Why such enthusiasm for the fight?
I don't get it. To me it is a no-brainer. You do not resort to physical violence. Ever. It's part of good sportsmanship and self-control, both of which are essential for a top-tier athlete.
I see it as an embarrassing loss of control, stupid and inappropriate no matter what anyone said to anyone else.
If my kids see pics of baseball brawling in the paper or on the web we always talk about it with an attitude of a really bummer thing that happened, a shame - no matter which team did it. When the kids play sports it is 100% unacceptable for them to get physical in any way under any circumstances, and dealing with frustration WITHOUT getting physical is a big part of what they're learning.
In the game thread there was great excitement about the brawl - mine too - Holy Moley! But then, admiration for Kendall, praise for his losing it, a feeling it was "good for the team", that it showed "balls". What the heck? To me it is shameful and ridiculous and shows that he is (or was at least in that moment) acting like a big ole baby that couldn't control himself. AND he got himself suspended, which is certainly harmful to the team.
I don't get it.
252 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Please
by DeeWayne on May 2, 2006 4:22 PM PDT reply actions
Well
How much more emotion?
I would have preferred leg humping
by DeeWayne on May 2, 2006 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions
For me....
I like the fact that they aren't going to take any crap for being the offensive joke of the league, the push-overs, the baby rookie puppet team that is controlled by a GM who only cares about numbers and not The Game.
Much like the passion we have on these game threads with the throwing chairs and yelling <censored> comments, I like when my team gets a little fired up and develops a little passion for the game.
Kendall knows that he is not indispensible. He knows that he has a backup. He knows that he can fire this team up and make the players and fans care.
So, I care about these guys. I love sharing their passion. And I frankly want to kick the Angels' butts. It was nice, for once, to see that the team feels the same way.
I hear you
(Just to be clear, I'm not being facetious, I really want to think about about what OTHER THAN THIS could show us passion and fire from our team.)
sure
Assault
Had they yelled back and forth for a few seconds, do you really think there would have been a different outcome anyway?
by ohtobe21likehuston on May 2, 2006 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
i don't know what
the offensive joke of the league
Baseball 101
I wonder how many championships would actually be won by teams with athletes that behave perfectly and never lose control of their emotions? Granted... the Ron Artest situation was a horrible display for children and adults alike but the Kendall thing was a must in the unwritten rules of baseball. I didn't write them but I love the game enough to honor them.
by ohtobe21likehuston on May 2, 2006 4:27 PM PDT reply actions
that's nonsense
How, exactly, is Kendall charging the mound either following some imaginary "unwritten rule" or "honoring the game"?
Watch Baseball Tonight
Honestly, Monkeyball-- let's not debate about what WE think about the game. We should let the ex-players tell us how it works and then not question them since I am sitting in an office with a flat screen computer, very comfortable chair and a nice window view. I'm not between the lines and I'm guessing you're not either.
I'll eat my words tomorrow if they take your side on things. I definitely wish that there was no violence in the world but that's not very realistic.
by ohtobe21likehuston on May 2, 2006 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Joe Morgan? John Kruk? Harold freakin' Reynolds?
Joe Morgan
I think you are offering your opinion about the world as a whole rather than looking at it from a baseball/sports angle. It's great to have passion about any topic but I don't think there is much to talk about in regards to this incident. This is less serious than most verbal arguments I've had in my life.
by ohtobe21likehuston on May 2, 2006 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Uh ...
I'll be clear: I'm not 100% opposed to all fights in sports -- if Lackey had actually been throwing at Kendall (especially at his head or behind him) -- I think Kendall would have been 100% justified in charging the mound.
But that's not what happened. Lackey threw a curveball (!) that started inside and tailed back toward the plate. Kendall made a half-assed attempt to milk an HBP. Lackey pointed out that that's about the only way Kendall's going to get on base. Kendall yapped at him, Lackey yapped back. Kendall charged the mound.
Not justified.
No. It wasn't. At all.
yes, Kendall won't roll over and play dead ...
I did respond to your question
Here is a bad example-- it's kind of like a baseball player coming into an office environment and sending emails in all caps. IT WOULD BE ANNOYING TO THOSE IN THE OFFICE AND WOULD PROBABLY COME WITH SOME FORM OF A REPRIMAND IF THE EMAIL CAME ACROSS AS RUDE... EVEN IF THE PERSON WHO SENT IT MAY HAVE SPOKEN IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT. I don't think we can necessarily interpret whether or not it was justified but it seems that Kendall probably used some pretty clear thinking on this deal since he's been around for a while.
Look... I think you are hilarious on this website and don't want to stir up any ill feelings. I believe both of our hearts are in the right place but I really don't think we'll ever get anywhere on this topic. You can have the last word because it's 7:18 where I live and I'm hungry!!
by ohtobe21likehuston on May 2, 2006 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Game
Kendall could have easily leaned into the curveball w/ the bases loaded, but he didn't.
Lackey said, "Why don't you just stick out your arm?"
Kendall says (while running @ Lackey), "You f'ing beeping, mother f'er", and promptly puts Lackey in a UFC style choke hold.
Kendall is OLD SCHOOL. Pitchers should never smart off to hitters, unless they are ready to go toe to toe. Lackey didn't think Kendall would.
If I were Kendall, I would have done the same exact thing. I wouldn't be able to look at my teammates and peers the same way. Every player would think differenlty of Kendall if he DIDN'T rush the mount.
Good Job, JK!
CORRECTION
"Jason has had a history of leaning out over the plate, trying to get hit," Lackey said. "He stuck his elbow guard out over the plate and I told him not to. He had a problem with it, and he came out and got me. He has a right to do that, and I'm totally cool with it."
I have to give Lackey props for saying Kendall actually has a RIGHT to charge the mound in that situation.
I guess it's pretty rare for a pitcher to mouth off in a game. But if there was a brawl every time I mouthed off in a soccer game, there'd be 2 brawls a game (and in basketball, about 20 per game).
by blueconversechucks on May 3, 2006 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: Game
I just watched the MLB.com video a few times, and even though Lackey had his back to the camera, you can hear what he says pretty clearly: "Why don't you f-in' (blah blah)..." The rest is lost in crowd reaction as Kendall was charging the mound.
And hell yeah, Kendall did the right thing.
by 66th Hegenberger on May 3, 2006 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
classic
by rubin sierra on May 2, 2006 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions
don't get me wrong, ohtobe21
No offense taken
"If you keep digging in than the next one will be at your HEAD!!" Oh wait <wakes up> I'm not a ballplayer.
by ohtobe21likehuston on May 3, 2006 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions
So
Kendall
Bottom Line.
No way
Not if you're REALLY old school
Well, no. In my version of the Unwritten Baseball Rulebook, you don't have the right to charge the mound unless the pitcher beans you and then smarts off at you. In my eyes, Kendall has gone from being Iron Jawed Tough Guy to Psycho Crybaby, just like that.
what you think Kendall is was in the wrong
Talking Smack
Lackey is a fat, out of shape mouth breather who cannot wrestle for crap...FISH.
by Colorado Fan on May 2, 2006 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions
and what's more ...
You are the debating equivalent of Jason Kendall batting.
What? You justified in attacking me now?
I'm not avoiding an anything
by ohtobe21likehuston on May 2, 2006 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
After playing and umpiring as long as I have
I do not condone fighting or violence at all, but sometimes it is avoidable.
I did not mean to imply
I also think it's hard to draw a line - Artest="horrible" but Kendall="a must"? Who makes these judgements? How does one decide what level or type of situation makes a loss of emotional control ok or how much violence is an acceptable level?
difference
by Athletics fan and runner on May 2, 2006 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
The line
This fight was player vs player and no weapons were involved.
This was as close to an "honorable" fight as there can be in sports.
by secret ASian man on May 2, 2006 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed.
"No. It's Oakland."
*most baseball brawls look more like foreplay...*
Why such contempt...
Its fun... simple as that. I enjoyed hearing about it. I can't wait to watch it. I want to hear interviews about it etc etc.
Anything that can get the team and the fans riled up is probably a good thing.
And sometimes resorting to physical violence is an ok thing. Its not like anyone is going to be seriously wounded in a bout of fistacuffs... Pulling a gun or a knife on a guy is not ok but theres absolutely nothing wrong with a good baseball brawl.
Yup.
I'm not saying you need to take his teeth out - I'm just saying when a guy sees you throw down and run at him full tilt, he knows he's gone too far. He'll remember that next time.
It's part of sports - the intimidation factor, the psych-out, feeding the intensity of your teammates by showing them you're 100% into the game, come what may.
Oh, and not for nothing, but Kendall, rightly or wrongly, took the Angels starting pitcher OUT OF THE GAME! We lost our worst guy. They lost one of their best.
Smart move by Kendall, no matter what you think of how he did it. He helped win this game.
hand in your Anti-Scioscia Club card
But that's a punk-ass Whiney Mike Scioscia-type move, isn't it? Can't compete legitimately against the opposition? Find an extralegal maneuver or hairsplitting distinction to eliminate the opposition's edge.
Yes, absolutely, part of the game ever since the first apeman "cheated" by using a thighbone to bludgeon a wild boar -- but it's still a punk-ass Whiney Mike Scioscia-type move.
Debatable.
After all, Scioscia tried his routine out later on and all it got him was an early shower.
Tend to agree
It will be interesting to see if he's suspended for the same amount of time as players who have charged the mound after getting hit, or for even longer.
As you said, you don't get it.
Really?
Why do some people like violence?
hilarious post
Damn, this is a fun thread! Must continue scanning my way through it to see what various AN wiseguys and wisegals have to say about violence in sports and in civilization.
by rubin sierra on May 2, 2006 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Dude, it was smart play.
Kendall sacrificed a pawn to get their queen. Genius move.
That's it exactly.
I seriously think it wasn't emotion. It was a premeditated move to take Lackey out of the game. If he wanted to get one run out of it and have Lackey pitch 8 innings, he could have taken one on the elbow, like always. He took it to a new level.
I don't condone violence, but he knew what it would take to send Lackey to the showers early.
Extra-Curricular Activities
Back in the early 80's the Angels and A's HATED each other. I remember several fights b/w our teams. The Giants/Dodgers rivalry got most of the notoriety but ours was intense. In fact, when McGwire was a rookie en route to his 49 HRs he was plunked AND often. But LaRussa would get pissed but not do much about it... until he had Stewart to drive fear into the opposition. But that's the "game within the game" that transpires.
In today's altercation, luckily no one was hurt. I want our team to beat their team at the healthiest best, not b/c they were a man down from a stupidly induced injury.
As somebody who has played some ball
And this kind of thing does bring a team together. You feel as if you are on the same side all the more when something like this happens.
by Athletics fan and runner on May 2, 2006 4:41 PM PDT reply actions
Yes
As AFAR said...
As fans, we feel in many ways as if we are an extention of the team. We go to games, we wear our jerseys, and many of us live and die on every pitch and every play our team makes. So just as the team is brought closer together from Kendall storming the mound, we too are brought together as fans from such actions.
For me, I've always hated Lackey. I think he's a whiny little biatch, and Kendall's actions didn't bother me. Trust me, Kendall wouldn't just charge Lackey for nothing. Primarily, Kendall's actions reflect his boiling point of frustration with Lackey, and likely it reflects his teammates' feelings too. I mean c'mon-- Kots patted Kendall on the back in the dugout after the fracas. Similarly, many of us here in the AthleticsNation hate Lackey (and the Angels), so Kendall's actions were seen in a different light than, say, another batter charging the mound might be.
By virtue of the fact that we are fans and have an allegiance to the A's, Kendall's actions do, in a way, reflect on us (i.e.- reputation of the team we openly support, the suspension Kendall face and the affect on the A's-- standing-wise, ramifications for young fans just getting to know the game, etc.), and therefore we can choose whether or not to be happy or not that the fight occurred.
I can clearly see reasons why one wouldn't be happy about the fight, but at the same time, I can see how many fans (myself included) could be happy about it. For one, it was entertaining. Kendall took down a guy much bigger than him while dragging another guy, which, in some way, is awesome. But beyond just being interested in the melee, many people (and this is the more pertinent claim) saw Kendall's actions as positive in that they reflected both his (and our) growing frustration with Lackey's shit talking. As fans, we don't have the power that players do to do something about annoyances like Lackey, so Kendall represents us and he did something about a whiny pitcher. As many other posters have said, this has positive effects in terms of team morale/fire and getting in the head of the opposing team-- showing them you won't take their shit, so they shouldn't even try. So while there are negative effects of such a fight, any fan who supports Kendall's actions obviously believes that the positives of it (which can include, but are not limited to entertainment value) outweigh the negatives.
My Blog.
Lackey's shit-talking
I'm confused. In what way did Kendall's frustration with Lackey's "shit-talking" grow? As far as I could tell from the tape, it germinated, sprouted, and blossomed in less than 1.5 seconds based on one statement Lackey made.
Kendall certainly should have said something back, probably in his typically colorful brand of language. But why should he have gotten himself tossed from the game by instigating violence, as well as from the next several games? Since this is his FOURTH suspension for fighting, he might get a longer vacation than people think, and that will not be good for the team.
causation v. correllation
Sure, Kendall could have used some self-restraint, and I'm not advocating fighting, but what I'm saying is just that there was likely something brewing that we have no idea of the complexity of, and Lackey's shit-talking/idiotic comment pushed Kendall over the edge.
I mean, even as a fan watching on TV, I hate Lackey and the demeanor with which he carries himself. So I can only imagine what Kendall must have been feeling when the big guy has already hit him once, and then starts crazily barking at him. That's all I'm saying...
My Blog.
I am rather shame faced.
The only way I can kind of explain it, is there's something about baseball brawls. Here is an article from ESPN.com on the very subject: http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1239718
And I think the key point is if nobody gets hurt.
Can you
Sorry!
Simmons basically says that "basebrawls" as he calls them are ridiculous and amusing. He offers 12 reasons, number one being that Nobody ever gets hurt.
Ah well
Sorry I didn't reply earlier
It seems like baseball brawls are mostly for show: people flailing around and not really doing anything.
Too many affected Berkeleyites on this site
by DeeWayne on May 2, 2006 4:45 PM PDT reply actions
Hey, I'm a Berkeleyite
Hey I'm a chess player
Once when I thought my opponent's fianchetto of his queen's bishop was obviously dissing my pawn formation I rolled my eyes and tutted !
by green star oakland on May 2, 2006 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, man, that crosses the line
Hey, I'm a Berkeleyite!
Is this a joke?
Here's a couple of sites that may be more your speed:
croquetnation.com
vermontteddybear.com
airbag.com
disney.com
nerf.com
by southofcruiseamerica on May 2, 2006 4:45 PM PDT reply actions
are you serious?
Again, I reiterate: if the opposing catcher had pulled the same stunt against one of our pitchers, we'd all be bitching about what an unsportsmanlike little cretin he was. Guaran-diddly-teed.
Hey, I blame Kendall fully...
You can blame him for starting the
Look, this is not a pattern for the A's...it is the first time it has happened in forever and it is part of the game. These aren't a couple of church groups in a co-ed softball game in Mayberry. Kendall wasn't taking any garbage from that clown and didn't pull the fake a couple steps to the mound and be restrained false macho b.s., bring his bat with him or coming flying in Chan Ho Park karate style. He gets suspended for a couple of games down the road...big deal, it is Jason Kendall and the A's will figure out a point in the schedule where it would potentially hurt them the least for it to be served.
This team is full of gamers, no more pansies like Grieve, Lidle and company. This was a statement if nothing else that the entire league will notice and it has been a long time coming. We are talking about one time...if it becomes a trend and the pitching staff starts to channel Jose Mesa and Julian Tavarez then it will be a concern.
by southofcruiseamerica on May 2, 2006 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
agreed
Ooo! The league is quakin'!
"no more pansies"?
Second, if we want to get into that sort of thing, Kendall, by wearing body armor and flapping his elbow in front of a curveball -- especially when he knows he can't touch Lackey's stuff -- is playing like a bitch.
I wasn't referring to a flower...
by southofcruiseamerica on May 2, 2006 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions
in my opinion
Lackey talking crap from the mound
by southofcruiseamerica on May 2, 2006 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll also blame Kendall
I honeslty believe he probably thought it was a wise thing to do and I don't disagree. I doubt it was just a heat of the moment dumb mistake thing... Kendall is too smart for that.
I mean he got Lackey ejected so it did help the team in a very tangible way. If Lackey stays in for another inning or two maybe we don't see Romero or Bootcheck... Maybe the 9th looks entirely different.
good points
Lackey Started It.
Have ever seen a batter NOT rush the mound after the pitcher talks smack to them? Kendall had to take action, or walk with his tail between his legs.
Yes, I saw Tim Hudson bark at Nomar...
Hudson didn't say a word to Nomar,
by southofcruiseamerica on May 2, 2006 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions
After a Strikeout
But to blatantly talk shit to a veteran/respected ballplayer, after a 1st Pitch Ball Kendall got out of the way off...that's called "talking shit", and Lackey deserved to get taken down.
Lackey is a Fish.
by Colorado Fan on May 2, 2006 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know...
SWISH
I just had a baseballgasm. -- Chavinator
Hilarious
by Colorado Fan on May 2, 2006 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions
He gives mouth breathers (like me) a bad name.
Also...
Fun to see, and crazy
For example
there's nothing inherently wrong with violence
i don't mind a
I find it really interesting so far that
Not sure where you're going with that, but...
Immature Neanderthals!!
I thought it was kinda hot actually! But then again, I am a chick who likes Baseball AND Hockey! So violence is not something I shy away from. There is something about the brute violence, men being men, showing they can fight for their honor, that sometimes is simply... primal! I guess it is totally throw back of me to even say such a thing, but sometimes it is just nice to see Men be MEN!
<ducks chairs thrown by femanists>
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on May 2, 2006 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
<editor throws chair>
It was the wrong call on Kendall's part
It hurt his team to get thrown out of the game, and his 10-day vacation is going to hurt the team a lot. If he had a problem with what Lackey did, and views violence as an acceptable way of addressing it, he should have been waiting for Lackey outside the clubhouse door after the game. I heard F.P. Santangelo relate a story about how he did this when he was a RiverCat, and agree with him that it's a better way to respond.
Hmmmmm.....
I'm actually curious to see if this is true.
If it doesn't...
yeah
Hmm...
I don't think Kendall being suspended is going to hurt us all that much and getting Lackey tossed was a nice bonus.
And hey the A's can get some much need exposure out of this... And most people will enjoy it and not look down upon the team for what happened.
A's exposure from this?
If you think attacking someone is appropriate
You're high.
If Chavez ran out, okay, but Kendall is the Tie Domi of this team. If he gets tossed, but takes the other team's ace out in the process that's smart ball.
We got lucky.
In this case, the person Kendall charged--who he was going to charge regardless of whether they were John Lackey, Chris Bootcheck, or Mother Teresa because they mouthed off at him--got tossed, and it worked out for us. Super. It had nothing to do with Kendall's intent, however.
We went on to win 10-3. That's great, too. Maybe if Scioscia isn't stupid enough to run out Bootcheck, we don't score those runs (it WAS a one-run game in the ninth), we get into extras, and not having two real catchers becomes a problem, because some Angel pitcher with a chip on his shoulder decides to retaliate by throwing at Melhuse, and he gets hurt.
Kendall is going to be gone anywhere from 5-10 games. I suspect the worst, because it's his fourth suspension for fighting and nobody even threw at him. Maybe we'll get lucky again and it won't hurt us. But I doubt it...
Mother Teresa?
Egads!
Wow. You must have RULED at Mousetrap!
"Then people go home depressed and start selling their share portfolios, then the stock market falls, which causes companies to go bankrupt, and then I lose my job, ALL BECAUSE KENDALL CHARGED THE MOUND!"
oh, c'mon, man
One could also argue that, as baffling as Lackey was to everyone but Chavvy, the Angels have a great 'pen that's historically been able to shut the A's down.
Overall, yes, I agree with you that it was good tactical move to get Lackey out of the game --- but there are valid points of disputation with that argument.
All I'm saying is..
We don't know that.
How many times has a big check in hockey got the trailing team to start pushing harder?
In this situation, Kendall's charge put Lacckey in a corner. If he turned tail and ran, he's a pussy. If he stands and fights, he's tossed.
If Kendall wasn't trying to pull a tactical move here, he got lucky. But if he was, it's genius.
I was wondering when we'd break out the P word
Yeah, the pansy euphemism only goes so far
by FreeSeatUpgrade on May 3, 2006 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh god.
All I'm saying is that Lackey HAD to stand, because running opens you up to ridicule from that point on. You know it, I know it.
Harping on the word I used to indicate what would be said about a guy in a hypothetical situation is about as disengenuous as you can get.
But then... no, I'll leave it at that.
Hysterical?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on May 5, 2006 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions
When you respond to my comment...
Actually, Ozzie
by FreeSeatUpgrade on May 5, 2006 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not condoning violence here
That being said, I think that it's much too easy to point fingers and say that you could do something else. When something like that happens, you aren't thinking over in your head, "Hmm, should I talk this out later, or beat him up after he gets out of the clubhouse?" You're acting NOW, and in the heat of the moment, you can do some stupid things. Sure, it isn't right. Sure, it'll have consequences. I'm not saying it should be encouraged. I'm just saying that it will happen, and a lot of times, when someone does something bad and talks smack about you, you'll be too mad to think about an alternative solution and you do something stupid. It happens. Jason is to blame, but Lackey is as well, and they were both angry, and both did something they shouldn't have.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, shit happens. I'm not sure why all the enthusiasm, since I wasn't here when it happened, but I'd like to venture a guess that they were angry Lackey did something stupid and were pleased someone was doing something about it. I don't want to speak for anybody, but that's the first thing I thought when I heard about it - I was pleased that Jason was standing up and not taking crap. It does help I'm completely obsessed with the A's and I hate the Angels, so I was happy Angels crap was being thrown back.
That said, I don't support fighting, but once again, with that said, I think you should put yourself in the same situation first and think about what you would do. If you were really mad about it, would you want to wait until later? Would you even think about it? Trading insults might have even led to the same conclusion.
All right, I'm stepping off my soapbox now. Just my two cents.
I believe
Also, nothing fosters team unity like a fight... nothing! fight > wins in the unity department. Anyone who has been in a fight knows the feeling.
He saw the opportunity to save face
Hey, if he really wanted to help the team, he'd get in fights with his teammates. Hey, it worked wonders for the 72-74 A's!
A huge reason
It's so popular because it shows the carnage of war, it shows a battle between to seperate teams, taking it on on the field with one goal in mind, to win.
I don't see what's wrong with that. And im pretty sure most of you are huge football fans. So tell me, why is it such a bad thing if it happens in baseball?
I'm also a football and hockey fan
Fighting
Not all fights are created equal. Confrontation is an inevitable part of life, and confrontations in a physical contest like baseball are, well, physical. There was no intent to injure a player; there was some wrestling, some yelling, and things broke up pretty quickly.
As far as explaining this to children, you should tell them fighting is wrong. Children are not as capable of making subtile distinctions. However, as adults living in an adult world, while this behavior is not something anyone should encourage, it's certainly nothing to get worked up about. Kendall will get suspended, and the world will move on.
what needs to be fixed is
Or miss no time
by green star oakland on May 2, 2006 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Kendall: Tale of the Tape
http://www.dodgerblues.com/content/features_fights.html#sheffield
That would be precious to see...
Fourth fight, actually
If Fogg was trying to make a statement, he picked the right time to do it. There were two outs and nobody on when he hit Anderson on the right leg.
"I guess he thought it was on purpose, but I wasn't trying to hit him," said Fogg, who had hit only one other batter this season.
Anderson took a few steps toward first, angrily flipped his bat toward the dugout and glared at Fogg as Kendall interceded. Words were exchanged while Anderson walked to first.
The fight began when Anderson shoved his left elbow under Kendall's chin and flipped up the face mask. Kendall shoved Anderson in retaliation, and the brawl began.
"I got (expletive) slapped," Kendall said. "I don't play that (expletive)."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/sports/pirateslive/s_140017.html
Kendall makes sailors blush
Oh, Kendall....
"He hit me, I was walking down to first base and the guy has the nerve to say something. I'll bet you he won't do it again to anybody else."
My Blog.
Unless we don't know all of the details...
That being said, it was so spur-of-the-moment and so out of the norm, it was hard not to show some emotion in the thread. How often do we see the A's fight? It was crazy! Sure, I know fighting is dumb, and Jason should be punished. I don't want it to happen every game, but as long as no one was hurt, I don't really mind.
I suspect
Of course, its also possible that Kendall just read "The Art of War" and was attempting to put some of its philosophy into action.
I bet it has something to do with Kendall's book.
Wait, I could be confusing this with someone else...
whatever book that is ...
Kendall said Lackey choked in the '02 WS...
and today ...
... and then he called him a xylophone defenestrator.
uh-oh
Kendall, like oaktoon ...
I don't get it, either.
Mostly I think it's that we want to see our team get that "fired-up," and there isn't really an equivalent non-violent demonstration of "fired-up." I think part of the enjoyment in seeing a brawl also reflects frustration and occasional feelings of powerlessness in some areas of "real life" -- I'd like to be allowed to just charge after somebody sometimes. It would solve absolutely nothing, AND I'd get the crap knocked out of me... but, temperamentally, I can relate to the urge.
I can get that
At the time of the fight,
AMAZING!
As I think I said before, I don't condone fighting per se, but seeing something like this was blew my mind in terms of the fact that it is so out of the ordinary for the A's.
I suspect we'll never know the whole story of what transpired, but I can only assume that Kendall wouldn't have charged the mound for no reason. Not only was it entertaining (and semi-ridiculous to see), I trust the way Kendall calls the game for our pitchers, and therefore trust the way he plays the rest of the game (DPs and charging the mound included).
Fighting wouldn't be my course of action, but I'm not a major league catcher. If it becomes a regular thing, I'll be against it, but in the isolated incident against our biggest rival, it's nice to see some fire, that likely had some justification (at least partially).
My Blog.
Wouldn't that be great?
Oh well, back to my mundane work life.
by peanut gallery on May 2, 2006 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Kendall one who broke the code
Kendall took the massive retaliation approach instead. Charging the mound in response to mere words breaks the code...charging the mound in response to headhunting pitches is a different matter. The code says stand up for yourself in kind; it does not say your words deserve my fist.
once again, I bow to FSU
You are too modest
a) If Kendall wants to show that the A's are a force to be reckoned with, getting more hits would be a better way of showing that.
b) If Kendall is to be defended as acting craftily to get the other team's pitcher ejected, that's the type of questionable sportsmanship that drives us crazy in our opponents. So if you want to embrace Kendall's "gamesmanship," go ahead, but please--stop complaining about AJ Przynski and other such "crafty" players.
I got a little carried away with (b), I may have put some words in your mouth--anyway, that's what I thought you were emphasizing.
by rubin sierra on May 2, 2006 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions
thanks, but ...
Yes, there's unwritten rules, and there's a place for violence in sports, and there's a justified way to respond to an attack oin your person -- and Kendall violated all of those.
Kendall has his own unwritten rule.
yes, but ...
Agreed
There's no "unwritten" rule about...
really?
Why, indeed, does Kendall get so incensed when pitchers accuse him of doing it? If there's not an "unwritten rule" about not doing it, then why should he be at all sensitive about being accused of it?
Part 1: Bonds. The answer: Homerism
Part 2:Kendall. The answer: He gets incensed because there's no unwritten rule and they shouldn't be accusing him of anything. They should talk to the ump if they have a problem. Or, I don't know.
Kendall wanted to employ a Shock and Awe...
Not to be confused with auk and Shaw...

It was strange
My first reaction (when I realized what was happening) was "oh my god kendall what are you doing", but once I heard that Lackey said something it somewhat justified it. I still think it was a stupid move to run out and get suspended since the ball never hit him, but I can see why he did it. (and I will admit I did like on the replays how Kendall took Lackey down even with Mathis hanging on his back.)
I was half expecting someone to throw a drink at me or something just for being an A's fan after that. INTENSE. Made me even MORE glad we won.
Its definitely immature
I think its always better if you prove your fire with your play. That said, the fight itself didn't bother me---its not like the A's do it that often--but what does bother me is that this is not a good time for the A's to be racking up suspensions. Sure, only Kendall is on the block, but those things can always escalate into something a lot worse.
If Kendall is suspended for five games, the A's apparently lose that roster spot, and in order to bring up another catcher they'd have to find someone to send down. That, to me, is what makes this hardly worth it.
by Alien @ Athletics Nation on May 2, 2006 6:19 PM PDT reply actions
Is that the official word on suspensions?
Can you imagine how Kielty would feel if they DFA Kielty to make room for Jeremy Brown?
suspensions usually come down a few days after
Immature is right...
Mr. Kendall: Why do you care what John Lackey says about your stance? Shut up and hit -- and give him a real reason to hate your stance.
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on May 2, 2006 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Amusing, but ultimately pathetic
But the source of the brawl is truly pathetic. That Kendall's only response to a verbal assault was to try to fight Lackey makes me think so much less of him. That says: 1) He's not smart enough to come up with a fitting (verbal) retort, and/or 2) Lackey's remarks about Kendall's ineptitude at the plate hit very close to Kendall's insecurities about himself.
In my mind, Kendall's reaction today wasn't much different than Frank Francisco's last year.
Close to home
Bingo.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on May 2, 2006 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions
What violence?
My first question: To what violence are you objecting? Baseball fights are the wimpiest fights in sports. Rugby scrums are more violent than baseball fights. More players have been injured in collisions at homeplate or turning plays at second base than have ever been injured in baseball fights. Million-dollar players tackling and pushing. Wow! You can see more violence at your neighborhood bar than at a major league baseball game.
Second question: Why are you citing your children as reasons for your objections to major league fisticuffs? I am a father of daughters and a grandfather of boys. The boys, above the age 6, will be entertained by it and the girls will ignore it. YOU are offended, not your children.
Third question: Do you know the probability of actually becoming a major-league ballplayer? Major league athletes are borne and bred by and for aggression. If they were prone to rational, politically-correct responses, they would NOT be professional athletes in the first place. It is often their singular, beyond-the-pale tenacity that helps them survive the brutal weeding-out process of pro sports.
OK
(1) I agree that they are usually more like pseudo-violence and unlikely to cause injury. Nevertheless I think it's very stupid even as such for all the reasons in my post. And, I moreso don't agree with the fan response of Oh wow! and Terrific! Fantastic! Yeah, Fight!
(2) Why shouldn't I cite my children? I didn't say they were offended. I said that I don't want them to learn the fan response I describe above or to learn that violence is an appropriate response in a frustrating sporting situation. Obviously you are free to disagree - that's just my humble opinion.
(3) It is often their singular, beyond-the-pale tenacity that helps them survive the brutal weeding-out process of pro sports. I totally agree. But I don't agree that tenacity = aggression that leads inevitably to violence and not being able to control oneself.
lurkerD, I'm having fun!
(1) If you agree that what we saw today was pseudo-violence, what's the problem? The fans' response is the same response you get from any viewer of what is perceived as entertainment. The same people (I include myself in this assessment) who woof in approval at the Jason Kendall's pseudo-machismo are probably the first to respond as peacemakers in case of real violence. I believe the task of all parents is to educate their kids on the difference between cartoon violence (was not Jason Kendall a cartoon this afternoon?) and real violence. You probably don't remember this, but I witnessed Juan Marichal mash John Roseboro on the head with a bat. I remember Tony Conigliaro's career ending with a bean (not Beane) ball. Since then MLB has initiated helmets, warnings, fines, elbow armor, and suspensions, which cost the highly-paid major-leaguers beaucoup bucks. Isn't that a grown-up response?
(2)Read your own words, "I don't want them to learn the fan response I describe above." YOU may not want them to learn, but how are you going to prevent them from witnessing? Better to distinguish for them "fan response" from "real-life thug" response. Incidentally, "sporting" violence (forechecks, brushbacks, slobber-knocker tackles, etc.) is an entirely appropriate response to "frustrating sporting" situations. I highly recommend it as sporting therapy.
(3) What is tenacity but controlled aggression? What is aggression but kinder, gentler violence? Jason Kendall did not take a knife to the mound for his "discussion" with Lackey. Indeed, MLB does not even allow knives in the dugout. Isn't that civilized? Civilization does not eliminate aggression; it channels it into more productive pursuits. So which would you rather have, Jason Kendall rushing the mound or something more serious?
a good ass kickin' is good, time to time.
Iron Mike Tyson
stylized, ritualized violence
The charging of the mound is ritualized and stylized. For instance, you can't bring your bat, you can't call in other people to help, you can't bite, you can't throw the shattered part of a bat at the batter (hi Roger), you can't wait until after the game and mug him in the shower, you can't attack the catcher, you can't urinate on the other guy, etc. There are a lot of rules which make it a very formalized kind of violence.
One can argue whether Kendall was justified charging, but the form of violence itself is a well-established part of the sport.
Personally, I think baseball players are way too sensitive about dumb stuff, like looking at the pitcher after a homer or running too slowly around the bases, or insulting each other on the field. But once those customs are established, it is a kind of weakness to not respond in all the ways allowed in the code.
As for the enthusiasm, I assume it's because we want the A's to project as much strength as possible within the code of baseball.
Good points
But here's where you lose me: just because it's a well-established part of the sport doesn't mean it's not stupid, and it doesn't mean I as a fan have to cheer it on or think it's great for the player or the team.
And I think throwing a hard object 90 mph at someone's head is becoming a lot less mandatory over time to anyone because, you know, you could KILL someone! And that's stupid!
The Nature of the Game
To expect a player to behave differently is naive.
Fortunately, as Apricot as so eloquently pointed out, the violence in largely limited to the ritualistic variety, and rarely does anyone get seriously injured (sorry, Ray Chapman). It is a natural and necessary escape valve.
If a parent is worried about the effect this ritualistic violence might have on little Billy, perhaps Mom or Dad might try explaining the difference between charging the mound and poppin' a cap in the pitcher's skull. It's a distinction that will serve them well in later in life.
by Mission1929 on May 2, 2006 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but Kendall skipped steps
by FreeSeatUpgrade on May 2, 2006 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Excitable Boy
But, then again, I picture that slack-jaw yokel Lackey mouthing off like some kinda tough guy, and I wouldn't have blamed Kendall for pulling a Bert Campaneris on the dude.
by Mission1929 on May 2, 2006 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Nice!
by FreeSeatUpgrade on May 2, 2006 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Holy crap
by ohtobe21likehuston on May 3, 2006 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions
"50 man ambles"
(But it does need a hyphen. Punk.)
the difference to me
I think in little league or any recreational setting, most violence (charging, beanballs) is completely unacceptable. It gets fuzzy in high school (I would think it's still unacceptable) and college (I would think it's probably part of the culture... I don't follow college ball well enough to know). The context and the consent of the participants mattes.
Apricot
My point is that I wish it wasn't so and I think it's wrong and therefore as a fan I do not choose to cheer for it or be pleased by it. I'd rather speak out in the hopes that eventually it might change.
Hell, at least we have batting helmets now!
that's not the only thing that ...
you CAN'T urinate on the other guy?
i don't see what the big deal is. did kendall
by larrysgurl on May 2, 2006 7:26 PM PDT reply actions
You guys Analyze too Much
You guys should praise Kendall for picking the right time to charge at a pitcher, if he charged someone like Chris Bootcheck, then you have a right to complain. But overall Kendall needed to give John Lackey a "Hey Biatch, time to eat grass." What's a guy suppose to do after you mouth off at him or call him a blowj0b? Pretend not to hear it? Yeah right...
by Instant Replay Umpire on May 2, 2006 7:48 PM PDT reply actions
He didn't pick it on purpose.
Oh boy....
Not a single person on this, or any other blog, has any right to look down on anyone for any of this (Wait, does the Pope have a blog? j/k). If people want to enjoy a little baseball brawl, let them. You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to try to be a moral leader. It's not like Kendall pulled a shotgun on the guy. It's not like two guys just jabbering and brawling on the street. It's part of the game. Don't like it? Ignore it.
The Pope
by secret ASian man on May 2, 2006 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions
All I know is that if the Pope Crowd-the-plate....
Yo
Mis-understanding...
by PosterNutbag44 on May 2, 2006 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Plus...
by PosterNutbag44 on May 2, 2006 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions
in other words ...
No...
by PosterNutbag44 on May 3, 2006 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
For the record....this bleeding heart liberal...
Bottoms up for ol' Kendall!
also
Besides when was the LAST brawl at a stadium that actually had shocking violence. The shocking violence is usually reserved for brawls involving fans (fans vs. players, fans vs. fans, fans vs. base coaches)
by thefosseposse on May 2, 2006 8:43 PM PDT reply actions
I am a lefty
by Athletics fan and runner on May 2, 2006 8:44 PM PDT reply actions
One positive note...
Too bad :-(
Good to meet you this weekend BTW.
by ohtobe21likehuston on May 3, 2006 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Violence
And within that world it was really cool. Within that world where these teams fight it out for 19 games, where there are rivalries and animosities--and also respect and admiration--that dates back several years, it was good to see one of our fiercest players, one of our old-school guys, charge the mound because he was pissed off about an insult. I watched it over and over again and laughed more each time, loved Kendall for his grit more each time, liked the takedown more each time.
It makes the rest of the season more interesting. Hell, it makes tomorrow night more interesting. And it doesn't even overshadow the game; it further defines it as a game in which we kicked the Angels ass.
I have no doubt that it will loosen up the clubhouse, bring these 25 guys more together, and help them further forge an identity.
So way to go, Kendall. Loved it.
Oh yeah,
and your initial post ...
And your reply
because Kerry didn't stand up for himself
And Kerry never fought back on either account.
Not to mention the batty wife
by southofcruiseamerica on May 3, 2006 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
well, I'm the first to concede ...
And yet ... he still came awfully close. I honestly think the deciding factor (if one can even be assigned) is that a good number of people thought about Kerry what many people say they would have thought about Kendall had he not charged the mound.
pursuing the thought
At the risk of steering this tangent even closer to a political debate (which I think we all would rather avoid), I think this metaphor needs to be pursued.
Those of us who think Kendall's action was not admirable aren't objecting because he stood up for himself. It's great to stand up for yourself, and for your team. But that's not what Kendall showed yesterday. What he showed yesterday is that he's an insecure hothead who reacts with violence when he's pissed off and thinks someone is dissing him.
Now suppose someone with that kind of attitude is put into a positive of authority in the real world. Is that really the best person for the job? Or do we find out later that the guy whom most of us felt was being strong and standing up for his country is actually a fool who hides his inability to hit by flying off the handle and getting into a fight whenever someone pisses him off. Regardless of what you think of his policy views, what happens when that sort of violent. impulsive behavior dictates foreign policy? It's bound to hurt the team.
That's why LurkerD and I and the others care about what sort of lesson we draw from this. If 73% of AN readers draw the wrong conclusion, it's no big deal. But if 52% of the electorate makes the same mistake, it will cost us.
Wow.
...and I thought he was just a baseball player.
This reminds me of one time I was in New Orleans, at Uglesich's restaurant. The lady in front of me wanted her dressing on the side, and the owner took his glasses off, squeezed the bridge of his nose, and drawled, "Ma'am, let's not make this any more difficult than it needs to be."
Let's not overthink this. The guy catches baseballs for a living. Let him get his man on every now and then.
by 66th Hegenberger on May 3, 2006 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions
who?
by 66th Hegenberger on May 4, 2006 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
You know, I wonder...
3-1 game against our hated rivals, 6th inning, Lackey dealing, bases juiced with one out. If Swisher were batting, decided to rush the mound just because Lackey mouthed off, and got suspended for 5 games, would people be so happy about the situation?
My guess would be that everyone would be pissed that Swisher hurt the A's chances at padding the lead in a critical game, and for taking himself out of action for mulitple games due to suspension. We're more willing to excuse Kendall because he's such a terrible hitter, and because he has so much, you know, grit.
But that doesn't make what he did right.
It's not right. It's not left. He did...
Kendall could have...
by scutaroknowstheway on May 2, 2006 10:45 PM PDT reply actions
Get off your high horses
And for those who believe Kendall should have said something "salty" back to Lackey instead of charging him, it would be very interesting if someone came up to you in public or at your job and verbally assaulted you in the manner Lackey did. It was not "Geeze Mr. Kendall...please dont throw your elbow out...I would hate to have the ball hit you." This was obviously evident and kudos to the home plate umpire for ejecting Lackey. This whole situation does not play out if Lackey was not posturing and challenging Kendall.
Condescending fans and players should remember the game continued as always after both teams were seperated. As always, no one was injured. The game was still settled between the lines. The A's are not a team of thugs and their last fight was in 1993. That would be 13 years! Keep in mind some of the 2004 Red Sox players adamantly said the fight between A-rod/Varitek set the tone for the rest of their season and you saw the end result. What was our immediate end result: When was the last time the A's put a six run butt-whipping on the Angels in the 9th inning to blow them out?
by Anger management on May 2, 2006 11:03 PM PDT reply actions
Completely Agree!!!
Last season when Lackey did hit Kendall, was when the Angels were taking the division by beating the A's, and so in response (frustration, anger, psychotic or whatever else is being said about him) Kendall let it be known that the A's are herre to play, and will not go down quietly.
This is huge mentally - and where some say overreaction, I say it's about fuc&*ng time. It's time that someone on the A's said enough is enough... especially when a drooling half-wit is the one making these statements.
So I say hell yes Kendall - may this pay dividends in the end...and let's hear it for our fighting A's...
And if that's to much for you, go have a cappucino at Pac-Bell Park while listening to the Bee-Gee's....
Violence !
Just kidding. Fights have always been part of the game of baseball. Guys used to really go at it in locker rooms and much more often on the field when I was a young girl. This isn't unique and it isn't some moral debate.
I was proud of Kendall. Two guys on one and he still took down big-mouth Lackey. And I bet Lackey minds his manners a little better in the future considering his sassy ass got thrown out of the game and he was one of the MAJOR reasons that the Halos lost.
"sassy ass"...
by baseballgirl on May 3, 2006 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Good for Kendall!!
I honestly don't think there is another answer for a team that wants a World Series.
BTW....
my vote
And I suppose that's why Eric Chavez is my favorite A, and Kendall is ... well, he's not.
Important point.
Besides, I'd have more respect for Scioscia if he challenged Huddy to a fight rather than go and complain to the umps. Scioscia plays mind games, he will, at times, completely fabricate excuses and try to talk the umps to his side. There's no true detriment for him -- while Kendall, at least, put himself in a situation where he was going to face consequences, both from the league and from being at a disadvantage of being in a 2-against-1 fight.
And, quite frankly, Kendall's a player and Scioscia's a manager. I'm a firm believer than the outcome of the game should primarily be determined by the 25 guys on the roster. The manager is there to guide those guys, not consistantly make determinations in the game's outcome.
"No. It's Oakland."
Next we're going to see...
hopefully he does it
by Athletics fan and runner on May 3, 2006 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Do you think Scioscia could
Throw in Kotsay and some bleu cheese dressing
How could I forget Kotsay?
Also, I'm allergic to bleu cheese... could we get chocolate pudding?
How about meat-pudding?
new expression
The fight
Kendall is a hard nosed, old school type baller that Lackey should've known not to talk smack to. If Lackey was smart, he should've waited for Chavy to bat b4 mouthing off... Chavy would've said, "But I didn't lean in, I tried to avoid getting hit, I swear Mr. Lackey." "Let's all be friends here."
For a guy who really wants to be friends
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on May 3, 2006 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I need to go back for a review then
And that's just it, I've always viewed Kendall as a no nonsense, gritty player with lots of cajones, where as, I look at Chavy with quite the opposite. Believe me, I want to start viewing him in a more positive light. I can't wait to see Chavy go off on someone.
by sf drift king on May 3, 2006 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
What about Thad Bosley?
by AlamedaAphid on May 3, 2006 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
What about The Tom Bosley...
He oughta get more work these days.
Remember when The Fonz tried to jump his motorcycle over a pool of sharks? Shouldn't he get a much cojones credit as Chavy?
If Bunny Crosby got in a fight ...
if poppy got into a fight ...
(And, yes, the follow-up to that is, If monkeyball got into a fight, would he pee on me?)

by 




