First dumb Hurdle move of the season....

[hiaspire]

He said he changed his mind about Francis being angry about missing on the pitch, which competely makes it come across as a Hurdle order that Francis was happy to comply with.

You go re-read it. He said his initial interpretation of the situation (personal interpretation before actually finding more information) was that Francis was probably upset about having to throw the pitch, but turns out (and he says "turns out" in contrast to previous interpretations otherwise just before that) it was something different after he researched it further and that Francis instead wishes he drilled the guy because he was angry himself and stated they weren't going to push us around.

It doesn't really matter if you fill in some of the missing gaps differently, but it certainly is more than a reasonable possibility that the players on the field themselves were quite angry. And angry players (in general universally and not just under this manager) often get into fights, and pitchers in those situations generally often feel the need to defend their teammates as players speak about frequently and we see almost daily across the country. Such common possibilities at least need to be added to the mix for consideration along with the more narrowly focused initial accusation pointing to one dumb person calling the play without any actual evidence of that.

Pick your favorite manager in all of baseball. If his players get upset on the field and get into a fight or their pitcher gets personally ticked off about being disrespected or his teammates being targeted and drills a batter (as will happen for just about all managers this year), will there be the same level of uproar over that manager for his players actions? Will there be the same assumptions involved in terms of who started it or called the shot ultimately? Sometimes players get mad and things get ugly on the field as our own players say themselves about this situation. Feelings of disrespect and anger are the same emotions no matter what the calandar says and driven by an actual incident whenever it happens on the field. Players aren't going to be less upset about their batters being hit now because it is spring training in a "meaningless" game to some -- in fact they'd probably be even more upset about it now on the field.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by hiaspire

It doesn't really matter if you fill in some of the missing gaps differently, but it certainly is more than a reasonable possibility that the players on the field themselves were quite angry.

And I never said Francis or the players weren't angry. Why do you insist on twisting and changing the jist of what I'm saying?

I'm also reasonably sure that Hurdle was angry at Brocail hitting his players too, and there was quite a bit of jawing going on between Brocail and Hurdle and the Rockies dugout after he hit Holliday. So they were all angry. So what? The players STILL answer to their manager, or they are supposed to. They aren't supposed to carry out revenge macho matches on the field unless their manager consents or orders the retribution.

Managers are supposed to be "conductors of their orchestras", aren't they? Both teams were already warned by the umpire after Holliday got hit. AT THAT POINT, Hurdle should have taken aside his top young pitcher, Jeff Francis, and discussed the situation AND the risks of throwing a purpose pitch. Hurdle HAS to know the rules and the risk of suspensions should Francis carry it out.

If Clint can't control the mild-mannered Jeff Francis, he can't "conduct his orchestra", and there are certainly higher maintanence and tougher players on his roster to control than Jeff Francis, for goodness sakes! So, again, if Jeff did it on his own, then Hurdle has a real problem controlling his team on the field. And if Hurdle ordered that Francis make that pitch, as is far more likely, then he wasn't thinking ahead as to the suspension ramifications of that act. That's why I tabbed it "Hurdle's first dumb move of the season".

BTW, thanks for not answering the two questions I asked of you in my last post. As a consistent excuse-maker for Clint Hurdle, I didn't expect you to address those questions.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Why do you insist on twisting and changing the jist of what I'm saying?

Knock it off with the false accusations. I didn't twist a single word of yours. I was explaining my opinion in response to the thread started about Hurdle's dumb moves. My points are illustrating the lack of proof there and pointing out other quite reasonable possibilities that also need to be considered in a comprehensive view of the entire situation and all involved.

We certainly don't have all the answers in this case because as I initially pointed out in the beginning we weren't in the dugout, and reports of the incident leave some room for interpretation depending upon how you want to look at it. As I said, I don't care if we fill in those gaps differently, but my points overall are related to the other possibilities on the field that are entirely just as reasonable and shouldn't be overlooked while jumping to the conclusions that it must be all Hurdle's doing despite the common nature of the game with player tempers when batters are hit.

[hiaspire]

And I absolutely did address the questions about how Hurdle could have acted otherwise about instructing the pitcher to keep his cool, although perhaps not as you demand. It was in the part that YOU DIDN'T ADDRESS related to your favorite managers around baseball and if they are held to the same accountability and evidence-less assumptions when THEIR players get angry and do things on the field to cause or respond to trouble.

Hurdle is no different in that regard from every other manager this season who will have his pitchers throw at hitters or players fight on the field. I can't see making a different standard entirely just for Hurdle. Those things happen in baseball several times a week everywhere. Players get mad on the field sometimes. The batter's box is a very dangerous place and when hitters get hit, they and their teammates get mad - and not just for this manager in particular but for just about everyone in the game.

[Roxpert]

I can't see making a different standard entirely just for Hurdle. Those things happen in baseball several times a week everywhere.

So, by your accounting, managers and their top starting pitchers are suspended several times a week for engaging in brush-back pitches. My oh my, have I ever missed out on a lot of baseball news!

Give us all a break and use some common sense. Managers rarely put their top young starters in a position to start the season on the suspended list. This incident was avoidable, and absolutely on Hurdle's watch, whether or not he ordered the actual hit. Am I using a separate standard on Hurdle that I don't place on other managers as you falsely implied? Absolutely not. If Bruce Bochy had done this with Matt Cain, I would have thought it was equally dumb. I may not have WRITTEN about it as I did regarding Hurdle here. But, after all, this IS a ROCKIES message board to discuss ROCKIES issues, last time I checked.

[hiaspire]

And you accuse me of twisting your words... gawd... I said pitchers hitting batters or players fighting on the field are those things that happen several times a week. Players get angry or upset about something the opposition does on the field quite frequently in the games I watch. Don't they in yours across all games every week? I didn't say a thing about suspension totals there when I talked about that. Don't put statements in my mouth or jump to your own false conclusions about things unsaid. Stick to what I actually said, as I say more than enough without you needing to add something else to it otherwise somehow. Suspensions alone are not indicative of what happens on the field, as even this incident shows. My points were related to player anger on the field and taking action that isn't always within a manager's control. Maybe no manager in history ever had control by the way these things are being framed, as most every team in history will have its share of angry moments involving testy players on the field doing something out of anger or to justifiably defend a teammate. Batters and teammates get ticked when someone throws at their head or puts them at risk for injury, no matter who your manager is for the most part. As just about all players will say in such quotes as I illustrated before, that's part of the game.

Whether it happens at the start of the season or during July is not all that relevant - and perhaps even more significant later in the season when division races take shape, but a game is a game. And as I said it is mostly the EVENT that triggers the anger on the field, and players get angry no matter what the calendar says based upon the ACTION that causes the incident. There have been fights in spring training, and I've even seen some this year in highlights. Players get mad when action on the field creates those situations no matter when it happens, and they would reasonably get even more upset about questionable actions targeting their teammates and putting them at harm during spring training even more so.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by hiaspire

And you accuse me of twisting your words... gawd... I said pitchers hitting batters or players fighting on the field are those things that happen several times a week.

Umm, that's not exactly clear, HiAspire, and even your implied claim of fights on the field happening several times a week is just flat out silly. To set the record straight, here's EXACTLY what you wrote:

Hurdle is no different in that regard from every other manager this season who will have his pitchers throw at hitters or players fight on the field. I can't see making a different standard entirely just for Hurdle. Those things happen in baseball several times a week everywhere.

Hmmm. Seems like you were alluding to Hurdle's order being like what other managers do, which you alluded to happening several times a week everywhere. If you didn't mean that, don't blame me. Blame it on yourself for contorting and twisting your OWN sentences so that your readers can't even understand what the hell you're saying!

Don't put statements in my mouth or jump to your own false conclusions about things unsaid.

As if you never would dare attempt such a thing. This, coming from the chief Hurdle sicophant on this message board, who said I wrote that spring training or their games are meaningless. Sheesh.

Stick to what I actually said, as I say more than enough without you needing to add something else to it otherwise somehow.

Practice what you preach.

Maybe no manager in history ever had control by the way these things are being framed, as most every team in history will have its share of angry moments involving testy players on the field doing something out of anger or to justifiably defend a teammate.

Being framed? Oh, I suppose I must practice what you preach, but it doesn't apply to you. Since WHEN did I "frame" this argument as suggesting that players don't get angry and do things without the manager's approval? Never. Not once. You twisted me again, HiAspire. I am looking at THIS specific incident, where Holliday was hit, yelling occured between Hurdle and Brocail, the benches were warned, Hurdle had time to talk to Francis about the team's response to the hit batter, and then the resulting incident and suspensions of Francis and Hurdle....PLUS a virtual CONFIRMATION by Troy Renck that Hurdle in fact ordered the pitch (which Francis was happy to do).

NOWHERE did I "frame" that players don't often have emotions or minds of their own that fly in the face of what the manager's wishes were. Just so happens that it is not at all likely that this is what happened IN THIS CASE.

Nice try though, HiAspire, in convoluting what actually took place in this incident by talking generally about player anger. Your attempts to get Hurdle off the hook were valient......and totally ineffective.

[hiaspire]

I clearly included hitters getting hit by pitchers in those statements and not just fights alone in terms of frequency despite your statements otherwise. Again, no need for you to read something different in terms of "implied claim". Don't imply or assume and then associate it with me, as those are YOUR thoughts and not mine. There were more hitters getting hit in this case than players being suspended or fights generated, but that all contributes to the incident and temper levels on the field. How many times do batters get hit in a week in all of baseball? Entirely infrequently? I'd say otherwise and that my description of the frequency is more fitting than "silly" but thanks for that insult anyway. All of those things I mentioned are all part of the emotions on the field that we often see on the field, even if it doesn't escalate quite to this point.

Hmmm. Seems like you were alluding to Hurdle's order being like what other managers do, which you alluded to happening several times a week everywhere.

Alluding?? I'll remind you again that I am NOT saying Hurdle made that order in the least bit. I am not saying anything about Hurdle's actions in the least bit so there is nothing for you to allude to there. What I'm saying has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any order. I'm saying the exact opposite in that we shouldn't assume that's the case at all because players themselves get angry on the field when their teammates are hit and often the manager has nothing to do with what happens, as we see on just about every team in baseball throughout history.

That has to do with Hurdle being like every other manager in this respect: his players don't take kindly to their hitters being targeted and will often take matters into their own hands to protect and defend their teammates. Whether it happend that way or not in this case (and again there is no proof on either side), it is a factor that must be added instead of just assuming otherwise. The players themselves speak to that as part of the game and there should be little doubt of that possibility being almost universally accepted even by some of your own statements of mutual agreement there.

About meaningless... no need to get into that again. I do disagree strongly to the description of "meaningless" being attached to this game and interjected into the issue (and it wasn't me who used that description I'll remind you), but that has already been discussed previously. Just re-read all that if you want to get into that again.

Since WHEN did I "frame" this argument as suggesting that players don't get angry and do things without the manager's approval?

I didn't frickin say you did, did I? I didn't say anybody said that at all, but you weren't the one really talking as directly about player control, were you? Not everything is about you personally.

There have been a couple of points brought up in regard to player control mostly by HF within this thread. You hit on it also somewhat slightly differently in terms of a manager keeping his players under control in such situations. Right?

Take a chill pill. My point there is that several statements speak about such control on the field, but it is without reasonable fair comparison IMO within the game. That isn't framed within the reality I see. Even the very best managers that both of you would name have had their many instances of their players getting upset on the field and that does not make them faulty managers and wrong for such events. That is part of the game that almost all players recognize. When someone is throwing at your head, it doesn't matter who your manager is as the reaction will be the same from most players.

Your attempts to get Hurdle off the hook was valient......and totally ineffective.

As I said, my efforts were to show the more comprehensive picture of all factors from all involved, instead of the initial narrow evidence-less accusation that also featured a complete initial oversight of possible player involvement driving it despite that being commonplace in the game.

No need to get into Renck's article again as you do, but it was no virtual confirmation even if you fill in the missing gaps quite differently as people reasonably can. It speaks only of personal interpretation without research and his own statements that things were different than he initially thought after speaking to the players. That's all and it mostly illustrated the player anger over the issue and that they weren't going to be pushed around any more. Hurdle ordered or not (and again no proof either way despite your accusations otherwise), that is a big part of the picture and in fact the entire focus of the piece from the player pespective on things as they developed.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by hiaspire

I clearly included hitters getting hit by pitchers in those statements and not just fights alone in terms of frequency despite your statements otherwise.

LOL....that's a good one, HiAspire. You are mixing in to this discussion the unintentional HBPs that had no intent behind them with the issue of beanbrawls and purpose pitches?!? LOL again, why would you do that??? Just to trick or confuse us? When I just read the above explanation, I couldn't really believe it, even coming from you. You're right that such things happen "several times a week everywhere" only because you are including ALL HBPs!!! This is hilarious, and now should signal an end to this whole thread. You are too much, HiAspire, just a laugh a minute!

[hiaspire]

There is nothing comical about including batters getting hit by pitches. That is what STARTED this whole thing - it WASN'T JUST MIXED IN now by any means, and all of these collective things are what I have been speaking to entirely in terms of players on the field. HBP is very much at the center of what happened here. Intention can be entirely subjective and interpreted differently on each bench (as we even see in this case), which often leads to intensity and anger increasing in any event whether it escalates to this point or not.

Laugh it up. I'm more interested in the serious discussion of such things. The "trick" or "confusion" is when someone uses things they personally imply or assume to argue against instead of what is actually said.

[Roxpert]

You're mixing in two different issues, accidental HBPs and purpose pitches that cause brawls and/or suspensions. Why did you do that? To confuse us?

What do accidental HBPs have to do with the subject matter at hand anyway? What do HBPs have to do with not using different standards on Hurdle than other managers, which is the paragraph in which you now say you were including unintentional HBPs along with the purpose pitches?

HiAspire, that's very annoying as well as funny.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Hurdle is a moron.

I watched that game on FSN. As I mentioned in the other thread (the "Spring Training Thread"), I was all for a little retaliation. And I fully expected some kid like McClellan or Keppel or Bautista to be ordered to carry it out. It would've also made perfect sense to save this one in your back pocket for that first regular season series against the Padres, when somebody like Tom Martin could do the dirty work without a suspension looming. It's all about be aggressive but smart. Champ Bailey doesn't put the late hit on Tom Brady when the Broncos are up by 14 in the 4th quarter in retaliation for a cheap hit on Plummer. Joe Sakic isn't sent out to drop gloves with Todd Bertuzzi. Not in Shanahan World or Quenneville World, at least. Hurdle World is, well, RetardoWorld.

Oh, by the way, Ozzie Guillen had no problem revealing how it's done:

ESPN.com - MLB - ChiSox rookie ripped for not hitting Blalock

Got that? 12th man on a 12 man staff starts an inning and is ordered to hit someone in retaliation. Not Buehrle or Contreras or Garland. 12th guy refuses to do it? He becomes 13th guy, pitching in AAA tomorrow. I'm not saying it's fair, but that's how it's done.

Francis certainly didn't look like his heart was in it. He may have been sorry afterwards that if he was going to take a suspension for it he might as well have earned the suspension by at least leaving a bruise on Kouzmanoff's butt. But one thing is clear: this was Hurdle's doing. And MLB agrees; why else would Hurdle get suspended too? Please spend a little time in the real world with us, Aspire.

Most of the time these suspensions of starting pitchers are meaningless. A 5-game suspension means you miss your regular turn once, but it's only delayed one game. You probably get in the same number of starts before the ASB any way you look at it.

But this one could actually do damage. I assume that this suspension won't be reduced. A 3-game suspension serves no purpose at all for a starter. And I assume that if Francis appeals, MLB will decide the appeal in the 2 weeks we've got left before opening day.

So the most likely scenario is that Francis can't start until Game 6 of the season. Which means an extra start for the likes of Lopez or BK or Fogg or Hirsh. Which on the 162-game grand scale of things ain't such a big deal. But which is kind of a big deal for a club desperate to get off to a good start.

It's just a plain boneheaded move.

[Roxpert]

Thanks, Jackass. Hurdle's IQ is debatable, but he manages like a moron too often. This was a case of his testosterone getting in the way of his better sense, so Francis will start game #6 instead of game #2.

[hiaspire]

Show me where they keep the official results for "accidental" HBP versus "intentional" HBPs, Roxpert. As I plainly frickin said, those are often a matter of different interpretations depending upon which bench you are sitting on. To ignore the HBP in this case would be the "silly" (as you like to say) thing to do, as that is what this was all about in the first place. SD probably calls it accidental and the Rox certainly see it otherwise. Those non-existent stats and differentiation you make won't help there.

Now absolutely not all HBPs result in anger on the field as we can certainly agree, and I never said they did. But there are certainly many a week we see with our own eyes that do result in tempers being displayed outside of coaching control and players jawing at each other and tensions rising and anger building. Sometimes it explodes and sometimes it doesn't, and it often depends upon whether anything else happens next to build upon that potential powder keg further. We see that player emotion all the time, though, and that was the point being expressed.

We can certainly agree that often players get upset on the field, and even on teams with very good managers. Can't we? The rest of that is just tangential side tracks over false accusations or implied statements and assumptions that aren't especially important or were never even typed to begin with.

Focusing on that relevant direct point there instead, if you do agree with that then hopefully you'll factor that into the equation next time instead of making what I personally viewed as a knee-jerk reaction against a target of convenience with assumptions and no real evidence while completely ignoring a very real, frequently displayed part of the game that certainly is a more than reasonable possibility within that event. You don't have to do that in America and certainly can argue the side you want to and only present evidence (or mostly just opinion in this case) that fits with your perspective on it understandably, but someone should raise those other possibilities if there is going to be a fair and honest investigation of the situation. Shouldn't there be in this place of intelligent discussion?

[hiaspire]

I don't want to spend time in that world if it involves calling people morons again and again. Manager suspensions are not so out of the ordinary in such cases involving a warning even if the player is acting alone, are they? Certainly ejections for both aren't. There wasn't a federal fact-finding investigation launched to answer that question of managerial involvement I don't believe.