IdahoPilgrim

Boy, I wish we could end the game now and call this a win!

Clemens!

I see him as a temporary measure until a better option (Sano?) can be developed or acquired.

I believe so, but he has shown value coming out of the bullpen - my guess is they would keep him up and move him back into that role.

Oh, and to top it all off I have to listen to Mitch Williams do color - "Nine runs are not that much."

So what move do you make to open up room for Vazquez on the Active Roster - Do you send Waldrop back down? Gray or Robertson (DFA or option?)

I'd like to see Vazquez up too - I liked what I saw in Rochester - and now there's two open slots on the 40-man there's no reason not to.

Terry Ryan agrees with you. We see now why he has been saying he thinks we need to work on the lineup as well as the rotation.

So can anybody else pinpoint when the feel of the team changed? Before the road trip you knew they were going to make bad plays, but they were still winning a decent number of games, and you could turn the game on with legitimate hope for an entertaining game. Right now that's gone. I'm going to say it was after we got swept by Seattle, and now it feels like the first six weeks of the year all over again.

Would now be a good time for a beanball?

At this point, I'd leave Duensing out there until he hits a hundred pitches, regardless of the score. This game is basically over; no point burning out the bullpen further. Of course, the way he's going, he'll hit a hundred in the third inning.

I must like pain, to even be watching this. Maybe I'll make it easy on myself, turn the game off, and squeeze lemon juice on a fresh paper cut - it will probably hurt less.

He threw too close to the head - in today's concussion-conscious world, that merits the ejection and suspension. If he had hit him in the ribs, it would have been different.

I don't think the problem with the Twins is with them not allowing pitchers to throw beyond 100 pitches. I think the problem with the Twins is that, after 100 pitches, they can't throw strikes any more (and for that matter, that's often a problem before the 100 pitch mark).

Cynic:). But if it comes true, maybe you can advise me on some good stock picks...

LEN3 says that Span is fine - they're giving him the day off from facing a lefty. Willingham still has a sore neck.

So now that last night’s game is over and we have all had a good night’s sleep, what do we take away from what happened in the third inning yesterday? The first thing is to just recognize that this may not be over. Both pitchers gave the obligatory “I didn’t mean to do it” quotes after the game; everybody has learned the Cole Hamels/Bryce Harper lesson well. I can’t speak for the rest of you, but I didn’t buy either of those quotes last night, and I doubt MLB will either. Diamond’s pitch was more obvious and deserving of an ejection (although I did notice Hamilton dodged in such a way as the pitch came closer to his head than if he had just taken it), but I have no doubt that the commissioner’s office will believe Oswalt’s was intentional also, even if it was a tad less obvious. There may be repercussions for one or both players after the game is reviewed, or the league may choose to look the other way and accept the post-game statements at face-value. Given that, in today’s climate of concern about concussions, any pitch deemed thrown near the head with even a whiff of intentionality is going to merit an immediate ejection (and possible future suspension), is it still possible to allow the players to police themselves, as in the “good old days?” I believe so, and this blog entry gives my thoughts on that. I say up front that I speak strictly as a fan, having only watched many games on TV and in person. I have never actually played the game (unless you count one forgettable year in Little League minor league), and I know that puts me at a fairly large disadvantage when talking about a subject like this, but here are my thoughts nonetheless, for whatever value, if any, they have. I take my cue from asking the question, “Why didn’t Wally Bell issue a warning after the Oswalt pitch to Mauer?” Certainly if he had even a suspicion that it was intentional, and would normally draw a response, would that not be the practical course to take? Unless – you intended to let the other team get their “payback” before stepping in to make sure it didn’t progress beyond that. I have no inside knowledge for this other than my own hunch and intuition, but to me it makes sense. My suspicion is Bell didn’t want to close the door for Minnesota to respond in kind, in accord with the “unwritten rules” of the game. What forced Bell’s hand was a) the fact that the payback came on the first pitch, when everybody in the stadium was waiting for it to happen, and the fact that it came near his head. So how should Diamond do this in the future? First, it would be desirable to have an at-bat or two intervening, to break the sense of tit-for-tat. I understand, though, that the next at-bat for Hamilton came up in the situation best designed for retaliation – early in the game, with none on, when it probably won’t matter much putting the guy on base. So I’ll grant him that. Next time, though, I would make sure it wasn’t on the first pitch. Maybe a 2-0 or a 3-0 count. Throw a pitch high and outside, throw one low in the dirt and to the backstop (there was no one on base, remember), and then he has established his “wildness” for that at-bat. The next pitch can go right in the ribs and not look quite so out of place or intentional. It gives the umpire a plausible excuse to look the other way and issue warnings to both benches instead of an ejection, which is exactly what I think Bell was looking for. And then, of course, you need to keep the ball down. The game has changed; head-hunting is not allowed even if it’s a proportional response to an earlier play in the game. I will give Diamond the benefit of the doubt here and assume the ball sailed up a little higher than he actually intended (and I suppose, if I’m to be completely fair, I’ll give Oswalt that same benefit – he meant to hit him, but not quite so high up). Keeping the ball down to the numbers or lower would send the message as effectively as can be done in the current era. One last thought – kudos to Gardenhire for coming out as well. He obviously knew he was going to get tossed when he did, but it was good to see him standing up for his player (particularly if he called the play?) and not let him be the only one sent off. I’ve been critical of Gardy in the past for getting sent off too frequently, but this one was legit.

So now that last night’s game is over and we have all had a good night’s sleep, what do we take away from what happened in the third inning yesterday? The first thing is to just recognize that this may not be over. Both pitchers gave the obligatory “I didn’t mean to do it” quotes after the game; everybody has learned the Cole Hamels/Bryce Harper lesson well. I can’t speak for the rest of you, but I didn’t buy either of those quotes last night, and I doubt MLB will either. Diamond’s pitch was more obvious and deserving of an ejection (although I did notice Hamilton dodged in such a way as the pitch came closer to his head than if he had just taken it), but I have no doubt that the commissioner’s office will believe Oswalt’s was intentional also, even if it was a tad less obvious. There may be repercussions for one or both players after the game is reviewed, or the league may choose to look the other way and accept the post-game statements at face-value. Given that, in today’s climate of concern about concussions, any pitch deemed thrown near the head with even a whiff of intentionality is going to merit an immediate ejection (and possible future suspension), is it still possible to allow the players to police themselves, as in the “good old days?” I believe so, and this blog entry gives my thoughts on that. I say up front that I speak strictly as a fan, having only watched many games on TV and in person. I have never actually played the game (unless you count one forgettable year in Little League minor league), and I know that puts me at a fairly large disadvantage when talking about a subject like this, but here are my thoughts nonetheless, for whatever value, if any, they have. I take my cue from asking the question, “Why didn’t Wally Bell issue a warning after the Oswalt pitch to Mauer?” Certainly if he had even a suspicion that it was intentional, and would normally draw a response, would that not be the practical course to take? Unless – you intended to let the other team get their “payback” before stepping in to make sure it didn’t progress beyond that. I have no inside knowledge for this other than my own hunch and intuition, but to me it makes sense. My suspicion is Bell didn’t want to close the door for Minnesota to respond in kind, in accord with the “unwritten rules” of the game. What forced Bell’s hand was a) the fact that the payback came on the first pitch, when everybody in the stadium was waiting for it to happen, and the fact that it came near his head. So how should Diamond do this in the future? First, it would be desirable to have an at-bat or two intervening, to break the sense of tit-for-tat. I understand, though, that the next at-bat for Hamilton came up in the situation best designed for retaliation – early in the game, with none on, when it probably won’t matter much putting the guy on base. So I’ll grant him that. Next time, though, I would make sure it wasn’t on the first pitch. Maybe a 2-0 or a 3-0 count. Throw a pitch high and outside, throw one low in the dirt and to the backstop (there was no one on base, remember), and then he has established his “wildness” for that at-bat. The next pitch can go right in the ribs and not look quite so out of place or intentional. It gives the umpire a plausible excuse to look the other way and issue warnings to both benches instead of an ejection, which is exactly what I think Bell was looking for. And then, of course, you need to keep the ball down. The game has changed; head-hunting is not allowed even if it’s a proportional response to an earlier play in the game. I will give Diamond the benefit of the doubt here and assume the ball sailed up a little higher than he actually intended (and I suppose, if I’m to be completely fair, I’ll give Oswalt that same benefit – he meant to hit him, but not quite so high up). Keeping the ball down to the numbers or lower would send the message as effectively as can be done in the current era. One last thought – kudos to Gardenhire for coming out as well. He obviously knew he was going to get tossed when he did, but it was good to see him standing up for his player (particularly if he called the play?) and not let him be the only one sent off. I’ve been critical of Gardy in the past for getting sent off too frequently, but this one was legit.

Mauer had doubled in the first Twins run in the first inning, and the Twins had just tied the game on a Texas error (Oswalt probably frustrated at that). Runner in scoring position with one out, best player up with a possible rally. That's why Oswalt threw at him. And it worked - they got out of the inning with no more damage.

How does the Twins policy compare to other teams?

I was kinda surprised when Wally Bell didn't warn both sides after Oswalt's pitch, but then I figured he was giving the Twins a chance for payback. If Diamond hits Hamilton in the back or leg, Hamilton takes first, Diamond stays in the game, and then Bell warns both sides - after they are even. Didn't work out that way.

My guess is that Bell didn't give any warnings after Oswalt's pitch to allow the Twins a chance for payback. If Diamond had hit Hamilton in the back or leg, then warnings would have been given to both sides - after they were even. But a pitch near the head is automatic ejection - no choice, and then you have to warn both benches to prevent it getting completely out of control.

He had no choice but to throw Diamond out, given the location near the head.

It is poetic justice that Oswalt can't get the win!

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of this after the league office reviews the umpire's report. If they think Oswalt's throw was intentional, he may not be out of the clear either.