This is BS. There's no way Jim Leyland used the word "braggadocious."

He might have used "braggafuckingdocious," though.

The real problem is that Jim Leyland doesn't understand old school baseball.

5-game suspensions for starting pitchers are kind of pointless. You're pushing back a start by one day but it's not like the pitcher really misses any time (and I'm sure some of them don't mind having the extra day of rest, especially if the suspension comes late in the season after they've already thrown close to 200 innings). It's essentially like "suspending" a position player by forcing the manager to hold him out as a starter for one game but letting him be substituted in after one turn through the batting order.

If MLB was serious about cutting this stuff out, then the suspension should probably be something like 15 games. That's 2 missed starts, essentially. Not that it would ever happen.

Maybe Cole meant old time hockey

At least he's not fake tough.

If MLB was serious about cutting this stuff out, then the suspension should probably be something like 15 games. That's 2 missed starts, essentially. Not that it would ever happen.

Everybody has a five man rotation, couldn't they just look at the schedule and say, he can't pitch earlier than this game? It doesn't need to be a set number of games.

I'd like to see MLB at least start going 9 games on the starting pitcher suspensions. That's a full rotation turn.

I don't think MLB higher echelons are even aware that pitchers don't play in every game.

Here's what you do. You suspend him for one game, but you don't tell him when. Next time he's scheduled to start (after lineup card has been submitted), Bud Selig rolls a 4-sided dice. If the number comes up "3" he's suspended and the team has to find another started. If it comes up "1" "2" or "4" he gets to pitch and you do it all over again next time his spot in the rotation comes up.

Instead of talking about other team's pitchers, Jim, why not focus on your own team's hitters?

Last Friday, a conversation took place:

Hamels: Hey Skip, I need a favor.
Manuel: What's up?
Hamels: My kid sister is graduating high school in a couple of weeks and I'd like to attend. Can I have a couple of days off around the 18th. I won't miss any starts.
Manuel: %&##%$#@$ HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION? ARE YOU %$#%&$# NUTS? %$#$# NO.
Hamels (thinking): Oh really, you old #$&%#$#. Let's see, next start is against the Nationals. I'll hit someone on purpose and get a suspension. Make it a no-doubter, maybe that new punk Harper. I can appeal it, then drop my appeal around the 15th. I didn't want to face Boston that weekend anyway, they may start hitting again.
Hamels (aloud): No problem, Skip, just thought I'd ask.

The suspensions are especially ridiculous if players don't lose money while sitting. I assumed they did, but someone somewhere brought it up in another thread. I didn't see a firm resolution to it, though.

I just figured it would be terribly unfair to pitchers to suspend them for ten games so they miss a start or two, given the salary implications. If they aren't losing the pay, then these suspensions are STUPID.

5-game suspensions for starting pitchers are kind of pointless.

It does somewhat put the team in a bind. How many teams have a reliever on their roster who can make a semi-emergency start? Most teams would have to call someone up, I would imagine. Or make another starter pitch on short rest.

Every single team should be carrying someone in their bullpen who can make a spot start. If they aren't, that's their own damn fault.

He hit him in the lower back, with an offspeed pitch. If he hadn't said what he said it would have been a footnote in the boxscore. I mean, really, let's just take his children away already.

I am just posting this so you can all admire my new handle.

I agree with Leyland.

Ah, what does Leyland know. He thinks Octavio Dotel is a closer.

It's not intended to be a real punishment. It's intended to give an illusion of one to the fans, while leaving the actual policing of behavior to the teams and players.

Do players get paid while on these suspensions? If not, suspending a pitcher for two weeks to make it a punishment equal to suspending a position player for a couple of days really isn't an equal punishment.

It does somewhat put the team in a bind. How many teams have a reliever on their roster who can make a semi-emergency start? Most teams would have to call someone up, I would imagine. Or make another starter pitch on short rest.

Every team has that last man in the bullpen who comes in when the starter gets shelled in the 2nd and is expected to eat some innings, or a converted starter who's pitching the 7th or 8th now.

And you know what - if it puts a team in a bind, good. Maybe the teams will police themselves a little bit more if they know that hitting someone on purpose may cost them a couple of games in the standings.

I'd like to see MLB at least start going 9 games on the starting pitcher suspensions. That's a full rotation turn.

I'm 100% on board with that, I used to say 7 games just because teams would probably bring in a spot starter to keep the rotation intact, but 9 guarantees a missed start. Drawback is the different penalties applied to players just because of the spot on the team, a reliever would probably deserve a 5 day suspension, while 9 days might be excessive.


I will admit though, that I'm not a fan of penalizing a guy for stating the truth. Basically the penalty then becomes "don't talk about fight club" type of bs.

I'm also a fan of... If the player announces he plans to appeal the suspension, then the announcement itself constitutes as a formal request for an appeal and cannot be subsequently dropped just because the player has now pitched. It won't be dropped until the appeal is heard, and his suspension starts immediately after the hearing.

Do players get paid while on these suspensions? If not, suspending a pitcher for two weeks to make it a punishment equal to suspending a position player for a couple of days really isn't an equal punishment.

I wondered that as well. In the event that they aren't, then I'd keep the 9-game ban, but make the paid portion of the suspension fixed at the same amount for both position players and pitchers (say, each player docked 3 games pay).

Since it's not covered, reliever suspensions for these types of incidents can be kept at 5 or 6 games. That would essentially make for an equal on-field punishment for all players.

Frank Robinson explained the concept after the Johnny Cueto incident a couple of years ago, where Cueto backed up against the fence in a brawl, where he would be safe, and started kicking people from ambush in the back, messing up Chris Carpenter's shoulder for the season and ending Jason LaRue's (I think it was LaRue) career. Frank gave Johnny seven games for this, not seven starts or anything. He said that he felt that he had to keep it down to that because that was the suspension that Juan Marichal got back in the 1960s for hitting John Roseboro over the head with a bat. That actually makes sense. What Juan did was much worse than even what Johnny did, much less what Cole did. I, personally, would like to see much larger suspensions, but that really should happen as a public change of policy, with a note that MLB is stiffening penalties from what they were back in Marichal's day. If you want to do something about this, maybe we should start a petition or something to send to Frank and Bud, asking for a change in policy. Other than that, I don't see how any suspension for violence is going to go over seven games, unless somebody pulls a gun out on the field or something. - Brock Hanke

Interesting, Brock.

Robinson's explanation rings really hollow to me, in that of course MLB can and should give longer suspensions than what they gave Marichal. They've changed their policies on pitchers hitting, teams switching leagues, American League teams playing National League teams during the regular season, amphetamines, steroids, advertising on uniforms, and eighteen gazillion other things.

If we all agree you should be suspended more than a week for attacking an opponent with a bat (and we do, right?), it's totally reasonable that MLB say that the Marichal suspension is a precedent they're throwing out, as it was crazy and wrong.

He hit him in the lower back, with an offspeed pitch. If he hadn't said what he said it would have been a footnote in the boxscore. I mean, really, let's just take his children away already.

Looked list a fastball to me. TV Radar Gun said 93 MPH.

I'm also a fan of... If the player announces he plans to appeal the suspension, then the announcement itself constitutes as a formal request for an appeal and cannot be subsequently dropped just because the player has now pitched. It won't be dropped until the appeal is heard, and his suspension starts immediately after the hearing.

They should just tighten up the process. MLB needs to decide on a suspension within 2 days of an incident. The suspension begins 4 days after the incident. This way there's no bias. The player has up until the scheduled day to decide if he wants to appeal. If he files an appeal, it's irrevocable, he has to go through the appeal process and it cannot be dropped. Once the appeal is heard, the suspension begins immediately.

You could even say that the appeal has to be heard on a certain day, like 2 days after the scheduled start. I mean, there's not that many of these, the MLB person can fly around the country to hear the appeal.