It’s the week’s best baseball GIFs, neatly compiled in one place and ready to wreak havoc on your browser. We lead with this now infamous image of Brett Lawrie spiking his helmet toward Bill Miller, which comes to us via The Blue Jay Hunter.

Here are the rest of the GIFs that made us gasp, guffaw, and groan over the past week.

OMG that’s Thunder Dan Majerle of the week

Brandon Phillips has more SWAG than you of the week

The it takes two to make a thing go right of the week

Clint Hurdle chewing of the week

Gerald Laird trips over his own feet of the week

Down goes Ramon Santiago of the week

Carlos Lee throws a 270 lb. man at an umpire of the week

The Juan Pierre I can has a baseball glove of the week

Matt Garza might have a case of the yips of the week

The crotch shot of the week

The exception of the week

Comments (20)

  1. By the logic thrown around this week, Lawrie got suspended because the helmet happened to bounce and hit an umpire. If it doesn’t hit him, he probably doesn’t get suspended, just ejected.

    To justify it, people argue that well it doesn’t matter, the helmet hit the umpire regardless of intent.

    I don’t think Carlos Lee meant to run into and tackle the umpire. But it happened. No suspension there.

    Just sayin.

    • You start out by saying ‘by logic’ but then you fail to use any sort of logic in you post.

    • You have to be…I don’t even…But can’t you see….Nevermind.

    • So Carlos Lee bumps into an umpire during a baseball play and you think he should be suspended. What planet are you from????

    • Wow… just…. wow.

    • Um, to all you guys replying to Bob here: I don’t think he was implying that Lee should be suspended. Nor was he claiming it was his own logic. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I understood him to be saying (in logical form):

      1. Player (Lawrie) makes contact with umpire.
      2. Making contact with umpire warrants suspension
      2a. Intent does not invalidate #2

      3. Lawrie is suspended

      1. Player (Lee) makes contact with umpire.
      2. Making contact with umpire warrants suspension
      2b. Contact must be intentional

      3. Lee is not suspended

      Bob’s point is that 2a & 2b are in contradiction. He’s not explicitly saying that Lawrie should not have been suspended, nor that Lee should have been, nor even that this is how the logic of the judgements work. He’s simply saying that for those people who believe that Lawrie should not have been suspended because there was no intent behind his contact, they can use the Lee contact as support for their arguments.

      • And that logic too is wrong.

        • Sorry I should explain….
          If I shoot a gun without any intent to hit any living thing, but I DO hit something and I hurt it or kill it, then I’m responsible for that and I should be punished.

          If I’m driving my car completely within the law (not drunk or anything like that) and somehow I lose control of my car and strike and kill someone – that’s called an accident.

          Slightly extreme example but my point is that Lee’s circumstances were an accident. Lawrie’s were caused by actions that should never have been taken in the first place (throwing the helmet)

          • I don’t disagree. It’s sort of like the difference between being clumsy and reckless endangerment. If a guy fires a gun randomly into the air, he’s still being reckless, even if no one gets shot. But in that case, Lawrie should be suspended, regardless of whether the helmet hit the umpire: he threw it recklessly.

            Like I said: I’m not making the argument — I’m just describing the argument being made.

          • I think he may have been trying to refute people who say it doesn’t matter if Lawrie meant to hit Miller or not, he should have gotten a stiffer suspension because he did hit him. But your last comment is still flawed. In your first scenario, it’s still an accident if I didn’t mean to shoot a person. The bullet could have ricocheted or something. I am still responsible, but the punishment would be less severe than if it had been 1st degree murder. Also, when driving, you take on the responsibility of operating a machine that could very easily injure another person, and to use it properly to diminish the chances of that happening. Same thing with a gun, you are expected to use it properly to diminish the chances of another person getting hurt. But the punishments at the end are just like Lawrie…if he had thrown it directly at Miller, with clear intent to hit him, we are talking about a much, much longer suspension.

    • Just for clarification

      Lawrie got ejected for arguing balls and strikes. The helmet toss came post-ejection.

  2. So I think I’ve managed to lip read Billy boy in the gif above. Here’s what I see.

    “What the Fuck!?!?…”
    *pause”
    “you’re gonna fucking get it now you little fucker”

    …thoughts?

    I assume Lawrie’s comments were something like “REDBULL REDBULL, FUCKYA BUDDY, REDBULL REDBULL LAWRIE SMASH!”

    • Awesome.

      Miller was also ready to throw Lawrie out as soon as he called that strike. No wonder the response is LAWRIE SMASH!

  3. Gerald Laird sticks the landing.

  4. Baby step onto the elevator, baby step into the elevator, you’re IN the elevator…

  5. Just saw the George Brett pine tar bat incident, it was by far worse then Lawrie, kind of ironic though that both guys reaction were about the same and that’s the player Lawrie tries to play like, even had lunch with him.
    Almost identical reactions did Brett get suspended, he even swung at the ump?

  6. How about a GIF of the beer being tossed at the ump and the two guys reaction? Hilarious. Dumb, but hilarious.

    http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=21468797&source=MLB&gid=2012_05_15_tbamlb_tormlb_1

  7. Think of the top of a batting helmet, as a basketball. Anyone who has thrown a bounce pass, knows that Lawrie intended for the helmet to bounce and hit Miller

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *