Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Pineda Is Getting A Raw Deal If Something Doesn't Change

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 DocBauer

DocBauer

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 6,521 posts

Posted 27 June 2020 - 06:53 PM

I know this was discussed previously before MLB and most of the world stopped spinning in a normal fashion. But after baseball for 2020 actually became a reality...however it ends up playing out...and we suddenly started talking about rosters and taxi squads, and odds of winning, etc, I was suddenly reminded again about Pineda's situation when I read and responded to comments in other posts.

Let me yet again state my personal opinion that I don't like cheating in any way! There is a funny line, that we all know, that is: "if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying". And we all laugh. Various edges gained in any competition are part of the competition and not cheating. I mean, is a batter cheating if a pitcher tips himself? Of course not. But I think we can all pretty much agree what is outside the rules and what cheating really is. (Ugh, this isn't about trashcan banging)!

Pineda was suspended for taking a diaretic that could be used as a masking agent for other drugs. Maybe he was guilty of that, maybe he was innocent and truly looking for a way to keep his weight under control coming of knee surgery and just made a bad decision. MLB felt he made a mistake and lowered his suspension from 80 games to 60 games. Regardless,the is guilty of making a mistake. No problem here.

And I know there are so many factors going on here in regard to how this whole negotiation has been bungled to how the 60 game season will be played, to how rosters will be constructed. The last thing anyone is really concerned about right now is a suspended ballplayer. But something isn't right here, IMO, even if it doesn't seem like an immediate priority.

I don't know Pineda personally. Maybe he's a primadonna jerk, or the nicesest, sweetest guy and best teammate you could have. But he screwed up. By rule, and simple math, he was sentenced to miss 50% of a season, which was reduced to 37% of a season carried over 2 years. So he is now scheduled to miss the first 39 games of 2020. 39 plus 21 in 2019 equals 60 games, or the agreed on 37%.

Except now, with only a 60 game season, he is facing a suspension of 65% of the 2020 season alone! He has already served a suspension of 13% games missed in 2019. I'm sure someone could break down the math better than I can, but no matter how you factor it, his punishment will be 70%+ games missed while the original intent was 50% and reduced to 37%. Service time, unless I missed a change somewhere, is still being pro-rated for all MLB players for 2020. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

So Pineda's punishment should now be OVER pro-rated? He should now be punished for almost double the games played/missed on a percentage basis despite full positive pro-ration for everyone else?

This is not just about him helping the Twins in 2020. It just doesn't sound or smell right to me.
  • glunn, ToddlerHarmon, Tomj14 and 2 others like this
"Nice catch Hayes...don't ever f*****g do it again."

--Lou Brown


#2 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 23,554 posts

Posted 27 June 2020 - 07:02 PM

Pineda is an outlier but it’s still pretty garbage that they didn’t prorate his suspension, just like they prorated lots of other things.
  • glunn, Danchat, DocBauer and 1 other like this

#3 Shaitan

Shaitan

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,367 posts

Posted 27 June 2020 - 07:17 PM

I have no issues with his suspension length, whatsoever. As I said in another thread, it's already been reduced in length.

 

And, from a fan perspective, he's still back for the playoffs.


#4 DocBauer

DocBauer

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 6,521 posts

Posted 27 June 2020 - 07:33 PM

I have no issues with his suspension length, whatsoever. As I said in another thread, it's already been reduced in length.
 
And, from a fan perspective, he's still back for the playoffs.


It was reduced in length, yes. But that reduction was also based on "normal" rules and "normal" parameters. That normalcy doesn't apply at this point.

I am also, obviously, a Twins fan. And as a Twins fan, I want him available sooner rather than later. But I am just talking about logic and fairness here. He is being punished virtually double his original sentence. How does that equate?
  • rdehring likes this
"Nice catch Hayes...don't ever f*****g do it again."

--Lou Brown


#5 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Member
  • 4,871 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 27 June 2020 - 07:57 PM

The cancelled games should count as games of the suspension, period. Just like the off days count for a pitcher as part of a suspension. 

 

Diuretics (think of passing urine and and not the other option as in diarrhea to remember the spelling) as a plan for weight loss or control is really pretty...... not smart, anyway. It is pretty simple, really. Will power and eat less (sure, design a diet to maximize the plan) is a sure fire way. Will power.


#6 Dantes929

Dantes929

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,889 posts

Posted 27 June 2020 - 09:56 PM

 

The cancelled games should count as games of the suspension, period. Just like the off days count for a pitcher as part of a suspension. 

 

Diuretics (think of passing urine and and not the other option as in diarrhea to remember the spelling) as a plan for weight loss or control is really pretty...... not smart, anyway. It is pretty simple, really. Will power and eat less (sure, design a diet to maximize the plan) is a sure fire way. Will power.

Simple to say.Really hard to do.

  • Sconnie likes this
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

#7 Trov

Trov

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 410 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 07:53 AM

First, Doc I agree with your premise that he is being punished more than intended.He was expected to miss a relatively small portion of this season, but due to COVID he will be missing over half the season.So if you go by percent of season he is being punished greater than normal.  

 

However, the punishment was for games, not percent of a season.Yes, when the punishments were written the assumption was 162 games would be played every season, and the thought of percent of season was not in the punishments.I could be wrong, but I believe the players agreed on the punishments for violation of drug protocol.If they would have put in percent of a season, then there would be more of an argument for a prorated reduction of his penalty.However, that would be difficult to carry it over two seasons then, as if he was supposed to miss 37% of a season, then what he served last year in this situation he would have missed only a couple games.Now, maybe moving forward the league and players will work into agreements what happens if season is shorted by "act of god" like other leagues have.

 

I agree he is getting a raw deal, but his penalty was games not percent of season.He could ask the union to step in, but my guess they will not in this situation.  

  • glunn, DocBauer, Shaitan and 2 others like this

#8 twinsfanstreif

twinsfanstreif

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 762 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 09:09 AM

Except now, with only a 60 game season, he is facing a suspension of 65% of the 2020 season alone! He has already served a suspension of 13% games missed in 2019. I'm sure someone could break down the math better than I can, but no matter how you factor it, his punishment will be 70%+ games missed while the original intent was 50% and reduced to 37%. Service time, unless I missed a change somewhere, is still being pro-rated for all MLB players for 2020. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.


Your math is off here. You don't add percentages like that, you have to average them based on a total. A 162 game season plus a 60 game season results in 222 games or an average of 111 games per season. Since his suspension crosses over two season I will use a season average. If he misses a total of 60 games it would be a loss of 54% of games lost over two season. All that said, I hope they do the math and take into account the shortened season

#9 Shaitan

Shaitan

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,367 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 10:59 AM

 

It was reduced in length, yes. But that reduction was also based on "normal" rules and "normal" parameters. That normalcy doesn't apply at this point.

I am also, obviously, a Twins fan. And as a Twins fan, I want him available sooner rather than later. But I am just talking about logic and fairness here. He is being punished virtually double his original sentence. How does that equate?

Trov basically already made my points.

 

The simple fact here is he was given a punishment according to the rules in place. Did COVID change "normal"? Yes. But the situation sucks for everyone. Pineda isn't getting a worse deal than you or I or any other society member. He knew the penalty and he accepted it, and now life has piled more stuff on him in the meantime. Is it unfortunate? Sure. Should he "get a break" because of it? No.

 

 


#10 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Member
  • 6,630 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 01:52 PM

This is the second time Pineda has been caught cheating. He’s lucky he is still allowed to be in the league IMO.

#11 IndianaTwin

IndianaTwin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 1,600 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 03:56 PM

 

Your math is off here. You don't add percentages like that, you have to average them based on a total. A 162 game season plus a 60 game season results in 222 games or an average of 111 games per season. Since his suspension crosses over two season I will use a season average. If he misses a total of 60 games it would be a loss of 54% of games lost over two season. All that said, I hope they do the math and take into account the shortened season

 

You're partway there. You can't count games missed in part of two seasons in the numerator and use an average number of games in the denominator. He'll have missed 60 games out of 222, which is 27 percent of games lost over two seasons.

 

I'm not sure this is the best way to see it, but he missed 13 percent of last year and 65 percent of this year, the average of which is 39 percent, or pretty close to the original 37 percent.  

 

But it still gets to others' posts, which is to say that it's about games, not "percent of season." If we're talking about "percent of season," does that mean that a suspension this year should only be 30 games, since that's half a season? 

 

And at any rate, look on the bright side -- if it hadn't been reduced, he'd be missing 59 games of the 60-game season!:)  

 

  • DocBauer likes this

#12 Darius

Darius

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 05:38 PM

You can only really argue that the substance should be removed from the list. Rules should be enforced as written.

You can’t start arbitrarily changing suspensions. It creates horrible precedent going forward that’s sure to be a rear-end biter. It also corrupts the whole punitive process (conflict of interest, bias, fraud, etc all come into play).

Also, why is it fair to reduce their suspension? It’s a benefit clean players aren’t getting. They should be losing 60 games, or whatever was handed down. The date that those games take place has no relevance.

Sorry, Big Mike. Gotta make sure what’s going into your body isn’t on the list. You pay the cost to be the boss.

#13 Channing1964

Channing1964

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 452 posts
  • LocationPhoenix,Az

Posted 29 June 2020 - 10:47 AM

I can see your point but I am thinking that should have been something the Players Union would have negotiated. If we really needed him that bad i would probably be more upset about it. Also we knew it wasn't gonna happen because they did already reduce it once.

#14 Tomj14

Tomj14

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,139 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 01:18 PM

The way I look at it he was suspended for 60 games. The 60 games was based on a 162 game schedule.

MLB thought the rule he broke was worth about a third of a season (37%)

The amount of games between when he started is suspension was 21 last year and 39 this year. Now that percentage goes to 75% of the games available (81) for him to play. If MLB really thought what he did was worth 37% percent of games, they should switch his games this year to 9 games, I am pretty sure they could double that to 20 games this year and most would think that is fair.

 

But I guess that is up each person to decide.

 

 

  • DocBauer likes this

#15 DocBauer

DocBauer

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 6,521 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 09:06 PM

The way I look at it he was suspended for 60 games. The 60 games was based on a 162 game schedule.
MLB thought the rule he broke was worth about a third of a season (37%)
The amount of games between when he started is suspension was 21 last year and 39 this year. Now that percentage goes to 75% of the games available (81) for him to play. If MLB really thought what he did was worth 37% percent of games, they should switch his games this year to 9 games, I am pretty sure they could double that to 20 games this year and most would think that is fair.
 
But I guess that is up each person to decide.


And that's my basic arguement. Not that he should get off, not that he shouldn't be punished, simply he ends up overly disciplined.

I appreciate all the counter arguement, and think Trov offered a thoughtful and detailed arguement. My counter, which Tomj14 touches on, is the INTENT of the sentence. There is NO percentage of games missed directly involved. It is a finite number of games. 80 games...reduced in this case...and an entire season for a second offense. But those games are still based on a normal 162 game season with NO-ONE ever considering a pandemic that scuttles over half of a season to be played.

So again, I refer to the INTENT of the rule in regard to discipline. If such things such as service time are pro-rated forward in a limited season, then why is not a suspension pro-rated backward? Pineda will now miss a larger percentage of games he was intended to miss, as well as suffer a greater financial loss than originally intended.

Again, I'm all about playing by the rules. I was very disappointed by what happened, but agreed with his suspension. And I can fully identify with the thought that you reap what you sow. All I am saying is, I believe he is now suffering from an unintended consequence due to an "act of nature" that is affecting everyone and being "over disciplined" as a result.

I just don't feel this is "fair" even though that word is blatantly overused in society today. Just an opinion for discussion/debate.
  • Tomj14 likes this
"Nice catch Hayes...don't ever f*****g do it again."

--Lou Brown


#16 strumdatjaguar

strumdatjaguar

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 410 posts

Posted 30 June 2020 - 09:11 AM

The Twins will probably benefit from this.The season has been delayed to a time when Rich Hill will be ready to go.The starting staff is deep. If there are injuries or anyone falters, then Big Mike is ready for the stretch and playoffs.If the staff looks good, Big Mike can bolster the pen.No problem!

  • DocBauer likes this

#17 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,873 posts

Posted 30 June 2020 - 02:00 PM

Pineda made a mistake. The penalty is what it is. It was already reduced by good graces. That the season is shorter is irrelevant.All of the players are penalized by the short season. Reducing Pineda's penalty 

only takes away from one of the few hammers the league has for discipline. 

  • Sconnie likes this