The Other Side of a Roberto Osuna Trade
Friday night, Roberto Osuna became the latest player suspended under the Joint Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Policy policy. Per ESPN:
Toronto Blue Jays closer Roberto Osuna was suspended without pay for 75 games on Friday for violating Major League Baseball’s domestic-violence policy, the league announced.
Osuna, 23, has agreed not to appeal the suspension, which is retroactive to May 8 and extends through Aug. 4. He will wind up missing 89 days, which would cost him about $2.54 million of his $5.3 million salary.
Osuna receives the third-longest domestic-violence suspension in MLB history, behind Jose Torres (100 games) and Hector Olivera (82 games). The specific allegations which led to this suspension are still unclear, but we know Osuna was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend, that he has pleaded not guilty to those charges, and that he is presently awaiting trial. Jon Heyman reports that the severity of the penalty was related, in part, to the interview MLB had with Osuna’s girlfriend.
I’ve written before about the problems with MLB’s domestic-violence policy, both generally and in the context of specific players. Osuna’s suspension is yet more evidence of why this policy is flawed. It may seem odd to cite one of the league’s longer domestic-violence suspensions as evidence that the policy isn’t working. A look at the case in context reveals why such a claim makes sense, though.
First, it’s important to note the language of ESPN’s report above. We learn here not that Osuna decided not to appeal but rather that he agreed not to appeal. Osuna, in other words, effectively settled his case with MLB, agreeing to a shorter suspension in exchange for not appealing. This sort of resolution isn’t necessarily dissimilar to a plea bargain or civil settlement, both of which have their utility. It’s an open question, however, whether baseball’s accused domestic abusers ought to have a say in their own discipline, particularly when that discipline is being enforced by their employer. And Osuna’s case isn’t an isolated incident; rather, it’s standard policy. The same thing happened with Aroldis Chapman, for example.
And then there’s the matter of the punishment itself. According to the Daily News, Osuna will supposedly “participate in a confidential and comprehensive evaluation and treatment program supervised by the joint policy board of MLB and the players’ association.” On the surface, this would appear to be precisely the sort of course MLB should pursue with offenders. As I noted in an earlier post, one of the five objectives of DV policy ought to be rehabilitation.
Unfortunately, studies suggest that treatment for domestic-violence offenders isn’t effective. A 1991 study from the Urban Institute found this (boldface mine):
[O]ffenders in treatment were no more likely to abstain from severe violence or threats of violence while in treatment than offenders not ordered to treatment. In both groups, 80 to 85 percent abstained from severe violence during this period, while just under half (47%) abstained from threats of violence.
Contrary to expectations that treatment would reduce violence, a significantly smaller proportion of offenders in treatment abstained from physical aggression: the prevalence of cessation from physical aggression was 57 percent for the treated offenders, compared to 88 percent of those not ordered to treatment.
Roughly 20 years later, the Washington State Institute of Public Policy reached the same depressing conclusion:
Based on six rigorous outcome evaluations of group-based DV treatment for male offenders, we conclude that the Duluth model, the most common treatment approach, appears to have no effect on recidivism.
The inability of treatment to prevent further cases of violence obviously isn’t the fault either of Osuna or the Blue Jays or Major League Baseball. That an effective course of treatment hasn’t been created, however, both (a) highlights the challenges inherent to constructing an effective policy and also (b) raises the very real possibility that, even after an offender has paid his so-called debt, he might still merit closer attention in this regard than his peers.
The offender’s role in choosing his own suspension and the efficacy of treatment in domestic-violence cases: I’ve identified both as areas of the league’s current policy that could benefit from revision. I’d like to dedicate the remainder of this post, however, to what is probably the most problematic aspect of that policy — and which is mentioned in this comment from Buster Olney:
Roberto Osuna's suspension runs through Aug. 4. Some rival execs thought he would be the best available reliever before the trade deadline, and there is probably some team willing to deal for him, just as NYY dealt for Chapman before he served his suspension. (HOU, perhaps?)
— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) June 23, 2018
Because of the way Osuna’s punishment is constructed, there’s a real chance he’ll represent some kind of asset at the trade deadline. Indeed, there’s a legitimate argument to be made that, from a baseball perspective, talented domestic-violence offenders are an opportunity. Obtain the player at a discount, wait for the suspension to be served, trade them at a profit. That plan netted the Yankees Gleyber Torres, for example, in exchange for Chapman — after Chapman had been acquired in a deal headlined by Eric Jagielo. Jagielo, now 26, has recorded zero major-league plate appearances and has passed the majority of the season at Double-A. Torres, meanwhile, has become an MLB regular at age 21.
The system, as currently devised, encourages that kind of thinking. The new MLB inefficiency, however, probably shouldn’t be players whose attractiveness to other teams as a trade asset is increased by a domestic-violence suspension — and, when stated like that, it’s difficult not to see the perverse incentive created by the league’s policy.
Fortunately for all involved, this particular incentive can be removed easily — just by creating a rule that domestic abusers cannot be traded during an investigation or suspension. Such a revision would limit teams’ incentive to perform a calculus that weighs a player’s on-field merits against this type of off-field conduct.
Of course, all of this may be academic. If Osuna is convicted or pleads guilty, there’s a significant chance he won’t be able to get a visa to play in the United States (see Jung Ho Kang). But if Osuna’s suspension, the third most severe ever under the Joint Policy, has this many flaws, what about the lesser penalties?
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote that “there’s a real question to be asked regarding what the point of MLB’s domestic-violence program is, because right now it doesn’t seem to have one.” After Osuna’s suspension, that point seems more true than ever.
Sheryl Ring is a litigation attorney and General Counsel at Open Communities, a non-profit legal aid agency in the Chicago suburbs. You can reach her on twitter at @Ring_Sheryl. The opinions expressed here are solely the author's. This post is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.
“It’s an open question, however, whether baseball’s accused domestic abusers ought to have a say in their own discipline, particularly when that discipline is being enforced by their employer.”
This is a result of the MLBPA having bargained with MLB for some semblance of “fair” treatment in cases like this. To say that players ought not have “a say” would be to say that it would be perfectly fine for MLB to dish out lifetime bans to players any time it wanted. The system may not be perfect, but suggesting that players should be powerless is akin to suggesting the baseball union should be outlawed.
You make a good point. One would not want MLB to have that kind of unilateral control over punishment. But I also agree with Ms. Ring that the player being able to effectively “plea bargain” their suspension is not ideal.
I wonder if there is a middle ground, wherein the MLB can apply stringent penalties, and leaving it to the MLBPA to act on the player’s behalf in the event of a too-severe penalty.
Without the ability to “plea bargain” the MLBPA would be regularly appealing these suspensions. MLB is building precedent for these cases, and the precedent seems so far to be enough for the policy’s real purpose: public relations. But if a player does not agree and is not allowed to bargain, then he has zero incentive NOT to appeal whatever punishment is handed down. You can’t realistically avoid appeals and more negative attention if the player is not involved from the outset. From a logistic, as well as an ethical or moral, standpoint, I just don’t see the problem with “plea bargains.” Why would they be okay in a criminal court for murderers, but not okay here?
I think you implied it, but MLB probably sees an appeals process as the worst possible situation for their PR team. Lots of articles to write throughout the process, keeps it in the fans’ eyes, when really what MLB wants to do is just bury it.
Heck, their primary metric for their solution might even be how many articles/airtime minutes are spent on the situation. The fewer the better.
This is absolutely right: this is the other side of the benefits accrued to the worker by unionization. The restriction of management’s ability to impose unilateral sanctions is a feature, not a bug, of the collective bargaining regime.
I’d argue as well that the article’s claim that Osuna’s attractiveness as an asset is increased is dead wrong as well. Teams are only interested because of his perceived lack of value (which is why the Yankees got Chapman for nothing). The more accurate reading is that domestic violence suspensions make players significantly less attractive to their current teams, which strikes me as eminently appropriate.
I get the point the author is trying to make, but short of a lifetime ban I think the MLB program is appropriately applied, especially when contrasted to the fiasco that is the NFL’s approach.
You are correct. I think the author really just wants harsher penalties and took some liberties to create that narrative.
I think the reference to the NFL is doubly apt. Manfred and the MLB want penalties the players will accept because the alternative is the players sue the league and have a chance of winning, which subverts the league’s effort to protect itself.
To be fair, criminal arrests occur at a rate of about once a month in the NFL. MLB has far fewer cases to adjudicate.
Great article Sheryl and your logic is sound re: limiting teams opportunities on what to do with abusers.
The other side of the coin though, is maybe some teams would want to rid themselves of a player that brings dishonor to the team/franchise?
As a Reds fan, I watched the Reds get hosed in that trade when Chapman’s value was the lowest its ever been. Then I watched as the Yankees flipped him for a Top Prospect. My heart was with the Reds for doing what they did, but my brain thinks that the only entity that lost from Chapman’s actions were his girlfriend/family and the Reds organization.
I’m similarly glad my Dodgers backed out of trading for him.
I’m a Cubs fan… many of us are happy that he wasn’t the one who got the last out… but we also know they probably don’t win without him. None of us condoned his actions, but we viewed getting him as a necessary evil. It’s something a lot of us struggled with, but we’re not giving up that trophy either. You don’t have to point out hypocrisy in that, I’m aware of it.
This may get me roasted, but is the argument that the punishment is too light? As in, 75 games coupled with whatever punishment the Canadian justice system determines is appropriate, is in some way insufficient? Or, is the argument that the accused’s franchise should not be able to manage their assets? And if so, for how long after the incident\suspension should they be unable to do so? Or, is the argument that other teams should not want a player who has been accused of such a crime?
Limiting the accused’s franchise’s ability to trade them punishes said franchise, not the player.
I agree, I really don’t see a major problem here. Particularly with the treatment part. Maybe treatment doesn’t work that well, but it’s better than not giving it a shot, right? With or without the treatment plan, 75 games seems like a pretty stiff penalty.
And the quoted piece about treatment efficacy basically suggests that people who commit DV have an 80 percent chance of never committing violent acts again and a 50-50 chance of making threats. What exactly is the implication of that data? You can’t extrapolate that those are the odds of Osuna (or any one person) re-offending. And even if you could, what do you do with that information? Is the idea that MLB should somehow be assuming the responsibility for deterring or preventing Osuna from committing a future crime? Is the suspension not simply punishment for past acts? What are the odds of your average MLB player committing domestic violence? What is the acceptable threshold for likelihood that a player will commit domestic violence in the future? What should MLB do about it?
Unless you’re willing to support the idea that Osuna should be unemployable forever, CBA be damned, then I’m just not sure what the takeaway is here.
From the study people who committed domestic violence were more likely to self-report committing another physically aggressive act if they attended domestic violence treatment than if they did not. That is what the statistic Ms. Ring is citing actually says.
Got it. I didn’t quite read that closely.
So, is there an argument that part of the effect is increased self-awareness, honesty, etc.? A distinction between actual prevalence of recidivism versus honest reporting of recidivism?
You were corrected in your last article on this that you are misrepresenting the Chapman situation. Why on earth do you insist on continuing to go to that well?
I think there are three other factors with the Chapman Reds/Yankees/Cubs trades:
1. The first Chapman trade may well have been an outlier. The next team, such as the Blue Jays, may not give up their asset for so cheap.
2. There was real risk there. Those numbers about DV you cited in the article are themselves evidence of the risk the Yankees were taking. The trade could have easily blown up in the Yankees faces.
3. The Cubs still overpaid for Chapman. I know, FFF, and no Cubs fan really cares. But if a team thinks they will be able to flip Osuna later for something approaching the second Chapman package, I think they will be sorely disappointed.
How could the trade have blown up in the Yankees faces? By losing Eric Jagielo?
Not being snarky, but really trying to find out how they could have lost in a worse-case scenario?
He could have assaulted another female while on the Yankees roster. That would have been a PR nightmare.
As well as a roster disaster, with Chapman being worth absolutely nothing in trade.
The Yankees also traded for Chapman before his suspension was announced. (traded dec 28th, suspension was announced March 1). If MLB comes out and says he is suspended for 100 games instead of 30 days I think you could consider that as “blowing up in their face”.
It also probably contributed to why Chapman was so cheap for the Yankees. His future was pretty uncertain and the Reds could have found themselves in a tough position if MLB came down harder on him. They cut bait and got what they could while they could.
If Chapman was suspended by 45 or more games, his Free Agency would have been delayed by a year, so the Yankees would have had him for an additional season. So even then, it wouldn’t have blown up in their face.
But the yankees would still be without Chapman for the majority of the year. If trading for a player only to find out after that you cant use him for 60% of the season (and then probably not trade him to the Cubs for Torres) is not blowing up in your face I dont know what is.
The fact that he would still be a Yankee the next year is more of a silver lining than a “hey, this worked out great” idea.
Sure, they can’t have I’m for 60% of the season, but they get another whole season out of the deal.
With a 30 game suspension, they would have him for 132 games.
With a 100 game suspension, they would have him for 224 games.
I think most teams would be fine with option 2. Even if they would prefer option 1 because they care more about the current season, option 2 is still a good outcome.
Jagielo may not have worked out, but he was ranked as the Yankees number three prospect, ahead of Aaron Judge and Luis Severino at the time. Rookie Davis also was coming off a strong year and finished out at AA as well. They picked the right guys to deal but this absolutely could have absolutely blew up. Imagine if they had dealt one of the aforementioned instead.
Correct, Chapman was an overpay at the time, everyone knew it, nobody cared because of the specific circumstances, and Chapman and Torres’ subsequent history will make teams even warier of doing something similar this time around.
There are no rumblings that a trade is imminent for Osuna. Since he is a controllable asset that is going to lose money in arbitration now, I cannot imagine the Jayss trading him. This whole article seems like an elaborate fantasy where the Jays get hosed.
In this trial by media, there is no presumption of innocence or limited culpability, yet most domestic assault cases for MLB players have not resulted in convictions or VISA problems.
Osuna could be guilty as heck, but he might also be a victim of blackmail. Are we allowed to imagine he might not be guilty?
Disappointed in the amount of articles around this subject. At least not have it as the number one article on the page.
This is pretty much guaranteed to be the most read post on FG today, so they’re giving it the prominence their audience wants.
Have it on NotGraphs then. Baseball related subject is minimal.
The hypothetical surrounding the Blue Jays’ ability to trade what was previously one of their most valuable assets in pretty baseball related.
If it was actually about specific teams and/or players then I would it would be fine Instead its about all this social BS that has nothing to do with baseball.
Its not MLB’s job to prevent DV.
Having a hard time getting to where this isn’t baseball related, as the article speaks directly to the governance of the game as a whole?
If you are going to keep recommending this then you really should understand that this would be grossly inappropriate for Notgraphs and that Notgraphs is defunct.
Or maybe you know those things and you just want to keep defending abuser’s rights to continue operating in the dark?
What he’s really saying is “get political positions I dont like off fangraphs”
Regarding the lack of improvement in recidivism in domestic abusers who undergo treatment: I’m forced to wonder if some abusers are simply irredeemable, or if we simply aren’t using the right method of therapy? I suspect it is the latter, and if so, it definitely merits more study.
I tend to agree. We, as a society, want to believe that everything can be “fixed” and everyone can be “redeemed” or something like that. I truly think some folks just want to be violent and need to be violent for whatever reason.
Either way, more study should be done to try and understand things better. Probably is already being done, if I had to guess.
This strikes me as the kind of thing that should be fixable, at least for some portion of offenders. There are a lot of different behaviors that fall under the umbrella of domestic violence/abuse and surely among them are some that could be helped via something like anger management, conflict resolution therapy, etc.
I wonder if we’re dealing with a biased sample problem. Sure, the data shows that abusers who are referred for treatment tend to be recidivists more than those who are not. But are the abusers forced into treatment the very types less likely to learn from said treatment?
Put differently, if abusers not referred for treatment tend to have committed “lesser” or “fewer” offenses, wouldn’t we expect a difference between them and the abusers who are sent for treatment? And if so, the real comparison should be between abusers who get treatment and abusers of equal “severity” who do not.
No, both studies controlled for those issues. In fact, the selection of offenders who were ordered to treatment in the 1991 study seemed more based on the fact that certain judges preferred to use it while others didn’t.
Will defer to your take because I don’t have time to read the studies. But regardless, what you wrote is most certainly not clear in the article, which really is the point.
It’s one study of one technique and it is from 30 years ago. Plus it’s not quite finding the ridiculous differences that Ms. Ring is citing. It has one outlandish outcome in one area which is reliant on people self-reporting unflattering information.
Therapy can’t make somebody want to change. If being abusive (which from the inside is more like “getting what you deserve”) continues to serve their needs, they’ll nod their way through therapy and keep abusing.
Lundy Bancroft writes about his experience with abusers who were ordered to work with him.
It can certainly be both…
(and I suspect it is)
Some people are assholes. Therapy will never convert assholes into non-assholes. Not sure why this would shock anyone..
Not mentioned as a flaw – the fact that this is considered five games less serious than testing positive for a diuretic.
If you used a diuretic today you won’t get arrested. Go ahead, hit your intimate partner, and I’ll bet you’ll get in a lot more trouble for that. (don’t hit your intimate partner)
Or, you know, maybe there is a difference in how sports handle people who cheat at the game itself vs their behavior outside the competitive field.
Previous article covered that aspect more…
The Duluth Model doesn’t work because it follows a problematic public health model. This public health model says that you educate people about something (in this case, controlling, patriarchal behavior) they have the ability to avoid the problem behavior and lead a healthier life.
This is wrong mostly because this is not how cognition works. Much of our cognition is not conscious, and happens automatically. We have an idea of human beings as logical, rule-based following machines, but most of our cognition is guided by emotion, heuristic, and happens automatically. If you tell someone that something is bad, sometimes they just feel bad while they do it anyway (and sometimes, cognitive dissonance kicks in and they ignore what they do anyway).
The other reason it doesn’t work is related to the cognition problems I mention about–because the stuff that the Duluth Model suggests (that patriarchy is the problem) isn’t something that is consciously experienced by the men. Men who abuse don’t think of themselves as seeking control. Although functionally what they’re trying to do is control their partner (and in accordance with patriarchal beliefs) they don’t feel that way. So when you present this model to abusive men, they reject it out of hand because it doesn’t fit their emotional experience.
There are definitely good aspects of the Duluth Model, but it was created at a time where we didn’t know very much about how to change behavior. I would think that you would want to focus on behavioral changes (which feel much less personal) and interpreting emotions, with the stuff on “controlling behavior” filtered through those lenses. If you (as an employer) think you can “fix” an abuser, I would think you would need something more comprehensive than the Duluth Model.
“It’s an open question, however, whether baseball’s accused domestic abusers ought to have a say in their own discipline, particularly when that discipline is being enforced by their employer.”
Yes, frankly, it is.
Employer punishment for non-job related offenses is a sticky wicket. MLB is not the justice system. The justice system exists to protect society and the victim, and possibly to rehabilitate the accused (depending on your own personal philosophy). MLB does … not. MLB is trying to balance the conflicting interests of winning ball games and retaining fan support. That can create perverse incentives, on top of the lack of legal technicalities about things like due process.
MLB is not punishing Osuna (or anyone else) because they have a duty to do so. They are punishing him because the public thinks bad guys should get their just deserts. Depending on the nature of the offense and the level of blood lust in the mob, that can easily cross the line from just punishment to a virtual lynching. Take the Colin Kaepernick situation in the NFL, for example, and the fact that he didn’t even do anything illegal. Yet his football career is over because ownership is afeared of the financial consequences of his movement.
So. Enough rambling. In an employment environment with a unionized workforce, punishments for off-field transgressions is ABSOLUTELY something that should be spelled out as part of a CBA. Having said punishments be negotiable and appealable is an entirely reasonable provision, for BOTH sides, to work around the limitations of the employer NOT being the actual legal system.
“The new MLB inefficiency, however, probably shouldn’t be players whose attractiveness to other teams as a trade asset is increased by a domestic-violence suspension.”
Well, it’s not. Osuna’s attractiveness as a trade asset would certainly be higher if he were NOT serving a suspension and facing an indefinite period of legal/immigration related problems. The *acquisition cost* for another team might be lower, but that’s only because the value of Osuna as an asset has depreciated – there’s no perverse incentive to acquire an abuser, there’s simply the market’s recognition of that fact.
Following the logic that you’re putting forward here, a harsher punishment would be seen as even more of an incentive for other teams to acquire him. If he were suspended for 200 games, he’d likely be non-tendered and available for a minimum salary at the conclusion of the suspension.
His asset value isn’t higher, it’s lower, but more to some teams than to others. This differential creates motivation to trade. He’s “more attractive for somebody to trade for” in the sense that there’s less competition and the price is lower, and I think that’s something the author considers unseemly at least.
Frankly, MLB would be happier if these guys’ names stayed out of the trade news. And it seems fine to me if you couldn’t trade them, like guys on the DL.
In your last statement, you wonder what the point of the program is… the point of the program is to try and make players stop and think “Hey, I may lose a bunch of money/respect/whatever if I lay a hand on my partner.”
If the current program saves even one person from violence or the threat of violence, the program has been a positive, even if there are unfortunate ancillary things going on with player’s relative trade values.
Would love to hear from MLB execs why Osuna is an asset to be bought low on and Heimlich is unemployable. If anything at least the criminal justice system has had it’s say with the latter, not so (yet) with the former.
1) Osuna is a proven commodity, performance-wise. The risk/reward ratio is far more favorable to potential new teams. MLB execs can say “We know Osuna will help us win, is it worth the PR fallout to employ him?” … as opposed to employing Heimlich, where the most likely outcome is that they endure a lot of PR fallout and earn no performance return whatsoever.
2) Society has a far darker view of child molestation than domestic violence.
My understanding of Heimlich is that he himself was 15 when he assaulted his niece. He disputed the State of OR’s indictment but pleaded guilty to avoid being tried as an adult. Thus by age 21, Heimlich would have the “sex offender” tag expunged from his record.
Sexual Assault seems to span quite a continuum from unwanted kiss or pinch all the way to just under rape. If Heimlich’s behavior was closer to an unwanted kiss of his niece and he’s served his punishment, I’m not sure why MLB would shun him. I hear the Royals may sign him, in fact.
My apologies in advance if I have any of the facts in Heimlich’s case wrong. I saw him pitch well while trying to watch Madrigal a couple weeks ago and then read the comments on a web article about Heimlich.
It was way worse than an unwanted kiss.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/luke-heimlich-and-relitigating-the-past/
My understanding of the facts are that the pled-to assault was far closer to the latter end of your continuum than the former.
Setting aside what really happened … you don’t know, I don’t know, only two people truly do … the mob generally doesn’t discern well the finer points of someone pleading guilty as a legal device to avoid greater prosecution.
Rightly or wrongly, there WILL be PR fallout for any MLB organization that should choose to sign him, and the track record of pitching prospects is spotty enough that the chance of an offsetting performance reward is pretty low.
Because they hope for a bargain buying low. Yankees bought low on chapman for a couple trash prospects and sold him for one of the best prospects on baseball.
At some point (unless it is something terrible like heimlich did) the public will forget and then a team buying low can cash in for an elite reliever.
It sucks but if you suck you get fired for such a thing and if you rake you get a lot more leeway unless you killed or raped somebody.
The guy they dealt was ranked above both Aaron Judge and Luis Severino at the time. The suspension lowered his cost, but it wasn’t exactly free.
the prevalence of cessation from physical aggression was 57 percent for the treated offenders, compared to 88 percent of those not ordered to treatment.
This does not necessarily mean that treatment is ineffective or even detrimental although that is one possible conclusion. Probably the most likely one.
It is also possible that the people ordered to treatment were more likely to relapse and commit violent acts again and that whoever was ordering them to be treated (presumably judges) was successfully identifying who needed it more and who was likely not to repeat and did not need to be ordered to treatment with a high degree of accuracy. Perhaps those ordered into treatment would have repeated even more often if not treated? It is hard to know without reviewing those studies.
This is similar to finding that people on blood pressure medicine are more likely to have strokes than people who are not. It isn’t the treatment causing the stroke, it’s the fact that they are high risk to start with.
I was kind of surprised that a lawyer and sabrmetrician would miss the blaring klaxon which “ordered to treatment” represents. This wasn’t some study where carefully selected participants were ordered to treatment and a similar group wasn’t as a control.
This, to control this study properly you would have to study those that are ordered to treatment, then have them not go, and also have some of those who werent ordered go to treatment. Its unlikely that the correct study would be approved, due to withholding treatment from those that the court says should get it.
Not really. That was my first thought, too, but if you went to the actual links, the 1991 study indicates they selected their test groups to control for different factors as well as they could, as I’m sure that it would be unethical use a fully controlled study. In addition, it appears that the difference in who was ordered to treatment compared to who was not was based on the preferences of the particular judges, since certain judges were ordering a high percentage of people to treatment while others were ordering a small percentage of people to treatment.
The more recent study also includes data on many different studies and gave greater weight to those with better controls.
It’s not perfect, but selection of the groups ordered to treatment vs not ordered is not the complete explanation for the difference.
You’re going to use a study of one specific type of treatment to throw the whole idea of treatment under the bus?
To be fair osuna doesn’t gain value by that. He was a sought after asset anyway, the difference is just that this makes him affordable.
Restricting trades until after suspensions are served won’t remove market inefficiencies. They might improve slightly, as the player can perform immediately, however all organization understand the player’s team needs to move the problem.
That 1991 paper is scientifically meaningless since the court orders are non-random among the convicted.
As for the Washington State Institute of Public Policy paper, 5 out of 11 samples studied used a non-Duluth model and “when these other non-Duluth models are analyzed as a whole, the combined effects indicate a statistically significant reduction in DV recidivism”.
You are grossly misrepresenting the paper by stating treatment for domestic-violence offenders isn’t effective when it actually says that one popular model doesn’t seem to work but others do.
So, reading the actual study about relapsing after therapy for DV, of the four areas being measured Ms. Ring cites the only one with an outlandish difference. In the other three areas it is much closer. Also, it is measuring incidents of violence reported by the victim or the offender. There is the not insignificant possibility that what’s being measured isn’t treatment being ineffective, but that people going through treatment for domestic violence are more able to identify their own abusive actions when compared to people who have not gone through treatment. And this is leaving aside issues of the population of people “court ordered” to treatment might differ substantially from those who are not ordered to attend.
Has there not been a similar study done in the past 30 years? “Domestic Violence Treatment is Ineffective!” seems like something which would have been better researched sometime this millennia.
I mean, yes, the Washington study that was linked directly below the 1991 study….
It’s supposed to be punishing the player, not (necessarily) the team, who didn’t have anything to do with the domestic violence. That the team is usually punished is incidental. Either way, Osuna is traded, he’s still not getting paid until he comes off suspension. I don’t see that it matters very much what team he’s on, as his punishment doesn’t change.
The only thing that would make me pause is if the accusation was that MLB was imposing suspensions unfairly or undeservedly in order that teams could benefit, but this does not seem to be the case.
“there’s a real question to be asked regarding what the point of MLB’s domestic-violence program is, because right now it doesn’t seem to have one.”
I would think the point is obvious – it’s PR damage control.
I don’t really get these penalties in light of actual conviction. I am all for suspending Osuna for X amount of time once he is convicted, but if he isn’t actually convicted yet I feel they are jumping the gun.
The author seems to not understand why the Yankees were able to acquire Chapman so cheaply.
The Yankees acquired Aroldis on December 28th 2015. At that time he was being investigated for Domestic Violence and had not been suspended. The Yankees had no idea at least publicly how many games Chapman would be suspended for or if he would be allowed to play for them at all. I can guess they privately felt this way as well because the Dodgers backed out of the deal not because of the “crime” he “committed” but because of the uncertainty of his availability.
Aroldis was then suspended by MLB on March 1st for 31 games. At this point the uncertainty factor pending his availability was completely removed. His asset status was revered back to what it always was, “the best weapon in baseball for a team trying to win it all”
Make no mistake about it. Aroldis’s trade value didnt go up because he was suspended. His value tanked sue to the uncertainty of if. Mr. Osuna clearly has some uncertainty regarding him because the legal case is still ongoing which will probably bring down his price. It is the same principle that brought down Aroldis’s.
Lastly I want to comment on the embedding of the Buster Olney tweet. This was not by accident. The author clearly runs in a certain circle of people in the baseball “writing” universe that spent all weekend losing their mind and tweeting garbage at Mr. Olney for having the audacity to focus on baseball. They spewed ridiculous accusations such as Mr. Olney doesn’t care about DV only to be proven wrong and then continued their behavior of pulling their ears and stomping their feet when Mr. Szymbroski had a conversation about Mr. Heimlich. Enough is enough of this childish behavior. I really hope we don’t see Fangraphs which is a site dedicated to baseball continue to endorse this behavior. Some of the best features this site has had has relied on actual writers having access to MLB players, writers, and clubhouses. I fear that the actions of certain affiliated writers are tarnishing the name.
I went back and read the article to make sure I did not miss anything, but how in the world do you connect embedding an extremely relevant tweet by one of the most high profile writers in baseball to a “childish behavior”?
Sheryl is not even remotely criticizing Buster Olney’s tweet.
It seems like you are the one who is running in a certain circle obsessed with this drama and exaggerating its prevalence.
The author labels the tweet problematic. Very carefully. Claiming it is problematic to think about the Osuna situation from a baseball side. If it were just that, it would be one thing, but the intent is quite clear when you see that Ms. Ring carefully liked a bunch of tweets complaining about Mr. Olney and a direct colleague of hers here at Fangraphs Mr. Szymbroski.
If you cant see that she is directly criticizing Olney for reporting facts. I cant help you.
“I’d like to dedicate the remainder of this post, however, to what is probably the most problematic aspect of that policy — and which is mentioned in this comment from Buster Olney”
You have some serious reading comprehension issues if you think the word ‘problematic’ is used to describe Buster’s tweet.
I might be wrong; somebody may have addressed this.
But how is it that, if you are suspended for domestic violence, you can serve the suspension and be available for post-season play, whereas with PEDs, you’re not available?
One has to do with competition and one has to do with off the field issues. Was that a serious question?
The legal reason appears to be that discipline for PEDs is part of the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program, which has a provision specifically prohibiting post-season participation after suspension. Domestic violence suspensions are addressed in the Joint Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Child Abuse Policy attached to the CBA. That policy has no such provision. The normative reason escapes me.
It would certainly reduce the value of a player on suspension for DV if they could not play in the playoffs. That would seem to be a useful “fix.”
Id be more in favor of a lifetime ban, than MLB having anything to do with “rehab”.
Why would a baseball league need to do that> Id say “Go take care of your personal problems, good luck, but you cant play here”
Also, each domestic violence situation is unique, and throwing a blanket over all of them
makes all of the women into an identical, like-minded, monolith.
“It may seem odd to cite one of the league’s longer domestic-violence suspensions as evidence that the policy isn’t working.”
It only seems odd if you’re interested purely in one direction the policy could be flawed. The implication of this sentence – that harsher penalties should be seen in and of themselves as an indication of the program’s success – is deeply troubling. It also very much supports the claims of bias here.
What happens when a gf decides to accuse the guy just for fun because he cheated on her? MLB shouldn’t hand out suspensions until the accusations are proven.
A lot of supposed flaws pointed out but the only solution offered was to punish the player’s current team by not allowing them to trade the player. If you feel the system is so bad you should offer much more specific and elaborate proposals to fix the problem. If you can’t do that, then consider that the current system may not be ideal, but isn’t really all that bad.
Haven’t read all the comments. One obvious solution seems to be the same PED suspension clause of not being able to be on a post season roster.
Second, could the MLBPA be the one to negotiate/agree to the suspension? Putting the PA between the the league and the player & agent. It seems the PA must have some of the same concerns about domestic violence issues. Even if it is simply the PR hit. Maybe i’m naive about the PA’s moral & PR concerns.
Does the policy have escalators, like PED suspensions, for repeat offenders?
Definitely doesn’t solve all the problems but maybe alleviates some terrible PR.
I don’ t think the onus is on MLB to do more here.
The suspensions and process are quite reasonable. I think at some point the onus is on us as fans to communicate to our teams what we do and don’t find acceptable. The Brewers recently visited the Mets… Ryan Braun was booed mercilessly, yet Jose Reyes was treated with respect… Sure home crowds and whatnot but even in visiting stadiums it is worse to be a PED cheat than someone who abuses their spouse which is symptomatic of a societal issue, not a process issue.
My 2 cents (though, discussion seems to have died here as I’m a bit late to the party):
1) MLB’s DV policy has a purpose, and that purpose is not justice, retribution or anything else. The purpose is public relations. The legal system is responsible for handling any punishment for the deed done. MLB’s DV policy is here to say “hey, we don’t support this behavior, and we’d like our customers to know that.” It is more than reasonable for them to issue some leniency (ie the effective bargaining) for offenders who will not create a large circus/story of this. It could be argued even, that creating said circus only hurts the message around DV that MLB is trying to push, and that they’re better serving the public agenda by keeping the process simple and rigid.
2) Instituting a non-trade rule for DV offenders would be insane. This would be punishing a team for the transgressions of their player. In this particular example, TOR likely came into the season with a decent idea they’re not going to compete (regardless of the message they promote), and an expectation of some return for Osuna that would strengthen their future. I see no strong justification for punishing the team due to the player’s off-the-field issue.
The Yankees did not obtain Gleyber Torres as part of any grand plan. They traded for Chapman to help them compete; when that didn’t work, they traded him away. There was no plan to flip Chapman for a profit. If some team actually does this at some point, we can decide if we want to worry about it then.
“The inability of treatment to prevent further cases of violence obviously isn’t the fault either of Osuna”
Yes, it is his fault. Domestic abuse is not a chronic disease; it’s a choice.
I’m not following the Kang visa comparison at all. The guy has more DUIs and rape accusations than I can count, but is already back working in the US.
This article has no conclusion. Instead of offering a solution to the problem or even describing the exact nature of the problem, the author just files a generic complaint.