4 ms·
And my response to this devil's advocacy: A) many of these same pitchers will yell/pound their gloves/clap/point to the sky/cross themselves when they successf
by trowawee 9y ago
And my response to this devil's advocacy:
A) many of these same pitchers will yell/pound their gloves/clap/point to the sky/cross themselves when they successfully strike someone out or get out of a tight situation, which by their own logic suggests that someone should throw a 95 MPH projectile at them as soon as possible
and
B) even if someone bests you in a competition and then gloats about it (even if they gloat about it excessively! to absurd degree!), that does not give you license to throw a 95 MPH projectile at them. You should try to best them next time within the rules of the game.
and
C) many of the situations described above are not in fact "gloating" or "unnecessary attention" or "ostentatious" except by the absurd standards of American baseball. All of the people on earth who, right now, could hit a home run against a major league player could probably fit comfortably in a high school gym with space left over. And even among that subset, most who have the opportunity achieve it incredibly rarely. If you hit a home run, watching it go over the wall and smiling is not excessive. That is a reasonable reaction to hitting a home run in major league baseball! That is a very cool and rare thing to achieve. It is worth celebrating.
Essentially, none of it "calls for retaliation". If the pitcher doesn't want the batter to watch a home run they hit off of him, he should throw better pitches that do not allow the batter to hit a home run. And if he can't do that and he wants to throw a tantrum and physically attack the batter instead, he should be ejected and suspended.
- dionidium 9y agoI have to say I'm not really moved by language like, "95 MPH projectile" that seeks to exaggerate the risk involved. Your argument would be stronger without it.
- trowawee 9y agoLiteral description is not an exaggeration.
- dionidium 9y agoYes, but descriptions that reduce complex interactions to their simplest form -- e.g. baseball is "grown men hitting a ball with a stick" -- is an old trick to conceal complexity for dubious motives. It's true that baseball is, in fact, grown men hitting a ball with a stick, but it isn't merely that. We all understand that that description is designed to ridicule something that is much bigger than its parts. So, yes, yours is a literal description, but it's also a clumsy and unnatural account that's crafted to manipulate the reader. Which is fine, as far as it goes; I just think your argument would be stronger without it.