MLB 2017 - if you build it, they will cub

[Myshkin]

Right, as long as the punishments are manageable nobody's really gonna stir up shit about it. But once you make the punishments so stiff that they start costing players millions of dollars and start affecting teams' playoff chances you better believe there's gonna be some major pushback. And maybe players won't be able to take the league to court (maybe) but at the end of the day the MLBPA is not powerless against the league. And there is absolutely no way they put up with 20/30 game suspension for intentionally throwing at batters. And there's no way they should put up with that shit, because as has been said again and again, there's no way to prove intent in these situations. But I guess they could try it your way, which is apparently to make the punishment so stiff that it can never be enforced because the existence of said stiff punishment would force the league to infer that all HBPs were accidental.

[Myshkin]

Also, Dodgers are now officially in first place in the NL West.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Also, Dodgers are now officially in first place in the NL West.

Meh. It's a practical 3 way tie. Wake me up in August.

[Myshkin]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Meh. It's a practical 3 way tie. Wake me up in August.

I know. The real race is the one for the NL West cellar. Pads have a pretty tight hold on it for now, but I never count out the Giants.

[sperry]

27 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Right, as long as the punishments are manageable nobody's really gonna stir up shit about it. But once you make the punishments so stiff that they start costing players millions of dollars and start affecting teams' playoff chances you better believe there's gonna be some major pushback. And maybe players won't be able to take the league to court (maybe) but at the end of the day the MLBPA is not powerless against the league. And there is absolutely no way they put up with 20/30 game suspension for intentionally throwing at batters. And there's no way they should put up with that shit, because as has been said again and again, there's no way to prove intent in these situations. But I guess they could try it your way, which is apparently to make the punishment so stiff that it can never be enforced because the existence of said stiff punishment would force the league to infer that all HBPs were accidental.

 

The MLB doesn't need to prove intent on plenty of things. You get popped for a PED, there is no proving of intent involved. In fact, you can prove that you acted completely reasonably and were misled or tricked by a faulty label on a substance, and you will still be suspended for 50 games. Why? Because baseball wants PEDs out of the game, and they aren't going to put up with it, and if a few innocent people get punished, they are okay with that. Baseball should feel the same way about intentionally throwing at batters.

[Myshkin]

1 minute ago, sperry said:

 

The MLB doesn't need to prove intent on plenty of things. You get popped for a PED, there is no proving of intent involved. In fact, you can prove that you acted completely reasonably and were misled or tricked by a faulty label on a substance, and you will still be suspended for 50 games. Why? Because baseball wants PEDs out of the game, and they aren't going to put up with it, and if a few innocent people get punished, they are okay with that. Baseball should feel the same way about intentionally throwing at batters.

Okay, so you keep using the word "intentionally" while simultaneously arguing that proving "intent" doesn't matter. Your PED analogy doesn't work. For MLB to punish intentional HBPs out of the game in the same way they're trying to punish PEDs out of the game, they'd have to make the punishments for ALL HBPs, intentional or not, the same across the board. If they don't punish accidental HBPs in the same way as they punish intentional HBPs then somebody somewhere will have to be responsible for determining intent.

[sperry]

4 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Okay, so you keep using the word "intentionally" while simultaneously arguing that proving "intent" doesn't matter. Your PED analogy doesn't work. For MLB to punish intentional HBPs out of the game in the same way they're trying to punish PEDs out of the game, they'd have to make the punishments for ALL HBPs, intentional or not, the same across the board. If they don't punish accidental HBPs in the same way as they punish intentional HBPs then somebody somewhere will have to be responsible for determining intent.

 

I'm arguing that they don't have to prove intent because they don't, and using the analogy to demonstrate that in order to clean up a problem they have shown they're willing to throw some people who made an honest mistake under the bus. In this instance, they can use their discretion to determine whether something was intentional or not, and act accordingly. So long as their punishment falls within defined guidelines, they aren't obligated to prove anything. They've been doing exaclty this for years, just the punishments are such a slap on the wrist that they're not having the proper deterrent effect.

 

At the end of the day, it's just not acceptable to allow pitchers to throw fastballs at players on purpose. That would be felony assault in any other situation. Public perception is swinging that way, and even more importantly in getting things done, the league doesn't want to lose a marketable star to an injury in this type of situation. The punishments for this are going to go up.

[Myshkin]

2 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

I'm arguing that they don't have to prove intent because they don't, and using the analogy to demonstrate that in order to clean up a problem they have shown they're willing to throw some people who made an honest mistake under the bus. In this instance, they can use their discretion to determine whether something was intentional or not, and act accordingly.

And I'm arguing that your analogy doesn't fit, because ALL PED use, intentional or not, is punished by the MLB, while what you're proposing is that only SOME HBPs should be punished. It seems pretty clear to me why this analogy doesn't work. To spell it out though, in cases of PED use nobody has to "use their discretion" to determine punishment; either you used or you didn't. It's black and white. There is nothing black and white about determining what someone might have been privately thinking when they let go of a baseball. With the PED policy the league is, as you've stated, willing to throw some people under the bus for making an honest mistake. Well if the league were to work the same way regarding HBPs they'd have to be willing to throw every pitcher who lost the grip or came a bit too far inside under the bus as well. If they're not willing to do that then they'll have to determine intent, which means that proving intent is absolutely not a moot point. I honestly don't understand how you could possibly continue to argue that proving intent doesn't matter when determining whether or not something was intentional.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

53 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

I know. The real race is the one for the NL West cellar. Pads have a pretty tight hold on it for now, but I never count out the Giants.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? 

[Myshkin]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? 

No, but I kiss your mom with it.

Ohh, sick burn! You walked right into that one!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Myshkin.

I think you're dead wrong to say that Harper is getting protected here. His suspension means missing at least 36 complete innings. Strickland's means missing 4-6 half innings. Strickland should have gotten a 20 game ban. 

[aceluby]

Pitchers getting any suspension at all for throwing at someone is absurd.  It's not a 'problem', it's part of the damn game.

[sperry]

9 hours ago, Myshkin said:

And I'm arguing that your analogy doesn't fit, because ALL PED use, intentional or not, is punished by the MLB, while what you're proposing is that only SOME HBPs should be punished. It seems pretty clear to me why this analogy doesn't work. To spell it out though, in cases of PED use nobody has to "use their discretion" to determine punishment; either you used or you didn't. It's black and white. There is nothing black and white about determining what someone might have been privately thinking when they let go of a baseball. With the PED policy the league is, as you've stated, willing to throw some people under the bus for making an honest mistake. Well if the league were to work the same way regarding HBPs they'd have to be willing to throw every pitcher who lost the grip or came a bit too far inside under the bus as well. If they're not willing to do that then they'll have to determine intent, which means that proving intent is absolutely not a moot point. I honestly don't understand how you could possibly continue to argue that proving intent doesn't matter when determining whether or not something was intentional.

 

They don't have to prove intent. Yes, they are making a determination, but it's a judgment call. They aren't proving anything. And they are already doing this, and have been doing it for years. It's done all the time in other professional sports as well, when they have to determine whether a kick to the nuts was inadvertent, or whether a helmet to helmet hit was inadvertent. Punishments are levied out on the basis of that determination, but nobody is required to prove anything. It's at the discretion of the decision maker.

Again, bringing up the PED analogy is only to show that there is already a system in place in which an honest mistake can be punished by a severe penalty.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Pitchers getting any suspension at all for throwing at someone is absurd.  It's not a 'problem', it's part of the damn game.

It shouldn't be though, and I'm surprised that of all people you're making that argument Ace. 

[Week]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

@Myshkin.

I think you're dead wrong to say that Harper is getting protected here. His suspension means missing at least 36 complete innings. Strickland's means missing 4-6 half innings. Strickland should have gotten a 20 game ban. 

I was going to say I was 100% on Myshkin's side here, but I find myself convinced otherwise - to a certain extent - here. I think the more meaningful comparison would to say about 16 ABs for Harper and probably 3 IP (9 min AB) for Strickland -- which is surprisingly close. 

That said, if the MLB would suspend Strickland for 2 weeks if really wanted to end this kind of shit. Harper's retaliation deserves more than the average punishment too (which he got).

There is also no bad time to contribute a gif of Izzy Alcantara charging the mound:

http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/15/07/480x360/gallery_1423634968-nippyalivedungbeetle.gif

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

It shouldn't be though, and I'm surprised that of all people you're making that argument Ace. 

Been playing the game a very long time.  Been throwing at batters since I was 10 and have had multiple coaches tell me to do so through college.  Had a coach that would tell us to hit batters instead of intentionally walk them.  Some guys deserve a plunk in the middle of the back.  Some pitchers deserve to get thrown out of games for doing it.  Umpires need to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.  Like I said, it's all part of the game.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I would have posted an opinion on the topic, but I spent my morning applying a balm (or perhaps it's a salve) to my sick burn.

[sperry]

21 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Been playing the game a very long time.  Been throwing at batters since I was 10 and have had multiple coaches tell me to do so through college.  Had a coach that would tell us to hit batters instead of intentionally walk them.  Some guys deserve a plunk in the middle of the back.  Some pitchers deserve to get thrown out of games for doing it.  Umpires need to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.  Like I said, it's all part of the game.

We've always done it this way is about as poor an argument as it gets.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Week said:

I was going to say I was 100% on Myshkin's side here, but I find myself convinced otherwise - to a certain extent - here. I think the more meaningful comparison would to say about 16 ABs for Harper and probably 3 IP (9 min AB) for Strickland -- which is surprisingly close. 

That said, if the MLB would suspend Strickland for 2 weeks if really wanted to end this kind of shit. Harper's retaliation deserves more than the average punishment too (which he got).

There is also no bad time to contribute a gif of Izzy Alcantara charging the mound:

http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/15/07/480x360/gallery_1423634968-nippyalivedungbeetle.gif

Hmm, that is certainly another way to look at it. If you really want to get technical you take those numbers, weigh them against the p[layers' averages and then create a metric to determine the value of pitching vs hitting. 

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

Been playing the game a very long time.  Been throwing at batters since I was 10 and have had multiple coaches tell me to do so through college.  Had a coach that would tell us to hit batters instead of intentionally walk them.  Some guys deserve a plunk in the middle of the back.  Some pitchers deserve to get thrown out of games for doing it.  Umpires need to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.  Like I said, it's all part of the game.

Head hunting used to be a part of the game in football too........

[Myshkin]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

@Myshkin.

I think you're dead wrong to say that Harper is getting protected here. His suspension means missing at least 36 complete innings. Strickland's means missing 4-6 half innings. Strickland should have gotten a 20 game ban. 

But to give it a little more contex; Harper will be missing 36 innings out of the 1400+ he's scheduled to play, while Strickland will miss 4-6 innings out of the 60-70 innings he might have pitched this year. Also, I'm not really saying he got off light in comparison to Strickland; I'm saying he got off light in comparison to how this would have been handled if he wasn't Bryce Harper and his opponent wasn't some scrub who no one cares about. If he'd been some replacement level player he'd have gotten 8 games for what he did. If he'd thrown his helmet at Clayton Kershaw he'd have also gotten 8 games. And like I said earlier, I'm not trying to hate on Bryce here, but I just don't like the idea of a class system when in comes to punishments in baseball. We saw it last year when Rougned Odor got 7 games and Jose Bautista only got 1 for the same fight. We're seeing it now with Strickland getting a longer suspension than guys usually get for throwing at a batter's head, and Harper getting a shorter suspension than guys usually get for charging the mound without the added infraction of throwing the helmet. And at the end of the day, whether or not we think pitchers should get stiffer suspensions for throwing at guys is an entirely different issue from whether or not Bryce got off light. Even in a world where Strickland gets banned for 20 games, a 4 game suspension for Harper still smacks of the league protecting a superstar.

Incidentally, this is one of the big reasons why it would be a very bad idea to start handing out huge punishments to pitchers while relying on the league to make a judgement call about intent. With a 20 or 30 game suspension on the line the league will undoubtedly find that Clayton Kershaw, Max Scherzer, Chris Sale, and David Price have never in their lives ever even considered throwing at someone intentionally. No way no how, those guys are saints. But that kid who just got called up from AAA last week? Yeah hit him with the hammer.