I've been reading, and watching, and pondering the fallout from yesterday's little fracas with some level of detached bemusement.  A lot of things have been said, and very few of them actually make any sense.  Some of them got covered in the post-mortem thread, but let's try and break this down piece-by-piece.

First, let's cover the main point of contention from His Craziness, Ozzie Guillen.  Guillen was furious that his pitcher got the thumb without any warning having been issued.  I'm going to be fair to Ozzie and agree that this was probably a bit harsh.  The problem here is, there should have already been a warning issued.  Carrasco had already nearly decapitated Olivo twice.  Bill James once argued convincingly that umpires should have the authority to run a guy just for being dangerously wild; his point was that it's not a punitive measure, but a safety measure.  Gary Cederstrom should have pointed at Carrasco after the pitch which wasn't a HBP but could have been and said "That's it, one more and you're gone."  His failure to do so directly contributed to the situation.  I understand that doing so would have been somewhat extraordinary, but it's the umpire's responsibility to both recognize a potential threat and to protect the players on the field where possible.  I do not for the life of me comprehend how, after already having thrown two pitches in the vicinity of a batter's head, an umpire could not at least consider the possibility the pitcher's gunning for him.  It is beyond all rational belief.

Cederstrom, for his part, exacerbated this situation post-game by apologizing to Guillen.  He apologized for the wrong thing, however; he should have apologized for not issuing the warning a pitch earlier, not for running Carrasco without the issuance of a warning.  Of course, even then, this misses the point; Carrasco took a swing at Olivo while he was being held.  Never mind that it was a embarrassing and ineffective swipe; it was enough justification to get ejected regardless of his intent with the pitch.

Guillen then went on to argue that there's no way he would have instructed a pitcher to throw at a guy with the bases loaded, and the talking heads parroted this line as if it were the true gospel of Alexander Cartwright himself.  The talking heads neglected to consider one thing, that being that Guillen was being mendacious in saying it:  the game was essentially already over at this point.  Giving up another run?  Big deal.  Does anyone really believe that Ozzie's not crazy enough to give up a run deliberately when the game's already lost just to get a little revenge?  In fact, is there really anyone who in retrospect doesn't think that's the perfect time for Ozzie to headhunt someone and then look innocent and claim he wouldn't do it in that situation?  Everyone knows Ozzie is an insane genius, but this thought never occurred to the experts employed by the Worldwide Leader?

Yes, perhaps it's true; perhaps Carrasco was just wild.  I know that when I see a pitcher who's lost control, it's completely common to see them basically hit the exact same spot with three straight pitches.  Please.  Greg Maddux would have had a hard time throwing those three consecutive pitches with such superrnaturally consistent accuracy.

And then we have John Kruk, whining like a wounded boar about how unfair it is that good teams can't retaliate in these situations while "last place" teams have nothing to lose.  John, perhaps you want to rethink that (as well as taking a look at the standings, which you, being an expert, should be presumed to be familiar with before going on the air).  Considering what the Royals have done to the White Sox over the last two weeks, it's arguable which one of these two teams is the "good team" anyway, but that's neither here nor there.  The "good team" in your eyes is not the team that was prevented from retaliating.  To "retaliate" is to "requite or make return for a wrong or injury with the like."  Was Kruk really suggesting that, in the wake of the Royals retaliating for Carrasco's "lack of control", the White Sox should then have been allowed to retaliate right back simply because they're in a pennant race?  What asinine logic.

Oh, and John?  I like how you completely missed the distinction between Zack Greinke laying a pitch into the well-padded ass of Nick Swisher vs. DJ Carrasco aiming at Miguel Olivo's head.  Well played.

Obviously, I'm biased in this, being a Royals fan and considering the White Sox to be an organization roughly equivalent to E. coli.  But all this requires is some rational thought.  I just wish the national media were more capable of same as we basement-dwelling nobodies without journalism degrees.