clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

What Happened To Kirk Gibson (Part II)?

In a previous Desert Dirt, SB Nation Arizona poobah Seth Pollack asks why Kirk Gibson didn't order the maiming of a Washington Nationals player in return for Mark Reynolds' head shot Tuesday. Of course, the retaliation usually occurs against the other team's star and the Nationals don't actually have a position player star. (Don't believe it? Try this on for size: "I grew up in the Ryan Zimmerman era...")

Also, it's not like the Diamondbacks have pitching to spare to have a starter (or reliever) tossed early. Why create more trouble for the team by wearing out arms you might need to show you can kinda sorta run a pitching staff in your first big league gig?

This, of course, sets aside the absurdity of the whole notion. Which is triple hot fudge sundae with extra nuts.

Instead, let's ask another question: why does Kirk Gibson not want to injure the other team's players but may not be protecting his own?

As noted by Seth, Mark Reynolds, the aforementioned victim, went right back out Wednesday night with exactly nothing left on the line. However, Reynolds had to be pulled in the seventh inning due to repercussions from the 95 mph blow to the head.

What's worse: not keeping Reynolds out pre-emptively for a night or two (especially considering the difficulty of diagnosing concussions and their severity) or taking two-plus hours to discover the man standing 100 feet from the power swings of right-handed hitters might have a bit of a reaction time problem?

Maybe the team took all precautionary steps, but someone ought to be asking why there had to be a recurrence of concussion symptoms on the field. And so SB Nation Arizona asks again: What happened to Kirk Gibson?