bksballer89
Most Popular Member
Should not be suspended longer than 3 games
Harper got 4....will likely be reduced to 3 if he appeals. Strickland got 6
Should not be suspended longer than 3 games
So, nothing concrete.
I don't follow him too closely, but I don't think he has a reputation as a hot head. You could be right, but I don't feel like researching it either, so I'm going to assume you're wrong unless some good samaritan is willing to put the work in.
I don't think the helmet throw will factor in much because it wasn't thrown at Strickland.
What history of hot-headedness does Harper have?
I think Strickland will a longer suspension and I think it will be "significantly" longer, depending on one's definition. If harper gets two games and Kirkland gets three, that's a 50% longer suspension, which I would classify as "significantly" longer. There's also the point that Strickland isn't an everyday player and they tend to lengthen suspensions for them to even it out a bit.
Suspensions are already out.he was trying to it was just a terrible throw...
Strickland will get more because he is a no name. Harper should get 5 imo.
Suspensions are already out.
Harper 4 and Strickland 6.
Both. Both are active tonight.either appealing?
Both. Both are active tonight.
Appeals should be heard imediately. No reason some other team should get the benefit of a suspension. This may not be the best case for this argument, as the Giants were the instigators and if the suspensions took place immediately, they would be the clear beneficiaries of the outcome, but let's assume Strickland hit Harper and Harper just went to first and Strick was the only one suspended. Why shouldn't the Nats be the team to get the advantage of Strickland's suspension?with nonsense like thy both did they shouldn't be allowed to appeal imo
Appeals should be heard imediately. No reason some other team should get the benefit of a suspension. This may not be the best case for this argument, as the Giants were the instigators and if the suspensions took place immediately, they would be the clear beneficiaries of the outcome, but let's assume Strickland hit Harper and Harper just went to first and Strick was the only one suspended. Why shouldn't the Nats be the team to get the advantage of Strickland's suspension?
I know what you meant. I was just shifting a bit.i mean serve period.. both shouldnt be playing
I know what you meant. I was just shifting a bit.
You write fiction?yeah I know. You're good in my book
In '15, Pence got hit in the forearm during spring training by a Dodger minor leaguer who had zero chance of making the team. It wasn't intentional, it was just a kid with a live arm who didn't know how to use it. Our season was over (overstatement, I know) before it even began.I don't think either should be suspended. Implement a "boys, have at it" policy.
Personally, I was more angry about some no name Blue Jays reliever hitting Freddie Freeman on the wrist with a 95 MPH fastball because he couldn't control his pitches(none of the Blue Jays could, 7 Braves batters were hit in that series), and now Freeman is out 8-10 weeks with a broken wrist.
Fastball to the hip, no big deal.
If Harper had been the barking instigator in '14, I think everyone would understand more. But this was all based on Strickland getting shown up on a big stage by a better player. And Harper didn't bark until after Strick growled.I consider myself somewhat of a baseball purist, but this part of the game needs to evolve. When you throw a baseball at nearly 100mph at someone the results can be unpredictable, regardless of major league accuracy. Settling grudges from years ago, just because someone outperformed you fairly, this is ridiculous.
You write fiction?
I don't think either should be suspended. Implement a "boys, have at it" policy.