PDA

View Full Version : Michael Barrett: Oswalt intended to hit Crede


JorgeFabregas
11-03-2005, 03:04 PM
Barrett was on The Score and was asked about Roy Oswalt's performance during the world series. He said that he was "dissapointed" that Oswalt had hit Crede, that it was likely intentional because Crede had hit the homerun earlier in the inning, and that he didn't think Oswalt would change his MO just because it was the series. He said the Oswalt consistently hits guys after homeruns and gets away with it without a suspension and that if Carlos Zambrano or Freddy Garcia threw behind a batter in a similar situation they would face suspensions.

The_Floridian
11-03-2005, 03:08 PM
Barrett was on The Score and was asked about Roy Oswalt's performance during the world series. He said that he was "dissapointed" that Oswalt had hit Crede, that it was likely intentional because Crede had hit the homerun earlier in the inning, and that he didn't think Oswalt would change his MO just because it was the series. He said the Oswalt consistently hits guys after homeruns and gets away with it without a suspension and that if Carlos Zambrano or Freddy Garcia threw behind a batter in a similar situation they would face suspensions.

Wow. I kind of liked Barrett before. Now I really like him.

Good for him not only pointing this out, but for throwing Freddy in the mix on his answer as well.

I'll be curious to see how his next at-bat against Oswalt goes next year.

Norberto7
11-03-2005, 03:11 PM
I didn't watch the Astros during the year, so I don't know if it's true that he consistently did this, but why would Roy Oswalt get away with it more than anyone else? He's put together a few good years, but doesn't it take more than that to earn that kind of respect, if that's what it really is?

Well, I can see why Zambrano wouldn't get away with it....bad example, Michael :D:

getonbckthr
11-03-2005, 03:11 PM
I just can't accept that in the biggest game of his life, and the teams history, which also was only a 1 run lead that he would risk allowing runs to just fulfill his need of vengeance.

eriqjaffe
11-03-2005, 03:16 PM
I just can't accept that in the biggest game of his life, and the teams history, which also was only a 1 run lead that he would risk allowing runs to just fulfill his need of vengeance.Would've made Uribe's near-grand-slam that much sweeter, though.

cheeses_h_rice
11-03-2005, 03:39 PM
Actually, Barrett said that Garcia gets away with stuff that Zambrano doesn't, just like Oswalt does. He was putting "Z" in a class of his own, always being punished by the umps.

Gee, you don't think Zambrano otherwise acting like a classless asshat has anything to do with that, do you?

:rolleyes:

Risk
11-03-2005, 03:45 PM
Gee, you don't think Zambrano otherwise acting like a classless asshat has anything to do with that, do you?

:rolleyes:

That is probably the best description of Zamwhacko I've ever heard. Even though I still think the guy is a complete caveman.

Risk

CHISOXFAN13
11-03-2005, 03:50 PM
I just can't accept that in the biggest game of his life, and the teams history, which also was only a 1 run lead that he would risk allowing runs to just fulfill his need of vengeance.

He was on the verge of walking him anyway so why not finish the job by plunking him?

I side with Barrett here.

hose
11-03-2005, 03:52 PM
Sox pitchers can even up the score this summer when the Astros come to the Cell.:angry:

jdm2662
11-03-2005, 03:57 PM
You all need to note Barrett had a history whinning about the Astros in 2004. I don't know the details of it, but it was pretty well documented. This does not surprise me one bit.

FARMEO
11-03-2005, 04:04 PM
It was Barrett's whining about Oswalt that started the collapse of the 2004 Cubs. Knowing the mental midget Phil Gardner and seeing his reaction, I don't doubt that Crede was hit on purpose.

HotelWhiteSox
11-03-2005, 04:04 PM
I agree that it was intentional, and I loved Crede's reaction (and Ozzie and Carl coming to his defense was hilarious :smile: )

I heard the beginning of that interview, great hearing him :whiner: about how hard it was to see us win the World Series. At least he was honest. He said something like he feels bad that they let "Cub nation" down by letting the Sox beat them to a title.

veeter
11-03-2005, 04:20 PM
When Oswalt hit Crede I thought it was intentional too. I kind of liked it for two reasons. First of all, I liked the reaction it got out of Joe. It also seemed to fire up the team. Second of all, I like Roy Oswalt and I think he's an old school type guy and pitcher. That's what they used to do. When you see guys that care so much and get so fired up, it's good for baseball.

Ol' No. 2
11-03-2005, 04:41 PM
I've heard basically the same thing from people who follow the NL a lot closer than I do. Oswalt has a history of this kind of thing and he doesn't care at all about the situation. All of them had no doubt it was intentional.

SOXPHILE
11-03-2005, 04:46 PM
Michael Barrett's an anus. I'm not a big Roy Oswalt backer, but anyone remember him in 2004 getting up and getting in Oswalt's face when he came to bat at a game in the Urinal ? Later, he was one of the idiots bitching about the broadcasting crew, because they praised the way Oswalt was pitching a game, even though he had given up some runs. Barrett went on to whine about how Stone & Chimp didn't give the same type of praise to Cub pitchers. That helped lead to the "Great Collapse of '04". Then, today on the radio, he whines again about that jackass Zambrano basically not getting the same benefit of the doubt and leeway as far as hitting batters that Oswalt gets. Gee Barrett, could it be because that fat piece of crap is always complaining, gesturing, glaring at the umps anytime he doesn't get a call he likes ? Or that he's got the mental capacity of a 6 year old, DOES throw at batters, as well as little temper tantrums on the field ? I loved hearing the frustration in Barrett's voice when he talked about the White Sox winning the World Series. You could tell he was pissed. Good. Stew in your misery all winter long Barrett. We'll all be kept warm by the memories of the 2005 White Sox, and the knowledge that they won the World Series.

CHIsoxNation
11-03-2005, 04:46 PM
I just can't accept that in the biggest game of his life, and the teams history, which also was only a 1 run lead that he would risk allowing runs to just fulfill his need of vengeance.

Goes to show how much of an egotistical and self centered man he is I guess. If this is true (and it sure looked like it is) then if I were a teamate of his I would be pissed. That's not something you do to your team.

FWIW, a friend of mine's father works for a pretty big company here in Chicago and I guess a few of them went out to a nice dinner with Oswalt not too long ago. He was saying that Roy was so full of himself it was disgusting.

cheeses_h_rice
11-03-2005, 04:51 PM
I've heard basically the same thing from people who follow the NL a lot closer than I do. Oswalt has a history of this kind of thing and he doesn't care at all about the situation. All of them had no doubt it was intentional.
Oswalt's a straight up, not-giving-a-**** redneck. No doubt he nailed Crede because of the home run earlier in the inning.

TheOldRoman
11-03-2005, 05:57 PM
Oswalt's a straight up, not-giving-a-**** redneck. No doubt he nailed Crede because of the home run earlier in the inning.
Damn straight. As much as I hate facing guys like that, I respect that. If he wants to put a guy on base in that situation, it is his business. However, with the bull**** rules we have now, baseball takes that away. They need to take away the "umpire discretion" crap, and let Oswalt hit whoever he wants. In that case, whoever he hits is going to retaliate against the Astros' hitters. That is baseball. You hit guys, you get hit. It is such a horrible system now that guys get thrown out if the umpire THINKS they hit the guy intentionally (or even threw inside intentionally). After a warning is issued, the team cannot retaliate. Don't do the warning crap. Let the pitcher bean whoever he wants, knowing that it is all coming back at his team.

As for Oswalt, he does have a history of this. They chronicled on ESPN that Cliff Floyd OWNS him. Floyd has hit many homers off him, and almost every time he hits Floyd in the next at bat. Some guys get away with it. Clemens is a headhunter. They are not wrong, baseball is wrong for stopping retaliation. After Clemens drilled Piazza in the head, Derek Jeter should have recieved the same treatment.

chaerulez
11-03-2005, 06:16 PM
Damn straight. As much as I hate facing guys like that, I respect that. If he wants to put a guy on base in that situation, it is his business. However, with the bull**** rules we have now, baseball takes that away. They need to take away the "umpire discretion" crap, and let Oswalt hit whoever he wants. In that case, whoever he hits is going to retaliate against the Astros' hitters. That is baseball. You hit guys, you get hit. It is such a horrible system now that guys get thrown out if the umpire THINKS they hit the guy intentionally (or even threw inside intentionally). After a warning is issued, the team cannot retaliate. Don't do the warning crap. Let the pitcher bean whoever he wants, knowing that it is all coming back at his team.

As for Oswalt, he does have a history of this. They chronicled on ESPN that Cliff Floyd OWNS him. Floyd has hit many homers off him, and almost every time he hits Floyd in the next at bat. Some guys get away with it. Clemens is a headhunter. They are not wrong, baseball is wrong for stopping retaliation. After Clemens drilled Piazza in the head, Derek Jeter should have recieved the same treatment.

That's just insane to say because one idiot decided to throw at someone's head, let's allow the other team to go after someone's head. Now if you want to bean someone without any serious injury, you aim for the area just under the shoulder. Some umpires are too quick to eject people, but there is a point to stopping retaliation, because I don't think you'd like the job of stopping 2 groups of 25 men trying to fight each other. And don't say it's not wrong to headhunt, yes it is wrong, its cowardly and Oswalt will one day get his.

JUribe1989
11-03-2005, 06:18 PM
Barrett is a jag who is jealous of Oswalt. He catches the dirtiest pitcher in baseball, CARLOS ZAMBRANO. Any other catcher can say this, but when Barrett is saying it it means nothing.

TheOldRoman
11-03-2005, 06:56 PM
That's just insane to say because one idiot decided to throw at someone's head, let's allow the other team to go after someone's head. Now if you want to bean someone without any serious injury, you aim for the area just under the shoulder. Some umpires are too quick to eject people, but there is a point to stopping retaliation, because I don't think you'd like the job of stopping 2 groups of 25 men trying to fight each other. And don't say it's not wrong to headhunt, yes it is wrong, its cowardly and Oswalt will one day get his.
It is a part of the game. It has been a part of the game for well over 100 years. There were more fights before baseball gave the umpires the power they have now, but I dont think there were that many more. Players used to settle it themselves. They would police the game. When a pitcher hit a batter on purpose, one of his batters would get hit later on. Some pitchers still went after batters, and some fights were started, but things would settle themselves.
Ed Farmer said that there was a huge rise in beanball wars in the AL after the institution of the DH, because the pitchers didnt have to worry about getting drilled themselves. Pitchers are even less worried about hitting batters with the new rules. As long as the teams haven't been warned yet, Roger Clemens could drill Frank Thomas in the head. If the Sox try to retaliate the next inning, the pitcher and Ozzie would be ejected. This is wrong. Under the old system, Clemens would be less likely to drill Frank in the head because he knew that one of his batters would soon taste the high heat. When Clemens hits Thomas, we all know it is intentional, and we know the umpire would warn both benches. That takes away the possibility of retalliation.
I may have misspoken before. It is wrong to headhunt, and it is cowardly under the current system. It is cowardly because the pitcher is basically trying to hurt the batter, and then hiding behind the umpires saying "nah nah nah nah, you can't hurt me". I am saying that when pitchers know their guys are going to get it back, they are less likely to drill batters. If Roger Clemens knew that hitting Piazza in the head (and yes, it was premeditated) would result in Jeter getting hit in the head, he wouldn't have done it.

JorgeFabregas
11-03-2005, 07:08 PM
Then, today on the radio, he whines again about that jackass Zambrano basically not getting the same benefit of the doubt and leeway as far as hitting batters that Oswalt gets. Gee Barrett, could it be because that fat piece of crap is always complaining, gesturing, glaring at the umps anytime he doesn't get a call he likes ?
Oswalt's histrionics are not to the level of Zambrano, but from watching him in the playoffs (Cards series, too), he gets his share of glares and dirty looks in.

Soxfanspcu11
11-03-2005, 07:35 PM
It is a part of the game. It has been a part of the game for well over 100 years. There were more fights before baseball gave the umpires the power they have now, but I dont think there were that many more. Players used to settle it themselves. They would police the game. When a pitcher hit a batter on purpose, one of his batters would get hit later on. Some pitchers still went after batters, and some fights were started, but things would settle themselves.
Ed Farmer said that there was a huge rise in beanball wars in the AL after the institution of the DH, because the pitchers didnt have to worry about getting drilled themselves. Pitchers are even less worried about hitting batters with the new rules. As long as the teams haven't been warned yet, Roger Clemens could drill Frank Thomas in the head. If the Sox try to retaliate the next inning, the pitcher and Ozzie would be ejected. This is wrong. Under the old system, Clemens would be less likely to drill Frank in the head because he knew that one of his batters would soon taste the high heat. When Clemens hits Thomas, we all know it is intentional, and we know the umpire would warn both benches. That takes away the possibility of retalliation.
I may have misspoken before. It is wrong to headhunt, and it is cowardly under the current system. It is cowardly because the pitcher is basically trying to hurt the batter, and then hiding behind the umpires saying "nah nah nah nah, you can't hurt me". I am saying that when pitchers know their guys are going to get it back, they are less likely to drill batters. If Roger Clemens knew that hitting Piazza in the head (and yes, it was premeditated) would result in Jeter getting hit in the head, he wouldn't have done it.



What Clemens did to Piazza was one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen. He could have KILLED Piazza! Rest assured that if it was anyone other then an established pitcher like Clemens had done that there would have been some SERIOUS fines and suspensions.

I respect Roger as a picher, but he should have been taken out back and given an old fashioned beat-down for that. And what was up with throwing the bat bat at Piazza??? Grow up jerk!

I just wish the following year Sele could have gotten Clemens right in the ribs instead of throwing behind him, no one deserved it more at that point.

Mohoney
11-03-2005, 07:46 PM
Sox pitchers can even up the score this summer when the Astros come to the Cell.:angry:

We already evened it. We evened it on Wednesday, October 26.

Ol' No. 2
11-03-2005, 08:00 PM
It is a part of the game. It has been a part of the game for well over 100 years. There were more fights before baseball gave the umpires the power they have now, but I dont think there were that many more. Players used to settle it themselves. They would police the game. When a pitcher hit a batter on purpose, one of his batters would get hit later on. Some pitchers still went after batters, and some fights were started, but things would settle themselves.
Ed Farmer said that there was a huge rise in beanball wars in the AL after the institution of the DH, because the pitchers didnt have to worry about getting drilled themselves. Pitchers are even less worried about hitting batters with the new rules. As long as the teams haven't been warned yet, Roger Clemens could drill Frank Thomas in the head. If the Sox try to retaliate the next inning, the pitcher and Ozzie would be ejected. This is wrong. Under the old system, Clemens would be less likely to drill Frank in the head because he knew that one of his batters would soon taste the high heat. When Clemens hits Thomas, we all know it is intentional, and we know the umpire would warn both benches. That takes away the possibility of retalliation.
I may have misspoken before. It is wrong to headhunt, and it is cowardly under the current system. It is cowardly because the pitcher is basically trying to hurt the batter, and then hiding behind the umpires saying "nah nah nah nah, you can't hurt me". I am saying that when pitchers know their guys are going to get it back, they are less likely to drill batters. If Roger Clemens knew that hitting Piazza in the head (and yes, it was premeditated) would result in Jeter getting hit in the head, he wouldn't have done it.I just don't buy that argument. Back in the 50's and 60's, pitchers were MORE likely to drill a batter than they are now. Guys like Drysdale would nail you just for the hell of it. Sal Maglie didn't get the nickname "the Barber" for nothing.

TheOldRoman
11-03-2005, 08:39 PM
I just don't buy that argument. Back in the 50's and 60's, pitchers were MORE likely to drill a batter than they are now. Guys like Drysdale would nail you just for the hell of it. Sal Maglie didn't get the nickname "the Barber" for nothing.
Didn't anyone ever knock Drysdale on his ass? If they didn't, they should have.

Ol' No. 2
11-03-2005, 09:19 PM
Didn't anyone ever knock Drysdale on his ass? If they didn't, they should have.It was a different era. That kind of thing was expected and just accepted. It was also a time before players had $70M guaranteed contracts that would be put in jeapordy.

1951Campbell
11-03-2005, 09:25 PM
Part of me says, yeah, he did it on purpose, the series was essentially over when he hit him so why not?

Part of me says no, he didn't, the 'Stros had to do everything right if they wanted a chance to come back, and doing everything right does not include putting a guy on base intentionally.

Only Oswalt knows for sure.

LuvSox
11-03-2005, 10:16 PM
He was on the verge of walking him anyway so why not finish the job by plunking him?

I side with Barrett here.

That's what the thighs are for. He hit Crede damn near in the chest. Throw a fastball at someones heart and see what happens.

greenpeach
11-03-2005, 10:28 PM
I just don't buy that argument. Back in the 50's and 60's, pitchers were MORE likely to drill a batter than they are now. Guys like Drysdale would nail you just for the hell of it. Sal Maglie didn't get the nickname "the Barber" for nothing.

Bob Gibson was no choirboy either.

Mr. White Sox
11-03-2005, 10:30 PM
What Clemens did to Piazza was one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen. He could have KILLED Piazza! Rest assured that if it was anyone other then an established pitcher like Clemens had done that there would have been some SERIOUS fines and suspensions.

I respect Roger as a picher, but he should have been taken out back and given an old fashioned beat-down for that. And what was up with throwing the bat bat at Piazza??? Grow up jerk!

I just wish the following year Sele could have gotten Clemens right in the ribs instead of throwing behind him, no one deserved it more at that point.

That was Estes that threw behind him, looked like an idiot, was kicked out of New York, and started his journey across the MLB.

Mr. White Sox
11-03-2005, 10:34 PM
Michael Barrett's an anus...
:roflmao:
Now, I may not be the most mature person on the planet, but I just cracked up and couldn't continue reading your post. I'm sure I agree with you in one way or another though.

Now, as for Barrett...
I'm not a fan of his, but it sure as hell seemed intentional to me. The ChiSox batted around, Crede came up, and Oswalt absolutely drilled him in the ribs with a 96mph fastball. Lame, intentional, not cool. And, if you take others' opinions into account that Oswalt does this often, I don't understand how you can't see it was intentional.

MadetoOrta
11-03-2005, 10:37 PM
Here's my 2 cents: after Tony Conigliaro's career was destroyed by a fastball to the head, players distinguish between a ball to the head vs. a ball to the ribs. [e.g. Ventura + Nolan Ryan] The DH has made a lot of AL pitchers headhunters too. Retaliation is a part of the game. I agree with the post that if Oswalt wants to stupidly hit Joe in a WS game, so be it. It was dumb of him. Part of the game.

Nellie_Fox
11-03-2005, 10:56 PM
Bob Gibson was no choirboy either.Make sure to put Early Wynn in the team picture.