Domingo Germán Won’t Pitch in the Postseason, but Baseball’s DV Loophole Needs to Be Closed
When ESPN’s Buster Olney reported on Friday that Yankees right-hander Domingo Germán will not pitch again this year, either in the regular season or the postseason, in the wake of a reported violation of the Joint MLB-MLBPA Domestic Violence Policy and a likely suspension, it was a instance of the league and the players’ union lucking into the right outcome. While players suspended for violating the Joint Drug Agreement by taking performance-enhancing drugs have been ineligible to participate in that year’s postseason since 2014, that’s not the case for those suspended under the DV policy introduced in August 2015. Not only does that make for a jarring incongruity given the relative severity of those transgressions, allowing recently suspended players to participate in the playoffs can lead to unsavory behavior on the part of teams, as we’ve seen multiple times since the policy was introduced. It’s time for the players and the league to close this loophole.
Germán was placed on administrative leave on Thursday in connection with an incident that reportedly took place at the pitcher’s residence late Monday or early Tuesday, after the pitcher and his girlfriend appeared at CC Sabathia’s charity gala. The 27-year-old righty, who in his first full major league season has emerged as a viable rotation cog, had pitched in relief of Sabathia on Wednesday night in preparation for a more flexible role come the postseason. The announcement of his placement on leave dimmed some of the luster of the Yankees’ victory over the Angels later that night, which not only marked their 100th win but clinched their first AL East title since 2012.
No police report was filed in connection with the incident at Germán’s residence, and no charges were filed. The incident was reported directly to the league, which, according to The Athletic’s Lindsey Adler, conducted a preliminary investigation on Tuesday and Wednesday, interviewing people around the team. While Yankees manager Aaron Boone said he heard “whispers” of an investigation on Wednesday, the team was not informed until Thursday morning that the pitcher had been placed on administrative leave. Via Adler:
“I learned on the drive in that he was going on administrative leave,” Boone said Thursday afternoon. “Heard some of the whispers and whatnot, but this is a Major League Baseball investigation and issue. We’re just trying to be as cooperative as we can while this goes on.”
A player can be placed on administrative leave for up to seven days, though that period can be extended; during that time, he is paid but not allowed to have any contact with his team. By inference, the mere placement of a player on leave means that the league and the union agree that the allegation in question is substantive — that there is enough evidence to merit preventing him from playing. As Adler noted, “[S]ources told The Athletic the union had the option to appeal his immediate placement on administrative leave but did not take the opportunity to do so.”
Not every player suspended under the policy was placed on leave beforehand, but it is worth noting that the only two of the 14 players investigated who were not suspended, Yasiel Puig and Miguel Sanó, did not require any leave, as the allegations pertained to incidents that took place in the offseason. Neither was ultimately disciplined due to insufficient evidence that they violated the policy.
Once the league’s investigation concludes, a suspension without pay generally follows, with the time missed on administrative leave included within the penalty. The Dodgers’ Julio Urías, who was arrested on May 13 on suspicion of domestic violence after witnesses alleged that he shoved a woman, missed five games while on administrative leave in May and was then allowed to return to the active roster. His prosecution was deferred on a conditional basis. When the investigation was completed in August, the league handed down a 20-game suspension and retroactively credited him for those five days already served.
That Urías is allowed to participate in the postseason, joining the ignominious ranks of Roberto Osuna and Aroldis Chapman, but Germán is not is merely a fluke of timing. Last year, Osuna pitched for the Astros in the postseason after serving a 75-game suspension during which he was traded from Toronto to Houston. In 2016, the same was true of Chapman, who pitched for the Cubs after being acquired from the Yankees following his service of a 30-game suspension. The participation of both left a bad taste in the mouths of many fans and observers, as did the conduct of their teams.
Here it’s worth noting that in one case, that of Phillies outfielder Odubel Herrera, the league and the union have deviated from this template. Herrera was arrested on May 27 in Atlantic City and charged with simple assault of his 20-year-old girlfriend, who “had visible signs of injury to her arms and neck that was sustained after being assaulted by her boyfriend, David Odubel Herrera, during a dispute.” Herrera was placed on administrative leave immediately, a leave that was extended multiple times, ultimately running to July 5. At that point, the league announced that Herrera would be suspended through the remainder of the season, with the suspension officially retroactive to June 24, a total of 85 games. He will actually wind up missing 109 games; apparently, the first 24 games of his absence were considered paid leave. Additionally, as part of the ruling that Herrera accepted, he would not be allowed to participate in the postseason. While Herrera’s girlfriend refused medical attention at the time and later refused to testify, resulting in the criminal charge being dropped, the inference to be drawn from the league’s actions is that a stronger penalty was mandated, perhaps due to the severity of the evidence against him or an ongoing pattern of abuse, and that latitude already exists to deny suspended players a chance to take the field in October.
Returning to Chapman, memories of the Yankees’ conduct as it pertained to Chapman were rekindled on Thursday when the team issued a boilerplate statement to announce Germán’s absence.
“We fully support all measures being undertaken by the Commissioner’s Office pursuant to the Policy on Domestic Violence. We support this policy which reinforces that domestic violence has no place in our society and cannot be tolerated. We have followed the lead of Major League Baseball and will continue to provide our complete cooperation throughout the investigative process. We reserve any further comment until the investigation reaches its conclusion. All questions pertaining to this matter should be directed to the Office of the Commissioner.”
The Yankees showed their tolerance for Chapman’s actions when they acquired him from the Reds for four minor leaguers in December 2016, that after a deal that would have sent the fireballing closer to the Dodgers was scuttled by the revelation of a police report that the pitcher had allegedly fired eight gunshots in the garage of his home in Davie, Florida following an October 30 altercation with his girlfriend.
The Yankees used the likelihood of Chapman’s suspension — the first implemented under the new policy — and the possibility that he could face criminal charges to lessen the cost of trading for him, as general manager Brian Cashman himself admitted at the time. “Given the circumstances that exist, the price point on the acquisition has been modified,” he told reporters. Less than a month after the trade, Broward County prosecutors announced that they would not file criminal charges. With the legal matter resolved, the suspension served, and the team out of playoff contention come July, Cashman then traded Chapman to the Cubs in exchange for a more substantial package headlined by Gleyber Torres, who has since become a two-time All-Star. Still eligible to participate in the postseason, Chapman played a significant role in the Cubs winning their first World Series in 108 years. When he reached free agency, the Yankees further demonstrated their intolerance for Chapman’s transgressions by signing him to a five-year, $86 million contract, still a record for a closer. Consider him chastened.
Both the Yankees and Cubs operated within the limits of existing rules, but their actions in connection to Chapman were unpalatable. Likewise with the Astros, who acquired Osuna from the Blue Jays on July 30, 2018 while he was still serving his suspension. Houston GM Jeff Luhnow went so far as to tout the Astros’ “zero tolerance policy related to abuse of any kind,” a strange thing to say when acquiring a player currently being disciplined for suspicion of assaulting the mother of their three-year-old son. When the woman, who had returned to her native Mexico, refused to return to Toronto to testify, the charges against Osuna were dropped in exchange for a peace bond and a one-year agreement he stay away from her and continue counseling.
In cases of domestic violence, outcomes such as those pertaining to Chapman, Osuna, Germán, and Urias are hardly uncommon. Sometimes incidents aren’t reported to the police, or reported but not investigated, or investigated without arrests being made, or charges being filed. Even when charges are filed, sometimes there are no guilty pleas or convictions, or at least no jail time. A 2014 study of 517 domestic violence cases, written by Sherry Hamby, David Finkelhor and Heather Turner, and published in the journal Psychology of Violence, found that less than 2% of the offenders received any jail time.
Our society’s ongoing difficulty (and often, plain failure) with preventing and mitigating the complex problem of domestic violence is one reason why we turn to sports leagues to address such infractions when they pertain to athletes, who are expected to adhere to certain standards of conduct because of their high-visibility jobs and lucrative compensation. The efforts of MLB and the MLBPA in this area, which were crafted in consultation with experts in the field, aren’t limited to doling out punishments; they include regularly educating players about domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse, all of which are part of the same policy. As cathartic as it may be to advocate a zero-tolerance stance towards domestic violence within the game, experts believe that such an approach would do far more harm than good. As Cindy Southworth, the executive vice president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, told USA Today Sports in 2016:
“Counter-intuitively, we don’t want sports leagues to have a zero tolerance policy. And the reason for that is if we would say that the first time your partner calls 911 your career is over, her risk of homicide shoots through the roof. Because he has nothing to lose and everything to lose at the same time… the pressure then on the victim not to call for help is massive.”
So, this is not to advocate a one-and-done stance towards DV offenders, or to complain that the league is getting it completely wrong with the suspensions; it’s to bring the policy more in line with PED policy as it pertains to the postseason. Since the start of 2014, players suspended for taking PEDs are ineligible to participate in that year’s postseason, a change in policy that arose in the wake of an outcry over the potential postseason availability of Nelson Cruz (then with the Rangers) and Jhonny Peralta (then with the Tigers) as they returned from Biogenesis-related suspensions near the end of the 2013 season.
While the logic behind the two policies’ discrepancy in this area is founded in the fact that only the former is connected to on-field performance, the results clash given the relative severity of the transgressions. Yes, taking PEDs — which may or may not actually enhance performance, ahem — can have deleterious physical effects on a player, but those pale in comparison to intentionally causing physical harm to another human being, particularly when that person is a spouse or partner who can’t easily disentangle herself from the situation. And as we’ve already seen, teams are ready and willing to exploit the fact that DV-suspended players may be acquired at discounts. Changing the rule so that suspended players are also banned from that year’s postseason would increase the impact of such suspensions, and greatly reduce teams’ incentives to acquire such players.
Changing the rule would require the MLBPA to approach the league, which would likely support such a rule. As MLB Deputy Commissioner and Chief Legal Officer Dan Halem told The Athletic’s Katie Strang last year in connection with the Osuna case, “MLB generally would never oppose any proposal by the players to strengthen the penalties for conduct.”
Such a change would help to recenter the league’s attention back toward victims and avoid potentially celebrating a player whose suspension is still fresh. Lest we forget, Chapman was called upon to save Game 7 of the 2016 World Series against the Indians; had he succeeded in sealing the victory that ended the Cubs’ epic championship drought, the highlights of him celebrating on the mound would have played until the end of time, a reminder of the game’s insensitivity towards victims and survivors of domestic violence. Changing the rule would additionally spare viewers, many of whom are victims and survivors themselves, the awkward, and often times thoughtless, rhetoric that arises from the more insensitive corners of sports media, where a suspended player’s moment of on-field success is positioned as “redemption” or “overcoming distractions.”
While the outcome of the investigation is not yet official, it appears that Germán won’t play a role in a potential Yankees World Series win. But the specter of Chapman — whose suspension is now three years gone, though for many, the bad taste lingers — looms large, as does the past suspension of Osuna, as well as the presence of Urias. The policy was meant to acknowledge that there are moments in people’s lives that require us to set baseball aside, moments against which on-field heroics, no matter how dazzling, will always be found wanting if their weight and importance are measured. But as it functions now, the postseason loophole allows teams to turn those awful moments into inefficiencies to be exploited on the way to a championship, further pulling the focus from where it ought to be: on helping to make whole those whose lives have been marred by violence and fear. It’s too late to do anything about this coming postseason, but the league and the union should make every effort to close this loophole.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
This is a really, really great piece, Jay. It’s unfortunate that the topic comes up as often as it does, but it’s important that we don’t look the other way when it does.
Who is ever looking the other way, ever?
Teams are failing their young Latino players.
Regardless of what comes or doesnt from German’s case. Its not easy for young kids growing up in very poor places to jump on a plane to America and into a life of (substantially more) wealth, fame, competition and sometimes failure, not to mention having no real friends and sometimes not even speaking the language. Its up to the teams to better coach their players on personal and cultural matters to ease up this transition. We cant expect every Latino player to be Mariano Rivera.
Umm, yeah we can expect every latin player to know that beating up your girlfriend is wrong.
I don’t think there’s any problem with cultural education in addition to the battery of financial ed and other stuff players have to do. Other peoples’ norms are not our norms, and sometimes this expands to stuff that you’d think most people find deeply, deeply unsavory. Lord knows they have to do this for other sports basketball and soccer (and probably football). Teaching people about norms and what’s ok is a huge part of college orientation- people get socialized differently, and there’s no universal morality even on things you’d like to think there would be. You’d think people would be told “hitting women is wrong” all over the world. but you’d be wrong.
What duke said. I have seen a guy hit a girl more times in Colombia than I can count, and maybe only seen it once in my entire life in the USA. Apparently now it is illegal, but it wasn’t illegal a decade or so ago.
There is a learning curve. Domestic violence is socially acceptable in parts of the world, as crazy as that is to say. Some countries women aren’t allowed to tell a man no. Some countries they mutilate women’s genitals because they think that would make them not cheat.
All these things sound crazy to me. But if you grow up in a country where that is the norm, I am pretty certain when you come here our standards are going to be crazy to you as well.
I don’t really know where I stand on all the issues tbh. I know that domestic violence is bad. And do we need to punish people for domestic violence, and we cannot really have a sliding scale based on where someone comes from, but there needs to be a better system then is currently in place. There really wasn’t much of a point to what I just wrote, but maybe that it isn’t cut and dry. Some people really do not understand that what they are doing is wrong, I truly believe that.
It is interesting that you wrote this: “Some countries they mutilate women’s genitals because they think that would make them not cheat.”
Today in the United States, a very large percentage of males have their genitalia mutilated in very much the same manner. Hospitals continue to provide this service which has no proven benefit to the male and severely reduces their ability to feel pleasure for their entire lives. (by about 66%). Can you guess what it is? The creator of the Kellogg’s company that you see every day in the supermarket had something to do with it.
Take this moment to remind yourselves and your children to learn history (even forbidden history). It will help future generations to think for themselves. Most people have “heard” that this sick, sadistic practice is good for hygiene and reduces the risk of certain diseases/conditions. That is the narrative that is pushed and reinforced.
I don’t disagree, but agreeing sort of takes away from my point, heh
This is an oversimplified way of putting it. Many of these players have been playing baseball since they were little kids instead of being in school and growing up in a normal childhood environment. It’s not out of the line to have teams be more involved to make sure they have a better understanding of how to behave well. However teams instead treat them like baseball is their only worth and, by extension, everything else is secondary.
I’m not condoning their actions, but I think the point about teams being more involved hopefully with their education beyond baseball is a good one.
Can you prove that MLB teams do not offer additional services to their players, because I am fairly certain they do. It took a few seconds to find this from USA Today published in 2016. “Rookie Career Development Program that Major League Baseball and the union run jointly before every season, inviting top prospects to a series of workshops addressing off-the-field subjects. The program is offered in English and Spanish.
If you’ve read/listened to any of the baseball players talk about their experience in the minors, you wouldn’t really be saying this. They’re paid seasonal labor wage and mostly left to their own devices in terms of what they do outside the season. It’s only when they get on the 40 man roster do they get the full benefits of what you typically see from MLB athletes.
On the other hand most Latin American players spend at least a year or two in extended spring training, where they are given daily English lessons and plenty of opportunities to be culturally immersed.
My understanding is that the Yankees do actually have a pretty substantial personal development program, in large part because of the added stresses of the media environment in New York (the whole “playing in New York is different” thing gets overblown a lot, but it’s also not entirely false). I don’t know whether or to what extent the Yankees program talks about domestic violence, but in terms of “helping players, particularly those from poor backgrounds, manage a sudden transition to wealth and fame,” New York is probably more proactive than most teams.
Are you saying it’s a latino culture to beat women? Not being a jerk here, Im generally curious if that’s your take.
I think he just messed up in his wording. My interpretation is that he’s saying that these players need more guidance because they are poor, not because they are Spanish. Poor Americans in projects and trailer parks are also more likely to commit violent crimes, but those groups of people almost never become MLB players in the first place. In contrast, over a third of baseball is made-up of underprivileged players from the Carribbean/Cuba.
Im a native mexican living in mexico.
People here and further south are definitely more “understanding” of domestic violence than in the US.
Go kick rocks for equating being Latinx with committing domestic violence. Brett Myers, Addison Russell, Derek Norris, Steven Wright, etc. This is not a latinx issue.
I think you’re both right and very wrong. While you’re right that DV is certainly not *solely* a latinx issue, and notdeananna’s comment was probably too narrow in that regard (although they were responding to an article about German specifically), you are spectacularly wrong to say that DV “is not a latinx issue.” Anyone who is familiar with latino culture (and I’m using “latino” instead of “latinx” intentionally here) is well aware of the toxic, demeaning, and dehumanizing aspects of machismo that are prevalent throughout Latin America. I, myself, am Cuban, was raised in a majority Mexican community, and am married to a Brazilian, and have witnessed in all three milieus the ways that latin culture creates conditions in which women are patronized, objectified, possessed, and sadly in far too many cases subjected to violence at the hands of men in their lives (this violence also happens, PS, against children no matter their gender). I’ve also seen how, through the lens of machismo, many latino men rationalize this behavior as being “instructive”, “protective”, “strong”, and even “responsible”. So yes, it’s much bigger than just a latinx issue, but no, it is absolutely–and in its own unique way–very much a latinx issue.
Go kick rocks for saying “latinx”. You dont know anything about us.
It’s not just a “young latino” problem.
Here’s some stats on domestic violence, US and Global:
Every 9 seconds in the US a woman is assaulted or beaten.
Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. Most often, the abuser is a member of her own family.
Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women—more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined.
Studies suggest that up to 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually.
Nearly 1 in 5 teenage girls who have been in a relationship said a boyfriend threatened violence or self-harm if presented with a breakup.
Everyday in the US, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.
Ninety-two percent of women surveyed listed reducing domestic violence and sexual assault as their top concern.
Domestic violence victims lose nearly 8 million days of paid work per year in the US alone—the equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs.
Based on reports from 10 countries, between 55 percent and 95 percent of women who had been physically abused by their partners had never contacted non-governmental organizations, shelters, or the police for help.
The costs of intimate partner violence in the US alone exceed $5.8 billion per year: $4.1 billion are for direct medical and health care services, while productivity losses account for nearly $1.8 billion.
Men who as children witnessed their parents’ domestic violence were twice as likely to abuse their own wives than sons of nonviolent parents.
Sure there’s violence against women all over the world. But that doesn’t mean that it’s the same everywhere.
Here’s a recent survey by Oxfam (hopefully my link goes through):
https://www.oxfam.org/es/sala-de-prensa/notas-de-prensa/2018-07-25/jovenes-de-america-latina-aun-consideran-normal-la
The article is in Spanish but the title kind of says it all:
Jóvenes de América Latina aún consideran “normal” la violencia machista:
Google Translate: Young people in Latin America still consider sexist violence “normal”.
The article also notes that 14 of the 25 countries with the highest murder rates against women are in Latin America and the Caribbean.
BTW, I live in Colombia, which has one of the highest (if not the highest) rates of acid assault against women in the world. And until recently, there was no effective law in place against in.
Again, this isn’t to condemn every Latino. But there are still a lot who are brought up in an environment where violence against women is normal.
Didn’t say it was the same.
Just that it can be found everywhere.
And that a “solution” targeting young hispanics won’t “solve” the problem. Too narrow. The same applies to relying solely on the legal system. Too often the victim is dependent on the accused which results on a lack of cooperation with the enforcers.
It is a complex problem with no simple solution.
It’s also not a male or hetero problem. Lesbian women suffer the highest rates of domestic violence.
43.8% of lesbian women and 61.1% of bisexual women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime, as opposed to 35% of heterosexual women.
26% of gay men and 37.3% of bisexual men have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, in comparison to 29% of heterosexual men.
In a study of male same sex relationships, only 26% of men called the police for assistance after experiencing near-lethal violence.
In 2012, fewer than 5% of LGBTQ survivors of intimate partner violence sought orders of protection.
Transgender victims are more likely to experience intimate partner violence in public, compared to those who do not identify as transgender.
Bisexual victims are more likely to experience sexual violence, compared to people who do not identify as bisexual.
LGBTQ Black/African American victims are more likely to experience physical intimate partner violence, compared to those who do not identify as Black/African American.
LGBTQ white victims are more likely to experience sexual violence, compared to those who do not identify as white.
LGBTQ victims on public assistance are more likely to experience intimate partner violence compared to those who are not on public assistance.
Careful, you’re going to get placed in perma-moderation status.
It is primarily a male issue. These stats are difficult to pin down, and may have a lot more to do with who reports/how people in different communities define and recognize domestic violence than with the actual underlying rates of particular behaviors.
Yeah, humans are violent creatures. No doubt about it.
But…males can and do inflict a lot more damage than women. And of course, male athletes tend to be bigger and stronger than the average male. Which means there’s the potential for even more physical damage.
So as much as I hate to copy and paste from Wikipedia, here goes:
“…there is general agreement amongst researchers that male violence is a more serious phenomenon, primarily, but not exclusively, because male violence tends to inflict more psychological and physical damage than female violence.
Male violence produces injury at roughly six times the rate of female violence. Women are also more likely to be killed by their male partners than the reverse (according to the US Department of Justice, 84% of spousal murder victims are female), and women in general are more likely to be killed by their spouses than all other types of assailants combined.
In relation to this, Murray A. Straus has written “although women may assault their partners at approximately the same rate as men, because of the greater physical, financial, and emotional injury suffered by women, they are the predominant victims. Consequently, the first priority in services for victims and in prevention and control must continue to be directed toward assaults by husbands.””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men
Yeah I’m afraid it’s not ‘on the organization’ to be responsible for such acts like DV and PED use. No matter what country a player is from, he should already know that he cannot abuse his wife nor should he be allowed to take substances that have been banned from the sport. These are not things organizations should have to ‘teach’ young players.
Great article!
The distinction between PED-related cases and DV-related cases never made any sense to me, except that sports leagues react to the times and there was such an outcry about PEDs that they felt they couldn’t let a “tainted” player in the playoffs. I don’t exactly disagree with them on that point, but the inconsistency is glaring.
How about this, if you are found guilty of domestic violence, it’s a lifetime ban and the team’s remaining salary commitment is sent to a charity?
1) As Jay pointed out in the article, zero tolerance policies make it more dangerous for victims, not less. All it does is disincentivize victims from calling the police and then further disincentivize them from testifying.
2) That wouldn’t actually apply to anyone in the league. Not a single one of the players banned under the DV policy has been found guilty in court, for reasons that go way beyond baseball.
have any of them survived a civil suit? I genuinely do not know, but the burden of proof is lower (though an uncooperative witness is more than likely to torpedo a civil suit too).
Without a cooperative witness, as you are terming it, how is there a civil suit?
How will we find people guilty if we allow them their rights to trial by jury subject to the rules of evidence of a court of law?
do you even know the difference between a civil suit and a criminal trial?
Found guilty by whom?
First-time lifetime bans would certainly be satisfying, although I’m not certain that would work very well. Those sorts of policies have kind of a nasty effect of increasing domestic violence-related homicides. It’s a little different than throwing the perp in jail because they’re still out there.
I think there might be some good incentives you could make to have *teams* monitor their players a little better, though. The team’s salary commitment for the suspended time being sent to a charity and still count against the luxury tax is good starting point, but what if you had to send *double* the salary? In theory, teams are going to be able to handle issues much more proactively than the league can, just by virtue of being closer to them. Would that work? Or would it backfire?
Too simplistic.
Some guys are drunk, others are under drugs, and others are just scum.
Some need treatment, others need jail.
Some nuance is required.
DV is very different from PEDs. DV suspensions need to take into account what is best for the victims. PEDs doesn’t have this complicating factor. Optics may be bad, but I have no issue with DV suspensions being less than PEDs if the reason is protecting victims.
I’m not an expert so I would not want to say what the suspensions should be, but I am opposed to the view that they should be viewed together.
The integrity of the sport itself isn’t implicated by players committing crimes. Most reasonable people are capable of understanding that, just because Player A on Team B assaulted someone it doesn’t mean that Sport C is tainted (“reasonable people” excludes Sports Radio callers and Deadspin commenters). However a sport that is seen to be tolerating PED use does implicate the integrity of the sport. So I’m also fine with a sports governing body taking crimes against the sport itself much more seriously than crimes committed by people who happen to be players.
A good example of this is gambling. My employer won’t ban me for life if I bet $1,000 on the Astros to lose. If Alex Bregman did the same he’d be facing serious consequences from MLB.
Another comment here from Colombia. I lived there for a decade as well. You know how old sitcoms used to show a man slap his wife? Shows still show that in Colombia now. It very much is a cultural thing. Not equating Latinos to DV, but a greater propensity to it is literally a fact.
This is very well written and persuasive. One thing I found jarring was the “taking advantage of a market opportunity” angle, because it’s both true and mostly irrelevant. If a team trades for a DV violator, either knowing the full extent of the penalty, or at least the potential for it, they certainly aren’t going to pay full value. We can deplore that type of trade, but we have to accept the other side of the equation–there are only two alternative futures for that violator–either he stays with his original team (who may or may not want him) or he’s traded, at a discount as the market determines. The third alternative is that he doesn’t play anymore because no team, even at a discount, should take on this type of a personality. The problem is that blackballing the player means that his real sentence/penalty is not only loss of playing time/money, but also loss of career even after he’s “paid for his crime”.
Personally, I’d rather not have a Chapman on “my” Yankees (and as far as I’m concerned would be perfectly content hearing him booed continuously) but I’m not sure it’s fair to effectively ban him for life without other, more egregious acts–I would just rather not have him on the team. If baseball wants to move to a standard where some level of DV (or more than one act), after an appropriate and fair investigation, is cause for season-long or even permanent disqualification, I’m fine with that. There should be penalties, and stiff ones, for this type of behavior. But, until that happens, until MLB and MLBPA work out both the penalty and due process sides, I think we are stuck with the system we have, including the opportunistic trading.
Transgressions of this nature should not have a one size fits all approach. The facts of each case should determine both length of punishment as well as post season eligibility. A perfect example is the Chapman case for which there were conflicting accounts. The accusation alone should not be sufficient to determine punishment. In his case, MLB had an investigation and handed down a suspension. Should it have been a lifetime ban? I do not think so, but unless you do, suggesting that neither the Yankees or Cubs should have transacted for/with him doesn’t make sense. After all, in lieu of a lifetime ban, he was going to play for someone. Why not the Yankees and Cubs?
I’m not sure it’s fair to describe this as a “loophole”. It’s just the rules…that’s it.
That said, it seems like the best way to address such a thing is to remove the “postseason ineligibility” stipulation in the PED ban, and replace it outside of a PED-specific policy with something along the lines of “any player who serves more than X games of suspension in a given season will be ineligible for the postseason.” This will defacto grab your PED bans and your DV bans (assuming the X is set somewhere around…what, 20?). But it also is dynamic and flexible enough to be an escalator for repeat offenders of other various transgressions such as bean-ball wars (though, this instance would require the MLB increasing the punishments for such things, which is something I support regardless).
Great article, great discussion from all over. Disagree with your recommendation. PED is not DV for the many reasons cited. MLB has grabbed the tail of the tiger by making itself a proxy legal system. The history of crime and punishment begs MLB to get out of the way. The added pressures of MLB policy undermine players’ efforts at wholesome domestic relations by adding a ton of pressure that stifles conflict, itself unhealthy, and unleashes the incentives for violence that the advisors in your article cite. That DV incidence in our society is 30% it begs the question why these few cases get showcased and creates incentives for athletes to be stalked and baited. It’s great that MLB takes this seriously and applies resources to support and educate these pressured young people in their efforts to deal with the pressures and live wholesomely. Their programs could help our entire society. Their decision to become judge and jury is misguided and while it may mollify public opinion it probably backfires as DV prevention. Lastly, your point about a player doing something wrong and then going on to enjoy some success in his or her sport – do we really want someone who makes a mistake in life to forever fail thereafter, or are we really so stupid to think that their success means they didn’t do something wrong for which atonement is appropriate? Wow.
Awesome piece and very well said Jay.
To the specific issue of baseball’s postseason loophole where DV is concerned, I believe it should be consistent with the PED policy; furthermore, I believe that any player on admin leave who’s potentially suspended for any reason should be an unmarketable asset where transfers of any kind between teams, in season or out are concerned.
One place I sincerely disagreed with your fine article: “one reason why we turn to sports leagues to address such infractions when they pertain to athletes, who are expected to adhere to certain standards of conduct because of their high-visibility jobs and lucrative compensation.” The statement weakens your position for two reasons: 1st: We ought not turn to or expect sports leagues to be laboratories for dealing with issues as serious as DV. Our expectations for behavior should be equal for all. Sports is about entertainment not social engineering. This doesn’t mean that high-visibility entertainers should not be held to a high standard (Note I didn’t say highER standard.) Which brings up 2nd reason: “and lucrative compensation” reveals jealousy or worse, a belief that highly successful individuals, by virtue of their excellence, deserve to be held to a highER standard than everyday characters like me or you. This flawed reasoning might be more insidious in effect than anything my first objection may even tangentially approach. Every employment policy that addresses character that the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. has, should be able to be duplicated at IBM, Citibank, or CocaCola.
Are you suggesting that a player placed on Administrative Leave should be ineligible for the postseason? Because that would one enormous difference between a DV postseason ban and a PED postseason ban – namely that in the PED case, the player is guilty, and in the pre-investigation DV case, the player is merely accused.
“It’s time to ensure a player’s off-field transgressions aren’t treated as a market inefficiency.”
I’m not sure that it is necessarily a market inefficiency. The Reds traded Chapman to the Yankees for less than the Dodgers initially offered, but the Cubs didn’t trade Addison Russell and Dodgers haven’t dumped Julio Urias. I’m not sure whether Ken Giles did or didn’t constitute a discount for Roberto Osuna. Jeurys Familia didn’t net much from the A’s but I’m not sure that had anything to do with off-field behavior.
I personally didn’t want Familia on the A’s and am glad Derek Norris and Addison Russell aren’t with the team anymore, but I’m not sure that there really is much of a trade value hit for this. Heck, Alexi Ogando was part of a human trafficking ring and didn’t seem to suffer any hits to his market value. But I’m glad he’s not connected with the A’s anymore as well.
Can we please come off the “PED might not help” line of argument? It’s ridiculous. These guys aren’t using them to get beach muscles.
The very last thing the world needs is the press playing judge and jury with respect to domestic violence allegations.
It isn’t. The employer and union are.
“No police report was filed in connection with the incident at Germán’s residence, and no charges were filed.”
Suspending German was absurd, particularly in light of the above.
Suspension is an absurd remedy in any case, since every credible study shows the same thing in the event there actually was DV or IPV: that job loss only increases, and increases significantly, the likelihood of a recurrence of violence. Is that really what we want, when there are actual victims?
This is ‘look busy’ nonsense by MLB, and is only more obviously inappropriate if you extend it to the preposterousness of suspending ordinary employees upon an accusation. Meanwhile, when’s the last time one of these articles mentioned that pro ballplayers have a much lower incidence of DV than the general population in the same age range, of 20 to 39? It makes sense if you actually think about–contrary to the experience of other young men, ballplayers are far more disciplined and have far more experience resisting impulsive behavior. In addition, they’re in a higher income bracket, which is a significant contributor to reduced violence.
Repulsive behavior all around, by profession leagues and by reporters.
I disagree. Every situation is unique and should be evaluated individually. In the Chapman case I read the police reports and did not see a prosecutable domestic violence incident.
In a collective bargaining situation, employer and employee negotiate protocols for dealing with behavioral/conduct issues. This is what happened here. There’s a risk for both sides that without objective standards and routinized processes, you get unequal treatment. I’m not defending or condemning this particular application of that, but there is a justification. It’s when you seem to go off the protocols (like in the A-Rod suit against MLB) that you can really go off the rails. Perhaps that can be unfair on an individual basis, but nets better results globally.
If I was German, I would consider legal action against the MLBPA.
Whether you are guilty or not, it is the union’s responsibly to defend you/assure you treated fairly under the CBA and it seems like the union put ZERO effort into defending German. Especially considering a player can be put on leave for 7-days, but we already hear German won’t be allowed to pitch in the post-season.
It is REALLY suspicious. I suspect a backroom deal where German agreed to sit out the rest of the season/post-season in exchange for not facing a suspension going into next season.
How come this isn’t a law enforcement issue? Where does due process enter the picture?
For the same reason you might want to discipline an employee who beats his wife black and blue, it becomes public knowledge and he gets away with it because she won’t press charges. It could hurt your business with customers, suppliers, creditors and other employees who might find you repugnant and prefer to work with your competitors if you do nothing. Hopefully you’d find it repulsive as well, but maybe not.
This doesn’t appear to be a case of him beating him girlfriend black and blue though.
Domestic Violence is VERY broad term. He allegedly slapped his girlfriend. This is called “common couple violence” because it is common and even socially accepted to an extent. It is defined as “occasional” “minor” violence rarely resulting in injury resulting when a conflict gets “out of hand”. It is reported AT LEAST 50% of couples experience this sort of violence. If we prosecuted/fired everyone who has slapped/shoved/scratched their partner, the jails would be full and companies would be forced out of business due to lack of workers.
That doesn’t make it right, but we need to stop thinking of domestic violence as a man getting home from work and beating his wife because dinner isn’t ready while he sips on scotch and smokes a cigar.
I think we need to stop ignoring that MLB’s DV policy is AWFUL all around.
It is bad for the accused. They are public image is permanently damaged BEFORE an investigation has even started.(Seriously, what does placing a player on leave even do?)Even in cases where MLB didn’t find evidence to discipline a player, he’ll still be known as “the guy who beats woman”.(Just like those guys whose HOF cases will struggle because they were loosely associated with PEDS) Not to mention, do you really trust the same organization that failed to stop the spread of PEDs multiple time and can’t even figure out what is wrong with the baseball to investigate domestic violence? I know I don’t.
More importantly, it is TERRIBLE for the victims. Let’s take someone who is accused of committing domestic violence, punish them and make them angry, and proceed to allow them to go home to the person they allegedly assaulted. Clearly a brilliant idea. It is just likely to lead to more violence/abuse. Look no further than the recent Antonio Brown situation. There is a reason courts issue no-contact orders immediately lasting until the case is resolved in all domestic incidents.
If a player is accused of domestic violence, MLB should privately investigate the matter before turning evidence over to law enforcement/the legal system, who can then take steps to charge the accused and protect the victim. Is it great process? No, But it is the only one I can think of that addresses the above concerns.
But let’s face it: The league doesn’t care about justice or protecting victims. They only care about their pocketbook.
Counterpoint: This is a law enforcement issue.
MLB shouldn’t be policing this any more than any other employer in the US should police what their employees do off-the-clock.
Wow. A LOT of time spent re-litigating the Chapman case, especially in criticizing the Yankees. I’ve always found the criticism fascinating. Not the general criticism; just the accusation that the Yankees used the situation for their advantage, like they’re some kind of diabolical mastermind. I mean, you would expect the man not to be worth much in a trade because his name was mud, and that’s what happened. Would it have been better if the Yankees had insisted upon giving up, like, Gary Sanchez? And shown that the DV stuff didn’t make Chapman less desirable at all? That’s an awful idea, and yet if you have a problem specifically with the Yankees getting him for a small return, (in addition to your problem with them trading for him at all) that’s the only alternative option.
I also find the way that German’s violation was reported to be strange. I would think that calling the police would help the victim more than calling just MLB. I wonder what the thought process was there.
I think Jay’s main point was that the Chapman arbitrage opportunity would not have existed were he not postseason eligible.
This whole article is TERRIBLE, in my opinion. So many problems. For one, “2% of offenders only got jail time”, because you are putting the word “offender” on people who may not have been guilty, hence… they should NOT be serving jail time.
Big thumbs down to this article, and its agenda, and its aspersions cast. Also, the idea foisted forward that disputes between couples are capable of turning into murders, is actually crazy. Its demonizing to players, and something that has never occurred. Crazy talk. I don’t care about MLB punishing players that the law doesn’t, and I dont care if they are suspended for the playoffs, nor if GMs trade such players.
“The participation of both left a bad taste in the mouths of many fans and observers, as did the conduct of their teams. ” So what? Some people felt that way, and some didn’t. Thats a misleading assertion.
Also, there ZERO talk of the specifics of theses cases other than briefly touching on Chapman’s. I disagree with the generalizing of all of these events, the idea that woman are passive in these interactions, and that it is some kind of emergency. I think its stupid.