Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 57 minutes ago, Myshkin said: ETA: I mean shit, watching PTI a few minutes ago, Mike Wilbon said Harper shouldn't face any punishment, and suggested in all seriousness that he shoulda gone after Strickland with the fucking bat. Just imagine if the pitcher in this situation had been Kershaw or Scherzer, and the batter had been some replacement level player. Both the coverage and the punishments would have looked very different. Smells like a HOT TAKE. Wilbon is normally pretty level-headed. Although I guess he is kind of a DC sports guy. (like that's a real thing, right Jaime L?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Give me a fucking break with throwing the helmet as "bringing a weapon" into the brawl, after a pitcher just threw a much harder, more dangerous object at him. I also don't think he was throwing the helmet at the pitcher. As for Wilbon's take, I almost want to agree. Allowing pitchers to throw at batters is fucking insane, and it would stop really quick if you knew a guy with a bat was coming at you. As is, they need to just start throwing down month long suspensions for intentionally throwing at batters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Pesci Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 28 minutes ago, Myshkin said: ETA: I mean shit, watching PTI a few minutes ago, Mike Wilbon said Harper shouldn't face any punishment, and suggested in all seriousness that he shoulda gone after Strickland with the fucking bat. Just imagine if the pitcher in this situation had been Kershaw or Scherzer, and the batter had been some replacement level player. Both the coverage and the punishments would have looked very different. I caught Wilbon spewing that hot garbage, that guy loves to kiss ass when it comes to star players, and his comments about Harper using the bat are just fucking pathetic. You bring up an interesting point here with flipping the star player from batter to pitcher. The talking heads would be up in arms and yapping for charging the mound to have some absurd automatic 10 game suspension or some bullshit like that. I'd wager the suspension for the replacement level player would be at least double what Strickland got as well. And the Pirates are 24-28, yet only 3.5 games out of first! What a bastion of competition the NL Central is so far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, sperry said: Give me a fucking break with throwing the helmet as "bringing a weapon" into the brawl, after a pitcher just threw a much harder, more dangerous object at him. I also don't think he was throwing the helmet at the pitcher. As for Wilbon's take, I almost want to agree. Allowing pitchers to throw at batters is fucking insane, and it would stop really quick if you knew a guy with a bat was coming at you. As is, they need to just start throwing down month long suspensions for intentionally throwing at batters. So you don't think a thrown helmet is a weapon? Should the dudes jumping over the dugout railing be bringing helmets and bats too? Should the boys in the bullpens start hurling balls toward the scrum instead of making that long, usually pointless run? Is a fastball to the wallet deserving of some lumber to the head? Is not being able to reliably prove intent when a pitcher throws a ball at a batter an excuse for not taking action when a batter throws a helmet at a pitcher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Myshkin said: So you don't think a thrown helmet is a weapon? Should the dudes jumping over the dugout railing be bringing helmets and bats too? Should the boys in the bullpens start hurling balls toward the scrum instead of making that long, usually pointless run? Is a fastball to the wallet deserving of some lumber to the head? Is not being able to reliably prove intent when a pitcher throws a ball at a batter an excuse for not taking action when a batter throws a helmet at a pitcher? A thrown helmet is no more of a "weapon" than a thrown a ball. I don't actually think guys should be able to bring bats, but it should be a massive suspension for intentionally throwing at somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 I think that throwing at guys is nuts, and in no way made okay by traditional acceptance. Goalies used to play hockey without facemasks; tradition is often stupid as fuck. This is in no way an apology for Harper, about whom my opinion can be pretty much summed up as 'great hitter; dick.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Just now, sperry said: A thrown helmet is no more of a "weapon" than a thrown a ball. I don't actually think guys should be able to bring bats, but it should be a massive suspension for intentionally throwing at somebody. And how exactly would you go about proving the intent? This is why suspensions for throwing at batters aren't longer. A pitcher's job is to throw a baseball within inches of where a batter is standing, and suspending pitchers for large chunks of time, costing them large chunks of money, for hitting batters is just not feasible when there is no way to conclusively prove intent (even when intent seems obvious). None of this however excuses the league for not taking action when it is possible to prove intent. You see, a batter's job is most definitely not to throw his helmet at the pitcher, so when one does intent is a given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 15 minutes ago, Myshkin said: And how exactly would you go about proving the intent? This is why suspensions for throwing at batters aren't longer. A pitcher's job is to throw a baseball within inches of where a batter is standing, and suspending pitchers for large chunks of time, costing them large chunks of money, for hitting batters is just not feasible when there is no way to conclusively prove intent (even when intent seems obvious). None of this however excuses the league for not taking action when it is possible to prove intent. You see, a batter's job is most definitely not to throw his helmet at the pitcher, so when one does intent is a given. This I agree with. Not down with the 'that's the way the game is played' crap about the idea of intentionally throwing at batters, but yeah, from a procedural POV this is why they're penalized differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 20 minutes ago, Myshkin said: And how exactly would ou go about proving the intent? This is why suspensions for throwing at batters aren't longer. A pitcher's job is to throw a baseball within inches of where a batter is standing, and suspending pitchers for large chunks of time, costing them large chunks of money, for hitting batters is just not feasible when there is no way to conclusively prove intent (even when intent seems obvious). None of this however excuses the league for not taking action when it is possible to prove intent. You see, a batter's job is most definitely not to throw his helmet at the pitcher, so when one does intent is a given. This isn't a court of law. The amount of times that players are accidentally hit square in the body on a fastball is miniscule enough that you can live with an occasional false positive. As for throwing the helmet, it should be a non-issue, because pitchers shouldn't be allowed to throw at hitters. It's just absurd. The situation shouldn't come up because pitchers should know they're going to baseball jail for a long time if they throw at somebody in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 1 minute ago, sperry said: This isn't a court of law. The amount of times that players are accidentally hit square in the body on a fastball is miniscule enough that you can live with an occasional false positive. As for throwing the helmet, it should be a non-issue, because pitchers shouldn't be allowed to throw at hitters. It's just absurd. It's only not a court of law because pitchers aren't receiving 30 game suspensions. If the league decided to drop the hammer and suspend say Clayton Kershaw for 30 games for drilling someone in the hip, well that would cost old Kersh a little over $6.1 million. And with that kind of cash on the line I'm gonna guess matters will indeed end up in a court of law. And when that happens, good luck proving intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 6 minutes ago, Myshkin said: It's only not a court of law because pitchers aren't receiving 30 game suspensions. If the league decided to drop the hammer and suspend say Clayton Kershaw for 30 games for drilling someone in the hip, well that would cost old Kersh a little over $6.1 million. And with that kind of cash on the line I'm gonna guess matters will indeed end up in a court of law. And when that happens, good luck proving intent. Discipline can't end up in a court of law, it's covered by CBA. Obviously punishment would have to fall within the collectively bargained framework, but it would be the same appeals process in which Strickland is currently engaging in, and in which he will lose said appeal and remain suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay B. Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 1 hour ago, James Arryn said: This is in no way an apology for Harper, about whom my opinion can be pretty much summed up as 'great hitter; dick.' Dude...make baseball fun again! His douchiness is the main reason I'm hoping NY goes hard after Machado and not him next year. Speaking of Manny, I didn't realize how bad he is struggling lately. Severino has made him look horrible in all 3 ab's today and his average is down to like .210. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 41 minutes ago, sperry said: Discipline can't end up in a court of law, it's covered by CBA. Obviously punishment would have to fall within the collectively bargained framework, but it would be the same appeals process in which Strickland is currently engaging in, and in which he will lose said appeal and remain suspended. Well I'm not familiar enough with the MLB CBA to dispute this, but I do know that Tom Brady and the NFL ended up in a court of law over a discipline matter. I know, different leagues, different agreements. But even if players can't drag the league to court, do you honestly think any arbitrator would uphold a 30 game suspension when intent cannot be proven? Do you honestly think any arbitrator should uphold that type of suspension? And do you honestly think the MLBPA would ever put up with that? But this is all beside the point: we know why the league does not currently drop the hammer on pitchers for hitting batters, but that does not excuse them for handing out light punishments in matters where intent can most definitely be proven. Such as cases in which batters throw their helmets at pitchers. Dudes get stiffer punishments for bumping the umpire than Harper got for throwing his helmet while charging the mound. ETA: Didn't A-Rod sue the MLB over a disciplinary matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Just now, Myshkin said: Well I'm not familiar enough with the MLB CBA to dispute this, but I do know that Tom Brady and the NFL ended up in a court of law over a discipline matter. I know, different leagues, different agreements. But even if players can't drag the league to court, do you honestly think any arbitrator would uphold a 30 game suspension when intent cannot be proven? Do you honestly think any arbitrator should uphold that type of suspension? And do you honestly think the MLBPA would ever put up with that? But this is all beside the point: we know why the league does not currently drop the hammer on pitchers for hitting batters, but that does not excuse them for handing out light punishments in matters where intent can most definitely be proven. Such as cases in which batters throw their helmets at pitchers. Dudes get stiffer punishments for bumping the umpire than Harper got for throwing his helmet while charging the mound. The Brady thing is an excellent example of this. The court upheld the suspension because all that mattered was that Goodell had the authority to actually suspend him. They didn't delve into the merits of the punishment at all, just whether it had the authority. As for proving intent, it becomes a moot point. If the punishment is severe for intentionally throwing at somebody, you stop intentionally throwing at people. You don't plunk somebody for ego reasons and then hope that you can get off easy. At that point, charging the mound no longer becomes a thing. As for charging the mound, penalties, I'm fine with making them harsher, but that's just a symptom. The underlying issue is that pitchers are allowed to throw 90 mph ballistics at players. That's what needs to be taken care of, and the charging the mound will take care of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 How can proving intent possibly be a moot point when the punishment is handed out for intentionally throwing at somebody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Also, in the Brady case the first federal court judge threw out the suspension due to "lack of fair due process". The appeals court reinstated the suspension, in a 2-1 vote, not because Goodell had an absolute right under the CBA to suspend Brady in any way he damn well pleased, but because they found that the arbitration process had met the "minimum legal standards". I'm not a lawyer but I have to wonder if suspending and effectively fining someone several million dollars for intentionally throwing at someone without being able to prove intent meets the "minimum legal standards". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 24 minutes ago, Myshkin said: How can proving intent possibly be a moot point when the punishment is handed out for intentionally throwing at somebody? Because if the punishment is so harsh that intentionally throwing at somebody isn't something anybody does, then you don't have to worry about it happening. When you know that throwing at someone intentionally doesn't make sense, then you can usually infer it was accidental. 14 minutes ago, Myshkin said: Also, in the Brady case the first federal court judge threw out the suspension due to "lack of fair due process". The appeals court reinstated the suspension, in a 2-1 vote, not because Goodell had an absolute right under the CBA to suspend Brady in any way he damn well pleased, but because they found that the arbitration process had met the "minimum legal standards". I'm not a lawyer but I have to wonder if suspending and effectively fining someone several million dollars for intentionally throwing at someone without being able to prove intent meets the "minimum legal standards". I am a lawyer, and that's what they were saying. They were only looking into the process, they weren't looking into the punishment. Whether the process was fundamentally fair incorporates the commissioner acting within his legal authority. The dissenter argued he was acting outside of his authority by acting as an arbitrator. The league has the authority to suspend players for their in-game conduct. I'm guessing there are maximums written into the CBA, but so long as the league doesn't go beyond the numbers proscribed in the CBA, then the courts aren't going to touch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 1 minute ago, sperry said: Because if the punishment is so harsh that intentionally throwing at somebody isn't something anybody does, then you don't have to worry about it happening. When you know that throwing at someone intentionally doesn't make sense, then you can usually infer it was accidental. It's still going to happen. Guys pitch inside, it's part of the game. Some batters are more susceptible to getting jammed, and that's the way you approach those guys. Some guys lean over the plate to an extreme, and those guys tend to get hit more often. It can be hard at times to prove intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: It's still going to happen. Guys pitch inside, it's part of the game. Some batters are more susceptible to getting jammed, and that's the way you approach those guys. Some guys lean over the plate to an extreme, and those guys tend to get hit more often. It can be hard at times to prove intent. Again, this isn't a court of law. There is no need to "prove" anything. Strickland was just suspended 6 games for intentionally throwing at Harper. The guy who threw at Machado was suspended 4 games earlier this year. No "proving" of intent was involved. The problem is that those punishments are chump change for relief pitchers, who are the guys who end up doing this. Make it 20 games and all of a sudden it's not a choice guys are going to be willing to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Just now, sperry said: Again, this isn't a court of law. There is no need to "prove" anything. Strickland was just suspended 6 games for intentionally throwing at Harper. The guy who threw at Machado was suspended 4 games earlier this year. No "proving" of intent was involved. The problem is that those punishments are chump change for relief pitchers, who are the guys who end up doing this. Make it 20 games and all of a sudden it's not a choice guys are going to be willing to make. Sure, but once you make it 20 games, you'd better be damn sure it's intentional. As Myshkin mentioned, you're now talking about millions of dollars and potentially screwing the season of a team if the pitcher is a #1 or #2 starter. Not sure how you do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.