I didn't see the game, but Hamels got plunked by Zimmerman. I assume that was the response, and if so, that should have ended the matter.
It's not "manning up" to admit it, it's just stupid. He deserves to miss a start just for that.
The way the situation was handled last night was the way things SHOULD be handled by baseball. In the days of Gibson and Sever, they would hit someone, later in the same game, the other team would get its retribution.
If benches were warned after Harper got hit, as is often the case in the modern game, retribution would have come days, if not months later. The Clemens incident took over a year, and look how that was handled. Guys don't hit the opposition on purpose as often anymore, so if they're asked too do so, the pitcher either can't, or will end up hurting someone.
This may not be a popular opinion, and I shall put on my flame suit after this statement, but if things were handled like they were in the days of Gibson or Sever starting in the minors, there may actually be LESS injuries.
No flame <retardant needed here, I agree. As long as it isn't at the shoulders or above, I see no problem with it. Seaver, Gibson, Drysdale, Sal "The Barber" Maggli all would have handled it the same way, and no one ever moaned about it.
Ralph Kiner was once asked if he got thrown at a lot because of his HR's and his answer reflected the time in which he played. " I didn't get thrown at, the guy hitting behind me did."
"Having not seen Mr. Harper play but having read about his exploits, it would seem to me that he "had it coming"."Why? The only marked incident above him playing the game hard is blowing a kiss to a pitcher that was acting like an idiot and beating up on his team. "but I do not see a difference between admitting it as Hamels did, and denying it as others have."MLB and Selig won't openly want players going after other players.
"We all know when it's deliberate and when it's not.
"Yes, but when players go around it admitting it and MLB does nothing beyond the norm it will seem it's content with it.
"Yes, but when players go around it admitting it and MLB does nothing beyond the norm it will seem it's content with it."
That perception is already there and has been there since Tony Conigliaro. Here's a guy that was damm near killed and whose career was effectively over because of being hit. It's part of the game, and since Hamels didn't throw at Harper's head I do not think it warrants anything more than what has been meted out previously. You are effectively punishing Hamels for being truthful.
"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 __________________