What kind of punishment are you expecting for Hammel?

[Il BuonO]

Gary Thorne was sure he did it on purpose right away too.

http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=27647761&c_id=mlb

He is a hockey guy though, so he's used to retaliation in sports.

So, what? Upon further review by Bordick, it's clear that Wieters was set up low and away. You don't intend to throw at someone by setting the target low and away. The catcher is always prepared for it as well.

I've seen guys do it before and whether they were trying to own the inner half or hit someone, the catcher moves inside to make that happen. Not in the opposite direction.

[Chavez Ravine]

I listened to the Tiger announcers on the MLB.com replay. They were certain right away that Hammel did it on purpose. On the replay when they saw it was a breaking pitch, they remained outraged and really rode Hammel hard. I have no reason to doubt their objectively and knowledge of baseball. I defer to their wisdom.

I was listening to the Tiger's radio feed and their announcers instantly thought it was a bad call by the ump. They went on for the entire delay about how it was a breaking ball and no pitcher would bean someone with a slider. They even applauded Buck for beefing with the ump.

[crissfan172]

I was listening to the Tiger's radio feed and their announcers instantly thought it was a bad call by the ump. They went on for the entire delay about how it was a breaking ball and no pitcher would bean someone with a slider. They even applauded Buck for beefing with the ump.

That's because most announcers understand the game better than some viewers.

[BobbyWoontz]

Here's what gets me. Hammel gives up 5 runs, 3 walks, and 3 consecutive homers, plus indicates to Buck in the 2nd inning that he has trouble with his command, but everyone is trying to keep him in the game. Why? Is it because Buck had no one warming up in the bullpen? He surely had enough warning! I'm surprised Leyland didn't go out there and argue to keep him in the game, also.

[SeaBird]

I was listening to the Tiger's radio feed and their announcers instantly thought it was a bad call by the ump. They went on for the entire delay about how it was a breaking ball and no pitcher would bean someone with a slider. They even applauded Buck for beefing with the ump.

You may want to listen and watch again.

http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=27647945&c_id=mlb

[DrungoHazewood]

Maybe it wasn't intentional. Maybe it was a coincidence. But when you give up three straight jacks and then come inches from hitting a guy in the head you get ejected and you probably get suspended. That's just how it is. And probably should be.

[Ruzious]

I doubt very much that it was intentional. He couldn't control his stuff throughout the game, and it was obviously not a fastball that hit the batter. But when you hit a batter up like that after 3 homers, that's a problem that should never happen with a veteran. I wouldn't suspend him, but if he does get suspended, I wouldn't cry about it.

[wildcard]

Jim Leyland said he didn't think it was intentional. That pretty much says it all.

[Can_of_corn]

Does it matter?

The both of us would be crying into our drinks if he got hit on the hand, wrist, or face and broke something important.

You might want to reread my prior posts in this thread. Pretty sure I allowed myself wiggle room if an injury resulted.

[weams]

Roch Says...

You're accusing me of covering for him? Really?? That takes a lot of nerve and alcohol, pal. You may want to think before you post again. And if you don't understand the game any better than that, find an NHL blog to post on. It was a freakin' slider. He had no command today. And I guess Leyland is covering for him, too. Pay attention to what I filed.

[SeaBird]

Kubatko got a little testy, huh?

Nobody has to cover for Hammel. He hit the guy. Was anyone really surprised? It's baseball. The "punishment" may be one of Hammel's teammates getting drilled today. What goes around.....

[ScottieBaseball]

Wow...this thread is full of CRAZY!

I'd be willing to bet the writer of the cbssports.com article posted earlier in this thread wears tinfoil hats and may have chased a silent black helicopter or two out of his backyard. Even if he hadn't, it's one guy's THEORY, and not based on anything factual.

I think several people in this thread are WAY over-thinking this situation. I don't think Hammel hit the batter intentionally, but after giving up 3 dingers, hitting a batter should and always has caused the ejection of the pitcher who threw it. We can argue all day whether that's right or wrong, but I think it falls in the same category as the "in the neighborhood" call (when a SS or 2B doesn't have the ball at the same time he steps on second base when turning a double play). It's not exactly right, but it's baseball.

Unfortunately for Hammel, a suspension has to follow from MLB.

[crissfan172]

You may want to listen and watch again.

http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=27647945&c_id=mlb

Uh...I'm pretty sure he said RADIO feed.

Also...I was never sure if the Tigers' color guy was stupid, or it just seemed that way because he sounded like Joe Morgan. Well...now I know.

[Sparkwinder]

I understand the control issues. He wasn't anywhere near perfect today, and he threw quite a few pitches no where near where he meant to throw them. But like I said earlier... What do you realistically think the chances are that in a situation like this, he hits a guy near the head by mistake? Nobody ever responded to my post about it being around 0.3%... which, while an estimate, is probably about the chance someone hits a guy in the shoulder/head area with a pitch. Everyone is giving the benefit of the doubt and thinking that this very rare thing happened in this specific situation which means he's innocent.

Even considering his wildness, lets say its a 5% chance he hits a guy in that area given his command today. Thats still a 95% chance it was intentional. You talk about holes in my argument... how do you respond to there being very very little chance of actually hitting a guy in that situation by accident?

Its possible it was unintentional. But its also much more likely it wasn't.

I'm glad someone has the capacity to remove their orange-tinted glasses and look at the situation objectively. Hammel absolutely should have been tossed, and he was very likely throwing at him in a moment of frustration. Maybe the O's had some inside info that Tigers were stealing signs...who knows. The blind homer-ism in this thread would be astonishing if it wasn't par for the course around here. 6-game suspension is warranted. I think the 5% chance that he wasn't throwing at him is about accurate. It's not a court of law, and there needs to be a deterrent to intentionally throwing at hitters. Even if it was completely unintentional, the correct outcome in this situation is a suspension.

[AlbionHero]

It's not a court of law, and there needs to be a deterrent to intentionally throwing at hitters. Even if it was completely unintentional, the correct outcome in this situation is a suspension.

Yeah, this is pretty much what it comes down to. Anytime a pitcher throws at a guys head in retaliation, you get suspended. Does it matter if it was intentional or not? Not really, since even if it wasn't intentional, it would tell other pitchers they can do the same thing in the future as long as they deny it was on purpose. You need to send a message and have the same punishment for anyone who does this.