Milton Bradley

jtur88 · September 24th, 2007, 08:45 AM

Anybody have a take on this? Bradley's version sounds honest and credible, and the Padres seem to be supporting his contention that the umpires were out of line.

Grandstander · September 24th, 2007, 09:15 AM

Given the circumstances, it would appear to be a matter of escalating pressures. The Padres entered the game with a half game lead over the Phillies for the wild card, so it was a high tension situation before the game began. Then Bradley inadvertently stepped on his teammates hand. Did his teammates give him any sort of a hard time about that? Even joking around? The thin skinned Bradley probably would not have taken well to that.

Then he strikes out...letting his team down and worsening Bradley's mood and this is compounded by the umpire's accusation of bat throwing. The volcano is stirring in Bradley's head.

So, by the time of his single in the 8th, it's a fragile situation waiting for a match to touch off the explosion. Bradley contributed to the eruption by asking the firstbase umpire about the bat throwing business when he should have just let it slide. The umpire gave matters the final blow by responding.

Kaboom.

I'd spread the blame a bit, a third to the situation and Bradley's misfortunes on the day, a third to Bradley's temper control problems and a third to the umpires for making things worse rather than trying to clam things down.

jtur88 · September 24th, 2007, 10:00 AM

Winters, though, was placed in a no-win situation. Had he refused to respond, Bradley would have taken his non-denial as a confirmation that he had tattled about the bat. But an umpire taking offense to a bat being tossed to an inopportune destination, is calling the kettle black if he says Bradley has temper control issues. I suspect the umps were reacting not to what Bradley did at the momemtn, but to his reputation, and that is a perpetual motion machine. It falls in the category of calling all pitches balls until the guy proves he can throw one right down the middle.

Nat · September 25th, 2007, 12:28 AM

I dunno, at this point I don't think it's a coincidence Milton gets himself in these situations with a convenient excuse each time...

jtur88 · September 25th, 2007, 01:05 AM

Even if the umpires were 100% culpable for any impropriety, Bradley is one of the very few players who would have gone after him on the field.

Grandstander · September 25th, 2007, 07:47 AM

Among all the video of the incident that has been shown, has anyone seen anything which establishes whether or not Bradley did indeed throw his bat at the home plate umpire? In what I have seen, Bradley strikes out, tucks his bat under his arm and remains at home plate...and then they cut away.

LouGehrig · September 25th, 2007, 11:15 AM

What is wrong with expressing justified rage? In our increasingly "politically correct" society, those who don't toe the line are exoriated.

In this instance, the evidence points to the umpires exacerbating a situation that they helped to create.

unreal654 · September 25th, 2007, 12:19 PM

The is nothing wrong with expressing justified rage. Just make sure you take responsibility for your actions when you injure yourself.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Milton Bradley cannot just let anything go. So the first base umpire misjudged and thought you threw a bat at the umpire? GET OVER IT! If Bradley didn't actually do it, and neither umpire was throwing him out of the game, why does he feel the need to defend himself? Milton Bradley just can't let things go. Now he has a torn ACL. The umpire didn't make him tear his ACL. Milton decided on his own he was going to throw a fit like a 5 year old, and now he's hurt. It's bizzare, but I can't say I'm surprised.

jtur88 · September 25th, 2007, 03:12 PM

It is a given in sports that "sportsmanship" is a relevent, if not essential element. There is no "sportsmanship" rule, it is in the eye of the beholder. Each sport has a line that one cannot cross, and it is different for each sport, and baseball players know where the line is. Sometimes players cross it, and an affront to sportsmanship becoms immediately conspicuopuis, because we have all learned where that line is and what crosses it. One of the beauties of baseball is that the officiating crew does not have the authority to impose a game-altering penalty for sportsmanship-related infractions, like free throws or 15-yard walkoffs, or playing shorthhanded for an inning. Accordingly, the sportsmanship line has naturally gravited a bit further down the gray spectrum.

Had a coach not interceded, what would have Bradley done to Winters? We will never know. If he had punched him (as he might well have deserved) Bradleys career would be over. Even Bradley knows that. So in fact, the whole thing might have just been another yawner, except for the Padres sense that for some reason Bradley needed to be wrestled to the ground.

What would George Brett have done to McClellan?

Grandstander · September 25th, 2007, 05:07 PM

MLB is still in the ethical stone age, saddled with an array of macho traditions from the John McGraw era. In basketball, a coach coming onto the court to scream at the officials draws a technical foul for his team. In baseball managers may confront the officials on the field for as long as his lungs hold out, delay a game for as long as his temper lasts, and that's just him being "colorful" or "doing something to animate his team." The activity is often praised as the manager "protecting his players."

In hockey there are automatic penalties for coming off the bench to join in a brawl. In baseball the entire roster is expected to rush the field if any individual teammate starts getting in someone's face.

In football, you spear a man with your helmet, you are ejected, it does not matter if it was unintentional, you are gone. In baseball, if someone has a fastball thrown at his head, the batting team gets warned not to retaliate but the pitcher remains in the game as long as he doesn't do it again....on purpose...or look like it was on purpose anyway. In baseball, it is the unyielding demand of team honor which mandates that despite the warning, payback in the form of a purpose pitch is delivered to the foes.

There are also inexplicable relics of the past which despite making no sense, have been passed from generation to generation. If you build a huge lead on the opposition, it is perfectly okay to hit more singles, doubles, triples and homeruns, it is still acceptable to make acrobatic plays to retire them, no one complains when a pitcher protecting a big lead still throws at 95 mph and strikes out batters.....but god help you if you steal a base. That's "showing up" the opposition and calls for one of those purpose pitches being aimed at a represenative of the ethics violating team the next time that they meet.

September 24th, 2007, 08:45 AM	#1 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,857	Milton Bradley Anybody have a take on this? Bradley's version sounds honest and credible, and the Padres seem to be supporting his contention that the umpires were out of line. __________________ ------------------ When people ask what I hope to see before I die, I answer that I've already seen too much.

September 24th, 2007, 10:00 AM	#3 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,857	Winters, though, was placed in a no-win situation. Had he refused to respond, Bradley would have taken his non-denial as a confirmation that he had tattled about the bat. But an umpire taking offense to a bat being tossed to an inopportune destination, is calling the kettle black if he says Bradley has temper control issues. I suspect the umps were reacting not to what Bradley did at the momemtn, but to his reputation, and that is a perpetual motion machine. It falls in the category of calling all pitches balls until the guy proves he can throw one right down the middle. __________________ ------------------ When people ask what I hope to see before I die, I answer that I've already seen too much. Last edited by jtur88; September 24th, 2007 at 10:04 AM.

September 25th, 2007, 01:05 AM	#5 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,857	Even if the umpires were 100% culpable for any impropriety, Bradley is one of the very few players who would have gone after him on the field. __________________ ------------------ When people ask what I hope to see before I die, I answer that I've already seen too much.

September 25th, 2007, 03:12 PM	#9 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,857	It is a given in sports that "sportsmanship" is a relevent, if not essential element. There is no "sportsmanship" rule, it is in the eye of the beholder. Each sport has a line that one cannot cross, and it is different for each sport, and baseball players know where the line is. Sometimes players cross it, and an affront to sportsmanship becoms immediately conspicuopuis, because we have all learned where that line is and what crosses it. One of the beauties of baseball is that the officiating crew does not have the authority to impose a game-altering penalty for sportsmanship-related infractions, like free throws or 15-yard walkoffs, or playing shorthhanded for an inning. Accordingly, the sportsmanship line has naturally gravited a bit further down the gray spectrum. Had a coach not interceded, what would have Bradley done to Winters? We will never know. If he had punched him (as he might well have deserved) Bradleys career would be over. Even Bradley knows that. So in fact, the whole thing might have just been another yawner, except for the Padres sense that for some reason Bradley needed to be wrestled to the ground. What would George Brett have done to McClellan? __________________ ------------------ When people ask what I hope to see before I die, I answer that I've already seen too much. Last edited by jtur88; September 25th, 2007 at 03:16 PM.

September 24th, 2007, 09:15 AM	#2 (permalink)
Grandstander Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Northern California Posts: 6,611	Given the circumstances, it would appear to be a matter of escalating pressures. The Padres entered the game with a half game lead over the Phillies for the wild card, so it was a high tension situation before the game began. Then Bradley inadvertently stepped on his teammates hand. Did his teammates give him any sort of a hard time about that? Even joking around? The thin skinned Bradley probably would not have taken well to that. Then he strikes out...letting his team down and worsening Bradley's mood and this is compounded by the umpire's accusation of bat throwing. The volcano is stirring in Bradley's head. So, by the time of his single in the 8th, it's a fragile situation waiting for a match to touch off the explosion. Bradley contributed to the eruption by asking the firstbase umpire about the bat throwing business when he should have just let it slide. The umpire gave matters the final blow by responding. Kaboom. I'd spread the blame a bit, a third to the situation and Bradley's misfortunes on the day, a third to Bradley's temper control problems and a third to the umpires for making things worse rather than trying to clam things down.

September 25th, 2007, 12:28 AM	#4 (permalink)
Nat Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,351	I dunno, at this point I don't think it's a coincidence Milton gets himself in these situations with a convenient excuse each time...

September 25th, 2007, 07:47 AM	#6 (permalink)
Grandstander Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Northern California Posts: 6,611	Among all the video of the incident that has been shown, has anyone seen anything which establishes whether or not Bradley did indeed throw his bat at the home plate umpire? In what I have seen, Bradley strikes out, tucks his bat under his arm and remains at home plate...and then they cut away.

September 25th, 2007, 11:15 AM	#7 (permalink)
LouGehrig Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Melbourne Posts: 225	What is wrong with expressing justified rage? In our increasingly "politically correct" society, those who don't toe the line are exoriated. In this instance, the evidence points to the umpires exacerbating a situation that they helped to create.

September 25th, 2007, 12:19 PM	#8 (permalink)
unreal654 Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 332	The is nothing wrong with expressing justified rage. Just make sure you take responsibility for your actions when you injure yourself. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Milton Bradley cannot just let anything go. So the first base umpire misjudged and thought you threw a bat at the umpire? GET OVER IT! If Bradley didn't actually do it, and neither umpire was throwing him out of the game, why does he feel the need to defend himself? Milton Bradley just can't let things go. Now he has a torn ACL. The umpire didn't make him tear his ACL. Milton decided on his own he was going to throw a fit like a 5 year old, and now he's hurt. It's bizzare, but I can't say I'm surprised.

September 25th, 2007, 05:07 PM	#10 (permalink)
Grandstander Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Northern California Posts: 6,611	MLB is still in the ethical stone age, saddled with an array of macho traditions from the John McGraw era. In basketball, a coach coming onto the court to scream at the officials draws a technical foul for his team. In baseball managers may confront the officials on the field for as long as his lungs hold out, delay a game for as long as his temper lasts, and that's just him being "colorful" or "doing something to animate his team." The activity is often praised as the manager "protecting his players." In hockey there are automatic penalties for coming off the bench to join in a brawl. In baseball the entire roster is expected to rush the field if any individual teammate starts getting in someone's face. In football, you spear a man with your helmet, you are ejected, it does not matter if it was unintentional, you are gone. In baseball, if someone has a fastball thrown at his head, the batting team gets warned not to retaliate but the pitcher remains in the game as long as he doesn't do it again....on purpose...or look like it was on purpose anyway. In baseball, it is the unyielding demand of team honor which mandates that despite the warning, payback in the form of a purpose pitch is delivered to the foes. There are also inexplicable relics of the past which despite making no sense, have been passed from generation to generation. If you build a huge lead on the opposition, it is perfectly okay to hit more singles, doubles, triples and homeruns, it is still acceptable to make acrobatic plays to retire them, no one complains when a pitcher protecting a big lead still throws at 95 mph and strikes out batters.....but god help you if you steal a base. That's "showing up" the opposition and calls for one of those purpose pitches being aimed at a represenative of the ethics violating team the next time that they meet.