RiddarCarpo

Fair enough. I was thinking more specifically about the different Fastball iterations, but pitchers will likely adapt by releasing a wee bit earlier.

Please, give me some credit, I'm aware of the spin-rate purpose. What I was describing was a situation in which a pitcher is throwing the ball in exactly the same way but without the sticky stuff. He knows he's lacking the sticky stuff. He knows this takes away from his control. He still does it. That adds an element of conscious risk-taking. That was the point.

I don't know if that was directed at me, but I didn't come down any particular way, more thinking aloud. As to the ball that hit Buxton, the umpire obviously didn't fault Buck as if going after it, so it was a violation regardless of his movement. But what I was getting at, not very clearly, is that sometimes - for policy reasons, or for simplicity in application, or both - you let even unintended consequences factor into determining the penalty. For example, when I played hockey as a teen in Sweden, you'd get five minutes (instead of two) for otherwise minor stuff like accidental high-sticking, if it caused bleeding. It was easy to apply, and it probably worked as a deterrent against less accidental high-sticking, likely leading to fewer nasty eye-injuries in the long-run. I'm just spitballing, but while pitchers that throws behind or hits guys on purpose (rightly) get ejected, other pitchers throws triple-digit fastballs with unknown intent/recklessness/control, regardlessly causes a serious injury to a player's hand, but gets [in our case] a slugger to first, and that's how it's gotta be? It would in most cases be impossible to assess the severity of the potential injury, but it wouldn't be hard to call what pitch hit the player where. And perhaps that should matter more than it currently does. That's all. And would it be so terrible to step up the penalizing of possibly accidental but bad head-/hand-/foot-hits, considering the possible implications? I can't see it incentivizing (sane) batters to take dangerous hits, but perhaps it would depress at least some hard inside pitches in high pitch count-situations, for example. Again, I don't know. But those hands and feet can be pretty pricey, as we know.

I kind of agree, but intent isn't a black/white issue. For example, if a pitcher has been relying on a sticky stuff 4-seamer and continues throwing it - less sticky - for the same purposes (not for hitting batters), that's still either reckless or negligent. Of course, an observer will rarely if ever be able to know and sanction that kind of grey area-behavior, and batters rarely get badly hurt by HBPs. Still, hitting heads, hands, or feet should perhaps be strictly protected, as in regardless of intent/knowledge/reckless/negligence on the pitcher's end. As in the case with Buxton, it just appears wrong that a pitcher should see no other downside than putting a guy with a .409 OBP on first when clunking him on the back of the hand, eventually putting him out of the game for god-only-knows how long.

Craig was charged with a catching error, which I suppose would be the first wrong, i.e. not stretching out to catch the 5-3 throw with his foot on the bag, though the throw was well on the home side.

Means is a great pitcher, so I'd definitely take that W proudly. Kremer can be really good, like he was against the Red Socks, and really bad, like he was against the Rays. Aside from the Wild Pitch in the 2nd (I'm not counting the other one, that passed ball was 95% on Severino), he pitched decently in game 2. With Lopez, I agree. He's not supposed to get away with so little action, especially not having to battle so little.