There were two things I didn’t do in the original champagne post - I didn’t discuss whether I thought there was any wrongdoing, and what I thought an appropriate punishment might be. I ended up discussing this at length in radio interviews last week, and hopefully writing this up will help clarify things. In the future, I’m going to try and be much more complete in discussions like this, and try to offer that - it may be part of the reason the discussion on Yankee Stadium dimensions was pretty level-headed, while others haven’t. I freely admit this is going to be an ongoing process.
First, then: was there any wrong-doing associated with the gift? It’s pretty clear there wasn’t. For one, I’ve never met anyone with a bad word to say about Torii Hunter or Mike Sweeney. There’s no evidence there was any kind of untoward actions.
However, in the same way there’s no evidence that Rose did bad things to the Reds when he was caught betting on baseball, part of the problem is that bets/gifts create the possibility of wrongdoing, or the perception of wrongdoing, and undermine confidence in the integrity of the game. The rule and penalties aren’t there just to punish wrongdoing, they’re there to prevent actions that start down that slippery slope.
At the same time, a number of surprising things came out of this story:
- These kind of gifts happen more than we know, they just don’t make stories where they can be seen by the general public
- Both Hunter, Sweeney, and other team personnel, including GM Terry Ryan, were ignorant of the rule until the story broke. I find this a little hard to believe, especially since the rule’s posted in every clubhouse. And I find it weirder that Hunter, especially, who certainly knows his baseball history, wouldn’t know this. But if it’s a common practice, then it’s likely that either this is true or they just didn’t think it was an enforced rule.
And I agree (and I’ve talked about this elsewhere) that modern baseball has turned the rule into something of an anachronism. When players made little money, payoffs from other teams could make a huge difference in their lives, and could drive drastically different action. Today, when even the player making the minimum clears 300k, they’re immunized to a certain degree against bribery. A couple bottles of nice wine isn’t likely to make a modern player bat an eye.
But the rule remains. Baseball, through free agency and the rise of salaries, saw fit to keep the misconduct rule on the books.
What then is an appropriate punishment? I think baseball had two possible actions:
Significant action. Whether or not it happens other places, whether or not other people were doing it, it violates the rule, and the rule’s there for a reason. They might mitigate the punishment, but if baseball’s serious about enforcement of the rule (and their continued treatment of Rose would indicate they are) then every discovered instance needs to be acted on. If they’ve slipped on enforcement before, then they begin enforcement with this instance.
Token action, admit culpability. If baseball is going to let them off the hook, it should be part of a larger action. I’d have said “Having talked to everyone involved, we realize that there was no improper intent, and we’ve found no actions taken.” And then you admit the larger failures:
- We’ve failed to adequately inform the players and teams about the rule and its implications, and will be issuing a clarification memo and working with the MLBPA to ensure everyone’s well-informed about what constitutes a violation and knows the punishments
- We’ll be re-examining the rule in the off-season to discuss if there are revisions we should make: whether there’s room for gestures such as this, possibly a limitation on a gift’s value, or whether any gift allowance creates the room for perception of improper conduct and should remain prohibited
I’m entirely in favor of the latter. It allows baseball to avoid having to suspend two players for being unfortunate enough to be caught, but allows them to choose where they want to draw that line in the future - and where they put that line would be as much a public relations issue.
In general, I’m in favor of having a set of rules that are clear and applied fairly, and being aggressive about resolving contradictions and sections (like the game suspension/calling) that are likely to cause problems in the future, instead of waiting for a scandal. Anyone should be able to read the rules on anything - like the strike zone - and see the game called according to that rulebook. I don’t believe there should be different strike zones for different pitchers, for instance, though in the book I talk about how pitchers work that to their advantage, and as long as they’re allowed to do that, I applaud them for seeking that extra edge.
Or Gaylord Perry - one of the things I most admired about Perry is that each time the rules about what he could do on the mound changed, he adapted his routine to fit. He was a rule-abiding cheater, if you understand what I mean by that.
Baseball’s actual response - to get the gift returned and then do nothing about it at all - sends a really strange message:
- It’s wrong to do this
- If you do it and get caught, we’ll force you return it
- Though it’s wrong and we’ll act if you’re found out, we won’t enforce the penalties associated with the rule
It’s another part of a larger problem with baseball’s enforcement of many rules, which is that it’s okay to break rules unless we decide to enforce them — this is a future post, but it’s a lot like the rules about the DL, which teams regularly violate, MLB knows that a lot of the injuries are exaggerated or entirely made up, and the only time a team gets dinged is if the New York head office is mad at them for something unrelated.
If this had been Jose Canseco and Albert Belle in 1994, would Selig have been so forgiving, so quick to accept that a simple return of the gift would suffice?
This post’s run a lot longer than I thought it would. I hope that’s a reasonable explanation of the context I didn’t provide when I wrote about the incident and the history of Rule 21.
John Althouse | 29-Apr-07 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
Your take on this has really been off kilter. First of all, Hunter never really intended to give the Royals any champagne… it was a joke. When the Kansas City papers and players called him out, the following season, he sent the bubbly. That does not absolve the parties, but it is important context. More importantly, the transaction was, to use a legal phrase, “open and notorious.” Selig was not contacted directly, but he had at least constructive knowledge. If players were openly discussing gambling in several major newspapers, it would constitute shocking incompetence for the Commissioner’s office to be unaware.
Second of all, no “services” were rendered by the Royals. The Royals were simply playing the game, like any other. Likewise, no services were “supposed to be rendered” because Hunter did not ask the Royals to beat the Tigers prior to the series. The rule is very plain in that regard. That’s why gifts following a game are banned– because the gift could be a reward in exchange for an earlier promise. However, there is zero indication such is the case here.
The elements of this rule are:
a) a gift or reward from a party or parties affiliated with one club to a party or parties affiliated with another;
b) a service must be attempted or rendered, or a party must intend for a service to be attempted or rendered;
c) the parties must fail to inform league management
All must be met for there to be a violation. Element (b) is plainly unsatisfied. Both (a) and (c) are mitigated to a significant extent; (a) because of the total lack of intent, as per (b), and (c) because the league had constructive knowledge and failed to act, and the players took no steps to hide the details of the transaction. Beyond the letter of the rule, the lack of prior rule enforcement should also be an affirmative defense and probably explains why the league took no action.
DMZ | 29-Apr-07 at 3:15 pm | Permalink
I would say that I disagree particularly on one point there - the rule doesn’t require you to ask a team to beat another team. The reward in itself is enough.
This is because of the risk of creating expectations… let’s say the Red Sox, without announcing it or approaching anyone, started to send gifts to teams that took series from other AL East teams.
It becomes a de facto, unstated promise of reward, and teams could take according action to make sure they won those series, affecting other games, with the expectation that they’d get the gift.
And, as you note, if you can get away with making the offer and not getting caught, you could then always deny that there was an offer, making a bet/promise legal, and the rule’s intended, through prohibition of gifts/etc, to keep that from happening.
John Althouse | 29-Apr-07 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
I understand your argument, but I’m not sure the rule proscribes all rewards. What if, instead of promising some alcoholic beverages after the Royal’s improbable sweep, Hunter instead said: “next time we play the Royals, I’m going to give them mad props for how they played.” Since Hunter is a prominent and charismatic player, that could be considered a reward. Obviously the example is a stretch, but it goes to the always murky question of value. What if the Royals tried harder in the future because they anticipated sought-after praise from Hunter? For a young outfielder, for instance, that could mean more than a beverage.
I think clarifying the rule is the proper outcome, whereas even a minor sanctioning of Hunter would be inequitable– and the 3-year penalty is prima facie evidence that incidents of this sort are not really at issue under the rule. I completely agree that MLB needs to better enforce the rules, particularly in areas that significantly effect the dynamics of the game.
DMZ | 29-Apr-07 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
Oh, absolutely, it’s a murky area, and I think when it was implemented and team compensation was so inequitable, that might have been even more of an issue: in 1915, if Hunter put in a good word for Sweeney after the series with the owner, Sweeney might well find himself brought over and handed a more lucrative contract, where today that’s not going to happen.
I’d love to see baseball clarify this, since it’s clear that there are interpretation issues around what constitutes a violation any more, much less how intent should be interpreted, and worst of all, to my mind, the people who have to obey it don’t understand it (or, alternately, don’t think it’s an actively enforced rule).
tangotiger | 30-Apr-07 at 9:52 am | Permalink
Excellent post by John.
“I don’t believe there should be different strike zones for different pitchers”
Not that this is what Derek is talking about, but there are different strike zones for HITTERS. On the one side, it’s “fairer”, since it gives the smaller guy a smaller strike zone, and levels the playing field. On the other side, tough noogies. The 3-pt line is not based on height.
If they said that Randy Johnson had a smaller strike zone because his arms are so long, and Billy Wagner gets a bigger one because he’s a little guy, that’s the same thing. If RJ wants a smaller strike zone, then he should squat like Rickey Henderson.
I know this is ridiculous, and I know that it’s easier to have a floating strike zone (for at least frame-of-reference reasons).
Adam S | 01-May-07 at 6:51 am | Permalink
I’m in favor of having a set of rules that are clear and applied fairly… Anyone should be able to read the rules on anything - like the strike zone - and see the game called according to that rulebook.
This to me is the larger point here. I think we all agree that suspending Hunter (and others) for three years — for a token gift that’s essentially a joke not a bribe — would be ridiculous. At the same time, to me that’s what the rule says the Commissioner/MLB has to do.
I’ve served on, and now chair, a rules committee for a local softball league. One of the major things I’ve pushed to change is places where the written rule and practice differ. As “commissioner” my greatest challenges are situations where one team breaks the rules, the other team calls them on it, and the first team says “but we’ve been doing that for years” and I know other teams have as well.
Evan | 01-May-07 at 2:11 pm | Permalink
The proper response is to enforce the rule.
If the rule needs to be adjusted, I encourage MLB to do that, but since the infraction took place under the current rule, the current rule needs to be applied to this specific case.
To do otherwise damages the prescriptive force of all MLB rules.
As you say, DMZ, “The rule and penalties aren’t there just to punish wrongdoing, they’re there to prevent actions that start down that slippery slope.” By not enforcing the rule, you’re failing to prevent future bad actions.
Panev | 03-May-07 at 10:08 am | Permalink
What would be the situation if one player buys another player dinner after a game?
Player 1 is on Team A for five years and gets traded to Team B. Player 2 was a teammate of player 1 for five years and is still on Team A.
After a game they go to dinner and the player whose team won the game bought dinner.
Doesn’t this happen all the time?