Workman suspended for 6 games for throwing behind Longoria

BosRedSox5

what's an original thought?
Sep 6, 2006
1,471
Colorado Springs, Colorado
I really don't believe at all that Workman threw at Longoria. Sorry, but he didn't come close to hitting him and it was pouring rain. A young guy in the middle of a 2-1 game is going to put a runner on with one out and leave a reliever to take on a guy who was hitting .290 when the game started? In order to think it was intentional you'd need to believe all of that and then also believe that Workman would intentionally try and bean Longoria in the head. If you believe that then let's release him. 

It just seems ridiculous. IMO it was an absolutely stupid knee jerk reaction by the umpires to toss Workman. It actually further escalated the situation instead of calming it down. It very well could have played a role in the outcome of the game by eliminating yet another coach and games to come by forcing them to go to the bullpen early. It was just a crazy stupid call in my opinion. 

MLB could have fixed the mistake by reducing his suspension even a game or two but no. They stubbornly stuck by the umpires. Typical. 
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
Red(s)HawksFan said:
The lesson, of course, being to always throw the first punch because it's the counter that's going to get you punished.
Or in the case of David Price, throw the first and second punch.

It's amazing that baseball continues to be successful despite the senile idiots running the sport. Thankfully this situation didn't happen to a team managed by a hothead like Jim Leyland or Ozzie Guillen, because things could have really gotten ugly.

Also, why did MLB wait until today to deny the appeal and enforce the suspension? Doesn't the timing of that really screw the Red Sox and make it more like a 9 or 10 game suspension? Lyons was complaining about that in the post game.
 

BosRedSox5

what's an original thought?
Sep 6, 2006
1,471
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Reducing it a game wouldn't have helped as they'd still need a spot starter. And reducing it two and allowing him to pitch would have been to throw the umps under the bus. I'm not sure what you were expecting the outcome to be.
 
I just expect people to do the right thing without worrying about the politics of it. It's unrealistically optimistic, but it's the way things ought to be. The right thing would have been to either not suspend Workman or to reduce his suspension to a meaningless two. 
 

Kramerica Industries

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,031
nh
 
Bone Chips said:
Also, why did MLB wait until today to deny the appeal and enforce the suspension? Doesn't the timing of that really screw the Red Sox and make it more like a 9 or 10 game suspension? Lyons was complaining about that in the post game.
 
Its kind of a valid point but shouldn't the Red Sox saw this coming? Really, at best, the suspension gets reduced by a game. They should have just dropped the appeal after Workman's last start.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,923
Salem, NH
Papelbon's Poutine said:
 
Once Workman was tossed he had to be suspended at some length. You can't toss a guy for intentionally throwing at a hitter - especially in the general neighborhood of his head - and not suspend him. That suspension has to be long enough to make him miss a start or it is otherwise just a fine in all practicality. 
 
Once MLB made the (correct) decision to suspend him, they then had follow up choice: 
 
1.) Defend their (unionized) employee's decision to not toss Price and therefore decide not to suspend him either. 
 
or 
 
2.) Throw their (unionized) employee under the bus publicly and suspend Price as well. 
 
While you are completely correct that they *should have chosen option 2, I can see their decision to choose 1.
 
True, but they still could have suspended Price based on his words after the game. The umpires decided that they didn't think Price threw at Carp intentionally, which is fine. They did, however, feel that his drilling of Ortiz was intentional, hence the warnings. Furthermore, admitting, or even implying, that you intentionally threw at a player should be suspension worthy.
 
The two questions I have, going forward are...
 
1) If a Red Sox pitcher drills Longoria in the ribs the next time the two teams face off, will it be an immediate ejection?
 
2) If the Red Sox don't drill a Devil Ray first, do they throw at us again, or is the issue closed on their front?
 
I feel like we "owe" them one, and I'll be pretty pissed if they drill Pedroia in the first inning and warnings are issued.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
Kramerica Industries said:
 
 
Its kind of a valid point but shouldn't the Red Sox saw this coming? Really, at best, the suspension gets reduced by a game. They should have just dropped the appeal after Workman's last start.
 
It's not up to the Red Sox, it's up to Workman and I rather suspect there was a conversation in which the Red Sox tried to convince Workman to drop it right after his last start and he told them that he had no intention of dropping it because it was a bullshit fucking suspension.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Hank Scorpio said:
 
True, but they still could have suspended Price based on his words after the game. The umpires decided that they didn't think Price threw at Carp intentionally, which is fine. They did, however, feel that his drilling of Ortiz was intentional, hence the warnings. Furthermore, admitting, or even implying, that you intentionally threw at a player should be suspension worthy.
 
The two questions I have, going forward are...
 
1) If a Red Sox pitcher drills Longoria in the ribs the next time the two teams face off, will it be an immediate ejection?
 
2) If the Red Sox don't drill a Devil Ray first, do they throw at us again, or is the issue closed on their front?
 
I feel like we "owe" them one, and I'll be pretty pissed if they drill Pedroia in the first inning and warnings are issued.
 
I don't think the warning is evidence the umps felt it was intentional.  I think the warning was because there was a history between the teams as early as last series in Tampa and the umps hoped to prevent retaliation and escalation. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Workman must've really wanted his say with the MLB disciplinarians, otherwise why did the Red Sox let MLB determine this on its schedule instead of having Workman take the days when they least mattered? I guess they have Doubront coming back if they want him to take the start, so it's not a big deal.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
Rasputin said:
 
It's not up to the Red Sox, it's up to Workman and I rather suspect there was a conversation in which the Red Sox tried to convince Workman to drop it right after his last start and he told them that he had no intention of dropping it because it was a bullshit fucking suspension.
It really isn't a bullshit suspension but I don't think it mattered a ton for the Sox. Either way they would need a spot start.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
Rasputin said:
 
It's not up to the Red Sox, it's up to Workman and I rather suspect there was a conversation in which the Red Sox tried to convince Workman to drop it right after his last start and he told them that he had no intention of dropping it because it was a bullshit fucking suspension.
 
I have no problem with this.  Good for him for sticking up for himself.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Plympton91 said:
Workman must've really wanted his say with the MLB disciplinarians, otherwise why did the Red Sox let MLB determine this on its schedule instead of having Workman take the days when they least mattered? I guess they have Doubront coming back if they want him to take the start, so it's not a big deal.
With Doubront and Buchholz both close to returning, this probably is the time the missing days least matter. 
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
Papelbon's Poutine said:
 
Once Workman was tossed he had to be suspended at some length. You can't toss a guy for intentionally throwing at a hitter - especially in the general neighborhood of his head - and not suspend him.  
 
 
This is not true. David Carpenter just got a fine and no suspension for intentionally throwing at a hitter. He was ejected from the game for intentionally throwing at Corey Dickerson, who seemingly accidentally hit the catcher with his backswing. Carpenter intentionally hit Dickerson, and was immediately ejected. Nick Masset retaliated later and was also ejected. He got suspended.
 
Why Workman and Masset got suspended was for retaliating. MLB's actions make it clear that if you start a beanball war by intentionally throwing at a hitter, you will only get a fine, even if you are ejected from the game for it. But if you retaliate, you will be suspended. "Protecting your teammates" or making things "even" will get you suspended, but starting the whole thing will not. 
 

catomatic

thinks gen turgidson is super mean!!!
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,393
Park Slope, Brooklyn
The Gray Eagle said:
 
This is not true. David Carpenter just got a fine and no suspension for intentionally throwing at a hitter. He was ejected from the game for intentionally throwing at Corey Dickerson, who seemingly accidentally hit the catcher with his backswing. Carpenter intentionally hit Dickerson, and was immediately ejected. Nick Masset retaliated later and was also ejected. He got suspended.
 
Why Workman and Masset got suspended was for retaliating. MLB's actions make it clear that if you start a beanball war by intentionally throwing at a hitter, you will only get a fine, even if you are ejected from the game for it. But if you retaliate, you will be suspended. "Protecting your teammates" or making things "even" will get you suspended, but starting the whole thing will not. 
The NHL operates by a similarly disastrous set of rules.
 

BosRedSox5

what's an original thought?
Sep 6, 2006
1,471
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Vegas Sox Fan said:
Can we bring back Bard to start the next Rays game?
 
You might have come up with some kind of Rube Baker workaround for his problems. Just tell him to put it in Longoria's earhole and he'll try, but end up throwing bullets on the corners.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
Papelbon's Poutine said:
 
I didn't mean to imply it was a "rule" and I understand that it happens. But given the circumstances and timeline - Ortiz hit and warning issued; Carp hit with questionably intent and benches clear but no one tossed except Red Sox coaches; Workman throws at the head of their best player - I think you would agree it would be difficult to not suspend him. I agree that it's inconsistent, I just happen to think Workman deserved his brief vacation. 
It was pissing down rain and just as close to the middle of his back as it was to his head. 
 

 
edit: actually I think closer to the middle of his back on further viewing. 
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
Papelbon's Poutine said:
It was even with his letters 
So....mid-way between the middle of his back and his head then? 
If you are saying even with the letters is nowhere near the middle of his back then we are going to have to agree to disagree. 
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Lowrielicious said:
So....mid-way between the middle of his back and his head then? 
If you are saying even with the letters is nowhere near the middle of his back then we are going to have to agree to disagree. 
 
Tell me with a straight face that you'd make these arguments--or accept them--if the exact same pitch had been thrown in the exact same situation by Price at Bogaerts.
 
 
catomatic said:
The NHL operates by a similarly disastrous set of rules.
 
I don't think it's disastrous at all. It's purposeful and it makes sense. What it says to the players is, "you are not the police. WE are the police." It acknowledges the fact that it's the assumed right and duty of retaliation that makes these things spiral out of control. In order to curb that natural impulse, you have to make the penalties for succumbing to it even more severe than the penalties for provoking it.
 

BosRedSox5

what's an original thought?
Sep 6, 2006
1,471
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Tell me with a straight face that you'd make these arguments--or accept them--if the exact same pitch had been thrown in the exact same situation by Price at Bogaerts.
 
 
http://youtu.be/AsuYIN7y8Ew?t=50s
 
(Skip to the 50 second mark, the timestamp isn't working)

It really didn't come much closer to hitting Longoria than this pitch came to hitting Manny. IIRC we all thought Manny was a bit high strung there. I can't speak for Lowrielicious but I definitely would have had the same reaction. Not to Price since he's left handed and it's less likely he could accidentally throw a pitch behind the right handed batter's box but any right handed pitcher, especially one lacking experience. 
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
BosRedSox5 said:
 
It really didn't come much closer to hitting Longoria than this pitch came to hitting Manny. IIRC we all thought Manny was a bit high strung there. I can't speak for Lowrielicious but I definitely would have had the same reaction. Not to Price since he's left handed and it's less likely he could accidentally throw a pitch behind the right handed batter's box but any right handed pitcher, especially one lacking experience. 
 
 
The big difference there is that the pitch to Manny was in front of him.  Most players' are taught (and it's arguably instinctive) to dive backwards and away, so a ball up and in but in front of them is a bit less of a danger than one up and behind them.  At least in the sense of their ability to avoid it.  That's why players, umps, and MLB personnel tend to take pitches behind the batter much more seriously and are much quicker to react to them, accidental or not.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Red(s)HawksFan said:
The big difference there is that the pitch to Manny was in front of him.  Most players' are taught (and it's arguably instinctive) to dive backwards and away, so a ball up and in but in front of them is a bit less of a danger than one up and behind them.  At least in the sense of their ability to avoid it.  That's why players, umps, and MLB personnel tend to take pitches behind the batter much more seriously and are much quicker to react to them, accidental or not.
 
It's amazing to me that people need to keep saying this.
 
Here are two images:
 

 
In the first still, the ball clearly has not quite reached Longoria yet; you can tell this because the ball is obscuring a bit of his uniform. If it were even with him it would be hitting him at that moment. In the second, the ball has apparently passed Longoria, but not by much (the ball is still the same size as in the first shot, and AJP appears to still be tracking it).
 
I've drawn a horizontal line from Longoria's chin across the track of the ball. The ball crosses that line as it passes Longoria.
 
This pitch was not headed for "the middle of his back" or any such crap. It was headed, in the most charitable view possible, for the top of his shoulders. And for a player in a batting stance that's indistinguishable from saying it was headed for his head--the difference depends strictly on whether he ducks backward or not.
 
You can make a reasonable argument that the ball slipped in the rain and was perhaps originally headed for a more civilized destination on Longoria's anatomy. But if the ball went where Workman meant it to, it was a beanball.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
Lines and stills from that camera angle aren't going to tell any more definitively the height as it passes longoria than a video/gif. You simply can't tell when it passes him.

If anyone has a side view would be interesting but I can't find one.

I wasn't suggesting it was heading for middle of the back. Just that it was as close to there as it was to his head. Maybe that's what you mean by "any such crap"?

Not sure how you think you can say definitively that workman was meaning to throw at his head. It's just as easy to miss low and wide (when aiming at the head) as it is to miss high and wide (when aiming for the numbers). Which is pretty much my whole point. Stating workman meant to throw a beanball , or that he is looking to "kill someone or end a career" purely by where that pitch ended up is ludicrous.

And to answer your question, if that same pitch was thrown at any redsox I'd want some punishment in the form of suspension, but I wouldn't be ramping up the beanball speech. He tried to hit him and missed. By a fair bit.
 

Brohamer of the Gods

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,947
Warwick, RI
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
It's amazing to me that people need to keep saying this.
 
Here are two images:
 

 
In the first still, the ball clearly has not quite reached Longoria yet; you can tell this because the ball is obscuring a bit of his uniform. If it were even with him it would be hitting him at that moment. In the second, the ball has apparently passed Longoria, but not by much (the ball is still the same size as in the first shot, and AJP appears to still be tracking it).
 
I've drawn a horizontal line from Longoria's chin across the track of the ball. The ball crosses that line as it passes Longoria.
 
This pitch was not headed for "the middle of his back" or any such crap. It was headed, in the most charitable view possible, for the top of his shoulders. And for a player in a batting stance that's indistinguishable from saying it was headed for his head--the difference depends strictly on whether he ducks backward or not.
 
You can make a reasonable argument that the ball slipped in the rain and was perhaps originally headed for a more civilized destination on Longoria's anatomy. But if the ball went where Workman meant it to, it was a beanball.
What you can also see here is how much the ball was rising at the end. It is at the top of the Z in the first pic, and almost up to the green in the second. All else aside, that is some great late jump on the pitch.