I would like to see the suspension rule for MLB pitchers revised...do you agree?

Question

This would pertain to starting pitchers:

I think it's stupid for SPs to be suspended by number of games. For example Derrek Lee and Chris Young were both suspended for 5 games. Essentially, Lee will miss 5 games as an everyday starter and Young will miss 1 start.

Doesn't it seem more fair to suspend pitchers by starts? Yeah, I know there will be many caveats if this happens, but a starting point should be say, 1 start = 5 days. Chris Young should have been suspended for at least 2 starts (would equate to 10 days).

What do you think

Answer 1

that seems like a good idea. but since starting rotations are not enforced by the league the manager could argue that the pitcher was to start every game of his suspension.

but that is a good idea
or knowing that they are starting pitchers, just suspend them for 20 games. and thats more or less like 4-5 starts.

Answer 2

Suspending them by starts would SEEM to make sense on the surface, but it really wouldn't because pitchers' starts are defined by how many times how many times through the starting pitching rotation a team goes. And since that's based on the number of games they play, MLB decided that it would be easier to do this by games than to suspend a pitcher by a measure that's less clearly defined.

Another reason why MLB decided to suspend pitchers by games is because teams may try to circumvent a suspension and move a less skilled pitcher into the bullpen if they were suspended for a significant period of time. Also, this game has changed a lot through the years. It wasn't that long ago that you would more often see a starting pitcher get used in relief.

Perhaps salary may have something to do with it. Don't pitchers get paid for every week they suit up, regardless of whether or not they play? So if a pitcher were suspended for a certain number of games, wouldn't he lose salary?

Personally, I think Young should have been suspended for at least 10 games.

Answer 3

Have you ever heard the old saying, "All things being equal?". Well, I can tell you that all things are never equal and we shouldn't try to make it such. It is the teams that elect to not pitch their starting pitchers every day and as long as the rule is the same for every team, as it is today, I have no problem with it. Keep in mind, if an every day position player is out 5 games on a 162 game schedule than the suspension would be equal to 3.08% of the entire season. A starting pitcher averages 30 starts per year, if no injuries are involved, and if he is suspended 1 game that would be equal to missing 3.33% of his starts which is actually more game time missed than the position player. Your plan would double that to 2 starts which would be almost 7% of the expected starts he would make, in which case your plan would now favor the position player. Why don't we just leave it the way it is?

Answer 4

I agree. Recently, my Marlins suspended Scott Olsen for 2 games. But he won't miss his scheduled to start on Friday. What's the point of that? The chances of a SP playing in relief of a game are 1 in 1000. Rarely do I ever see a SP in relief, unless the original SP lasted like 2 or 3 innings.

Answer 5

Yes, that would make sense. It's like suspending a football player by days as well. They should miss as many starts as a regular position player would.

Answer 6

no because lee started the fight he swung and young defended himself so no but thats pretty good idea but think of all those losses they will suffer pitchers dont get to play as much so they shouldnt be suspended the day they start

Answer 7

yeah i agree with you man. they should be suspended by starts. also, did u hear about Pudge appealing a one-game suspension? that's crazy!! he can use a day off anyway lol.