Sunday, May 21, 2006

Get a little action in

  1. A. J. Pierzynski did nothing wrong on the second inning collision. Michael Barrett was blocking the plate, set up for a tag, and the conventional play in professional baseball is a collision in that situation.
  2. The Cub pitcher's assertion that Pierzynski should have known that the ball was ten feet from Barrett assumes that Pierzynski has eyes in the back of his head. If Pierzynski had shied from the collision, Barrett would not have granted some kind of courtesy on the tag.
  3. Pierzynski did nothing wrong after the collision. The umpire had not yet signalled safe (even thought Pierzynski had already touched the plate twice). The exagerrated thump was just an exclamation mark, one that Cub fans should be familiar with after ten years of Sammy's "hop".
  4. Pierzynski did nothing wrong in attempting to go after his helmet. Some Cubpologists asserted on the internet that the helmet was not in the direction he said it was, but in fact, the replay clearly shows it did.
  5. Pierzynski's action when struck in the face was to back away. There is no evidence he did anything confrontational from that point forward.
  6. Pierzynski did show considerable emotion on his way to the clubhouse after his ejection.
  7. Apparently Pierzynski was ejected immediately and Barrett only after long discussion.
This raises four serious questions about major league baseball:
  1. Why did the home plate umpire wait for the thump before signalling safe when Pierzynski had clearly touched the plate more than once before?
  2. Why did the umpires eject Pierzynski at all? He did nothing wrong. He has been remarkably sportsmanlike about the starkly wrongful ejection by umpires whose handling of the situation looked incompetent.
  3. Why did the umpires try to avoid ejecting another player who had punched a player in the mouth in full view of the home plate umpire?
  4. Will MLB have the guts to admit (1-7) and that the umpires' ejection of Pierzynski was a mistake?
It also raises two serious questions about ESPN and the Chicago media:
  1. Why were Pierzynski's actions discussed at all? He didn't do anything wrong?
  2. Why, after defending Pierzynski at length, did ESPN yapper Jeff Brantley say, if he were pitching tomorrow, he would hit Pierzynski? WTF?

1 comment:

Jeeves said...

I was wondering the exact same thing. I was purposely avoiding the Sox highlights, because I figured they'd make AJ look to be the instigator in the whole affair, even though he was clearly a model citizen, but I happened to hear Brantley's take on things. I was just about ready to applaud him for acutally saying something competent, but then he completely contradicted his original sentiments about AJ.