Joe Posnanski compares his bratty kids to Michael Pineda

[John]

Michael Pineda and The Obviousness Factor

There’s a fun element of parenting that I like to call “The Obviousness Factor.” It goes something like this: Sometimes you see your kid doing something kind of off but not exactly wrong. For instance, we will see a daughter quietly goofing around with the dog when she should be doing her homework or gently annoying her sister when she could be doing something constructive like cleaning up her room or writing a novel that will make us enough money to retire.

And, up to a point, that’s not really a big deal. You know: Kids will be kids.

But then there’s a point where it DOES become a big deal. And that’s the obviousness factor. This would be the time when the daughter is goofing around with the dog after being told repeatedly to do her homework or annoying her sister after we’ve already had the “OK, you two don’t talk to each other for the next 285 days” talk.

In theory, the first set of transgressions are precisely the same as the second set. But the second set of transgressions are absurdly obvious. And so, as a parent, they are treated differently. As a Dad, I’ll let the first one go pretty easily. I’ll put a stop to the second. That might be lousy and inconsistent parenting but, hey, we do the best we can.

All of which leads to Michael Pineda baseball rule: It’s OK to put pine tar on your hands when it’s cold out there but, for crying out loud, don’t make it SO BLEEPING OBVIOUS.

That's Mr. Posnanski's hilarious lead-in to a thought-provoking article on when we should and shouldn't wring our hands over cheating in baseball. And it leads me to ask: should we be waiting until someone steps over the "obvious line" before crying foul, or is the letter of the law to be adhered to strictly? I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

[Evas]

Cheating is a part of the game. It has always been part of the game. And personally, I think it needs to be policed, but expected to a certain extent. I think there is something to the famous quote: "If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying hard enough."

That's one reason why I think the whole steroid thing is somewhat overblown. MLB knew what was happening and didn't stop it. And to now get up on their high horse and talk about how evil everyone in the era, after profiting mightily, is hypocrisy plain and simple.

Personally, I wish there were a way to work these sorts of things in to OOTP. I'd love for there to be a slider on the strategy page for things pine tar, corked bats and PED's. It would be a tremendous injection of intrigue.

[Reg]

I don't know if I can agree with the statement if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying hard enough...I mean after having just gone through what the league has gone through, I think that it is always an easy statement to make when it doesn't really affect your life, but infuriating that it does...I mean is anybody okay with the statement that you aren't cheating a little bit in the PEBA, then you aren't trying enough?

However, I do think that the different areas in baseball that are grey in the minds of the players, if not so in the rulebook, and have been so for most of baseball history...judging from the lack of an outcry from Boston batters and manager the first time around, and many past and current players, the pine tar during cold nights is just one of those things...probably not everybody agrees with it, but it seems accepted that both teams do a little bit of it...that of course doesn't make it right, but it seems to have a niche where batters would prefer pitchers are able to throw more strikes (more hittable balls) rather than having to duck and cover from 90 mph missiles...

I think PED's are on a whole other level mainly because they involved injecting or taking a chemical that had short term benefits but possible devastating long term effects...who knows what kind of health ailments players who used them the most will have down the roads, even in the early 90's the ugly side effects of steroid use were known...but being that baseball is a production sport and players who don't produce don't get to play I am sure there was a pretty heavy pressure to join in, so that you were on a level playing ground...but imagine if someone was doing that at your job...cheating and in doing so making you look bad, or possibly even costing you your job or getting the promotion or pay raise you were supposed to get...

The irony of ped's is that home run production really hasn't gone down since the late 90's...what some players cheated to do, now more players are doing because of advances in weight training and diet rather than drugs....although we haven't really seen the individual performances, the game as a whole is played by faster and stronger players that produce with power from most positions.

My honest opinion is that if pine tar is against the rules then you ought not do it...cheating cheapens the game and the competition. If you can't win without cheating then can you really call it winning...you can call that naivety or a simplistic mindset but I think people should live life beyond reproach...but I realize not all the world will follow along and for some there will always be a good enough excuse to willfully cheat

[Mike Dunn]

The child-rearing example made me laugh. Just this week when I said good night to my daughter one night, her iPod Touch was charging on her desk. When I woke her in the morning for school, I noticed it was unplugged and next to her nightstand. Which means that after we did lights out, she'd been using the iPod (probably chatting on it with friends).

But... because it was not an obvious transgression, I chose to say nothing. Heck, at that age I would watch late night tv on the little black-and-white set in my bedroom on school nights, keeping the volume real low and the lights out.

The discussion on the baseball tonight podcast was mainly about how Farrell didn't really want to complain, but the obviousness gave him no choice. And Cashman's regret was about that -- that Pineda put the opposing team, which is also using pinetar, in a difficult, no-win situation.

[Evas]

Well cheating isn't good per se. It's a matter of how much it is frowned upon. MLB obviously views it this way. Just look at the rules and punishments.

• Gambling could lead to thrown games which is completely verboten. So that leads to expulsion from the game. Makes sense.
  
  PED's don't lead to throwing games, but they do undermine records, fair play and the reputation of the league. So the penalties are very harsh, but not as harsh as gambling.
  
  Pine tar on the hands might give the pitcher a slight edge, but it doesn't undermine the game as much as PED's and not anything like gambling. So the penalty is much less severe than PED's or gambling.

Each one involves a measure of risk vs. reward. That is the essence of a game. If MLB really wanted to completely forbid pine tar, they'd make the penalty expulsion from MLB. They don't do that, so it is fair to assume they are willing to tolerate it to some degree.

As far as PEBA goes, I think that pushing the boundaries of things is totally fair. We have interesting house rules here (or did in the LRS) that lead to some fun dynamics where if something got pushed too far it then had to be corrected. The fact that they had to be corrected meant someone pushed things far enough and found some advantage there. I think that's good for competition.

I really do wish there were an option to have players try pine tar, corked bats and the like. I might not use it much myself, but I think it would be a fun and realistic addition to OOTP.

[roncollins]

There is a lot of game theory that applies to cheating, which is what makes it so interesting. I mean, there's cheating ... and then there's cheating. There are actions of commission and actions of omission. Is it cheating, for example, to know that an umpire got a call wrong that helped your team, but to not report it? If both teams know the other is cheating in the same way, but agree not to report it, is it really cheating? Or is it just a gentleman's agreement to change the rules?

Stealing signs. Is it cheating, is it merely unsportsmanlike, or is it actually an important part of the playing of the game? Heck, is it cheating to hide your signs, or to even use signs to begin with? :)

PEDs are an interesting discussion, and a lot of folks point to the dropping ERAs of the past several years to suggest that PEDS created these behemoths with bats, but they ignore the fact that the one thing we know changed during this time is that the strike zone is now being electronically monitored, and is now bigger than it was. High strikes are being called all the time--and, surprise, now pitchers are being more successful. So there is a pretty good chance that cheating with PEDs had only a very limited impact on the game itself. Who can tell, really? But it's known that both pitchers and hitters used them, and it's clear that there's a game theory element in place there (I have to use them because they are using them). I think it's an interesting coincidence that now that PEDs are apparently out of the game for the most part, you're seeing a super scad of Tommy John surgeries. Related? Who can tell.

The issue on the "obviousness" of the cheating is interesting because it reveals a different mindset--it's a respect thing. If you flaunt your cheating, you are disrespecting the authority figure involved. Flaunt your use of the iPod in late night, and you're telling Dad that you don't care about his position at all. Hiding it says, "I respect your position and opinion, and I really don't want any trouble here. But I'm going to do this because I want to." Walking to the plate with a corked bat, for example, and telling the catcher and ump that you're doing that is effectively spitting into the wind and challenging it to get you wet. It is a crime of ego, and hence has an added element of penalty that comes with it. Being obvious tells the world you're bigger than it.

Bottom line to me is that if it's in the rulebook, and you knowingly break it, then you should be subject to whatever the appropriate penalty is. The penalties for egregious acts that sway things heavily should he massively harsh. But that won't (and probably even shouldn't) keep players from bending the rules to get an edge on things that are less dramatic. That's all part of the game theory of life, really. I'm willing to bet there isn't anyone who hasn't played the game of figuring out just how far they can "cheat" by driving above the speed limit before the cop will pull them over...and the cops do the same thing...as I once heard "Five you're fine, ten you're mine."

[Ghosts]

The yardstick is simple to me:

If the "advantage" involves scientific/technological advances that were not available throughout the life of the game (PEDs / long-distance cameras or microphones) then it's lame and should be penalized very harshly.

If the "advantage" involves things that have always been available to ballplayers in the past (scuffing balls, pinetar, etc.) then it's not lame and should be penalized very gently.

The vantage point is and has to be the integrity of the game, and the integrity of the game is measured against other eras.

It's funny, one's thoughts on these things can be analogized to one's thoughts on how the U.S. Constitution should be viewed.

[roncollins]

one's thoughts on these things can be analogized to one's thoughts on how the U.S. Constitution should be viewed.

Truly without attempting to open that can of worms, it would be scientifically interesting to know how true that assumption is, and in what ways such political leanings broke. I can make lots of conflicting statements as I think about it.

[Lions]

You know, as someone who reads Posnanski quite regularly, he would probably never qualify his kids as bratty. They may come across that way in the article to certain readers, but based on what he's written, I think they're really just normal kids. I would imagine he'd be dismayed to see the thread title here.

On the actual topic of the thread... I think in any sort of rules system, there is the concept of what's expressly verboten, what is implicitly permissible, and the gray area where leeway is granted. IMO, the line of what's given leeway shifts based on what's defined as in and out. I really don't have a problem with some things being granted leeway, but I would probably have a problem with more things being granted leeway than we have today. Pitch doctoring is something that I think is at a nice balance in that regard. There's over 100 years of history that have gotten us to this point, which is probably why most people are comfortable with where it's at and why most people don't want to see it changed.

As for the affect of using pine tar on the pitch, I have no doubt that it increases the effectiveness of the pitch making it nastier. If it's simply about getting a grip on the ball so you know where it's going, then it's ridiculous to suggest that having a better grip on the ball won't allow the pitcher to get more spin on it. And the spin is the primary factor causing the movement.

One could actually argue that if using pine tar and other grip enhancing substances is as widespread as I think it is (almost everyone does it), then you could extrapolate that argument to suggest that perhaps it's a contributing factor to pitching injuries. It's been suggested that the recent rise in pitching injuries is due, in part, to the increase of average velocity that pitchers are throwing now. Pitchers are pitching at the extremes of what their body can handle. A better grip on the ball means it's easier to throw strikes at higher velocity, meaning pitchers can maintain that velocity more. Maybe if they didn't have such a grip they'd have to dial it down a bit more regularly. I don't know for sure, but that's where my mind goes on these things.

[John]

You know, as someone who reads Posnanski quite regularly, he would probably never qualify his kids as bratty. They may come across that way in the article to certain readers, but based on what he's written, I think they're really just normal kids. I would imagine he'd be dismayed to see the thread title here.

Not for a moment do I believe Mr. Posnanski's children are bratty. I totally penned that title to jack up thread view counts. /guilty/