I saw the play where he plowed into the catcher, and he had no choice. The catcher had the plate blocked with his foot so a slid wouldn't have worked.

yep...he acted like a little bitch when they did what every other team including his own would have done.

Brett Gardner got drilled by Detroit when he blew up their 2B.
There was no brawl because he shut his mouth and played the game after he got hit. Morgan couldn't drop it...so he got dropped.
He hurt his reputation greatly. Nobody wants to play with someone who instigate brawls. And that's what he did.

Sorry, I don't agree with throwing at him because he stole on you. I believe the score was 14-3 at the time, and it was ONLY THE FOURTH INNING.

So if your losing by 11 runs in the 4th inning, you have to stop giving yourself the best opportunity to win? Or is it that you just can't steal after you got hit?

Screw that noise. They hit him, it should have been done. If they don't want him running, don't put him on base. Stupid.

it's pretty uncommon stealing bases when you are down 11 runs. You need big innings and risking getting thrown out is not the way to build rallies.
The guy is a troublemaker.
This article pretty much explains everything looking at both sides. People might not like "the Code" but it's real, sometimes murky and is not going away.

I would get that, but he has a rep. Stealing second? Meh. Okay. But stealing 3rd in the same inning? He was just stirring shit up.

Oh my god, this is why I fucking can't stand baseball bullshit. THE CODE! About stealing bases in the fourth inning! Good fucking lord, I love that baseball apparently has a code about not trying too hard to come back once you're down too far.

So is it okay for the Yankees to keep all of their starters in when beating Baltimore 20-2? Can't be too far ahead, right?

Sure, knock yourselves out. If the pitcher's pitching well, why waste your bullpen in a game you've already won?

Edit: My bad, I thought you just meant the starting pitcher. But still, whatever. I won't begrudge any team not subbing in a game where subs are permanent decisions. I always thought those subs were meant as injury preventatives because you don't want Teixiera blowing his ACL with an 18-run lead, not a code-mandated-courtesy to the Orioles like the Yankees give a fuck about Matt Wieters' feelings or something.

It's not just code. It's not worth the risk. They can't build an inning if he gets thrown out! Having a runner on first "threatening" to steal is a hell of a lot better than actually stealing if you are that far behind. The pitcher will feel a little more pressure, there might be a bigger hole on the right side for a lefty hitter following and the potential to put up some crooked numbers increases greatly. It's stupid and selfish.

also an opportunity to give your best players a rest...it's a long season.

I'm not arguing the strategic side. I'm arguing that this nonsense that the Marlins were justified to throw at him over it is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

See, I never thought that stuff was code-related anyway. But greatone is making it out like it's some benevolent Code restriction, whereupon the mean ol' Yankees show their grace.

Eh see this is where we'll disagree. I think if you have a guy with speed like Morgan, then you should give him the green light. I'd do that with Jose Reyes as well. He proved he could steal 2nd, so I think he figured "hell a guy on second no outs is good, but a guy on 3rd is even better!" As you said its all about scoring runs, and if you have a guy who is confident he could steal then why not? Who was the catcher that night? If he was a great defensive catcher I'd agree with you, but if not then I say run baby run! Also when he stole 3rd was the batter at the plate righty or lefty? If it was a lefty then he's just showing off, but if its a righty then you have a batter blocking the catchers throw to 3rd, so it gives the baserunner a little more help.

So you don't think he did it to stick it up their ass?

More importantly, do I care? Do they really give a fuck when they're up by 11? Throw his stupid ass out, or quit whining that the player is running the bases after you put him there.

Maybe this is baseball's primary issue - it's played by people who think putting a guy on base is a good idea for punishment.

you think too much.

They need baserunners...not baserunner. They need 11 runs...not one. He best serves the team by being safe. Even Cervelli throws out a fast runner once in a while and he is one of the worst in the AL.

So shouldn't the Marlins be sending him a thank you note? "Thanks for risking your team's comeback chances?"

Well answer my last question: did the manager tell him to go? I

The Kusand Code! No varying from the point of the game no matter what happens on an emotional level!]
It will never happen. Baseball has a culture and that is part of it.

Only by your code...they sent him a fuck you note instead.

I'd bet money he didn't but he can't say now anyhow. It's part of the code.

The Kusand Code is: you can get emotional and play stupid as long as you don't justify it as being part of the (Baseball) Code.

Edit: I'm legitimately happy to see an actual baseball fight, though, and not a "hold me back!" festival.

As far as causing the pitcher stress, one could argue that when down 11 runs, the pitcher might be in a comfort zone. One could also argue that the pitcher and the Marlins have already allowed Morgan to get in their heads by holding a day long grudge and plugging him in the 4th. So they hit him, he steals, and now the pitcher is furious. Then he steals third and forget about it.

if we're talking about strategy, one could argue getting the opposing team to care more about your base running antics than the game at hand is a pretty good strategy.

I'm just sayin...

Look, Morgan is a tool, no doubt about it. I'm not against them plugging him and he deserves a suspension for all of his other antics.

But throwing at him AGAIN because he stole on you twice? Please, just stop.

edit: and remember, me and Kusand have fought about "the code" before. I normally defend "the code" and feel as though most players should abide by it, as silly as it may seem.

all that being said, I don't think stealing a base after getting plunked is a violation of said code. sorry I don't. WE JUST HIT YOU, HOW DARE YOU STEAL!!! you should take our beaning and literally sit on first base! YOU SHOULD THINK TWICE ABOUT RUNING TO SECOND IF ONE OF YOUR TEAMMATES GETS A HIT WHILE YOUR ON TOO!

Sorry, to me the Marlins come off as petty babies here.

I hate the whole "need baserunners" mentality. Especially that early in the game. So you've loaded the bases and then the next guy grounds into a double-play followed by the next guy flying out giving you one run. Fuck that. If you have a guy who can run on the other team with a high success rate, you send him. You send him all day and all night. Man on third no one out? Hell of a lot better than man on first no outs. Even if you only score him on a ground out or a fly out you chip away.

Also no one mentions that Volstad hit 3 guys before he threw behind Morgan. If anyone had a good right to the head coming, it was him.

HE DID!??! How was he still in the game, no story I read said that.

And the Marlins dare bitch about him stealing after he was hit? Such garbage.

Well, that's all only true dependent on how good a base stealer you have. Think of it like a poker bet.

For example, in 2005:

Teams with a man on first, no one out scored 0.9 runs in the inning on average.
Teams with a man on third, no one out scored 1.5 runs in the inning on average.
Teams with no one on and one out scored 0.27 runs in the inning on average.

On average, getting your man caught between first and third costs you 0.63 expected runs, and getting to third gains you 0.6 expected runs. If you've got a guy who can get from first to third uncaught 60% of the time or better, sure, why not?


Obviously your mileage may vary based on team offensive competency and opponent's catcher.

I feel all weird on the same side of a "Code" discussion with you.

How is it considered retaliation if you're putting a speedster on the bases? No matter the circumstances, you DO NOT plunk a guy on base who can steal. If you hit him and then, a few pitches later, he's standing on third, where's the payback? You just put a guy in scoring position without surrendering a hit. That's more a detriment to your team than theirs, isn't it? If you're gonna drill a guy for retaliation, do it to the big guy who can't run.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gid=300901128

The box score, HBP is down by the bottom.

The real question is how does Volstad get away with hitting three batters without getting thrown out?

I think the whole 'warning' thing has really changed over the last ten or so years. It's not as cut and dry as it used to be anymore. For some reason, the umps are almost hesitant to make good on the warnings when guys end up getting hit later in the game. Now, obviously, intent should be considered instead of just tossing a pitcher for brushing the batter...BUT, I have seen many times this year where warnings were issued early in the game, then later, a guy gets plunked but nothing happens. Hell, I can remember a Yanks-Sox game a few years ago when the benches were warned in the first or second inning, then Sheffield got hit TWICE later in the game and nothing happened. I don't understand it. Why make the threat if you're not gonna issue the punishment?

Fine, one gets away from you after the warning, sure I can see the ump letting that go but...three? You think by the third one intent is kind of obvious.

I don't understand it either. I think a similar thing happened in one of the Yanks-Tigers games a few weeks back too. I can't remember which exactly but I'm pretty sure Jim Leyland was livid at the ump because he had issued a warning in the first and then there was a hit batter but the ump didn't toss the Yankee pitcher. You'd figure all this stuff would be addressed by the Umpires Association but I guess not.

I'm not trying to say Morgan needed to be hit to enforce some code. What I'm saying is he is a dickhead. He has a rep as one. So him stealing those bases had really very little to do with a comeback. It was his FU back to Florida. I'm pretty sure if it was anyone else on that Nationals team that stole those two bases, nothing would have happened.

It's like if Avery ran over a goalie. People will think he did it on purpose. No matter what his actual intentions were.


But....if the Marlins had a guy steal two bases like that up 11, the Nats would be pretty pissed.

Well, yes. Are you actually implying that stealing bases and running up the score when up by 11 runs is the same as being DOWN 11 runs and stealing bases?

edit: Also, whose definition of dickhead are we using when deciding it's ok to hit people? Seems pretty subjective. If we're using say, I dunno Dallas Braden's definition of dickhead, the A's would have been completely justified in beaning A-Rod?

I'm just trying to figure out the whole dickhead angle of the rulebook

You're being a dickhead.

I don't know where your getting that I'm implying being a dickhead is in the rulebook.

of course I don't mean an actual rulebook, I'm talking about the so called code we're dancing around



I apologize for any misunderstanding but it certainly seemed to me as though you were implying he was hit because he's a dickhead, and earlier you were more or less, unless I misunderstood, defending the Marlins actions

Look, long story short, I don't want to turn this into an argument about semantics.

Morgan is a dickhead, no argument there.

I just don't think throwing behind him because he stole 2 bases after being hit, in the 4th inning of agame where his team was losing, warrants getting thrown at again.

And I'm just adding to the stolen base thing his past actions. Taking those into account plus what he did against Florida, I believe(and Florida obviously did) that Morgan stole the bases as "payback" to the Marlins. Not as a way to ignite an 11 run comeback in the 4th inning in a September game when they've been out of contention since April. Do I think there is some code that justifies the Marlins actions(stealing when down big)? No. I think the Marlins were justified because he was stirring shit up.

Maybe I'm just being cynical.

And lets say he was running to stick it right back in their faces? I don't see whats so wrong with a guy getting hit and then saying "ya know what, good ya got me, but now I'm runnin"

I agree.

and not for nothing, I really don't want to turn this into a Yankee thing, and thats what it will become even though it's not the point. A-Rod doesn't exactly have a sterling background. Slapping at guys hands at first base, yelling as he rounds the bases to distract players, and then running acorss the mound.

Why is it that Dallas Braden was the asshole (even though he did over exaggerate) when he got pissed at A-Rod (who is NOT necessarily like around the league), but the Marlins are FULLY justified in throwing at 4 guys in a game?

Again, as was mentioned, I think your not bringing into account the fact that Volstad was throwing at guys all game, so this wasn't some kind of isolated incident against Morgan.

Wanna stick it in their faces? Steal second. Which I orginally said was cool. A lot of guys get hit then steal second and slide hard to break up a DP. Stealing 3rd in the same inning is what kinda showed he went over the top IMO.

As for the A-Rod thing, I actually kinda agreed with Braden when it happened. But Braden looked/was the asshole because he decided to pick a fight over something very little people have even heard of. Should A-Rod have tried to run around the mound? Sure, whatever. Does Braden have the right to yap and tell him stay off the mound? Yep. But he didn't need to make it a national story the way he did.

I'm done. You think its fine. I think he was being a dick.

no one likes a "topper"...what is hard to understand?

They didn't bean him...they threw a ball over his head that said....STOP BEING A DICK.

At what point is it ok for Morgan to say "stop throwing at me?" If your gunna throw hit 3 people, you damn well better be ready for the gu to charge the mound.

I'm pretty indifferent about Morgan, and don't like that I'm defending a guy who thinks throwing balls in the stands is cool (even if it was philly) but Volstad and the Marlins took it too far.

As far as being a topper, at what point was Volstad continually throwing make him make HIM the topper?

Who says he was throwing at them though? Why couldn't he just have had no command all night? It's not like Volstad or Florida had any beef with other Nat players, just Morgan.

you think too much too.