"You are effectively punishing Hamels for being truthful. "Well, isn't that how modern day society works? Pretty sure a confession of guilt trumps speculation, which results in a mediation of time punished for. I could reach a plea bargain in reality when there's just speculation or other variables to hold something back but if I'm outright about it I no longer have protection.
"Mike Rizzo calls Cole Hamels ‘fake tough,’ calls for suspension after ‘classless, gutless’ act"
"He thinks he’s sending a message to us of being a tough guy. He’s sending the polar opposite message. He says he’s being honest; well, I’m being honest. It was a gutless chicken [bleep] [bleeping] act. That was a fake-tough act. No one has ever accused Cole Hamels of being old school.”
****Except for at or above the sholders
You want to punish the guy who tells the truth more than the guy who lies about the same offense? That does'nt make any sense.
But then, there are a lot of things on this board that don't make sense. We're not going to agree on this.
"You want to punish the guy who tells the truth more than the guy who lies about the same offense? That does'nt make any sense.
"Because telling the truth doesn't make what he did any better; it only confirms it for punishment.
Think of the legal system.I kill someone and admit it. They won't offer me a plea bargain and bring max charges against me.You kill someone, they have little evidence, still go after you. Not charged on all accounts/offered a plea bargain (less days suspended).
Some key points from article:
"In attempting to teach Harper a lesson about how to behave in the big leagues, Hamels was the one who seemed most in need of a refresher. Even aside from the non-zero risk that Hamels would miss his target and hit Harper in a place where a bone could break, there were plenty of reasons not to take the action he did. First, there was the inadvisability of putting a man on base in order to deliver a message. Harper came around to score, and while that didn’t come back to bite the Phillies, it could have, given their struggles to score this season.
Maybe he still will. On Sunday afternoon, though, the allegedly immature Harper faced off against a seven-year veteran and came away looking like the more mature man.
Given what we’d heard of Harper, we might have expected an intentional beaning* to bring out the worst in him. But instead of staring or jawing at Hamels or taking a step toward the mound, Harper avoided even looking at the lefty. He went to first, advanced to third on a Jayson Werth single, then stole home on a Hamels pickoff throw to first. (Of course Harper’s first steal would be of home). It was the perfect revenge, the perfect way to handle a plunking. It was the sort of sequence we might still be talking about in 20 years, one that combined Harper’s hustle, competitiveness, and incredible talent. And it was exactly the sort of reaction we wouldn’t have seen coming from someone who supposedly struggled with letting his play on the field speak for him.
I don’t want to make too much of a single incident, but that’s what Harper’s bad reputation has been based on: a series of single incidents. If we can use one instance of Harper behaving badly to paint him in a negative light, maybe we can use one instance of Harper taking the high road to help rehabilitate his image.
>>>>>>>>“It’s just, ‘Welcome to the big leagues,’” Hamels said. But Hamels didn’t hit Harper because he’s a rookie. He hasn’t hit any of the other rookies he’s faced this season—not Kirk Nieuwenhuis or Tyler Pastornicky or Yonder Alonso or Andy Parrino or A.J. Pollock. He hit Bryce Harper because he’s talented and because he has a reputation for needing to be put in his place. Never mind that Harper, who always runs hard and whose work ethic has never been doubted, has thus far in his major-league career embodied the best of the old-school values that Hamels claims to uphold.
>>>>>>>>If abandoning Hamels’ “old baseball” means leaving senseless acts of aggression behind, just as it once meant moving past segregation, the reserve clause, and underhand pitching, maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Yes, Harper looks like he got called up in the middle of a haircut and hasn’t had time to finish it. (In that sense, at least, he is the anti-Mauer.) Yes, he wears enough eye black to dull the glare on Tattooine. But unlike Hamels and the Dodgers fans who booed Harper during his debut, let’s wait and see what the Nats have in Harper—the person, as well as the player—before we label him a villain. One half-inning was enough to make me I think a little less of Hamels and a little more highly of Harper. Imagine what the next 130 games can do.
"From:Baseball Prospectus | Overthinking It: Bryce Harper Takes the High Road __________________
I don't think he should get suspended at all. It was the perfect message pitch: below the letters. I don't agree with the message, but if that's what it was for (duh) then Hamels did it right.
Washington got him back, hitting him with a pitch. This is why NL baseball is better. In the AL Victorino, Pence, Rollins or Ruiz would have gotten hit, and that's just horses---.
What was the message he was attempting to send? That Harper should be put in his place? How was he in anyway out of place?
Pretty much. I don't agree with it, but Hamels and the Phils think he's arrogant and should be humble and all that garbage.
I don't agree, and was ecstatic over the steal of home.
Young phenoms that appear not to appreciate their talents will always sit wrong with veterans, especially those who aren't as talented and had to work at it in order to get where they are.
You always hear praise of those who are incredibly talented and yet humble. The guy who is the best, knows he's the best but doesn't always point it out.
Then there are the LeBron James' of the world. The guys who are all too happy to point out that they're the best. Like it or not that kind of bravado will always bring about some kind of backlash.
The same goes for chest thumping rookies like Harper. It's a mans world, when a boy comes to town acting like he's a man no one should be surprised when someone puts him on his rear end. Now Harper ended up getting the better of Hamels because he stole home. That's on Hamels.
My opinion of this new world we live in, the one where no class and celebrating every tackle/sack/single/double/basket/dunk regardless of score or outcome will always have its detractors. There are many of us who don't feel the need to blow smoke up another mans rear end just because he's good at something. Be a man, act like you've done it before.
Didn't the league think Greg Jeffries was arrogant? Heck, didn't his own teammates think he was arrogant?
Yeah, they did and he was. Honestly, I was no fan of Jeffries. I rooted for him because he wore a Met uni, but that's about it.