Saturday, August 8, 2009

Yes, Baseball Players Should Be Able to Throw Retaliation Pitches


Jay Mariotti over at my former home, The Fanhouse, wrote an article chastising baseball for allowing "purpose pitches." This obviously comes after that whole Prince Fielder fiasco a few days ago.

I disagree. It is one of those unwritten rules that help police the game. Sorry, but if someone purposely throws at my best player then we are throwing at your best player. If not, we will just have a bunch of headhunters who fear no retaliation.

In fact, I disagree that pitchers and managers should be ejected for retaliating. To me, it is bullcrap that the first guy gets to bean somebody ... but the second guy gets thrown out when he does it? I say "eye for an eye!" Then give the warning.

What makes me laugh is that Mariotti actually bought Fielder's "clubhouse rage". C'mon! That was all for show. Dude went to the door and didn't force anything until ... magically ... his teammates came to hold him back. Fielder was hit in his fat butt (not his head or knee) and Mota walked off the field to accept his ejection. On the field with everyone watching, Fielder did nothing but stand still. So an half and hour later it spilled into that? Yeah right.

No retaliation pitches means something bigger could occur and something much more dangerous than a bruise on your thigh.

I feel the same way about fighting in the NHL. If they weren't allowed to fight, someone would end up getting a stick in the back of the head. It's hard to stage that.

No comments: