, 03:35 PM
This was a BS call...and anyone that actually played the game would have never made it.

How do you know what people who played the game would do?

TaylorStSox
08-01-2005, 03:35 PM
Ok...well like I said I didn't see the game so for all I know thats what happened. But I've been playing baseball for 16 years now, including college, and I think the last time I heard a catcher and pitcher talk about a sign for intentionally hitting someone was fifth grade. I'm not saying this didn't happen but 1) why would mark need someone to tell him to do it...wouldn't he do it himself if he wanted to? and 2) Wouldn't Mark and AJ have discussed this in the dugout beforehand? aka..we'll hit Surhoff when he comes up.

For what its worth more often than not when a catcher points towards a left-handed batter he is pointing towards first...for a called pickoff.

You didn't see the game, but you don't think it was intentional? :?:

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 03:36 PM
I'm not trying to be annoying here, and by all means I think Buerhle needed to hit someone...I just think it should have been Sosa. At the same time, I don't think Mark is disappointed that he hit Surhoff.

TaylorStSox
08-01-2005, 03:38 PM
I'm not trying to be annoying here, and by all means I think Buerhle needed to hit someone...I just think it should have been Sosa. At the same time, I don't think Mark is disappointed that he hit Surhoff.

Surhoff was 6 for 8 lifetime off of Mark. He crushed the ball everytime he took a swing and was 2 for 2 on the day. Mark wasn't going to pitch to him again. I think Gomez was hitting behind Surhoff. Yes, you hit or walk Surhoff in that situation and take your chances with Gomez.

MHOUSE
08-01-2005, 03:39 PM
Rant all you want, EVERY umpire would have done exactly the same thing, regardless of the situation. Let's not kid ourselves. It was intentional. A plunking that appears to be in retaliation will draw an ejection every time.

Then why wasn't Todd Williams ejected last night for a blatant beaning of Iguchi. 2 outs, bases empty, baseball in the kidney, I've seen guys ejected for far less obvious beanings. That was ridiculous and to see Buehrle tossed today was awful.

mr_genius
08-01-2005, 03:39 PM
I'm not trying to be annoying here, and by all means I think Buerhle needed to hit someone...I just think it should have been Sosa. At the same time, I don't think Mark is disappointed that he hit Surhoff.

why would you hit Sosa? he is an easy out... no juice = no hit

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 03:44 PM
How do you know what people who played the game would do?

Because having played the game in college, anyone that has played the game at that level can tell what is an intentional hit by pitch and what wasn't. The game situation dictates a lot of this.

I have been involved in a bench clearing incident in which my teammate was thrown behind after our pitcher hit 3 guys in the top half of the inning (granted two were on curve balls). He said to us before his at bat...I'm getting hit here and I'm going out there...get my back. THE POINT IS HE KNEW AHEAD OF TIME IT WAS HAPPENING.

You didn't see the game, but you don't think it was intentional? :?:

There is no way in hell you hit a guy to put the tying run on second base. You just don't do it. If Buerhle wanted to do it the perfect time was when Sosa was up. I didn't need to see the game, I was watching it on MLB Gameday. The situation tells me all that I need to know concerning whether or not it was intentional.

Surhoff was 6 for 8 lifetime off of Mark. He crushed the ball everytime he took a swing and was 2 for 2 on the day. Mark wasn't going to pitch to him again. I think Gomez was hitting behind Surhoff. Yes, you hit or walk Surhoff in that situation and take your chances with Gomez.

please...don't give me the Surhoff was 6-8 against Buerhle crap...because if that's the reason he hit him instead of Sosa that is just as bad as what the Oriole's pitcher's did to us...You don't hit a person because you can't get them out...see Ozzie's rant if you disagree. Buerhle is a coward if you buy this as the reasoning...and I don't think Buerhle is a coward.

Sosa would have been hit if this was intentional. Romanticize all you want...I'm a realist.

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 03:48 PM
I personally think the whole warning thing is garbage anyway...too often it means guys can't pitch inside and someone get's tossed for hitting a guy in the elbow on a 0-2 curve.

My thoughts are this...you hit a guy after 1 or 2 of your guys are hit, that's fine...that's baseball...AS LONG AS YOU THROW BELOW THE WAIST. Any more than that, or a retaliation by the other team....or anything at the head and you are GONE. No warning needed.

That being said, Buerhle should not have been tossed.

Hey, but why fight...Viz got the job done and we won the game.

...the best revenge is living well :)

RedHeadPaleHoser
08-01-2005, 03:52 PM
Just found this on ESPN's site...forgiveness if duplicated, but it's the best part of the article.


Upon reaching the dugout, Buehrle (12-4) bumped fists with several of his teammates. Despite the early departure, he earned the win after allowing no earned runs on five hits.

TaylorStSox
08-01-2005, 03:56 PM
Because having played the game in college, anyone that has played the game at that level can tell what is an intentional hit by pitch and what wasn't. The game situation dictates a lot of this.

I have been involved in a bench clearing incident in which my teammate was thrown behind after our pitcher hit 3 guys in the top half of the inning (granted two were on curve balls). He said to us before his at bat...I'm getting hit here and I'm going out there...get my back. THE POINT IS HE KNEW AHEAD OF TIME IT WAS HAPPENING.



There is no way in hell you hit a guy to put the tying run on second base. You just don't do it. If Buerhle wanted to do it the perfect time was when Sosa was up. I didn't need to see the game, I was watching it on MLB Gameday. The situation tells me all that I need to know concerning whether or not it was intentional.



please...don't give me the Surhoff was 6-8 against Buerhle crap...because if that's the reason he hit him instead of Sosa that is just as bad as what the Oriole's pitcher's did to us...You don't hit a person because you can't get them out...see Ozzie's rant if you disagree. Buerhle is a coward if you buy this as the reasoning...and I don't think Buerhle is a coward.

Sosa would have been hit if this was intentional. Romanticize all you want...I'm a realist.

You're a coward because you choose to hit the guy that's been hitting you hard? He was going to hit somebody anyway. It might as well be the guy that you're going to pitch around. You didn't watch the game, so you don't know the situation. You could tell that Surhoff knew it was intentional and he didn't get pissed. It's part of the game. He wasn't trying to hurt him.

Pretty much everybody that knows the game well, and actually WATCHED it, i.e. Daver and TornLabrum agree. Again, your opinion is moot if you didn't watch the game. I don't even know why I'm arguing about it.

TDog
08-01-2005, 03:56 PM
...

My thoughts are this...you hit a guy after 1 or 2 of your guys are hit, that's fine...that's baseball...AS LONG AS YOU THROW BELOW THE WAIST. Any more than that, or a retaliation by the other team....or anything at the head and you are GONE. No warning needed....

Ron Kittle got hit in the knee in the 1983 ALCS and was done for the year. He might have started in the 3-0 extra inning loss on Sunday if he had been hit in a rib. Instead he was on crutches that day.

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 03:57 PM
I mean I think it's ridiculous that you guys claim to know what was in Buerhle's mind when all evidence speaks to the contrary. Could this have been intentional? Sure. Does it put a positive spin on this crappy situation? It sure does. That's why I think everyone is so earger to believe it...the facts, and 100 plus years of baseball "ettiquite" suggest otherwise. But who knows...it may have been intentional.

But its laughable that so many are willing to abrupt blow off my logic while offering as evidence to the contrary, "He did it b/c Mark was sticking up for his teammates"....ignoring the fact that this HBP put the Sox in a much more difficult situation than before.

I don't care if Babe Ruth was up...I wouldn't intentionally put the tying run on second with two outs...where a signal hurts me...instead of pitching to Ruth, where he'd have to hit a double to do the job.

And no...BJ Surhoff at the end of his career is not Babe Ruth.

TaylorStSox
08-01-2005, 04:00 PM
I mean I think it's ridiculous that you guys claim to know what was in Buerhle's mind when all evidence speaks to the contrary. Could this have been intentional? Sure. Does it put a positive spin on this crappy situation? It sure does. That's why I think everyone is so earger to believe it...the facts, and 100 plus years of baseball "ettiquite" suggest otherwise. But who knows...it may have been intentional.

But its laughable that so many are willing to abrupt blow off my logic while offering as evidence to the contrary, "He did it b/c Mark was sticking up for his teammates"....ignoring the fact that this HBP put the Sox in a much more difficult situation than before.

I don't care if Babe Ruth was up...I wouldn't intentionally put the tying run on second with two outs...where a signal hurts me...instead of pitching to Ruth, where he'd have to hit a double to do the job.

And no...BJ Surhoff at the end of his career is not Babe Ruth.

This is coming from the guy who didn't see the game. LOL. :?:

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 04:02 PM
You're a coward because you choose to hit the guy that's been hitting you hard? He was going to hit somebody anyway. It might as well be the guy that you're going to pitch around. You didn't watch the game, so you don't know the situation. You could tell that Surhoff knew it was intentional and he didn't get pissed. It's part of the game. He wasn't trying to hurt him.

Pretty much everybody that knows the game well, and actually WATCHED it, i.e. Daver and TornLabrum agree. Again, your opinion is moot if you didn't watch the game. I don't even know why I'm arguing about it.

I will defer to Ozzie's comments after yesterday's incident:


"I don't respect that kind of game. Get people out. Get people out to be here. That's unnecessary. That's not baseball. You come here, this is the big leagues. This is not Little League or Triple-A or Double-A, where they can do whatever they want. People have to respect players. "That's chicken [bleep] what they did," Guillen added. "I think good pitchers win games and horse [bleep] pitchers hit people. You're going to hit somebody? It's not anybody's fault you got a [butt] kicking. Throw strikes and get people out. You can get somebody hurt."

No offense...but I'm pretty sure Ozzie saw the game yesterday, and I'm pretty sure he knows a lot more than either of us about baseball...so his opinion matters. Ozzie has told his pitchers in the past "DON'T RETALLIATE." He said as much to Garcia yesterday. I mean look at the history we've had as a team in these incidents, look at the game situation, and look at the way the game is played and you will see this was not intentional.

Dan H
08-01-2005, 04:04 PM
i disagree. a horrible way would have been to get shelled in the second inning.

a great way for it to end is by putting your team ahead of your own personal records.

You are right. Buehrle went with class like he always does. I am not concerned about the ejection. In the long run, this will work for the Sox just fine.

TaylorStSox
08-01-2005, 04:07 PM
I will defer to Ozzie's comments after yesterday's incident:


"I don't respect that kind of game. Get people out. Get people out to be here. That's unnecessary. That's not baseball. You come here, this is the big leagues. This is not Little League or Triple-A or Double-A, where they can do whatever they want. People have to respect players. "That's chicken [bleep] what they did," Guillen added. "I think good pitchers win games and horse [bleep] pitchers hit people. You're going to hit somebody? It's not anybody's fault you got a [butt] kicking. Throw strikes and get people out. You can get somebody hurt."

No offense...but I'm pretty sure Ozzie saw the game yesterday, and I'm pretty sure he knows a lot more than either of us about baseball...so his opinion matters. Ozzie has told his pitchers in the past "DON'T RETALLIATE." He said as much to Garcia yesterday. I mean look at the history we've had as a team in these incidents, look at the game situation, and look at the way the game is played and you will see this was not intentional.

How do you know the game situation when you didn't see the game?

I hear Bill James is hiring. He doesn't think you need to see the game to evaluate it either.

maurice
08-01-2005, 04:07 PM
Ozzie's comments came before yet another Sox batter was hit. Besides, AJ and Buerhle don't need Ozzie to tell them when and when not to hit a guy. It was the obvious thing to do, and the ovious guy to hit. Meanwhile, Vizcaino came in and K'ed the on-deck batter, ending the "rally."

While we're "looking at history," recall that Ozzie made similar anti-HBP arguments after the Hunter / Burke fiasco and in defense of Jackson. Shortly thereafter, Jackson was cut from the team.

TornLabrum
08-01-2005, 04:07 PM
Then why wasn't Todd Williams ejected last night for a blatant beaning of Iguchi. 2 outs, bases empty, baseball in the kidney, I've seen guys ejected for far less obvious beanings. That was ridiculous and to see Buehrle tossed today was awful.

The only relationship between a beaning and a kidney is that a kidney is a kind of bean. A beaning is hitting someone in the "bean," i.e. head.

DarkCloudDropo
08-01-2005, 04:07 PM
How do you know the game situation when you didn't see the game?

I hear Bill James is hiring. He doesn't think you need to see the game to evaluate it either.

Ever hear of the internet?

DarkCloudDropo
08-01-2005, 04:09 PM
The only relationship between a beaning and a kidney is that a kidney is a kind of bean. A beaning is hitting someone in the "bean," i.e. head.

Lol

Well done! :D:

TornLabrum
08-01-2005, 04:10 PM
Because having played the game in college, anyone that has played the game at that level can tell what is an intentional hit by pitch and what wasn't. The game situation dictates a lot of this.

I have been involved in a bench clearing incident in which my teammate was thrown behind after our pitcher hit 3 guys in the top half of the inning (granted two were on curve balls). He said to us before his at bat...I'm getting hit here and I'm going out there...get my back. THE POINT IS HE KNEW AHEAD OF TIME IT WAS HAPPENING.



There is no way in hell you hit a guy to put the tying run on second base. You just don't do it. If Buerhle wanted to do it the perfect time was when Sosa was up. I didn't need to see the game, I was watching it on MLB Gameday. The situation tells me all that I need to know concerning whether or not it was intentional.



please...don't give me the Surhoff was 6-8 against Buerhle crap...because if that's the reason he hit him instead of Sosa that is just as bad as what the Oriole's pitcher's did to us...You don't hit a person because you can't get them out...see Ozzie's rant if you disagree. Buerhle is a coward if you buy this as the reasoning...and I don't think Buerhle is a coward.

Sosa would have been hit if this was intentional. Romanticize all you want...I'm a realist.

So you're saying that a pitch behind a lefthanded batter that hits him on the left side of the batter's back is unintentional? Yeah, right....

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 04:10 PM
This is coming from the guy who didn't see the game. LOL. :?:

I saw the game situation. I know the game. So unless Buerhle pointed at Surhoff, lined up his shoulders, and went right after him...then there is nothing that would convince me by seeing it on tv that it was intentional. If he wanted to hit a guy, he wouldn't have hit that particular batter in that particular situation. He would have hit the leadoff guy, hit Sosa, or waited for a time when the game wasn't on the line to do it.

I am willing to concede the fact that it was intentional..I have done this already...why are you unwilling to concede the fact that it may not have been?

I mean people do get hit when a pitcher is trying to throw inside. This isn't girls softball...people do and should get hit on purpose...and I think someone should have gotten hit here...I just doubt that it wasn't "a fortuneous accident" based of the game situation and Ozzie's past insistance that his players don't throw at other players.

Iwritecode
08-01-2005, 04:11 PM
IMHO, I think he did it when he did to make it *look* like it wasn't intentional.

He already had two outs and enough confidence in himself to get out of the inning without allowing a run and still win the game. I seriously doubt he expected to get thrown out because of it.

Even if they lost the game they have a big enough lead in the division to go "against the book" sometimes...

maurice
08-01-2005, 04:12 PM
If he wanted to hit a guy, he wouldn't have hit that particular batter in that particular situation. He would have hit the leadoff guy . . . .

:o:
So it's the wrong situation to hit a guy who kills you with 2 outs and a schlub on deck, but it's good strategy to hit the leadoff guy with the cleanup hitter on deck?!?

TaylorStSox
08-01-2005, 04:13 PM
Why would he want to face Surhoff over Gomez. Surhoff kills lefties and more importantly, absolutely OWNS Buehrle.

tsamdog
08-01-2005, 04:14 PM
Who was up AFTER Surhoff?? Chris Gomez?? Subbing for the steroid-laden Raffy...(nice signage in right field....wonder if it stays?). I have another question: What were BJ and AJ talking about PRIOR to the first pitch. Seemed to me that they were having a casual conversation. It was a fastball....it was behind him.....Anything else is pure conjecture.

TaylorStSox
08-01-2005, 04:14 PM
:o:
So it's the wrong situation to hit a guy who kills you with 2 outs and a schlub on deck, but it's good strategy to hit the leadoff guy?!?

Exactly. He "knows" baseball though.

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 04:14 PM
Ozzie's comments came before yet another Sox batter was hit. Besides, AJ and Buerhle don't need Ozzie to tell them when and when not to hit a guy. It was the obvious thing to do, and the ovious guy to hit. Meanwhile, Vizcaino came in and K'ed the on-deck batter, ending the "rally."

While we're "looking at history," recall that Ozzie made similar anti-HBP arguments after the Hunter / Burke fiasco and in defense of Jackson. Shortly thereafter, Jackson was cut from the team.

Ok let's not reinvent history here. MikeJackson was cut from the team because he had an ERA over 5.00.

And I know I will get crucified for this but here goes:

I never had a problem with the Torii Hunter play...it was a clean play in the framework of the rules. Hunter's trying to score...Burke is trying to prevent him from scoring...let the best man win. If you want to debate whether or not there should be a safety rule like in college...fine...I personally think there should be...but Hunter did nothing illegal. That being said, I think it was crap when Lee didn't slide in hard at 2nd that same game...again a way of playing hard within the framework of the ruels.

nug0hs
08-01-2005, 04:15 PM
DEAL WITH IT! Mark's streak is over, but he got the win and the team got the sweep, thats what matters. Although it was tough news to hear the important thing is that we won the game and continued our forward surge. If you asked Mark he will probably say he didnt even know about this streak in the first place!

maurice
08-01-2005, 04:16 PM
Marc Jackson

When did we start talking about the NBA? :redneck

I don't have a problem with the Hunter play either . . . but Buehrle had a problem with it.

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 04:19 PM
:o:
So it's the wrong situation to hit a guy who kills you with 2 outs and a schlub on deck, but it's good strategy to hit the leadoff guy with the cleanup hitter on deck?!?

I'm not saying its good strategy, but its how its done sometimes. Usually a guy is hit with 2 outs and no one on...and what do you know...the batter before was up in that sitution.

You don't hit someone because they hit you...it's garbage. You hit someone to protect your players...you hit Sosa there.

I mean you guys actually think strategy was involved in hitting Surhoff? You would rather face someone with runners on first and second than someone with a runner only on first? Unless its a pitcher batting, that is crazy. How often is Puljos intentionally walked (or hit I guess) with a runner on first?

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 04:21 PM
When did we start talking about the NBA? :redneck

I don't have a problem with the Hunter play either . . . but Buehrle had a problem with it.

noted and corrected.

Only a couple more months until Bulls training camp :)

maurice
08-01-2005, 04:22 PM
You would rather face someone with runners on first and second than someone with a runner only on first?

The question is would Buehrle rather hit Sosa (putting a runner on for a batter who kills him) or face Gomez with runners on first and second.

How often is Puljos intentionally walked (or hit I guess) with a runner on first?

I don't know, but I do know that Jim Edmonds is a teensy bit better than Chris ".680 career OPS" Gomez.

tsamdog
08-01-2005, 04:23 PM
I don't know, but I do know that Jim Edmonds is a teensy bit better than Chris Gomez.


Gomez 1 / 11 lifetime v. MB

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 04:23 PM
Fine...how about Aubrey Huff and whoever bats behind him?

Mike Sweeney and whoever hits behind him?

The point still stands.

Vernam
08-01-2005, 04:24 PM
Ron Kittle got hit in the knee in the 1983 ALCS and was done for the year. He might have started in the 3-0 extra inning loss on Sunday if he had been hit in a rib. Instead he was on crutches that day.Thank god we finally got even for that one! :redneck I was 10 seats to the right of Tito Landrum's HR in the left field upper tank . . .

VC

MsSoxVixen22
08-01-2005, 04:27 PM
I personally could give a crap about the streak and I doubt Mark does either. What pissed me off was that Mark was thrown out with no warning and only hitting 1 batter. The O's hit how many of our guys thruought the 4 game set and no one was kicked out. I really really hope that a letter or something is done about those ump's. That call was complete B.S. :gulp: to Mark though for doing the right thing

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 04:29 PM
I think my signature is ironic in my arguement here.

Again, it points out that the situation does not dictate a HBP (in this case the pitcher is setting up the hitter for a curve away) but it also points out that there are moments where pitchers will buck the situation to make a point.

Again, I have said that this may have been the case. The only people that know for sure are Mark, AJ, probably Ozzie, and probably Surhoff.

I mean my God, none of you are at least willing to concede that this MAY have been an accident?

maurice
08-01-2005, 04:29 PM
Fine...how about Aubrey Huff and whoever bats behind him?

Probably not. The guy behind Huff has a .966 OPS.

Mike Sweeney and whoever hits behind him?

I would absolutely hit or walk Mike Sweeney 90% of the time. He kills us. I mean, who else would hit 2 HR and 5 RBI in a game against this year's staff?

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 04:31 PM
And the fact that this may or may not have been on purpose points to my original point....that Mark should not have been ejected. I mean do you really think the umpire in a split second processed Surhoff's OPS compared to Gomez's against Buerhle?

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 04:32 PM
Probably not. The guy behind Huff has a .966 OPS.



I would absolutely hit or walk Mike Sweeney 90% of the time. He kills us. I mean, who else would hit 2 HR and 5 RBI in a game against this year's staff?

Yet THE WHITE SOX...the team in question here that supposedly used this strategy...doesn't very often. Although maybe they should.

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 04:40 PM
Listen I may be wrong...I am man enough to admit that.

But I am still entitled to my opinion (and still stand by it), espeically since I backed it up with a logical arguement.

This has been fun though and has made my day go by fast...a lot better than the AJ Burnett rumour threads...I gotta run though (need to do some work before 5 today)...let's get 70 tomorrow.

TaylorStSox
08-01-2005, 04:42 PM
Yet THE WHITE SOX...the team in question here that supposedly used this strategy...doesn't very often. Although maybe they should.

Dude, if you would have seen the game and understood the situation then you would know. It was obvious. The HBP to AJ was obvious as well.

You don't pitch to Surhoff in that situation. It's that simple. Now, you can either work around him or hit him. It was the perfect time to hit him as there was motivation. It wasn't like he reached back and threw at his head. He threw a 85 MPH fast ball into the batter's box. Everyone from the players to the umps to Hawk and DJ knew it was intentional.

tsamdog
08-01-2005, 04:43 PM
IMHO:

1. The O's are dying fast....Tejada is ranting in the dugout Saturday (on TV); dugout is dead.

2. The Sox are having fun....they are winning, laughing, dancing and hitting the ball

3. Iguchi is a non-threatening (as in charge the mound) player, having a good series...and year.....and is hit hard on a 3-0 pitch....on purpose or out of frustration.

4. Ozzie goes nuts.....no retaliation...but the seed is planted

5. Sunday is same old stuff...different day for the O's. Plus, you have the poster child for the organizaaaation (hockey's back!) rung up for 10 days.

6. Sox continue to hit....and AJ catches it on a 3-0....on purpose or out of continued frustration.

7. Buerhle then hits a veteran, who understands the game, with a guy who is hitting 1/11 against him on deck..and 4 more innings of O bullpen.

I don't know...but it makes sense to me. Hell, no harm, no foul...and a sweep. Baseball.

TornLabrum
08-01-2005, 04:44 PM
I think my signature is ironic in my arguement here.

Again, it points out that the situation does not dictate a HBP (in this case the pitcher is setting up the hitter for a curve away) but it also points out that there are moments where pitchers will buck the situation to make a point.

Again, I have said that this may have been the case. The only people that know for sure are Mark, AJ, probably Ozzie, and probably Surhoff.

I mean my God, none of you are at least willing to concede that this MAY have been an accident?

Nope. I saw the play.

TornLabrum
08-01-2005, 04:45 PM
Listen I may be wrong...I am man enough to admit that.

But I am still entitled to my opinion (and still stand by it), espeically since I backed it up with a logical arguement.

This has been fun though and has made my day go by fast...a lot better than the AJ Burnett rumour threads...I gotta run though (need to do some work before 5 today)...let's get 70 tomorrow.

Informed opinions are one thing. Forming an opinion without having seen the game is quite another.

fquaye149
08-01-2005, 04:52 PM
*****!!!

yes, we were handicapped on a bad ejection. isn't the first time it has happened won't be the last. gotta play over it, which we did.

of course viz being thrown into the game changes things. your masterful art at stating the obvious is truly amazing.

as far as your right or wrong argument, ***? c'mon you post like you're 12

if ozzie brings in Adkins in a close game and we win was it a good move? :?: uh, i guess any move that works is "good"...

BTW, your whining is amusing to me please continue.

your pal,
mr_genius

look - this goes back to oakland.

In this case
a.) the ejection was debatably legitimate (although I still take issue with our guys being hit 4 times to their once)
b.) only one injury was sustained and at least the ejection was of a pitcher...which is expected.

I don't understand why you continue to act like umpires shouldn't be held accountable for being brutal.

I'm not advocating that our players sulk, bitch and moan about it...in fact what they did today is perfect...and it's what I expect them to do. There's no good that can come from Ozzie, Kenny, or any of the 25 men bitching about the boys in blue. However, we as fans can:

a.) vent our frustrations about poor umpiring nearly costing us games (in this case...although the umpiring is debatable here) or ACTUALLY costing us games (as was the case in the Oakland series where the umpiring was undeniably awful and motivated by Wendlestedt's hot-headed unprofessionalism for which he was ACTUALLY FINED BY MLB)

and

b.) look at series accordingly and say that what looks like dominance can actually be broken down to

i: a couple freak plays in the field...such as buehrle making a very very rare throwing error

ii: the umpires handicapping us by letting our players get riddled with beanballs and tossing our players on questionable calls



do you honestly dispute those points?

Or are you just going to make smartass remarks that don't address the validity or logic of my points at all?

mr_genius
08-01-2005, 05:22 PM
do you honestly dispute those points?



here we go again.... last time

I don't think that the umpires are the main reason for Oaklands domination of the White Sox this season or in recent past seasons

this argumeent is beginning to

:deadhorse:

I Love Email
08-01-2005, 05:23 PM
A few weeks ago there was a thread on here looking for the one defining moment for this season (i.e. the Detroit fight in 2000). A lot of people were going with the AJ walk-off tater against the Dodgers.

Instead of that, Buerhle ending his streak by sticking up for his team just might be that moment. With this team, I can't think of a better way to define itself.

maurice
08-01-2005, 05:23 PM
Yet THE WHITE SOX...

:?: You asked how often it was done, not how often the Sox do it.

I'm sure they'd have no problem hitting Sweeney with 2 outs and a runner on 1st, if KC had just hit Sox batters 3 times in 2 games -- twice intentionally.

ChicagoHoosier
08-01-2005, 05:24 PM
I'm glad the streak is over. It could have maybe gotten in the way at some point when Buehrle should have been pulled in the 5th or 6th but Ozzie may have wanted to keep the streak intact. This way, his streak ends without him having gotten pounded to force him out of the game.

I think we're a stronger team because of this. Everyone continues to have everyone's back. Even if this was the players, and not Ozzie, who retaliated, it shows we have a team that won't back down from anyone, even when it comes to little things.

For all the banter going back and forth, it was blatantly obvious that he did it intentionally and while I'm pissed the ump tossed him without a warning, in the end we still won the game which is what matters. It allowed Viz to come in a tough situation and get out of the inning. Made Viz stronger. Made the Sox stronger.

JB98
08-01-2005, 05:26 PM
I think my signature is ironic in my arguement here.

Again, it points out that the situation does not dictate a HBP (in this case the pitcher is setting up the hitter for a curve away) but it also points out that there are moments where pitchers will buck the situation to make a point.

Again, I have said that this may have been the case. The only people that know for sure are Mark, AJ, probably Ozzie, and probably Surhoff.

I mean my God, none of you are at least willing to concede that this MAY have been an accident?

Mark had pretty good control all day, as usual. I think he walked only one. He threw the ball behind Surhoff. There's no question in my mind that it was intentional, but it needed to be done.

Good job by Buerhle. He put the team ahead of himself. I'm glad we were able to hold the lead and reward him with a victory.

The umps can do whatever they want. I didn't think what they did was fair, but what can you do? You just have to play over it. Crying about umpires is something the Cubs and other losers do.

slavko
08-01-2005, 05:31 PM
The only relationship between a beaning and a kidney is that a kidney is a kind of bean. A beaning is hitting someone in the "bean," i.e. head.

Gospel. Learn it.

General rule:Ball thrown behind a batter is intentional.

BTW, how do you feel about Buehrle hitting Travis Hafner in the face now?

TornLabrum
08-01-2005, 05:34 PM
Gospel. Learn it.

General rule:Ball thrown behind a batter is intentional.

BTW, how do you feel about Buehrle hitting Travis Hafner in the face now?

It looked to me like it grazed his shoulder first. I don't think that was intentional. You don't see too many beanings nowadays. Now when I was a kid...

Frankfan4life
08-01-2005, 05:37 PM
I personally could give a crap about the streak and I doubt Mark does either. What pissed me off was that Mark was thrown out with no warning and only hitting 1 batter. The O's hit how many of our guys thruought the 4 game set and no one was kicked out. I really really hope that a letter or something is done about those ump's. That call was complete B.S. :gulp: to Mark though for doing the right thingYou pretty much summed up my feelings.

However, I'd like to elaborate. To me there is a big difference in a pitcher hitting a batter because he "shows you up" by getting a lot of key hits off you or taking an extra long look at a home run. That's bush league, and a pitcher should be warned or tossed for that. However, if your teammate is hit for the reason above, I think retaliation is justified.

slavko
08-01-2005, 05:46 PM
It looked to me like it grazed his shoulder first. I don't think that was intentional. You don't see too many beanings nowadays. Now when I was a kid...

Drysdale, Gibson, Maglie.....no helmets. Ahh, those were the days.

slobes
08-01-2005, 06:03 PM
Ah man I didn't see the game, and I wasn't aware that there hadn't been a warning.

Still, a big case of Buehrle putting the team in front of his own personal glory.

34rancher
08-01-2005, 06:14 PM
I'm glad the streak is over. It could have maybe gotten in the way at some point when Buehrle should have been pulled in the 5th or 6th but Ozzie may have wanted to keep the streak intact. This way, his streak ends without him having gotten pounded to force him out of the game.
Yeah, but how long is his 5 inning streak? LOL

I guess we could call that the winning opportunity streak....

Optipessimism
08-01-2005, 06:52 PM
why would you hit Sosa? he is an easy out... no juice = no hit

Maybe because he is one of the leaders in that clubhouse?

They hit our starting catcher and the guy who Ozzies calls his MVP. If you throw at a guy to send a message to the opposing clubhouse, IMO it doesn't make sense to hit Sosa.

bigdommer
08-01-2005, 07:15 PM
Might have already been said, but I am watching the Comcast replay in Baltimore, and Buck Martinez mentioned the streak as MB was ejected and he said how cool it was that Mark put his teammates above of his personal goals.

Mark'sBrokenFoot
08-01-2005, 07:26 PM
I'm glad the streak is over. It could have maybe gotten in the way at some point when Buehrle should have been pulled in the 5th or 6th but Ozzie may have wanted to keep the streak intact. This way, his streak ends without him having gotten pounded to force him out of the game.

I have to agree. There were a couple of games this year where I thought Mark didn't have it and should have come out earlier than he did. One game against Toronto comes to mind. There was another more recently, but the opposition escapes me. Mark should be pitching the innings his arm can handle, not pitching for a record. Now he can.

Mercy!
08-01-2005, 07:37 PM
We seem to be ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room. If Mark had waited until after six complete innings to plunk someone, he could have kept his streak going, kept the bull pen a little fresher, and still sent the requisite message that it’s not okay to keep hitting Sox players.

Seen in that light, hitting Surhoff, if intentional, was a rather dim-witted move. If we were honest, and not just thumping our chests, is there really any other way to look at it?

TornLabrum
08-01-2005, 07:46 PM
We seem to be ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room. If Mark had waited until after six complete innings to plunk someone, he could have kept his streak going, kept the bull pen a little fresher, and still sent the requisite message that it’s not okay to keep hitting Sox players.

Seen in that light, hitting Surhoff, if intentional, was a rather dim-witted move. If we were honest, and not just thumping our chests, is there really any other way to look at it?

Or maybe, since the Sox led 3-0 in batters plunked by pitchers and since no warnings had been issued, no one anticipated Gorman being an idiot.

Mercy!
08-01-2005, 08:04 PM
This incident wasn't exactly the totally blameless situation that would call for it – but…………

I found myself wishing that after he’d had his say with the umpires, Oz had stepped toward the outfield and gestured for the bullpen guys and outfielders to come on in, done the same with the infielders, then pointed to the dugout and said, "We’ve had enough of this bull ****. Let’s go home."

I guess there would have been hell to pay. But, boy, wouldn’t that have been sweet? Does anyone know if something like that has ever happened?

jdm2662
08-01-2005, 08:32 PM
Just watched the play. I didn't want to comment on it until I saw it for myself. I didn't think MB would put the winning run on base. There is no doubt in my mind he threw at Surhoff on purpose. However, it was crap that he got tossed. Warnings should've been issued and move on. Hawk's rant is pretty funny though. However, I've always said you get your revenge on the field. Props to Mark for putting the team first. However, I do love how AJ got his revenge at his next at bat.
________
WEED VAPORIZERS (http://weedvaporizers.org/)

Vernam
08-01-2005, 08:44 PM
Just watched the play. I didn't want to comment on it until I saw it for myself. Oh, scrupulous, eh? :redneck

Hawk was a riot -- "That's terrible, absolutely brutal." I couldn't believe how calmly Buehrle took it. Big ups to Surhoff, too. As for the streak's end, I blame Sammy for picking that ONE at-bat not to strike out.

On the bright side, it contributed to the on-going resurgence of Vizcaino with a flawless 1/3 of an inning. :rolleyes: Cooper said on the radio recently that they've realized he needs to be dog-tired to pitch his best. They've definitely accomplished the tired part . . .

VC

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 09:08 PM
:?: You asked how often it was done, not how often the Sox do it.

I'm sure they'd have no problem hitting Sweeney with 2 outs and a runner on 1st, if KC had just hit Sox batters 3 times in 2 games -- twice intentionally.

And you responded by saying you would do it...I don't see your point.

UofCSoxFan
08-01-2005, 09:09 PM
If he did throw at him on purpose he should have been tossed. It's right there in the rule book. It still needs to be done sometimes..but you hit a guy intentionally you don't need to give warnings...you are suppossed to be gone.

Again, to be perfectly clear...Buerhle should have retaliated....but he should have also been willing to accept the consequences of the action...which he was.

Some members of this board on the other hand want to have it both ways. And yes, I can tell you hitting AJ 3-0 probably should have received an ejection as well...in which case MB wouldn't have had to retaliate in the first place.

ChiSoxPatF
08-01-2005, 09:22 PM
Okay, two things could have happened:
1) It was unintentional which meant that Buehrle got jipped and Gorman is an idiot,

2) It was intentional and, while probably not warrented, Buehrle got ejected fairly.

Regardless, this is what the incident tells the team: even your leader, the man who defines the team as a whole, Mark Buehrle, set aside his own record and statistics to defend his team. He sacrificed the efforts of 49 previous starts and the most impressive streak currently in baseball to defend his own players, in particular the foreign kid with who lost his only friend and his catcher.

Wow. We should be arguing whether this is the defining moment of the season and what this means to the team. This may be the most selfless act of any player this year. Notice how the guys were throwing him elbows and congratulating him after the play? THATS A TEAMMATE. That defines this team and we should be proud of the sacrifice he made for his teammates.

soxjim
08-01-2005, 09:55 PM
Good job Mark way to put the team first. That sure was sweet how AJ got revenge. You can put this sweep on the board YES!

elrod
08-01-2005, 10:07 PM
Patbooyah's is the post of the year. With Buehrle it's team first. In fact, the whole team is that way, and that's why they're 69-35.

flo-B-flo
08-01-2005, 10:08 PM
Buehrle did exactly what a good teammate should do in that situation. Our guy got hit yesterday then you hit our catcher 3-0 today. The MLB rule should warn both teams AFTER the retaliation. You see the reaction Buehrle got in the dugout? The everyday guys love that s***. Someone hits one of yours, you hit one of them. Baseball is played a different way than when I was a kid. In a lot of ways.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-01-2005, 10:09 PM
I TIVOed the game and watched both "hits."

Cabrera was pitching Pierzynski inside, belt high, but missed three consecutive times. He would have to serve a fat pitch on the 3-0 to a lefty, and that's just inviting trouble. The fourth pitch was up and in hitting A.J. in the shoulder while the catcher was holding the pitch low and away. That's a purpose pitch. Cabrera figured he had a "freebie" to send the batter to first base regardless, so he got his money's worth.

Buehrle's would've been tough to figure except for his behavior afterwards, exchanging fist-fives with his teammates in the dugout. He hit Surhoff with the first pitch, up and in in a very similar place to where Pierzynski was hit. By hitting Surhoff he was putting the tying run in scoring position. I'm guessing Buehrle wouldn't have been so obvious about his guilt if the umpire hadn't already kicked him out of the game.

Cabrera is a punk. He could have simply thrown ball four, but instead he revealed himself a punk. Somebody ought to break his jaw in the next base-brawl.

Vernam
08-01-2005, 10:18 PM
Cabrera was pitching Pierzynski inside, belt high, but missed three consecutive times. He would have to serve a fat pitch on the 3-0 to a lefty, and that's just inviting trouble. The fourth pitch was up and in hitting A.J. in the shoulder while the catcher was holding the pitch low and away. That's a purpose pitch. Cabrera figured he had a "freebie" to send the batter to first base regardless, so he got his money's worth.And Hawk immediately assumed Cabrera did it on purpose -- the 3-0 count and lefty batter gave him away.


Cabrera is a punk. He could have simply thrown ball four, but instead he revealed himself a punk. Somebody ought to break his jaw in the next base-brawl.I wonder how different this thread would have been if AJ had been injured by the pitch. I'll never make fun of the body armor again, because it probably saved him a trip to the DL. That was a nasty fastball. I've lost all respect for Baltimore, except Surhoff.

VC

tebman
08-01-2005, 10:57 PM
Thank god we finally got even for that one! :redneck I was 10 seats to the right of Tito Landrum's HR in the left field upper tank . . .

VC

Arghh! You were there too? I was standing, along with my wife and my mom, on the scoreboard ramp on the LF side the whole game -- bought standing-room tickets. What I remember most about Landrum's homer was the sinking feeling as I watched the ball disappear to my right and the tomb-like silence that followed. It was like looking at a photograph of the park because there was no sound.

The other haunting memory of that game was Luzinski's strikeout in the bottom half of that inning, watching three pitches go by. Oh, where's my medication...

Rocklive99
08-01-2005, 11:12 PM
Wow, way to go BBTN, during the highlights, they only show Iguchi's HBP last night and then the Buerhle one, followed by Buerhle giving high fives.

Vernam
08-02-2005, 12:05 AM
The other haunting memory of that game was Luzinski's strikeout in the bottom half of that inning, watching three pitches go by. Oh, where's my medication...He was like a statue on the third strike. :angry: That game was one of the great under-rated performances by a Chicago pitcher. Britt Burns was inspirational, and that homer sailing past me was one of the saddest sights of my life.

VC

FarWestChicago
08-02-2005, 12:07 AM
He was like a statue on the third strike. :angry:I don't recall the Bull removing the bat from his shoulder in that whole series. My memory probably exaggerates, but I'm not sure...

CLR01
08-02-2005, 01:14 AM
I can't wait to hear what Konerko has to say about this.

TheOldRoman
08-02-2005, 02:18 AM
Maybe I'm just a paranoid Sox fan but does this seem to be a trend for the Sox with the umps? It seems like every time we get plunked more than ordinary in a series one of our guys is the one that ultimately gets tossed, even if it was unintentional.

I'm struggling for multiple examples but with Crede's HBP in Oakland and the beanball fest against the Cubs (when they plunked like 8 batters and WE got the warning) it seems like we're always the target of the ump's ire, even when we're on the receiving end.

I'm not crying conspiracy or blaming anyone but does this seem to be a trend to anyone else?
You are 100% right. We have been getting horrible calls all year. The umps have stood by and let our batters get plunked, and then warned us, taking away retaliation. It happened in the first A's series, where they were clearly out to hurt some of our players. It happened to us in the first Cubs series, where they were upset at the throught that we were taking away one of their 23 pages of daily coverage in the Cubune.

For anyone who watches or used to watch WWE, think of a friend of the heel character in any given match - always interfering. The second the good guy's friend interferes, he gets disqualified. Other teams get away with it over and over again, but the second we do it, our pitcher gets tossed. The next thing I expect to see is the umpire "accidentally" knocked out and Sox hitters attacked in the dugout while the umpire is lying on the ground, with no punishment going to the opposing team.

We are the best team in baseball, thats why we keep winning. The umpires have continually allowed us to get hit, but prevented us from retaliating. We have gotten some absolutely horrible strike zones the entire year. We have watched pitch after pitch on the corner called a ball, only to see our own batter strike out looking on a pitch 6 inches further out than that pitch. We don't get any respect from the umpires, and that may have something to do with the Ozzie/Wendlestedt situation last year. Some umpires are professional and are able to call fair games for teams or managers they dislike, and other umpires feel the need to do everything they can to cost that team the win. I just hope we only get professional umpires in the playoffs.

fquaye149
08-02-2005, 02:38 AM
For anyone who watches or used to watch WWE, think of a friend of the heel character in any given match - always interfering. The second the good guy's friend interferes, he gets disqualified. Other teams get away with it over and over again, but the second we do it, our pitcher gets tossed. The next thing I expect to see is the umpire "accidentally" knocked out and Sox hitters attacked in the dugout while the umpire is lying on the ground, with no punishment going to the opposing team.

.

Oh wow. This is the best analogy i've heard in long.

"OhmiGod JR! Christian's got the ring bell"
"Dishpicable...Dishpicable. But look at Shtone Cold battle. He'sh a HOSS!"

Sxy Mofo
08-02-2005, 11:22 AM
I didn't see any of the highlights of the game yesterday on any of the sports shows, only saw the highlight now on the sox website. I remember there was a big discussion about whether it was intentional or not, and one guy was saying there was a chance that it wasn't intentional, and the other guys were saying 100% it was intentional. I just saw the highlights... and my conclusion.... it was intentional. I know, big revelation.

That said, he still shouldn't have been thrown out. I wonder though, that he was thrown out because the ball had a tailing motion somewhat to surhoff's head.

Steelrod
08-02-2005, 12:59 PM
Glad Hawk went off!

Even gladder Mark stood up for his teammate! All will benefit from this. Ozzie even benefits the next time MB is not on his game. He can switch pitchers without worrying about any streak!

THIS IS ALL GOOD !!

DenverSock
08-02-2005, 01:05 PM
That kind of call can make a huge difference. Now we just need to win and shut them up.

The title says it all.

SoxEd
08-02-2005, 06:30 PM
You are 100% right. We have been getting horrible calls all year. The umps have stood by and let our batters get plunked, and then warned us, taking away retaliation. It happened in the first A's series, where they were clearly out to hurt some of our players. It happened to us in the first Cubs series, where they were upset at the throught that we were taking away one of their 23 pages of daily coverage in the Cubune.


With my tinfoil hat on:

What do you expect?
No-one outside of Sox fans likes us - the media dislikes the Sox for
a) not being those oh-so-lovable Cubbies;
b) showing up all their pre-Season predictions for the ill-researched garbage they were;
c) being too small of a TV-draw to schill advertising slots.

The business called MLB would rather see big fan-base teams in the playoffs than the 'wrong' team from Chicago.

Plenty of incentive for umpires to 'unconsciously favor' Sox opponents, no incentive to 'unconsciously favor' the Sox.

Not with my tinfoil hat on:

No-one likes us, we don't care.