Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Bosox RHP Papelbon suspended 3 games, he appeals

Only 3? Red Sox Nation outraged!

Boston Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon has been suspended three games for making contact with an umpire.

The suspension was to begin Tuesday night against the New York Yankees, but Papelbon is appealing.

Major League Baseball also fined Papelbon an undisclosed amount for his actions in the ninth inning last Saturday, when he blew a four-run lead as the Oakland Athletics tied it at 7. Boston won 9-8 in 14 innings.

Repoz Posted: June 07, 2011 at 10:14 PM | 31 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: athletics, red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. cardsfanboy Posted: June 07, 2011 at 11:20 PM (#3847764)
Shouldn't the ump get some type of punishment? From memory of the incident Papelbon didn't really seem to say anything to the ump to deserve getting tossed for no reason.
   2. gef the talking mongoose, peppery hostile Posted: June 07, 2011 at 11:32 PM (#3847779)
The hed is wrong. There's nothing appealing about Papelbon.
   3. BringBackTimTeufel Posted: June 08, 2011 at 12:04 AM (#3847823)
Shouldn't the ump get some type of punishment? From memory of the incident Papelbon didn't really seem to say anything to the ump to deserve getting tossed for no reason.


And you know that.....how?
   4. cardsfanboy Posted: June 08, 2011 at 12:23 AM (#3847847)
And you know that.....how?


I don't. I'm not a Red Sox fan in the slightest, just read Papelbon's comments, watched the replay of his actions and read some of the thread discussing it. (he wasn't talking to the ump in the replay)

Just saying if the ump had no cause to eject Papelbon then there should be some type of punishment, the umps are too prima donnas for their job description. Mind you the ump being at fault wouldn't relieve any of the punishment that Papelbon deserves, you do not make contact with the ump, heck three games seems a little light to me to begin with, considering that the appeal usually reduces it a game or so. Relievers should get at least a four game suspension, anything less is not really doing anything.
   5. Jose Is An Absurd Balladeer Posted: June 08, 2011 at 12:26 AM (#3847858)
Papelbon's comments today were that both sides were equally at fault. From what I saw that looks entirely plausible.
   6. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: June 08, 2011 at 12:57 AM (#3847912)
They shouldn't change a rule without adequate warning, but one of these offseasons they have to close the "appeal" loophole, in which you can choose the opponent against which you can serve your suspension. I don't know exactly how to fix that, but if I get suspended at work, I can't say "it's better for me if I serve it in two weeks, when my friend is in town." Maybe they don't announce the suspension, and then enter into immediate arbitration; only announcing it if an agreement is come to or the arbiter has ruled.
   7. cardsfanboy Posted: June 08, 2011 at 01:03 AM (#3847926)
They shouldn't change a rule without adequate warning, but one of these offseasons they have to close the "appeal" loophole, in which you can choose the opponent against which you can serve your suspension. I don't know exactly how to fix that, but if I get suspended at work, I can't say "it's better for me if I serve it in two weeks, when my friend is in town." Maybe they don't announce the suspension, and then enter into immediate arbitration; only announcing it if an agreement is come to or the arbiter has ruled.


Agreed, it's silly to watch a player determine when he is going to serve his suspension, instead of having the suspension happen immediately. MLB should get used to video conferencing for these appeals, a player makes his appeal, the league immediately video conferences for the appeal, and the decision is reached within 24 hours of the suspension being handed down. Of course I'm also a fan of starting pitchers suspensions take place 4 days after his last start.
   8. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: June 08, 2011 at 01:05 AM (#3847934)
They shouldn't change a rule without adequate warning, but one of these offseasons they have to close the "appeal" loophole, in which you can choose the opponent against which you can serve your suspension. I don't know exactly how to fix that, but if I get suspended at work, I can't say "it's better for me if I serve it in two weeks, when my friend is in town." Maybe they don't announce the suspension, and then enter into immediate arbitration; only announcing it if an agreement is come to or the arbiter has ruled.


Are you suggesting it won't be a coincidence that Papelbon decides to drop the appeal the day after working back-to-back games?
   9. cardsfanboy Posted: June 08, 2011 at 01:11 AM (#3847949)
Are you suggesting it won't be a coincidence that Papelbon decides to drop the appeal the day after working back-to-back games?


Or after the Yankee series..
   10. Koot Posted: June 08, 2011 at 01:49 AM (#3848040)
Agreed, it's silly to watch a player determine when he is going to serve his suspension, instead of having the suspension happen immediately. MLB should get used to video conferencing for these appeals, a player makes his appeal, the league immediately video conferences for the appeal, and the decision is reached within 24 hours of the suspension being handed down. Of course I'm also a fan of starting pitchers suspensions take place 4 days after his last start.


Then MLB should have a uniform system for handing out suspensions that are the same for everyone and are handed out after the same amount of time after the infraction. They are terrible about not suspended players up to several days later.
   11. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: June 08, 2011 at 01:24 PM (#3848300)
I hope they give him an extra suspension.
   12. Greg Pope Posted: June 08, 2011 at 02:03 PM (#3848320)
Part of the problem is that there's no downside to the appeal. I'm pretty sure that every suspension gets reduced by a game after the appeal. So the player gets the choice of going through appeal and getting the suspension reduced, or dropping the appeal whenever it's convenient. Didn't Chili Davis or Darryl Strawberry get a 3 game suspension, then appeal, then drop the appeal and sit out 2 games, then appeal again, play a game, then drop the appeal? I don't know if they ever closed that loophole.

If it was up to me, there would be 2 choices:

1. Serve your sentence immediately.
2. Appeal if you really think you have grounds. However, once you appeal, you can't take it back. And, kind of like arbitration, the appeal will result in only one of 2 things: Suspension dropped if you win, suspension doubled if you lose.
   13. Jose Is An Absurd Balladeer Posted: June 08, 2011 at 02:14 PM (#3848327)
2. Appeal if you really think you have grounds. However, once you appeal, you can't take it back. And, kind of like arbitration, the appeal will result in only one of 2 things: Suspension dropped if you win, suspension doubled if you lose.


I don't care for this plan because why should you be punished extra for having a legitimate belief that you will prevail but being wrong?

To me the problem is the length of time. With video chatting and video evidence of everything that happens there is no reason not to have something along the lines of;

Step One - 48 hours to hand down discipline (waaaah, MLB officials have to work weekends, life's a #####)

Step Two - 24 hours to decide to appeal

Step Three - 48 hours to hear the appeal

Step Four - 24 hours for revised or confirmed ruling.

All appeals begin one week after the initial incident whether there is or is not an appeal. This removes the incentive to appeal just to duck an opponent. So in Papelbon's case;

Incident - Saturday
Decision by MLB - by Monday
Papelbon decides to Appeal - by Tuesday
Appeal heard - by Thursday
Suspension begins (if nec.) - Saturday in Toronto. This would be true regardless of Papelbon's decision to launch an appeal.
   14. Ron J Posted: June 08, 2011 at 02:40 PM (#3848345)
#12 But is this something you as MLB would choose to fight for?

MLB can't change the system unilaterally, and the players would probably not want to go that route.

Having been involved in the discipline process (at a much lower level of competition to be sure) I know that a lot of the time they player just wants to put his side of the story on the record.

The players and the clubs like the ability to game the system, so the Commissioners office would have no (important) allies in the fight.
   15. OMJ, urban D machine Posted: June 08, 2011 at 02:44 PM (#3848348)
Of course I'm also a fan of starting pitchers suspensions take place 4 days after his last start.


This is why this suspension is three games. Sp usually get suspended five, relievers 3 and postion players 1 for an incident like this. The theory being, based on usage, they are all beign suspended "one game."
   16. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 08, 2011 at 03:05 PM (#3848363)
They should let Papelbon appeal, but if he gets turned down, his suspension should then begin on August 5th. That'd be the most elegant response imaginable.
   17. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 08, 2011 at 03:25 PM (#3848389)
They should let Papelbon appeal, but if he gets turned down, his suspension should then begin on August 5th. That'd be the most elegant response imaginable.


Why? His suspension has nothing to do with the Yankees.
   18. Greg Pope Posted: June 08, 2011 at 03:36 PM (#3848407)
#14: No, I just think it would be the best solution. You're right in that if everyone within MLB wants it to stay, then it's not going to change.
   19. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 08, 2011 at 03:49 PM (#3848430)
They should let Papelbon appeal, but if he gets turned down, his suspension should then begin on August 5th. That'd be the most elegant response imaginable.

Why? His suspension has nothing to do with the Yankees.


Yeah, right:

The suspension was to begin Tuesday night against the New York Yankees, but Papelbon is appealing.


As I said in another thread, it's all about the laundry.
   20. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 08, 2011 at 03:56 PM (#3848438)
Yeah, right:

The suspension was to begin Tuesday night against the New York Yankees, but Papelbon is appealing.


I don't see your point. The offending conduct occurred during an A's series. It was an accident that the Yankees series was coming up. If we're following your logic, if his appeal fails, he should serve the suspension the next time the Red Sox play the A's.

He'd likely have appealed anyway, Yankees or no, as players often do. Three games seems rather harsh for a reliever.
   21. SoSH U at work Posted: June 08, 2011 at 04:06 PM (#3848442)
He'd likely have appealed anyway, Yankees or no, as players often do. Three games seems rather harsh for a reliever.


I think it's the midpoint between a starter and position player, and seems reasonable. As I said above, I imagine he'll pitch two games (or even three games) in a row and drop the appeal, thereby allowing him to serve it on his timetable rather than take the chance he has to serve the same suspension at a more inopportune time.

I think Ron is right. Both the teams and the players like the system as is, and the league office has no one driving a change to the system.

Additionally, as Ray points out, there's kind of an inherent unfairness to the process. The conduct (whatever it may be) occurs against one team and the direct beneficiary of the suspension is usually an entirely different team. Even if you figure out a system that doesn't allow the players/teams to game it, you're still going to be left with that structural unfairness.*

* This was once considered a major issue, as players' appeals were heard and ruled upon in the league office, leaving many suspensions to begin when the player's team was getting ready to play the Yankees or Mets. I have no idea if the numbers bore that out, but it was the theory.
   22. Danny Posted: June 08, 2011 at 04:12 PM (#3848456)
(he wasn't talking to the ump in the replay)

I can't believe anyone condones this excuse. "Sure, I said the umpire can't tell his head from his ass. But I said it to my catcher!"
The conduct (whatever it may be) occurs against one team and the direct beneficiary of the suspension is usually an entirely different team.

This is true in some cases, but not this one. Papelbon's conduct was against the umpire, not against the A's.
   23. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 08, 2011 at 04:17 PM (#3848466)
This is true in some cases, but not this one. Papelbon's conduct was against the umpire, not against the A's.


Agreed. But in any event it certainly wasn't against the Yankees.

And if any team deserves to benefit from it, it's the A's, who at least created the circumstances (by rallying off him) that led to his argument with the ump. The Yankees simply don't play into this, as they were merely going to be lucky beneficiaries. If we're going to make Papelbon serve his suspension against a particular team, the A's are in line before the Yankees.
   24. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 08, 2011 at 04:26 PM (#3848477)
I don't see your point. The offending conduct occurred during an A's series. It was an accident that the Yankees series was coming up. If we're following your logic, if his appeal fails, he should serve the suspension the next time the Red Sox play the A's.

It may have been a coincidence, but by making the appeal, he gets to play in three games against the Yankees that otherwise he would have been sitting out.

He'd likely have appealed anyway, Yankees or no, as players often do.

I seriously doubt if he'd have made the appeal if the suspension had been against a lesser team, knowing that it was almost certain to be turned down, and knowing that the result might be having to sit out three games against a contender.

Three games seems rather harsh for a reliever.

When Joba Chamberlain rushes towards the plate after a called ball, makes contact with an umpire, and your inner Red Sox fan has the same reaction, we can talk about what constitutes a proper sentence.
   25. SoSH U at work Posted: June 08, 2011 at 04:38 PM (#3848493)
I seriously doubt if he'd have made the appeal if the suspension had been against a lesser team, knowing that it was almost certain to be turned down, and knowing that the result might be having to sit out three games against a contender.


They always appeal. Besides the possibility of getting it reduced, it allows them to serve the suspension when it's most convenient. Rest, rather than opponent, is the driving force.

When Joba Chamberlain rushes towards the plate after a called ball, makes contact with an umpire, and your inner Red Sox fan has the same reaction, we can talk about what constitutes a proper sentence.


Stop it. Just stop it. This is no better than people claiming the only reason you're opposed to steroids is because of your childhood heroes. Whatever you think of his positions, at no point has baseball team partisanship been a major factor in any argument Ray engages in.
   26. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 08, 2011 at 04:48 PM (#3848504)
When Joba Chamberlain rushes towards the plate after a called ball, makes contact with an umpire, and your inner Red Sox fan has the same reaction, we can talk about what constitutes a proper sentence.


You're projecting again.
   27. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 08, 2011 at 05:09 PM (#3848516)
They always appeal. Besides the possibility of getting it reduced, it allows them to serve the suspension when it's most convenient.

Exactly my point with Papelbon.

Rest, rather than opponent, is the driving force.

Obviously one doesn't exclude the other, and which factor is the overriding one depends on the particular set of circumstances. In this case, the Monday off day took the rest factor out of the equation.

When Joba Chamberlain rushes towards the plate after a called ball, makes contact with an umpire, and your inner Red Sox fan has the same reaction, we can talk about what constitutes a proper sentence.

Stop it. Just stop it. This is no better than people claiming the only reason you're opposed to steroids is because of your childhood heroes.


Which is an argument that Ray has put forth about 200 times, and probably still professes to believe.

Whatever you think of his positions, at no point has baseball team partisanship been a major factor in any argument Ray engages in.

Yeah, that admittedly might have been a bit of compensatory snark on my part.

-------------------------

You're projecting again.

Not at all. I didn't see the Papelbon / umpire confrontation, and I'm completely agnostic as to whether he should even have been suspended in the first place. And with your encyclopedic knowledge of statistics, surely you'd acknowledge that Papelbon's record against the Yankees isn't exactly anything to make a Yankee fan quake in his boots.
   28. SoSH U at work Posted: June 08, 2011 at 05:16 PM (#3848521)
Obviously one doesn't exclude the other, and which factor is the overriding one depends on the particular set of circumstances. In this case, the Monday off day took the rest factor out of the equation.


Yes, which means that there was no reason he shouldn't have appealed the suspension and then dropped the appeal later - the opponent had nothing to do with it. Any player in Papelbon's situation (day off Monday) would have appealed. That it was the Yankees might have been a bit fortuitous, but it's not as if it were the Twins were on the schedule he would have decided to simply accept the 3-game ban right then and there.

Which is an argument that Ray has put forth about 200 times, and probably still professes to believe.


And it's obnoxious when he does it, which I've pointed out. And I'm doing likewise here.
   29. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: June 08, 2011 at 06:22 PM (#3848574)
And with your encyclopedic knowledge of statistics, surely you'd acknowledge that Papelbon's record against the Yankees isn't exactly anything to make a Yankee fan quake in his boots.


If Papelbon hasn't pitched well against the Yankees isn't that more of an incentive for him to not appeal and sit out the series?
   30. Ray (CTL) Posted: June 09, 2011 at 05:20 PM (#3849297)
Geren is out.
   31. Tom Nawrocki Posted: June 09, 2011 at 05:41 PM (#3849316)
Score one for Brian Fuentes.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNew MLB CBA should include amnesty clause
(15 - 3:05am, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogYankees GM Brian Cashman says club will 'address' shortstop and 'evaluate' catcher positions
(5 - 11:54pm, Oct 21)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogMLB Just Tried a Bunch of Experimental Rules in the Minors. How Well Did They Work?
(8 - 11:41pm, Oct 21)
Last: Doug Jones threw harder than me

NewsblogBaseball Games Are Still Too Long—and Getting Longer
(109 - 11:39pm, Oct 21)
Last: Doug Jones threw harder than me

Newsblog2021 LCS OMNICHATTER!
(585 - 11:31pm, Oct 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogNBA 2021-2022 Season Thread
(250 - 11:13pm, Oct 21)
Last: Moses Taylor hashes out the rumpus

NewsblogThe fans' way at Fenway: loud, louder, loudest
(51 - 11:04pm, Oct 21)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogDodgers Albert Pujols Hits the COVID-19 Injured List
(220 - 9:16pm, Oct 21)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogCarlton Fisk kept it fair, but Keith Olbermann’s attempt to sell historic ball is foul
(9 - 8:46pm, Oct 21)
Last: sunday silence (again)

NewsblogWhere Mets may turn next as Sandy Alderson’s role in search comes into question
(2 - 8:36pm, Oct 21)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

NewsblogIt’s time for the city of Chicago to repeal the Wrigley Field night game ordinance
(18 - 7:29pm, Oct 21)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-21-2021
(14 - 7:26pm, Oct 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOut of the bargain bin, will Rangers’ willingness to spend in free agency be rewarded?
(2 - 6:08pm, Oct 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogNathan Eovaldi, Boston Red Sox take issue with pivotal ball-strike call in loss to Houston Astros
(39 - 4:58pm, Oct 21)
Last: dave h

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Transfer! Kits! Other Stuff!
(456 - 3:45pm, Oct 21)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

Page rendered in 0.2846 seconds
48 querie(s) executed