LurkerD's-fight-diary-continued open thread, brought to you by Jerry Springer
by rubin sierra on May 2, 2006 11:52 PM PDT
Email
PrintGreat thread by LurkerD with 170+ comments yesterday, from lurkerD's statement--how is it that what Kendall did so courageous or commendable?--to baseballgirl's rejoinder--yeah but it sure was fun to watch a fight for a change! (Note: paraphrasing very badly). I remember my high-school friends and I always yearning to go to a game that featured a bench-clearing brawl, so for that part of my inner fan, today was certainly a big success.
On the other hand, a closer examination of our guy's actions--which lurkerD's post requires us to make--tells us pretty clearly that they were far from heroic. Kendall either a) acted in the throws of a tempermental passion and needs anger management counselling (charging the mound in response to an insult? But then confer Apricot's post on rituals in baseball--much more acceptable than charging, say, your boss in real life); or b) acted according to a plan, craftily (read: Pyrzynski-ishly) getting the Angels' best starting pitcher ejected from the game at minimal cost to us (Kendall suspension--who cares? Err, I mean, now who will "handle" our pitching staff?).
Should we all now feel bad for our initial cheers? Well, as PosterNutBag eloquently put it, "Not a single person on this, or any other blog, has any right to look down on anyone for any of this." No big deal, people, just a little scrum. Sure, we all got excited, surprise, surprise--as McFood pointed out, humans have been getting excited about violence for oh, about the whole history of mankind.
Use this thread to continue talking about the brawl yesterday, including update w.r.t. any penalty handed down. And while doing so: be good to yourselves ... and each other.
142 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's all a gray area to me
I can see how the situation can be viewed as positive. It creates a sense of togetherness, because I don't think there was a single player there who wouldn't go out to help defend a teammate, no matter who was in the wrong. I've read tons of quotes from other A's players saying that Lackey has previously run his mouth. With any intense rivalry, minor things get escalated, and the end result will more or less be ugly. The weird thing about it, the uglier it is, the more interest it draws.
Kendall is my favorite player, and I'm not gonna lie. Watching a man I think is hot going out and kicking another guy's ass is completely sexy to me. If it had been two other players that I didn't care about, I would have found the whole thing juvenile and stupid. Um, I think there's a point somewhere around here....
[final thought]So brawls may be good for the fans and players to retain their interest, but the act and the consequences will just come back to bite everyone in the ass.[/final thought]
Final Thought!
My take...
In Leonard Koppet's 'The Thinking Fans Guide To Baseball,' he discusses how, at the root of hitting is the batters fear of getting hit. Even if this is a subconscious fear, the body reacts adversely to a ball travelling nearly a hundred miles an hour so close to it. Koppet goes into detail on how in an at bat when the pitcher moves his pitches in and outside he keeps the batter off-balance by using this natural reflex against him. Each pitch is an effort for the pitcher and batter to try and take more of the plate for himself.
So, when Lackey says something like "stick that out there again," while seeming like a small insult, could be taken as "I'm gonna get you with the next one." This leaves, in the batters mind(even if just in the back), the thought that the next pitch is coming right at him. Maybe it is maybe, it isn't. Maybe he throws it to the outside corner and Kendall isn't able to react in time. The point is Lackey now has the advantage. In order to take that advantage away from Lackey, and future pitcher's from trying something similar, one must act.
What Kendall did is part of the natural battle between a pitcher and a hitter, just as a pitcher beaning someone sometimes is.
And this doesn't even go into how relaxed the A's have been the last couple years. Perhaps Kendall saw how easy going everyone was and decided he'd light a fire under their asses.
All in all, I think we should all just be happy we made it through the fight and, miraculously, Crosby didn't end up on the DL.
violence
one who was asking for it
But on the other hand, supporting your argument--Lackey said he had no problem with Kendall having charged the mound. No one's reporting exactly what was said; maybe it was so below-the-belt that Lackey really WAS asking for it.
To the contrary...
"The whole reason Kendall went after him -- which was completely wrong, and of course he's going to be ejected -- is because Lackey yelled at him aggressively, very aggressively. He took a couple steps beyond where he usually ends up where he pitches, basically challenging him"
Head Umpire - Dale Scott
Watching the replay on the team's official site - it is very clear that Lackey takes 3 or 4 steps towards the box. Kendall isn't even looking at him - and only charges in response to Lackey's words (which were obviously loud if the Ump also heard them.)
Violence is wrong. In the context of a sporting game things can get just a little blurred. Some sports are purely based on fighting, and others essentially incorpoarte it (Go Sharks!)
The debacle at the Pacers-Pistons game last year = disgraceful.
The debacle at the big A yesterday = Part of baseball.
I hate to do it but Kruk had a valid point on BBTN, (tune out if you see fit!) Especially in the A.L. the pitcher believes they can get away with pitching inside because they won't be beaned in retaliation. Lackey gestured and tried to get an edge in the at bat, by intimidating Kendall. (I agree w/ SuperBean -excellent post) Apparently Lackey has mouthed off several times prior to yesterday...and Kendall snapped. It's not a good example for the kids watching, but Kendall was playing team baseball.
by FireballerHARDEN on May 3, 2006 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions
That's where Lackey loses my sympathy
What struck me in watching the replay (once) was Lackey making a spectacle of himself. It was obvious he was yelling, and then he takes a couple of steps to make it ever more obvious. He was showing Kendall up.
I would have preferred that Kendall just yell back instead of charge the mound. But in Kendall's mind, that wasn't enough of a response. I don't entirely blame him, at least when I look at it from his perspective.
The beauty of these baseball fights is that no one ever gets hurt in them. And then everyone just mills around.
''The beauty...
Yeah. That's why baseball brawls mostly just make me laugh. They're so absurd. I mean, if a young athletic man pushed an overweight old guy in real life, it would be pretty offensive. But Pedro Martinez shoving Don Zimmer bordered on the ridiculous. Not saying it was okay, but it was hard to take it seriously in the context of a baseball brawl.
Violence is okay sometimes!
anyone who has a problem with the kendall thing
lackey didn't have a problem with it, and even the umpire understood. maybe they're on to something.
anyone who makes comparisons to the ron artest incident or the delmon young incident is just being ridiculous and should probably just be ignored by all reasonable baseball fans.
of course kendall should be suspended, as should lackey for starting it. but this is a legitimate part of the game, just because two things are both suspendable offenses (for example, charging the mound, throwing a bat at an umpire) doesn't mean they're comparable in any other way.
I was always kinda partial to Roy Rogers
One of my favorite lines from Die Hard.
by ohtobe21likehuston on May 3, 2006 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions
ice dancing
Those ice dancing fights can be pretty mean.
by Athletics fan and runner on May 3, 2006 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Disney's "Scrums On Ice"!
i'm here to help
OK, xbx, may I consider that ...
absolutely
an argument could be made that the proper thing to do would be to throw at me (the pitcher) if possible or at the best player on my team (vlad), but kicking my ass would be an acceptable option as well.
or did you mean in real life, outside of baseball? surely you're not delusional enough to confuse the rules (written and unwritten) of baseball with those of the outside world...
Live by the code, duck by the code
If I responded in kind, however, with just words, the chances of resolving things with manhood intact and without a visit to the holding tank are greatly enhanced.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on May 3, 2006 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
so why is it that
again, it's because the written and unwritten rules of baseball are different from those in the real world.
i don't think that's dependent on whether one works in an office or not. i don't know if the "punching each other is normal behavior" defense has ever been used by a sports fan in a criminal trial, but if it has i'm sure it failed.
OK, so I now have four choices
- Ignore you (which, obviously, I'm not doing)
- Respond to you in kind with insults
- Actually physically assault you in reposnde to your insults, baiting, and goading (which I'm not doing because [a] I'm not a hypocrite and [b] I don't especially need the arrest record or your hospital bill)
- Report you to the CGV
- Engage in dialogue to figure out why you're so hostile on this issue
{takes shot of tequila}
I don't think jujubes even dissolve in stomach
nobody ever expects the Simian Inquisition!
"Cardinal Fang"
what a joke dude
i have no idea how you (or anyone else) would behave in a hypothetical situation i just made up where 1) myself and the other individual were both baseball players and 2) i insulted the other person during a game.
is it a CGV if my personal opinion is that i consider a certain action in that hypothetical situation to be cowardly?
i also don't know that you, or anyone else, confuses the rules of baseball with those that govern people out in the real world. but if anyone does in fact confuse the two, is thinking that is delusional a violation of the community guidelines?
what if i say
-"i think people who cross the street while hopping on one leg are idiots."
-"i think anyone who wants to take a vacation on the sun is a moron."
-"i think if someone confused the laws of the real world and those on the show Star Trek, that would be delusional."
are those statements CGVs?
i don't file CGV's against people, but if i did, should i file a CGV based on you stating on AN that you are contemplating physical assault against me, and apparently only decided not to take such an action because it might appear to be inconsistent behavior on your part based on some earlier statements you may have made, and because you fear being arrested or having to pay for my hospital bills?
bring it on
You wrote, "anyone who has a problem with the kendall thing [...] is a sissy." Please explain precisely how that doesn't constitute an insult, to me and to numerous other AN'ers. (You can use small words if that makes it easier for you. [Strike four!])
You also wrote, "anyone who makes comparisons to the ron artest incident or the delmon young incident is just being ridiculous": not that the argument itself is ridiculous, or that you disagree with it, but that the individuals were being ridiculous. Borderline, by itself not constitutive, but in context, following on the "sissies" comment, potentially culpable.
You followed up with "if we were playing baseball against each other, and i publicly shouted insults at you in a somewhat threatening manner in the middle of a game, i'd probably consider you a pathetic coward if you didn't do something about it." While you were indeed careful to follow that in turn with an implicit caution about not extrapolating that to a real-world situation, I think that the context is quite clear: that you in fact had just "shouted insults" at me and others, and that the implication is indeed that we will be considered "pathetic coward[s]" if we don't respond to you in a reciprocal or escalatory manner. That to me is a pretty clear example of precisely what was highlighted in the recent oaktoon kerfuffle, vis a vis goading and baiting.
I recognize that I've crossed the line a couple of times in the last 24 hours; why do you not see that you have as well?
<whips head to one side, nods>
<whips head back to center>
<strains neck>
<blames Macha>
darn, tootin', blame Macha!
stretched out enough
oh MAN!!!!
You know they have planes to Oakland, yeah? And the airport is right next to the stadium...:)
{checks Royals' record}
it has already been brought
i already told you i wouldn't file a CGV. if i think filing CGVs is yet another thing that is for sissies, does merely having that opinion constitute a CGV?
i believe oaktoon and others (including myself) expressed similar sentiments in his CGV diary...
---
"anyone who has a problem with the kendall thing":
it wasn't an insult towards you because i was not aware of your feelings on the matter when i expressed my personal opinion on it.
that's why i give the example of "i think people who cross the street while hopping on one leg are idiots."
if i make that statement, can you say "i cross the street while hopping on one leg, therefore you consider me to be an idiot, therefore that is a CGV"?
that seems a bit ridiculous to me.
what if i say "only a fool would want kendall to bat fourth in the order" and one of the 6 billion people on this planet actually happens to think kendall should bat fourth in the order, did i just commit a CGV against that person?
my comment was not in response to anything you or anyone else had written on the matter, i was merely stating my own opinion.
note that not only did i not respond to you, but you had not even posted in this diary at that time.
the only diary i have read on this kendall debate, even now, is this diary.
at the time i posted my comment (close to 3am), this was at the top of the diary list.
there were only a few comments in this diary, and, although this may come as a surprise, none of the comments were on the subject of monkeyball's opinion of the kendall incident.
---
artest-kendall comparison:
that is yet another comment that wasn't in response to anyone actually comparing the kendall incident to the artest or young incidents.
in fact, the only person who had mentioned it is "FireballerHARDEN" and only to state that he thought this was different, not to make a comparison.
his comment is the reason i brought it up, and obviously it wasn't to insult him as he agrees.
if no one actually compared it to the young and artest incidents, which individuals am i saying are ridiculous? who is the CGV against?
if someone does think that, even though i am not aware of it, have i now committed a CGV?
---
hypothetical:
surely anyone can see that i presented an imaginary hypothetical.
i said it would be okay for you to assault me "IF" i was lackey ("best player on my team" = vlad) and you were kendall and we were playing baseball against each other.
clearly we are not playing in a baseball game against each other right now, nor have we ever done so, nor do we have plans to do so. clearly i am not lackey. i'm assuming you're not kendall, if you were, you could probably file like 500 CGVs every day.
my comment was that if i was lackey and kendall didn't charge the mound, i would consider him, as a fellow baseball player, to be a coward.
it has nothing to do with
- whether i as someone who is not a baseball player but a baseball fan, would consider kendall to be a coward if he didn't charge the mound.
- whether i think you are a coward, as you are not a baseball player in that situation, and because i don't know what you have said you would do in such a situation.
i disagree that the "implication" is what you state it was, i think that's all just in your head as it seems clear that you are looking for something to get upset about.
i had not just "shouted insults" at you or anyone else, i had just stated my opinion, and not directed at anyone. i didn't know or particularly care what your personal opinions on the matter are. perhaps you are overestimating the importance i place on your opinions, and of your opinions of my opinions.
---
goading/baiting:
i started out by merely stating my opinion, not responding to anyone else or mentioning anyone else.
you directly responded to me with
"OK, xbx, may I consider that ...
... an invitation by you for me to physically assault you?"
that sure seems like goading/baiting to me.
all i did in response was merely answer the question you directly asked me.
---
your opinion:
as far as your opinions of the incident are concerned, i had not read a single comment from you on the matter. perhaps you posted in the other diary ("why such enthusiasm").
note that i haven't posted in there, that's because i came home at 2:30am and there were close to 200 comments.
i still haven't read that diary, because i really don't' care enough about the subject to go through the 240 comments.
so if you think anything i said is in response to some opinion you expressed there, you're mistaken.
if you think i'm lying, ask one of the site administrators, perhaps they can check my account.
the fact is, the other diary has not even been opened by me and still has the [!] thing in front of it.
fair enough
Your assertion, then, speaks to most of the "context" I erroneously thought I saw, which settles that so far as I specifically am concerned.
You don't, however, substantively address your initial "sissies" comment (and I'll for the time being disregard your usage of it in the post above, since I really don't want to get in a pissing match). You don't explain at all how it doesn't constitute a blanket insult of numerous AN'ers -- even including those at whom you didn't intend to aim it. And if you don't understand why calling someone a name that is obviously intended to deride and diminish isn't an insult ... well, I don't know what to say.
In my opinion, by insulting people because of a difference of opinion, you were engaging in pretty much the same thing as John Lackey.
My response, I hope, has been to try and request that you not do that -- to me or anyone else. And, especially after reading your response, I understand that I haven't been as cool and collected as I could have been, and I also see that my responses have been in some ways hypocritical, given my condemnation of Kendall's response.
the initial comment
i just think it's a bit of an overreaction. if someone said people who think [opinion] are [derogatory term], i wouldn't be all that outraged on a personal level just based on the fact that i held that opinion.
of course, the difference may be that you were particularly offended because you actually are a sissy, regretting your behavior and trying to deescalate the situation and whatnot...
well, in that case ...
absolutely
i would analogize it (for like the FIFTH time) to something like "if you think kendall should bat cleanup, you probably took the short bus to school."
in fact, i'm going to make that statement right now:
anyone who thinks kendall should bat cleanup probably took the short bus to school.
isn't that statement equally offensive and equally CGV-worthy in every way?
i see absolutely no reason why it's not.
if my initial statement is a CGV, so is this one.
- both statements may use slightly insulting language, but they are only half serious.
- both are valid opinions that one should be allowed to both hold and express on an a's blog.
- both are not directed at any specific person or group of people. the purpose is to state an opinion in a half joking way, not specifically to insult any person/group. just as my charging the mound comment wasn't made with the knowledge of (or in response to) any particular person or group of people who may actually hold that opinion, neither is the kendall batting cleanup comment i just made.
and to call that "defending calling people names" is really a stretch.
as i said in my long comment, it seems to me like you're just looking for something to get upset about, ever since you baited me on this issue with your initial response.
the irony is that a few weeks ago, i didn't think YOU should be making jokes about leukemia on AN.
Although it didn't matter to me personally, and although your joke was also not aimed at any person or group of people directly, surely someone on AN has some experience with leukemia and could potentially be upset by your comment. of course, that doesn't mean i think that comment should be considered a CGV, so i am being consistent here.
*which is almost certain in both cases, as there are 4500 people on here, each with opinions on millions of issues. surely someone could read the comment i just made about kentall batting cleanup and get upset by it because they hold that opinion.
and to clarify ...
uhh, i was being facetious
who did i insult?
who was my comment directed towards?
how did i call either you OR other folks "bad names"?
nope, you can't
I have a problem with the Kendall thing
<exagerated for dramatic effect, I'd probably only give xbox a grizzly bear-style bluff charge to see if he'd climb a tree, or the third deck stairs>
The line of logic that he used
"The only way that you can disagree with me is if you are somehow flawed and unworthy of the title 'BASEBALL FAN'."
I do not think that is fair or good logic at all.
That said, I do not really have a problem with the fight as it happened. This is part of baseball. I can understand why people question it though, especially if they have kids.
by Athletics fan and runner on May 3, 2006 7:07 AM PDT up reply actions
If that kid goes 13 years without getting
by southofcruiseamerica on May 3, 2006 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions
why should having kids matter in this argument?
"I can understand why people question it though, especially if they have kids."
It's almost like you are saying that because of kids, anything anyone does, they have to pause and think of the impact it will have on the children out there...which is total bull-shit.
Stop asking other people to raise your children.
by sf drift king on May 3, 2006 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
I am not asking anybody to raise my kids
OK?
by Athletics fan and runner on May 3, 2006 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
This wasn't directed toward you
by sf drift king on May 4, 2006 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions
sorry
by Athletics fan and runner on May 7, 2006 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions
"pathetic"
perhaps our CGV expert monkeyball can give us a ruling on that one...
I refuted the argument and not the poster
Your statement, "people who think this way are pansies." in so many words is attacking. Attacking their argument is a different thing. I attacked the logic that you used.
Chill. You disagree with people. It is ok to disagree. Just do not insult those who you disagree with.
by Athletics fan and runner on May 3, 2006 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions
freeseatupgrade, notice how i differentiated
baseball has written and unwritten rules for those that play baseball, they are not necessarily the same as the rules people must live by (state and federal laws) outside of participation in a baseball game.
i'd once again say that anyone who doesn't see a difference between baseball and the real world is delusional, but apparently that might be a CGV-worthy statement...
Dude
I try not to post about posting
Which leads me back to my original point: codes of conduct work, in the settle-things-on-the-field sense, when all parties know the rules and abide by them. Kendall didn't, he escalated beyond any reason and certainly well beyond the baseball code. That's why his actions are unjustifiable.
And if that makes someone call me a Martha-reading, Williams-Sonoma-shopping, Suburu Outback-driving fellow of questionable masculinity, well, there are codes for resolving that sort of slander.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on May 3, 2006 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I subscribe to MSL
Okay, so Kendall's a red ass.
He'd probably be suspended
Not applicable, since Lackey
by southofcruiseamerica on May 3, 2006 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Bullshit.
Yes, what if it HAD been Bradley?
by AlamedaAphid on May 3, 2006 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, in this case I'd say neither one
by AlamedaAphid on May 3, 2006 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think so.
Watch your language
Now monkey agrees with me?
by southofcruiseamerica on May 3, 2006 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions
on this point, yes!
Right on. Forgive my ignorance,
by southofcruiseamerica on May 3, 2006 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions
no, but I can understand that conclusion
And, yes, to answer the next question, I do in fact really dig the Rally Monkey. Though I loathe the Angels. Go figure.
That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure
by southofcruiseamerica on May 3, 2006 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree
Maybe Milton
I just want to know what the retaliation might be
Clearly beaning Kendall just doesn't have the same effect that it would on other players.
in case anyone wanted to see it here is a link
by larrysgurl on May 3, 2006 7:33 AM PDT reply actions
Decision Kennedy
Kennedy clearly provoked Kendall though. Kennedy drills Kendall and then was off the mound and pointing at Kendall before the ball had even stopped rolling. And he kept carping at Kendall while Kendall walks halfway up the first base line. Then Kendall charges.
As was with yesterday's game ...
That said, Kendall probably was in the wrong for his reaction, but like I'd teach my kids - avoid a fight if possible, but if you're gonna be in one, you better win.
Kendall has proven that he's a quick learner.
"No. It's Oakland."
i can't believe what i just saw
David rises up
"Even though Lackey has 6 inches and more than 30 pounds on Kendall and even though Angels catcher Jeff Mathis grabbed the A's catcher from behind, Kendall managed to take down Lackey."
If you can't appreciate the symbolic value of that, I can't help. The more I think about it the more I'm jazzed about what Kendall did. Terrific moment for the team.
... and the stone from Dave's slingshot ...
Troy Neel
by Kaybeejay on May 3, 2006 12:04 PM PDT reply actions
I remember Waybe Gross doing that from 3rd base
players charge the mound all the time
or is it an a's fan thing?
or perhaps a bay area thing?
This was a rare situation
Whether one agrees with Kendall's motivation or not, I believe it is a relatively rare occurrence unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
And I thought that diversity of opinion and lively debate were two of the things we all prized about AN.
Why?
I tend to agree that the fight was not that big a deal but I disagree with the manner that you have argued it, basically saying that all people who disagree with you are basically cowards. That does not add to your argument and it does add to the amount of hostillity in the conversation. It seems that you do not want to exchange thoughts but rather polorize people and use broad judgments to do so.
by Athletics fan and runner on May 3, 2006 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Kendall == Crazy like a Fox
I admit that I was stoked to see that there was a brawl in the game... and until lurkerD's diary, I didn't even consider that it could be a negative thing. Upon further review however, I still don't think it was negative.
This is a game where one man hurls a ball at between 80 and 100 mph at another man. Every once in a while, a batter gets hit. Usually, it is a mistake -- but every once in a while a pitcher throws at a batter on purpose. In the National League, you'll see less of this, mainly because the pitcher has to bat himself. In the AL, there are very few repercussions for the pitcher. Until he incurs the wrath of the umpire, he can pitch dangerously close to batters all day long.
Kendall gets hit a lot. One of the many reasons for this is that he doesn't get out of the way of inside pitches. I doubt that he likes it though. I can see Kendall hearing Lackey's comment, "Stick that thing out there" and reading his body language and taking that to mean that a pitch might be coming at him on purpose - if not during this AB, then at a later time.
Kendall has two choices:
- Say something or keep quiet, but take no action, resting in the knowledge that Lackey is gonna take a shot at him at some point in the future.
- Let Lackey know that he won't go quietly by charging the mound.
Again, this is the AL - there are no direct repercussions for a pitcher throwing at a batter (suspensions don't count in this case) other than charging the mound. Kendall did what he thought he had to do - and in so doing, he sent a message to Lackey and the rest of the Angels (if not the whole league) that gunning for him and his teammates is not acceptable.
I justed posted this on the other diary...
I applaud Kendall for what he did, and it's for the machismo respect and mental edge aspect.
I also think that it's letting the Angels know that this is not their division, that it's not OK for the A's to finish second, and it's DEFINITELY not OK to try and disrespect us - remember in 2004 when Jason Varitek basically did the same thing - only it was A-Rod who was mouthing off, and being the "gritty" guy on the team - he got right in A-Rod's face gave his punk ass a shove and let it be known that the REed Sox were not the Spankees whipping boys any longer (and although they lost the division, they were able to get over the intimidation factor of being down 3-0 to the Yanks, beacuse why - because they weren't intimidated)...
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....
careful ...
But, everyone, please stop with the impugning of one another's masculinity/heterosexuality. That's really, really, really not cool.
It's fine to say that Kendall wouldn't want to be seen as such, and that's why he charged the mound; that's a valid and trenchant argument.
But to say that anyone who disagrees with you is less of a man -- and especially is less of a man for having either effeminate affectations and/or (note that the two are not mutually inclusive) being gay -- is really rude and offensive to a fairly significant portion of AN and the human race.
<Annika Sorenstrom venereal disease>
by FreeSeatUpgrade on May 3, 2006 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Well yes, that, but also
by FreeSeatUpgrade on May 3, 2006 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions
charge the greens fees, anyway
Never did I say anything to the effect
sorry for jumping down your throat
But you gotta admit, cappuccinos and Bee-Gees? Those are, in the way you used 'em, loaded terms.
I mean, they're no "nasturtium-sniffing," mind you ...
SD Erik
Once again
Yeah! He has grit, heart and, um, disc brakes?
those aren't disc brakes!
Um, I don't get it. Golf?
Big Lebowski reference...
If Kendall
by peanut gallery on May 3, 2006 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Let's end this discussion...
I hope it felt gooooooood!!! My only objection was that that damn Rally Monkey wasnt standing there between Kendall and Slingblade. Kendall could have taken them both out. AH, what coulda been...
You guys sure know how to ...
If some of you don't know that retaliation,fights etc is part of the game of baseball then that ignorance is on you. Your moral diatribes are humorous to those of us over 40.
you sure know how to ...
I don't think anyone has actually said that such incidents aren't part of the game, or flat-out shouldn't ever happen, or aren't understandable in some way. The general bone of contention has been whether Kendall's was justified. Myself, I can't recall an instance of a batter charging the mound solely in response to a verbal taunt from the pitcher, and I think it's a pretty rare incident.
So, careful who you're calling "ignorant."
(And I'm not arguing that you have to read every single post in a diary before making a comment. Lord knows I've done that -- especially when grover and oaktoon are going at it. But if you're gonna make blanket condemnations, you should be more careful.)
LMAO
thanks, and good points
Just don't be throwing around "ignorance," at people, 'K?
here is the problem
You've done more than your fair share in dealing with the majority's irresistible urge to mock the minority today. Yes, quite a thread of mockery it's been, from xman's opening salvo of "anybody who has a problem with the Kendall thing ... is a sissy" to IM4Oakgal's crafty I'm-so-above-all-this arguments toward the bottom of the thread. Anyway, sorry I couldn't have been there helping out. I was with you in spirit.
Do you think more people would have voted for the AJ Pyrzynski poll option if the question had read "Jason Kendall, IN THIS INSTANCE, was ..."
Today's thread
I think people are little too sensitive but...
Then if someone throws close, take further note of it, and make sure to brush the other guy back, maybe even the pitcher if you're in a league where pitchers bat. Since throwing inside should be part of the game anyway, make sure you throw close twice. Usually, that should be the end of it, but if it isn't, then you can start to talk retaliation. However,if a fight breaks out over some nasty words so be it.
thank you
I have no problem being in the minority -- that's not the issue (well, it's part of the issue, in that I have not, as IM4oakgal pointed out, been able to let it go and there's always one more person in the majority to respond to).
But when the majority or the minority is throwing insults around, I get pretty hopping mad. Especially when it's being done by the majority, that's crossing the line.
And regarding your final question: no, I don't think the wording of the poll option would have changed much, results-wise.
BTW
When a fight used to break out the benches cleared but the players didn't get tossed all that often . Nothing like today.
I think Macha's version of that would be ...
Boy Monkeyball
Lets try this simple Q&A:
1) Is fighting an accepted part of baseball's unwritten rules and something you feel at times is acceptable?
Monkeyball: "yes"
Critics of Monkeyball: "yes"
2) Are there times when a player is completely justified in charging the mound?
Monkeyball: "yes"
Critics of Monkeyball: "yes"
3) In this case do you feel that Kendall was justified in charging the mound?
Monkeyball: "no"
Critics of Monkeyball: "yes"
Ah ha! We have now found the single bone of contention. So, there is no "moral diatribe" but rather a specific opinion that in this case Kendall did not have proper cause to charge the mound.
(Just for the record though -- Lackey had hit Kendall w/ a pitch last season and I am sure had mouthed off to JK and other A's players in the past. I think all of that added up just made Kendall snap and charge even though the immediate provocation did not seem to justify it.)
<offers banana>
This is off topics but I thought AN would
by breedingewoks on May 3, 2006 11:35 PM PDT reply actions
Lowest of the low: Holder
I'm sick of you and your constant game of...
that, sir, is an insult!
AW! You sunk my monkeybatlleship!
2nd string
by Athletics fan and runner on May 4, 2006 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
