NESN: O'Brien, Eckersley Talking Nonsense Re Gausman Ejection

In the bottom of the first inning of Thursday night's Red Sox/Orioles game, Andrew Benintendi struck out and Mookie Betts came to the plate. And NESN viewers heard this exchange:

Dave O'Brien: Now back to last night and Gausman getting thrown out. [Replay shown.] This was ridiculous. On a 77-mph curveball, no hesitation by Holbrook at all. Now I gotta tell you, he has leeway here. He doesn't have to throw anybody out of the game.

Dennis Eckersley: Well, that's good to know. Because that tells me, did he see the spin on the breaking ball? I mean, did he not see that? Because if he didn't see that, that's his only excuse.

O'Brien: Mm-mmm. I know the Commissioner and Joe Torre told everyone to knock it off, in a conference call with the managers and the general managers. That doesn't mean that the umpire is compelled to throw everyone out of the game. What would have happened if that was a change-up, on someone's elbow? Does he throw him out of the game?

Eckersley: The trigger was ready to go off at any given time. And he was just so conscious of it, is what it comes down to.

O'Brien: I understand the need to maintain order. Holbrook's a good umpire.

Eckersley: I mean, he couldn't very well just say, oh well, never mind, that was a curveball. Once he made the move, he was done. Can't change your mind.

First, O'Brien states the obvious: "He doesn't have to throw anybody out of the game."

Then, he exaggerates wildly to make Holbrook's action seem extreme: "That doesn't mean that the umpire is compelled to throw everyone out of the game."

We all know Holbrook did not eject everyone after Bogaerts was hit by the pitch. It is a silly comment and devalues any point O'Brien wants to make. (Actually, Holbrook may have shown restraint by not also tossing Buck Showalter at the same time, but perhaps that only happens if warnings were given earlier in (or before) the game.)

Then, O'Brien invents a situation that never happened and wonders what Holbrook would do: "What would have happened if that was a change-up, on someone's elbow? Does he throw him out of the game?"

Playing the "What if X happened instead?" game instead of talking about what actually occurred strikes me as the arguing tactic of a seven-year-old.

And as long as I am thinking about this, Eckersley's comments completely baffle me. The fact that an umpire is not obligated to eject anyone during a game should not be "news" to him, either as a former player or a member of the media who watches games for a living.

Eckersley says "that [news] tells me" something, but we never find out what it is, because he asks two questions instead. Also, if he read any of the stories online or in today's papers, he would know if Holbrook knew what kind of a pitch Gausman threw. (Spoiler: He knew.)

Eckersley contradicts himself with his last comment. Up until this moment, he had agreed with O'Brien that the ejection was completely unwarranted. Now Eck seemed to say that Holbrook had to eject Gausman (that he was obligated, even), that simply because the pitcher threw a curveball doesn't mean the umpire should say, oh, okay, it's fine to hit him with a curve, carry on.