Comments on: What’s a proper reaction to the champagne exchange?

By: Panev

Panev — Thu, 03 May 2007 18:08:11 +0000

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?

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 01 May 2007 22:11:30 +0000

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.

By: Adam S

Adam S — Tue, 01 May 2007 14:51:36 +0000

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.

By: tangotiger

tangotiger — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:52:03 +0000

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).

By: DMZ

DMZ — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:56:59 +0000

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).

By: John Althouse

John Althouse — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:40:39 +0000

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.

By: DMZ

DMZ — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:15:20 +0000

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.

By: John Althouse

John Althouse — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:07:42 +0000

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.