Yost and McClung suspensions (Merged: I now feel a little better about McClung beaning Pujols)

[DougJones43]

McClung's suspension was upheld because there was a hitch in his delivery that caused him to lose control. If that is true, Ned had nothing to do with Pujols getting hit.

Please tell me you're not actually buying into this. First pitch of the inning? To Pujols? McClung brought in? Turnbow already warmed and ready to replace him? Moments after Prince got buzzed? Shortly after a shouting/cursing match between the Brewer and Cardinal coaches?

 

What a strange set of coincidences! But I'm sure everybody involved is innocent. After all, if they actually did it on purpose, they would admit it, right?...

[MJLiverock]

Have people forgotten the Brewers were already losing the game when Pujols got hit. He may very well have been walked since he was the only fearsome hitter in the lineup. The beaning of Pujols did not cause Turnbow to to be completely ineffective. Even if Turnbow comes in and slams the door with Pujols on first the Brewers were still losing at that point, who knows how the Cardinals would have played with a smaller lead. That loss to me falls on the offense shutting down and a bullpen blow up. How did beaning Pujols cause the Brewer offense to not score runs? The Brewers lost that game and deserved to and the Pujols situation had very little if anything to do with it.

[Ennder]

If an opposing manager knows that we will retaliate if Prince is thrown at, he won't get thrown at. You do it once, and you probably won't have to do it again

 

So any manager that wants to hit Fielder knows we'll put a runner on base for them later in the game so they can increase their odds of scoring. Sounds to me like he'll get hit more.

 

There was no reason to IBB Pujols with nobody on in a 1 run game and there was even less of a reason to hit him on purpose. It was just a dumb move.

[naivin]

Have people forgotten the Brewers were already losing the game when Pujols got hit. He may very well have been walked since he was the only fearsome hitter in the lineup. The beaning of Pujols did not cause Turnbow to to be completely ineffective. Even if Turnbow comes in and slams the door with Pujols on first the Brewers were still losing at that point, who knows how the Cardinals would have played with a smaller lead. That loss to me falls on the offense shutting down and a bullpen blow up. How did beaning Pujols cause the Brewer offense to not score runs? The Brewers lost that game and deserved to and the Pujols situation had very little if anything to do with it.

Didn't you know...hitting Pujols fired up that powerful St. Louis line-up and led to the additional runs. You could just see the fire in their eyes as they sat there with bats on their shoulders, took a couple walks and poked a couple weakly hit balls off Turnbow. It is strange though how the intentional beaning of Fielder seemingly did nothing to fire up the Brewer players, even though that took place in the third inning, and the Brewers barely managed a hit after that. Then again, those pesky details get in the way of pinning the Brewers not making the playoffs on Yost. After all, then all we need to do is replace him, and next year at this time, we'll still be playing.

[naivin]

So any manager that wants to hit Fielder knows we'll put a runner on base for them later in the game so they can increase their odds of scoring. Sounds to me like he'll get hit more.

Then again, there is always the possibility of your SS or 2b getting up close and personal with a baserunner spikes or losing a kneecap, or your pitcher taking one in his ear or his hand when he's trying to put a bunt down, your first baseman getting bowled over. The possibilities are endless.

[Nearsighted Views]

Have people forgotten the Brewers were already losing the game when Pujols got hit. He may very well have been walked since he was the only fearsome hitter in the lineup. The beaning of Pujols did not cause Turnbow to to be completely ineffective. Even if Turnbow comes in and slams the door with Pujols on first the Brewers were still losing at that point, who knows how the Cardinals would have played with a smaller lead. That loss to me falls on the offense shutting down and a bullpen blow up. How did beaning Pujols cause the Brewer offense to not score runs? The Brewers lost that game and deserved to and the Pujols situation had very little if anything to do with it.

Didn't you know...hitting Pujols fired up that powerful St. Louis line-up and led to the additional runs. You could just see the fire in their eyes as they sat there with bats on their shoulders, took a couple walks and poked a couple weakly hit balls off Turnbow. It is strange though how the intentional beaning of Fielder seemingly did nothing to fire up the Brewer players, even though that took place in the third inning, and the Brewers barely managed a hit after that. Then again, those pesky details get in the way of pinning the Brewers not making the playoffs on Yost. After all, then all we need to do is replace him, and next year at this time, we'll still be playing.

These are nice, convenient arguments that infer that anyone who thinks beaning Pujols was a bad idea is an idiot. Can you honestly say that you're in favor of putting runners on in front of Turnbow? That's the issue. Besides, intentionally giving a team baserunners in a 1 run game in the 8th is foolish no matter who is pitching. I'd love to have the "what will be will be" attitude but I'd love to see what happens in a close game that isn't compounded by stupid decisions. No, the beaning did not directly lead to the loss but would they have won if things went differently? We'll never know. And you don't either.

[logan82]

All year opposing pitchers were intentionally beaning Fielder, and the only response from the Brewers was typically a staredown from the batters box by Fielder and a staredown from the dugout by Rickie Weeks.

After reading this statement I find it hard to believe that anybody would go on to think that Yost intentionally hit Pujols. To me it shows a pattern of behavior that is at total odds with what people think happened. Add in the fact that McClung has never had good control and it all points to an unintentional HBP.

[bigredrobbo]

It's another example of looking for sticks to beat Yost with. At several points in the season he was criticized for NOT defending a player, arguing a call or showing that he had guys' backs.

 

Had LaRussa, Leyland or any one of the other so-called "veteran" managers been in Yost's shoes the "see, Ned, that's how you show leadership" quips would have been flying around here.

 

Anyone who suggests otherwise is either disingenuous or so blinded by their hatred for him that they can't see with objective eyes anymore.

[Nearsighted Views]

I do not like Ned Yost. But that's not what this particular topic is about. I think you can make an argument either way in just about every aspect of his mangerial style which I don't get into. I don't necessarily like all of his decisions but it is what it is. It's easy to say "I told you" or whatever.

 

Anyone who suggests otherwise is either disingenuous or so blinded by their hatred for him that they can't see with objective eyes anymore.

 

By making this comment, I think you put yourself in the exact same position in the other camp. I could argue that you're so blinded by your support for him that you fail to see what a horrible decision that was. If you look at it in a vaccum, fine. He was defending his boy. Whatever. Like I said, I think the whole throwing at each other is stupid. I never see a good reason to give extra baserunners. But when you put that beaning into context of the greater picture, it becomes a gigantic miscalculation and this is the one instance where I just cannot see an argument for it being logical.

[giffted1]

McClung's suspension was upheld because there was a hitch in his delivery that caused him to lose control. If that is true, Ned had nothing to do with Pujols getting hit.

Please tell me you're not actually buying into this. First pitch of the inning? To Pujols? McClung brought in? Turnbow already warmed and ready to replace him? Moments after Prince got buzzed? Shortly after a shouting/cursing match between the Brewer and Cardinal coaches?

 

What a strange set of coincidences! But I'm sure everybody involved is innocent. After all, if they actually did it on purpose, they would admit it, right?...

What would major league baseball have to gain by making something up to uphold McClung's suspension? They don't just revoke suspensions on a whim. Obviously there was some evidence showing that the Pujols plunking wasn't intentional.

 

Or maybe they're blind supporters of Yost, and they're trying to save him some criticism.

[Fatter than Joey]

I think that MLB reduced McClung's suspension, because that would have ended his career potentially -- no one would sign him if he had to serve 3 games off the bat.

[logan82]

I think that MLB reduced McClung's suspension, because that would have ended his career potentially -- no one would sign him if he had to serve 3 games off the bat.

 

Wouldn't his suspension have been for the last 3 games of this season? Really in the larger scheme of things 3 games is very little.

[DougJones43]

Guys get suspensions reduced all the time, many times for no apparent reason other than appealing a suspension. McClung and/or the Brewers probably appealed and made up an argument to try and illustrate to the MLB offices that the whole thing was unintentional. It's not surprising that they would try to wriggle off the hook for wrong-doing. Obviously, the Brewers and/or McClung were able find some way to convince MLB that it wasn't intentional. Either that, or MLB didn't think it was a big enough deal to go through the entire process trying to punish McClung (who is backed by the players union) and the team. I'm not surprised, as the burden of proof would have been on MLB to prove it was intentional, which they really can't do unless somebody fesses up.

The lifting of McClung's suspension - in no way - offers evidence of anything, in my opinion. I still think all of the other circumstancial evidence involved with the incident is much more overwhelming than MLB's decision.