Switch to full style
Discuss MLB and everything baseball that's not Mets baseball.
Post a reply

Hitter vs Pitcher suspensions

Wed May 31, 2017 7:27 am

The Bryce Harper incident got me thinking about this.

Strickland hits Harper, probably intentionally (was dead center on his hip). Harper charges the mound and throws the first punch. MLB has to suspend both guys - that's a given.

So the hitter gets suspended 4 games, his team is without their best hitter for 4 games and (correct me if I'm wrong), they play with a 24 player roster those 4 games.

The pitcher is suspended 6 games, he effectively gets 2 extra days rest and his team and the team only feels the roster squeeze 1 game.

To the player it doesn't make much difference, they lose their salary for the set number of games, but to the team, it makes a HUGE difference. Losing a starting pitcher to suspension is far less costly than losing a position player.

Am I looking at this all wrong?

Re: Hitter vs Pitcher suspensions

Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:03 pm

This is a non-sequitur because Hunter Strickland is a reliever. Six games was pretty extreme.

Re: Hitter vs Pitcher suspensions

Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:35 am

northway wrote:This is a non-sequitur because Hunter Strickland is a reliever. Six games was pretty extreme.


That's a good point and a reliever does even it out, no question. I'm still curious if this is something baseball is looking at, cause it's pretty crazy unbalanced to suspend a starting pitcher on one team and a position player on another, for, lets say for sake of argument - the same offense. Even if the Harper/Strickland situation doesn't apply, the question still stands.

Just curious if I'm missing something.

Re: Hitter vs Pitcher suspensions

Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:08 pm

LTKfRGM wrote:
northway wrote:This is a non-sequitur because Hunter Strickland is a reliever. Six games was pretty extreme.


That's a good point and a reliever does even it out, no question. I'm still curious if this is something baseball is looking at, cause it's pretty crazy unbalanced to suspend a starting pitcher on one team and a position player on another, for, lets say for sake of argument - the same offense. Even if the Harper/Strickland situation doesn't apply, the question still stands.

Just curious if I'm missing something.



I guess it all depends on your perspective. Is it the team that's getting punished or is it the player? The players are the violators. They each get suspended for a commensurate number of games and forfeit the same or what ever is determined to be the appropriate number of days of salary. If you are looking at it from a team perspective, with a starting pitcher, five games could translate into a twenty five day suspension (leaving the roster at 24 for that period of time). And who makes the determination as to when a pitcher is supposed to start? If the schedule or weather only requires a rotation to use four pitchers through a period, does that count as a missed start or do you have to wait until that person's actual next start would have occurred? Can you really equate twenty five days of pitching inactivity to five days of offensive inactivity? While a five day absence from hitting "Game" pitching may require a game to get back timing, if at all, it certainly would require at least a one or two game stint in the minors for a starting pitcher who hasn't faced real hitting after a layoff of four or more weeks. That's my take on it.
Post a reply