Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's unfair for hitters and pitchers to serve the same type of suspensions.
For example, let's take the recent 5 game suspensions (D. Ortiz and C. Zambrano), when Ortiz dropped his appeal he is out of the lineup for five games - a major loss to the Redsox, his fantasy owners, etc. Zambrano however just dropped his appeal (after pitching yesterday) - he might miss one start, but they will just push his start till the next day (meaning he will miss only one day!)
Of course it's not fair. Pitchers get pushed back a day, but hitters miss 5 games on the exact same punishment. Just the way it is unfortunately.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
it should be 25 days if a hitter would get a five game suspension. the effect would be about the same. It seems to me like a problem of simple math. a hitter misses five games, a pitcher should miss his five games. that would curtail beaning people if a pitcher could potentially miss about amonth.
granted, people would say that five starts is a greater percentage of a pitchers season than five games of a hitter. so then figure out what the equivalent percentage was, and ROUND up due to the fact that a pitcher can really f someone up with a purpose pitch and go from there.
I agree that it is dumb.
I guess the feeling is that a five game suspension for a pitcher equals a one game ofr a hitter, but come on. what pitchers do is really worse for the most part.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't suspensions about more than missing games -- that is, don't players forfeit salary for those suspended games, as well? If so, five games missed = five games missed in terms of monetary disincentive . . . and it would be ridiculous to suspend a pitcher for 4 weeks and cost him a month's salary.
I think you're missing the point. A 5-day suspension means that 5 days worth of a player's salary goes into the player's union's coffers (I believe, maybe it's the MLB coffers). The way a team chooses to use its players has no bearing (and shouldn't) on the manner in which the MLB assigns suspensions.
What if a team used a 4-man or a 3-man rotation? Would you hand out suspensions differently to those teams? What if an AL pitcher was such a good hitter that he DHed on his non-pitching days? Would you fine him differently?
Suspensions are meant to hurt the player (in his pocket) and not the team although that's the result. Some suspensions hurt more than others. Should Todd Pratt have been suspended additional games because he isn't as valuable to the Phillies as Ortiz is to the Red Sox?
It would be impossible to create a "balanced" system.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Opinion Ape wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't suspensions about more than missing games -- that is, don't players forfeit salary for those suspended games, as well? If so, five games missed = five games missed in terms of monetary disincentive . . . and it would be ridiculous to suspend a pitcher for 4 weeks and cost him a month's salary.
That's what I thought. The offender is getting 5 days without pay no matter what position they are. The effect on the team, however, is not as equitable, but should not even be a consideration if the suspensions are punishment for individual players as opposed to punishing the team for the individuals actions.
ok, valid point. However, I think to have a fair and balanced system (to quote "fox") let the guilty player lose five days wages, yet still be able to play for the team. If the manager thinks the player won't give his 100% then sit him. If the team is in a pennent race I really doubt that player would slack off