Jump to content

York Revolution Invite 3'2" player to be ultimate on-base machine


DrungoHazewood

Recommended Posts

I know. That's why I'm just confused as opposed to ripping you for insinuating I wanted to kill the guy :D;)

Really though, how is it any different from anyone else? I mean, let's go the other direction: if you play a seven-foot player who get's hit in the head on a pitch that would be over the top of a guy who's only six feet, is that the coach's fault?

I think there is a difference. Doesn't a dwarf have bone issues? If he gets hit won't his bones break easier?

Pitchers throw a Belt a lot. How many times does a pitcher throw 7 ft and inside?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I think there is a difference. Doesn't a dwarf have bone issues? If he gets hit won't his bones break easier?

Pitchers throw a Belt a lot. How many times does a pitcher throw 7 ft and inside?

You've seen DCab pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a pitcher hits him in the head, and he dies I hope they send the coach to jail that put him in.
Because head level is belt high to the standard hitter. I hope he isn't allowed to play.

You're right. For his own good, and the good of little people everywhere, they should be banned from the sport for their own protection! :rolleyes:

This is like saying that chivalry is a feminist concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Midgets of the world unite! There are people who want to ban *you* and *only* you from organized baseball.

Sad but true. Everybody else can play, but not the Little People.

You're right. For his own good, and the good of little people everywhere, they should be banned from the sport for their own protection! :rolleyes:

This is like saying that chivalry is a feminist concept.

I think you two have your hearts in the right place but are sort of missing the point(s) that are being raised.

I don't think anybody wants to "ban" little people from doing anything -- myself and others are concerned that for the sake of one guaranteed walk per game, a person may be putting themselves in grave danger.

You'll point out of course that anyone who steps into the batter's box is putting themselves in grave danger, as is the pitcher. But my concern at least comes from the opinion that little people may have -- may have -- a greater risk of serious, perhaps deadly, injury by getting beaned. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

IMHO, if a little person wants to play and is given an opportunity, and understands what the risks are, then more power to them.

But beyond that, I just have a feeling that this isn't how the game was meant to be played, is sort of a cheap trick, and could come at the expense of a little person's life. Frankly, I don't see the upside for anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you two have your hearts in the right place but are sort of missing the point(s) that are being raised.

I don't think anybody wants to "ban" little people from doing anything -- myself and others are concerned that for the sake of one guaranteed walk per game, a person may be putting themselves in grave danger.

You may not, but that's just you. The quote I selected said "I hope he isn't allowed to play."

IMHO, if a little person wants to play and is given an opportunity, and understands what the risks are, then more power to them.

This is all I am saying. My point was against paternalistic bans.

But beyond that, I just have a feeling that this isn't how the game was meant to be played, is sort of a cheap trick, and could come at the expense of a little person's life. Frankly, I don't see the upside for anybody.

If you don't see the upside for anybody, you're not considering the scenario from the perspective of people who have always thought that they could never be a part of the game and who have been closed off from the potential economic prosperity of professional sports. I think it's pretty easy to see who gains from this.

But, baseball is resistant to change. Any time inclusion has potentially changed an aspect of the game, people have cried out that we've made a mockery of the game. I can see the slippery slope here, but I don't think it's legit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you two have your hearts in the right place but are sort of missing the point(s) that are being raised.

I don't think anybody wants to "ban" little people from doing anything -- myself and others are concerned that for the sake of one guaranteed walk per game, a person may be putting themselves in grave danger.

You'll point out of course that anyone who steps into the batter's box is putting themselves in grave danger, as is the pitcher. But my concern at least comes from the opinion that little people may have -- may have -- a greater risk of serious, perhaps deadly, injury by getting beaned. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

IMHO, if a little person wants to play and is given an opportunity, and understands what the risks are, then more power to them.

But beyond that, I just have a feeling that this isn't how the game was meant to be played, is sort of a cheap trick, and could come at the expense of a little person's life. Frankly, I don't see the upside for anybody.

The upside for the player is that all he has to do is stand still for four pitches and get paid money. There is obviously risk of injury, as there is with anyone standing in the path of a pitched ball, but that risk is something the player has to weigh on his own. If he doesn't think it's worth what they're offering to stand there, then he doesn't have to accept their offer. Far be it from me, or anyone else, to make that decision for him.

The upside for the team is that they get a good chance of 1 BB per game.

I bet you Wee Man would be all over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may not, but that's just you. The quote I selected said "I hope he isn't allowed to play."

This is all I am saying. My point was against paternalistic bans.

If you don't see the upside for anybody, you're not considering the scenario from the perspective of people who have always thought that they could never be a part of the game and who have been closed off from the potential economic prosperity of professional sports. I think it's pretty easy to see who gains from this.

But, baseball is resistant to change. Any time inclusion has potentially changed an aspect of the game, people have cried out that we've made a mockery of the game. I can see the slippery slope here, but I don't think it's legit.

It makes a mockery of the game. Maybe the pitcher can throw the strike.....but after 3 balls watch out because the pitcher my hit him with the next pitch. And hopefully the dude can take it without serious injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't see the upside for anybody, you're not considering the scenario from the perspective of people who have always thought that they could never be a part of the game and who have been closed off from the potential economic prosperity of professional sports. I think it's pretty easy to see who gains from this.

Actually I considered that before I posted.

My thought process went something like, "What if I was precluded from playing a game because people thought my physical limitations either made it too dangerous for me to play, or that I couldn't play the game in the traditional way?

Would it be worth it to get into a game, knowing I would never hit, never pitch, never play the field, never run the bases, never throw anybody out...but would have the opportunity to stand in the batter's box and try to get a walk?

Would the thrill of playing at a level that most people never see be worth it to be used in such a fashion?"

And I'm not even considering the chance of injury, which as I've said several times, I think is more likely for little people, but I'm really not at all sure.

I don't see the upside for the little person, who imho isn't really getting to play the game if all he is expected to do is stand still in the batter's box and try to get a walk. I guess I see the upside for the team, since they get one guy on base each and every game. But, again, it appears to me to be contrary to the spirit of the game and how it was meant to be played (which is a whole other argument!)

I appreciate your sincere belief that anybody should be given the chance to follow a dream and that others shouldn't act as if they know better and make decisions for them. But I also think you're exaggerating the fun and possible cash to be made, and underestimating the danger, how it would feel to be standing out there as a sort of spectacle, and the feelings of the fellow who didn't make the team so that they could instead run out the little person once a game.

No easy answer here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then the pitcher would be throwing a no-hitter :P
Unless he just hit the guy :D

There is just something that isn't right. I guess it isn't that big of a deal. Only thing that bugs me if this dude can't handle getting hit by a pitch and therefore is risking more than other players for simply walking once a game.

Another interesting possibility: There are multiple injuries and they have to put this dude in the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...