April 26, 2023 • 50 mins
The Book of Joe Podcast begins with hosts Tom Verducci and Joe Maddon discussing the Max Scherzer controversy with his agent, Scott Boras. Scott doesn't think MLB is as concerned with rosin as one umpire is being. Is there a subjective standard for standards that pitchers are being penalized for? Joe takes us back to his dealings with umpires and the enforcement of pitching substances. Scott says how he thinks these situations could be handled differently and better for baseball. We explore the flaws in the system for appealing a decision like this, plus the lack of distinction between a legal or illegal substance. This episode is a must listen!
The Book of Joe Podcast is a production of iHeart Radio.
#FSR
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
The Book of Joe Podcast is a production of iHeartRadio.
Hey there, welcome back. It's The Book of Joe Podcast.
It's the most interesting and unpredictable podcasts in baseball out there.
It's me Tom Berducci with Joe Madden. Who's coming off?
Speaker 2 (00:25):
I don't know, Joe. I'm gonna call this the Celebrity
Golf Tour. How's it going for you?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Actually, it's going pretty well. I just did Bruce Arians yesterday.
Joe Namath last week. I did Okay yesterday. It was
getting off the t well the rest of the irons.
I got to get my irons back together. But I'm
having a great time meeting a lot of wonderful people.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
So it's been kind of fun.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
That's awesome to hear. Well, we have this kind of
a serious topic this week. It's not golf. It's Major
League Baseball's crackdown on sticky substances. And our guest probably
knows too much about this.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
It's Scott Boris.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
He's the agent for Max Scherzer, among many great players
in this game.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Scott, Welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Hi Joe, Good morning, sir. How are you.
Speaker 5 (01:06):
I'm doing good. I always want to be on your
line out card, that's for sure.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
I miss our conversations.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
I missed our conversations behind home plate at Anaheim and
at Dodger Stadium. We always had a great time, yeah,
just filling in the blanks on different things. I was
always getting educated back there, and I do miss those moments.
Speaker 5 (01:25):
Well, it's been a lot of years, Joe, so it's
great to hear your voice again, no doubt, thank you, sir.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Well, I'm sure our fans know about what happened with
Max shows or at Dodger Stadium last week. And I
think this is an interesting topic, Joel, because we're dealing
with a crackdown on sticky substances, and by nature of
the enforcement, it's ambiguous as to what is allowed and
what's not, maybe not in terms of substances themselves, or
(01:52):
maybe actually yes, So we want to dive into that. So, Scott,
we've talked about this. I want your opinion on where
we stand now. And I know you mentioned that your
pictures are asking you what's allowed, which is kind of
difficult when we don't have let's call it the equivalent
of a speed limit for pictures. Give me state of
(02:13):
enforcement of sticky substances.
Speaker 5 (02:16):
Well, first of all, time you're talking about an MLB crackdown.
I don't think there's an MLB crackdown. I think there's
a one umpire crackdown. No other umpires in any way
approached Rule six oh two and said, hey, we were
going to take and for use of rosin and substance
(02:39):
that are allowed and sanctioned by the league. We're not
going to talk about whether or how the application of
that substance is and what standard that is.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
And so.
Speaker 5 (03:00):
I've told a number of my clients I said, look,
you're you're being asked to follow a speed limit and
your car doesn't have a speedometer. You have a subjective
measure applied to you every time you go out to
the mound, because the term is it can be tacky,
(03:24):
but it can't be taki tachi, and that adjudication is made. Apparently,
in Max's case, he threw in the third inning after
examination and he was fine, and then using the same
substance rosin, he goes out and it's now tacI tacky
(03:53):
and he's then ejected from the game. So how do
you know? What do you know? There's no quantifiable standard
for tackiness it is really a subjective driven standard that
does not provide notice to pictures, which in law due process,
(04:16):
you need notice so that you know what the qualifiable
standards are. So if you're going to be penalized and
not allowed to a search or employment, you're going to
need some sort of definite measurement and our clearance process
before you approach the mount.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Just to recap for our listeners, our buddy Phil Couzy,
who's been on this podcast examine Mac Suerzer after the
second inning, told him his fingers were sticky and he
should wash them.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
So there's no ejection at that point.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
It's the equivalent of you slow down in terms of
speed limits. He comes back for the third inning, his
hand is clean, but Phil Cousey then says his glove
is dirty and he needs to replace his glove. Again,
no ejection remains in the game that Scott mentioned when
he comes out to the fourth inning before he threw
a pitch in it inning, that is when he is
(05:15):
ejected because they found, according to Dan Bellino, the stickiest
hand they have seen in three years of enforcement. Joe,
I'm gonna put you with a position of buck show Walter,
how do you handle this.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
That's not easy, brother, I mean, you're I've been in it.
Not with Max Scherzer, I've been in it with Joel
Peralta in Washington several years ago. I kind of overreacted,
I because it was exactly precipitated by the other dugout,
you know, the other dugout started chirping because of Joel,
(05:50):
and Joel had just pitched there the year before. So
I was upset about inside information, uh that was being
utilized in order to get Joel in trouble in US.
And so in today's game, I mean, it's not necessarily
about any Nobody called anybody out, and this was purely
based on umpire discretion. And I agree with Scott in
(06:11):
a lot of ways the ambiguities of all this, and
that's the game is loaded with the ambiguities, and the
empires have to really make determinations constantly with what's going on.
So for me, I mean, for Bucks perspective, there's a
good chance I'd have gotten kicked out. There's pretty good
chance I might have gotten a little bit louder than
Buck in that situation. That's just my normal reaction because again,
(06:34):
it's like it's their opinion, and I know they've been
charged with this making or presenting this opinion, but as
a manager, I think I might have gotten a little
bit more upset, not that it would have done any good,
but again, just talking all this all the way through,
this isn't going away. I mean, I don't even know
if like more Empire is going to become more proactive
with this now in an effort to support what had
(06:55):
happened in this particular instance, or if there's going to
be a mandate from the office itself. And so for me,
it's always about what is the solution to all this
because it's it's going to remain ambiguous. There's there's nothing,
there's nothing clear cut about this to the point where
we've talked about this and Scott and you probably know
more than I do, but the baseball that has built
in tackiness to it already, where none of this other
(07:16):
stuff is necessary. So I don't know if this is
going to lead to or push to like other conclusions
or solutions, but it's going to remain ambiguous. And I
would have been upset, but frank that I probably would
have gotten kicked out.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Yeah, I agree with you, Joe, it will happen again
because we're talking about ambiguities here, don't I don't like.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Ambiguity in the game. That's what we have.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
But Scott, I think when you criticize, which is I'm
doing for the ambiguity, it criticize kind of this, this
procedural effort by baseball, you better come up with a
better solution. You know, criticizing is one thing, but I
think you need something better if you're going to criticize.
So do you have an idea of what baseball can
do better to make sure the game is played on
(08:02):
as level of playing field as we can have.
Speaker 5 (08:04):
Well, that's what they want. They want level playing fields.
And when they draft rules, we cannot subject the stars
of our game, the elite talents of our game, the
audience itself. You can't draft a rule where the rules
are generally provided, where they're controlling the substances used. That's
(08:25):
what this is about. Pitcher cannot apply a foreign substance
to the ball. And when they have rules that say, okay,
rosin legal washing your hands with alcohol, there's no rule
that prevents that. All these things that we're talking about
are really sanctioned substances that they're allowing a picture. They
(08:50):
provided their rules say nothing other than use rosin or
there's no prescription that prevents any of this. So when
you allow something to if it's a foreign instance rule
and your prescription for what the substances are is followed,
then you shouldn't be invoking anything else. Now, if you
(09:14):
want to rule as far as the adhesive quality of
those substances, that's a different rule, and that rule has
not been succinctly applied. And the thing that I've always
objected to on a Major League field, I've got men
(09:35):
who are trained so diligently throughout their careers to run
a game, and on the field in front of the audience,
they are sitting there making these players look like they
are doing something wrong. Do it down in the hallway
(09:55):
of the dugout. Have an MLB official there, have someone
who is really really trained in this. If you want
to talk about adhesive measure, but the first process is
not finding something wrong, but find something right. I go,
I check the picture privately, the picture runs out and performs.
(10:19):
That's what you do. And the reality of it is
that nature of adhesive is then determined by an MLB
official in private. I do not want our star athletes
being subjected in front of their audience to some sort
of review. And if there is objections to the review,
I want to taken care of privately before he goes
(10:42):
out there and performs. We want the focus to be
on the art. We don't want the focus to be
on whether or not the art is fraudulent or not.
And that's what we've created by not appropriately a drafting
rules and standards that they want to enforce. This is
not a level playing field issue. Why because we don't
(11:05):
know what are the amount of adhesive that's allowed. Is
allowed is a tacky or TACKI techy and you know
that's kind of what that umpire's left with. And it's
not fair to the umpires and it's not fair to
the players. But from the origins of this, whenever I
go to a game and I see after every inning,
I see some umpire coming over and dealing with players
(11:29):
and touching their hands and doing these things. That's not baseball.
And we have allowed this to happen. And the reason
these rules are not drafted the way they should be
is because in collective bargaining, we're worried about fifty five
other things we can't get to these rules when we're
reaching a CBA because we're so busy doing a lot
(11:50):
of the economic steps that it takes to find an agreement,
and these things fall in the practice. So as we
approach these what I think the call to this is
is that this event should realize that we need an
immediate yet appraisal of the ambiguities. We need to understand
what the purpose of the level playing field was, which
(12:11):
was originally we don't want foreign substances applied to a baseball.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
That's well said Scott.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
For our listeners, I think you need or would help
be helpful if you explain why Max Schures are obviously
very adamant about the fact that he was not cheating,
decided not to appeal. We saw how stridently he argued
on the field in postgame. He did have the opportunity
to file a grievance take this to an arbitrator.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Why don't you explain why that he did not take
that step?
Speaker 5 (12:41):
Well, Tom, that's actually the rules are not You don't
get to take this to an arbitrator. The grievance when
you file on the field rule violations, the process does
not include someone independent a Commissioner's office employee always invokes
(13:01):
the umpire's report, always follows the umpire's report. There's a
precedent for this. We don't have an independent arbitrator. We
don't get a chance to talk about due process under
the rules because all they do is that they have
a non legally educated arbitrator. That is very different than
(13:25):
the grievance process that we employ, where there is a
neutral arbitrator in other matters of suspension for other areas
of baseball rules, but in this case there is no
independent tribunal. There is a pattern. They followed that exact
(13:49):
pattern we knew they would follow it, and the union
lawyers are basically arguing to someone that is obviously biased
towards the enforcement of rules by the rule drafters and
(14:10):
the Commissioner's office.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
By the way, the ten game suspension is grossly outdated.
That's an automatic suspension upon being ejected. That's based off
when the game pivoted on five man rotations where guys
were pitching every fifth day fifteen years ago. Majority of
starts were made on the fifth day, so it was
intended to be a two start suspension. We're in a
game now where only only about a quarter of starts.
(14:35):
Less than twenty five percent of starts are made on
the fifth day. So Max Scherzer is losing one start.
Not too that's just you know, bookkeeping, if you will.
But essentially the penalty for missing starts for a starting
pitcher has to climbed fifty percent because.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Of the way the game is played.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Now, is there a better way to make sure the
pitchers are not gaining edges? I'm going to ask Scott
about this. Maybe there's something objective out there. When we
get back, we'll tackle that issue. Welcome back to the
(15:17):
latest episode of the Book of Joe podcast. Of course,
it is based on our book, The Book of Joe.
This is Tom Berducci joined by Joe Medden. We are
speaking with Scott Boris, the agent for mac schures Are,
and our topic is sticky stuff. Mac sures Are suspended
ten games, ejected for having too much stickiness on his fingers. So, Scott,
(15:41):
we've talked about kind of the ambiguity for umpires to
determine what's legal what's not.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
What about if we go to something that's more measurable.
Speaker 5 (15:51):
I think always when you're talking about rules, what's the
rule for the first purpose of this rule is again
to control the substances that players are allowed to use.
So we've advanced it. Before there was a laxity in
this area, and now there's a specificity in this area.
You can use rosin. But now we have a different
(16:13):
set of circumstances to where the adhesiveness caused by sanctioned
substances was by one umpire out of over ninety to
one hundred that have examined this over three years, the
adhesiveness of that using that substance was brought into question
(16:36):
and his subjective opinion was that it was too adhesive.
Yet the contemplation of the rule was about what substances
we could use, and the idea of it is is
that in this case, which is rather interesting, the player
was completely compliant. Max went in and washed his hands.
(16:58):
He showed him his hands. There was nothing found on
his hands other than rosin. He goes in and they
said his hands had Mississippi mud on it from the baseball.
His hands were too dark. The umpire said, could you
please clean your hands off? And it's not like he objected.
He went in and did it. Did it within a stringent.
It was perfectly legal to do cleaned off his hands, reapplied,
(17:21):
the rosin comes out and pitches.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Yeah, Scott, I'm glad you brought that up.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
You're talking about alcohol, correct in washing his hands, he's
ordered to wash his hands, that he uses alcohol to
wash his hands.
Speaker 5 (17:33):
Yeah, because he's got to get the darkness off of
his hands at the umpire requested for him to do.
And you can't apply water when you're a pitcher, because
what does water do to the tissue of fingers. It
softens it, And so consequently you're you're left with you
and you also got to get the mud and the
rosin cakes on his hand. You've got to apply something
(17:55):
to get that off in a rather immediate way, because
remember the game is being held up, and so you've
got this done, and then there's talk about alcohol and
rosin creates a greater adhesive. Well, the rules do not
prohibit the use of these things, and it's done in
front of him. MLB official. It is not the pitcher's
(18:19):
problem that this combination is more or less adhesive, because
he does it, because he's using substances that are designed
and was directed to do by the umpire to clean
this off. Then he goes out shows him his hands,
and he lets him pitch. And then the next inning
(18:39):
he does the same process that he had done in
the third inning, and he goes out for the fourth inning,
and all of a sudden that is adjudicated, same process,
same substances, and the third inning, agreed to perform in
the fourth inning before he performs, you are now ejected
(19:00):
because you've done the same process. How can a player know.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
There's no insinuation that he was using anything differently other
than what was prescribed, because that rock Rosen can be
extremely tacky. I was talking to Tommy before we began this,
and I know that you're aware of this too. So
if you're going to if you're going to accuse him
of doing something like this, and I understand, I think
dark hands. I mean, what does that have to do
(19:25):
with anything anyway, Because if your hands get black, that
doesn't necessarily mean you're going to create more spin or
do anything differently with the baseball. Because originally all this stuff,
you know, of course, it's about spin on the baseball,
but then there was a big argument made also about
control so that that hitters would feel safer in the
plate at the plate, which I've always there's there's all
these different thoughts and ideas that are thrown out there
(19:47):
that have never really subscribed to. So but at the
end of the day, I think if you're going to
say that it was tacky or tacky, tacky whatever, then
at some point you have to, like you're saying, what
was it? What was different about this Dolla's hand other
than using the permitted substances? Because I'm telling you, man,
(20:07):
when I first got into that rock Rosin and I
was messing with it a little bit. Just when you'd
get that and just really working within your hands, you
get real sticky. Your hands get extremely sticky just in
and of itself. So that's the part again, the ambiguities
we're talking about this. Some of you guys are making
great points with all of this, but you have to
if you're going to if you're going to check somebody
(20:28):
and be accusatory.
Speaker 4 (20:30):
Like that, what is it?
Speaker 3 (20:31):
What was it that was on his hand that wasn't
supposed to be there. That's That's what I'm curious about.
Ten games suspension. I got to be more specific.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Yeah, I think Joe, I think the problem here on
MLB side is that, yes, Rosin and sweat perfectly allowable.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Alcohol does introduce another element.
Speaker 5 (20:49):
Yeah, job, you're suggesting when you say that that alcohol
is subscribed in the rule as a foreign substances.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
No, no, no, exactly. I think you're one hundred percent right.
My point would be that the umpire is making a
judgment regardless of what subst I mean. I was used
to a world where you got thrown out for foreign substances.
Now it's possible, we've seen it to get thrown out
with legal substances, just because they're determining. There's a level
of stickiness as far as the MLB official. Just to
(21:18):
clarify that that's a game day compliance monitor. These are
part time seasonal employees that sit in a dugout essentially
to prevent sign stealing electronic devices.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Their eyes and ears.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
They have no authoritative power, they don't intervene. They're just
basically there to make sure things are on the up
and up. So, yeah, that guy is there to witness
things and report them. I don't know what kind of
power he has to say, hey, this is kosher and
this is not. But he's the eyes and ears that
they have these people in every ballpark. Just clarifying that point,
go ahead, Scott.
Speaker 5 (21:50):
No, I'm just saying if there was use of any
prohibited substance, that league official in this case, Brian Anderson
I believe his name was because I checked, would be
able to point that out. He would say, you're using
some you know, a substance outside the nature of the rules.
(22:11):
That's not the case here. And Max told the umpires
what he was doing. Hey, I'll go clean my hands. Look,
look I cleaned my hands with alcohol. I reapplied the rosin.
I'm like, okay to pitch. They touch him, they say, fine,
go throw the third. Now he does the same process
and goes out there for the fourth. They touch him. No, no, no,
you're super tacky. You're tacky. Tacky. Now you're not just tacky,
(22:32):
you're out. And so look the thing in the law,
when you draft rules and a person wants to perform
in an employment environment, you have to provide that employee
do notice, do process to his work, and he has
to know in advance what is violative of the rules
and what is and so look, we have all forms
(22:53):
of tech. If you want to go in and say that, oh,
his spin rate jumped by three hundred or four hundred
that this tackiness caused this. All of a sudden, you
can say, nope, your spin rates are up above your norm.
Your tacky, you're too tacky. You're going to have to
go clean your hands because your spin rates are way up.
(23:14):
But then you get into the idea of what is
the norm for a picture, how you do it? And
so when you draft rules, if you're going to draft
rules for a purpose, will you know that what substances
they can use has now been limited. When someone asks
you to wash your hands, you know that all substances
that were on it were off. Then you reapply the
(23:37):
substance in front of someone you know what the substance is.
You've had compliance with the foreign substance rule because you
know that there's no foreign substance because you're seeing what
they're applying on their hands. And then I know we
had an issue with the Yankee pitcher where herman the
umpire said to him, you can apply roslin in the dugout.
(23:58):
There is no rule that prevents that because now we
have a time clock and you go out, and you're
going to go out and try to adjust the tackiness
of what you have on your hands. On the mount
and then warm up. And the reality of it is
that tackiness is important to a picture because it has
to do with command and what he's going to do,
(24:18):
and he wants to know he has that feel right
before he goes out there. So we've got to rule
a broadness of a rule that was designed for foreign substances,
and yet now we have an application to the level
of the legal substances. It's a different rule, it's a
different process, and a different quantifiable standard needs to be studied.
(24:44):
Or we can go back and use go back to
the baseball thing, because that's what players have been complaining
about for years, is that our baseball, unlike the one
in Japan is, doesn't have the appropriate adhesiveness to it.
And that way we're removed the idea that the picture
can apply something extreme to the ball to his hand
(25:06):
to create it. And from a hitter's perspective on cold days,
windy days, when the ball slick or the pitcher doesn't
have proper control, we don't want that injuring players either.
So in this scenario, you can't draft rules unless contemplation
of all of these dynamics are there. Because the reason
(25:27):
you once you do this you're violating the due process
rights to the players. They have no notice of what
they can't do, and so the rule is beyond the
focus of what was originally intended, which was to limit
the substances. And now when we create this throw in
(25:48):
about ambiguity, I see why if I'm an umpire, I
see why I don't go near this because, you know what,
I don't want to be in a position when someone
asked me, well, my touch tells me, I'm going to
go back to my histore touch. Really, and you know,
we all know that kuz he's a great umpire, have
(26:09):
been in the league for a long time, and he's
a veteran. He knows how to run a game. But
in all the umpires do. But the fact of the
matter is when they go to say their touch tests,
they can't explain it. When you put men in that
position for enforcement. You know, here I'm on the freeway.
Those standard is drive safe. Well, you weren't driving safely.
Well what do you mean by that, officer, Well, by
(26:30):
my opinion, after observing you, you weren't driving safely. Or
he walks up to you and says, my odometer tells me,
you know my speed gun tells me you were going
sixty five and fifty five. That is a rule of
quantifiable standard that a driver can say, Oh, I now
understand what I'm doing. There's been a measurement. It's beyond
(26:52):
rather than him saying you weren't driving safely, and that
to me is where we're at.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
Yeah, I'm glad you brought up that point.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
You certainly the Harman situation points out the ambiguity. One
guy gets a pass, one guy is bounced for ten games.
Something doesn't sit right with me with that. But you
mentioned objection objectable or things that we can measure right.
You mentioned spin rates. I got a problem with that,
and I'll tell you why. And it relates to Max
(27:20):
Scherzer and a little bit of Joe Musgrove last year
when his spin rate was up and the Mets decided
to check him.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
It turned out there was nothing there. At least they
found nothing.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
Max Scherzer's spin rate in the second inning was the
highest in his last one hundred and forty three games.
He threw two pitches in that second inning that had
the highest spin rate of his last more than two
thousand fastballs. Now, spin rate can vary. You have to
give guys some leeway. Jacob mgrom spin rate has gone up,
(27:53):
but his velocity has gone up. Usually the parder you throw,
the more the spin rate's going to go up. I
like to look at what's called the spin to velocity ratio,
this sv ARE, And in that case, Max Schuzer's second
inning SVR was the highest it's been since June of
twenty one, when the crackdown began. Now you're looking at
these numbers, but my point, Scott, is that you can't
(28:17):
put entire faith in these numbers, because what you're doing
is you're risking discipline of players just strictly on spin
rates and svrs what he might be clean. So there's
no physical evidence if you're just going by these measurements.
So you can look at these measurements and say Max
Schurzer's velocity was down in the second inning, but his
(28:40):
spin rate was up to levels we have not seen
in one hundred and forty three starts. That can't be enough.
I'm sorry, I need more physical evidence.
Speaker 5 (28:49):
I'm not look, I'm not suggesting that I have a solution.
I'm just saying, don't draft rules when you don't have
the solution. And this is one of them. And the
reality of it is that you're looking at and by
the way Max's spin rates in the third inning, when
he perferm and got three batters out, we're right in
the line within I don't know eighty You know, when
your spin rates are within one hundred of one another,
(29:11):
they're basically about the same. I don't know what the
differences you're talking about for one or two pitches in
the second inning. But in the third inning, when he
performed and he was examined, his spin rates were the same.
He retired all the hitters and he went out and performed,
and the fourth inning, before he even threw, they didn't say, oh,
your spin rates are higher now in the fourth inning
(29:32):
because he didn't throw in the fourth inning. They just
this is not about spin rates. This about them saying
subjectively that tackiness was in their opinion, different in the
fourth inning before he threw, rather than the third inning
before he threw. And so the idea of it is
is that we're not when you're talking about a rule
(29:54):
in foreign substances. The application of that of that dynamic
is that there's nothing in this game that Max Scherzer
didn't do about any thing that was placed on his
hands that was not legally subscribed by the league. And
that's the point. The fact that his spin rates are
up or down are irregular. It's a hot day, it's
(30:15):
a day game versus a night game, it's eighty degrees
instead of seventy. All those things affect spin rates because
your adherence to the ball and what they do. So
I don't want to suggest that I have some sort
of solution. I'm giving you quantifiable measures. I said, if
you want to test for foreign substances and get a spectrometer,
(30:37):
you can do those things. But whatever you want to
do to apply a rule, before you instigate that rule
into the system and start incriminating players and suspending players,
they need due process to know how that rule is
to be applied. And now we it's clear from this
event we have a rule in operation that is subjective.
(30:59):
It doesn't provide due process, and any pitcher in the
game cannot determine what is tacky versus objectionable tacky tacking.
And that's kind of where we're at as to the
solution of it. My advice is that you do not
do it on the field. And my second ass is
(31:20):
stop no umpires other than one is taking this stance
to invoke this subjective rule, and that is what the
evidence is today. And why are not the other umpires
doing that? What would be the reason? I don't think
it's because they are not following the rules. I think
(31:41):
they're having issue with the very issue that we have
and they want to treat the players fairly in their
application of the rules.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
All great points, and that's why I think this is
going to happen again. Unfortunately, the ambiguity is not going away.
I don't know what the answer is, Joe, but and
I think Scott points out the fact that umpires and
a very tough position, very tough. So my question to you,
Joe is as a manager, what do you tell your
(32:11):
pictures or what do you do going forward as a
manager to make sure you're in compliance with an ambiguous
you know rule? It's not really that clear.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
Well yeah, I mean again, it's just like we're talking
about right now. You just go back stuff in the beginning.
What is permitted, and what is permitted is the different
versions of the ross and there's two versions, right, the
ross and rock Rosin, and there's like more of a
finely granulated Rosen and this is what you got, all right,
and then I don't know, I mean, listen, if they
if they want to walk around during spring training and
(32:45):
demonstrate tacky and tacky, tacky you want to walk through
a clubhouse and have and have like uh, you know,
umpires or other people walk around and demonstrate to these guys.
Speaker 4 (32:55):
And of course a lot of this is always going
to be on the honor system. But I do like,
I do like two things.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
I like Scott's thought and I actually had this thought
when it first began to do all this inspection stuff.
Away from the maddening crowd, do not permit your guys
to stand on the field have an umpire walk up
to him like he's frisking him, and have and go
through these gesticulations and attempt to determine in front of
(33:21):
everybody whether he's sticky or not. I'd rather yes, absolutely,
I'd rather see that away. And Also I'm always about
you know, we're always in the in the age we
live in specificity, and and actually people that are trained
to do certain things and you know umpires, I mean
how they're training and the fact that's sticky or not sticky,
that's what they're trained in. But I don't understand why
(33:42):
you can't apply something to that hand immediately and find
out if there's something other than on that particular hand
by this other officer official in the dougout. Of course,
it's going to cost more money to do that. I
get that it's not my money. But these are the
kind of things to be more exact that I think
would be great and flashpoint. And I still don't understand
why it's taken so long, other than maybe baseball manufacturers,
(34:07):
why you can't get the ball with the built in
sticky attacking this already with it. I don't if it's
already been done or being done in another league in
another part of the world.
Speaker 4 (34:17):
What's to hold up? I know, I guess. I don't know.
Speaker 3 (34:20):
If it's about the way the ball travels, I don't know.
You know what it's like when it's hit on the
ground and it picks up, you know, dirt ball in
the dirt. I don't know where the impact comes from this,
But why is that not more logical and more further
along the way regarding coming to the United States and
(34:40):
playing baseball here. So those are the two things. A
ball that's got this already built in and or at
least do this in a manner a little bit more.
I don't want to use the word casual, but away
from so that if there's anything that somebody feels as
a ride, that it could be fixed before guys actually
run out on the field an attempt to perform I
(35:02):
agree with that.
Speaker 1 (35:04):
Well, amen to the TACKI or leather baseball, Joe Baseball.
MLB has been talking about this literally for the six years,
and they've actually bought the Rollings Company in twenty eighteen.
They own the company that provides this ball that we're
talking about. There was a study done over in Japan
that found that MLB ball is twenty percent slicker than
(35:26):
the ball that's used in Japan.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
Why can't we get there?
Speaker 1 (35:29):
I mean, we're not reinventing or we're not inventing something
from scratch. We have something out there that works that
should be fast tracked.
Speaker 4 (35:37):
Does it not carry as far? Is there something about
the carrier this ball?
Speaker 1 (35:40):
Now, the ball itself is slightly smaller and slightly lighter
than the MLB ball, so there are differences. But you
can't tell me with all the technology we already have
in this game that we can't solve that problem of
having a baseball that that is too slick. Let's face it,
that's the the reality of the baseball is too slick.
Speaker 3 (36:02):
Yeah, if you could get if you could take this
away from the umpires having to subjectively just try to
determine which stack you're not tacky. I think that whatever
you could possibly do to get to that point is
the right thing to do, There's no question. And if
you can't get there relatively quick, take it off the field,
and if you have to hire people within a dugout
(36:23):
to do these things, I would do that and get
it away from this obvious shakedown as you're walking off the.
Speaker 2 (36:31):
Field Shakedown Street. I like that, Jill.
Speaker 3 (36:34):
Yeah, that's one of my favorites by Grateful Dead, by
the way, one of my favorite songs.
Speaker 5 (36:39):
And I think it's important to note Jim that Max
Schurzer never performed in a game or the remember the
umpires before he performed in the third inning, he performed
after checking and they adjudicated him to reach the standards requested,
and he threw in the game and got three hitters
(37:01):
out and walked out. He went out to perform again.
He wasn't when we use the term the player was
violating a rule or doing something. Is that in the
performance of a game, No, before he performed. Before he performed,
they ruled that his hands were too adhesive, and so
(37:23):
this was not in the performance of a game. This
was pre performance that they made this ruling. So when
people talk about what did Max Schuers or do or
not do in a game, Max Suers are in the
third inning through under the approval of the umpires, were said,
go throw and throw your inning after examination. He did
(37:46):
not throw in a game where he was using a
substance or his hands were too tacky and then through.
So I think he's getting suspended not for performance in
a game with objectionable tackiness. He's getting suspended for prior
(38:07):
to performance in the judgment of the umpire to be
too tacky. And there's a difference there about what that
suspension should be, because now I have suspension for not
performance in a game, I have suspension for application of
Rosley in a manner that they determined subjectively was not
(38:31):
appropriate and had nothing to do with his performance in
the game.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
Yeah, that's an important distinction that, as you mentioned, he
was examined before he threw it actually did not throw
a pitch in that fourth inning. It was a preemptive strike,
if you will, by Dan Bellino and Phil Cuzy. Apparently
that didn't matter that there was such a level of
stickiness to his fingers that they decided he would be
(38:56):
ejected without throwing a pitch. Scott, I don't know if
we've cleared up anything other than to point out that
pardoned upon baseball is in a sticky situation here and
will continue. This won't be the last time it happens, folks,
And it's I don't know, it's it's an issue that's
not going away. And to finish up, Scott, I'm not
(39:17):
sure if you saw some comments from the Commissioner of
Rob Manford. He spoke at an event with Associated Press
sports editors, and I'll reach his quote. You can respond
to this. Players have been clearly told that combining rosin
with another substance is not allowed. There are a variety sunscreen, alcohol,
whatever rosin that's out of the bag, that's on the man.
(39:39):
You can get that off your hand without alcohol. That's
a red herring. I want to commend the umpires who
made multiple attempts to de escalate this. I don't think
there's any confusion about combining stuff with rosin. That's the
Commissioner Rob Manford speaking to Associated Press Sports editors event Well, I.
Speaker 5 (39:59):
Would like to see in the rule where mister Manford
describes where the the player told the umpire was directed
by the umpires to make his hands left to clear
off the darkness of his hands. He has to go
into the dugout and comply with that request. The only
way he can do that is how does he clean
(40:21):
his hands and do it quickly so he doesn't hold
up the game? And the answer is in front of
an MLB official. He was not told he can't use alcohol.
There is no rule or notice that he can't use alcohol.
He does it, goes out and tells the umpire exactly
what he did with no intent to in any way
(40:44):
violate any subscribed rule. And there is no rule that
says anything about the use of alcohol to cleanse a hand.
It's not using as it's not used in any way
other than the direction of the umpire to clean his hands.
And so the suggestion by the commissioner is that this application,
(41:05):
this duality of rosin and alcohol is something that's subscribed
in their rules. It's not. It's just the subjective opinion
of the umpire that he is going to determine whether
or not he finds that there's characteristics about the tackiness
of the hand that he so finds passable. And by
(41:27):
the way, after he did this and told the umpire
that he did use the alcohol and rosin and reapplied it,
the umpire found it to be please go ahead and throw.
So while he's saying that this is something that is objectionable,
apparently not to the umpire and apparently not subscribed in
(41:47):
the rule. So I find that all that testimony to
be beyond what is written in the rules. It is
subjective again and again is pointing fingers at players, pointing
fingers of players for not having rules that are subscribed specifically.
It's like a memo from the astros is that you
(42:08):
get it in September instead of getting it in the
off season, so that you know what in the season
to do or not do. And when we have enforcement
mechanisms that are tardy and we don't have specific rules,
you can't go back and determine that players are to
be penalized. When the rules are not drafted with specificity
(42:28):
and notice.
Speaker 1 (42:29):
Well said, well, Scott, this is I think it's been educational.
I'm not sure we've solved anything other than we've certainly
pointed out what we know is going to be an
ongoing issue in baseball. So one of the things I
really respect about you is you're more than just a
great advocate for your clients.
Speaker 2 (42:47):
You respect the game and I know you want to do.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
What's best for baseball. That's with a small bee, not
necessarily MLB. And hopefully we can have you back on
again another time when we talk about some of these
on field playing issues besides the cont controversies of sticky
subf So really really really appreciate your time.
Speaker 5 (43:07):
I think the integrity of our team game Tom. And
when I heard Joe say, what would his reaction be,
I've got a man who's been in baseball his whole
Life's been a great manager, you know for multiple years.
He'd say I'd get thrown out? And why would he
say that? And the answer is that he's not going
(43:29):
to let subjectivity affect his team and his players. And
when we don't have specificity, even a veteran major league
manor manager is perplexed by judgments that he knows are
going to vary, and he can't quantify him himself. So
this has not only to do with players. It has
(43:50):
to do with men who know how to run a
team and know the impact on the game and such.
And for me, that's why, And I thanks for the
forum tone, but I just think that this is a
process that clearly is based on Joe's evaluation, is also
something that needs specificity, and if not, it can't be enforced.
Speaker 4 (44:12):
Oh Scotti, thank you for all that. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (44:14):
But yeah, it's I think one of the main duties
of the major league manager is to protect and you know,
you'll know when maybe your guy's wrong, and you'll know
when you need to stand down and let whatever it
is take its course. But then there's other times you
know that you can't stand down and you cannot permit
(44:36):
what you think is kind of an adjust moment. And
like I said, when it's when it's based on subjectivity
without any kind of real definition, that's where I would
probably get a little bit unglued. I don't know if
that's even an appropriate way to put it, too, but yeah,
I get it, I get it, and I agree with you,
(44:58):
and I appreciate your comments to me, but that's true.
You're as a major league manager. You're there to protect
your brute all the time, and again say one more time.
You'll know when it's appropriate to stand down and other
times when it's not.
Speaker 5 (45:12):
Well. I hope in the future time we're discussing about
Hall of Fame admission and the importance of defense exactly.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
I look forward to that shot with Keith R.
Speaker 5 (45:22):
Nanders and Andrew Jones. I've got a lot to talk about.
Speaker 4 (45:24):
I'm all about defense.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
When I was with the Rays, I got together with
Rawlings and in order to really emphasize defense with the Rays,
I got them to give me a gold glove just
to put in the clubhouse, just with the guys walk
by it every day. I think it's the most prestigious
award in all of baseball to receive a gold glove. Actually,
we on the wall there in Port Charlotte at the
half field where guys won for extra ground balls all
(45:48):
the time. I had our gold glove winners' names put
on the wall with the gold glove next to their name.
That's the one I want all my guys to aspire to.
I want all my regular position players I want you
to go into the season thinking that I'm going to
win a Gold Glove, and if you do that, I
promise your team's going to be pretty successful.
Speaker 5 (46:07):
No doubt.
Speaker 2 (46:08):
Thanks Gatt.
Speaker 1 (46:09):
I really appreciate it. It's really helpful.
Speaker 5 (46:11):
Oh, I appreciate it. Tom. Joe always great to see.
I hope I can see you soon.
Speaker 4 (46:14):
You two buddies, So head everybody for me please, I
will take care.
Speaker 1 (46:18):
Thanks so much, Scott, and we'll be back in a minute.
We will wrap up this edition this sticky version of
the Book of Joe podcast. Welcome back to the Book
of Joe podcast. Joe was fascinating listening to Scott. He
(46:42):
illuminates a lot of issues with the enforcement problem in
Major League Baseball.
Speaker 2 (46:48):
They don't think they have a problem.
Speaker 1 (46:49):
I think it's it is, but I'm not sure anything
can be done about it. But you brought up and
talked about as well as you can the manager's point
of view.
Speaker 2 (46:58):
I think that's fascinating as well.
Speaker 1 (46:59):
I had some people say, why wasn't Buck shaw Walter
out there arguing mo more and vociferously when his picture
gets ejected.
Speaker 4 (47:07):
Yeah, I mean it's we're all different.
Speaker 3 (47:10):
He was about just read it differently in that moment,
he might have been privy to something. Maybe it had
taken so long, Maybe the umpires have been speaking with
them in between innings.
Speaker 4 (47:19):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (47:19):
There's there's different reasons. Again from my perspective, if I
don't as a manager, there are rules, there's rules, there's
rules of the game, and there's certain times I've not
always thought they were thought all the way through well,
and I would not agree with them. And so then
I would still fight in that regard, even though I
know I'm going to lose. So but again, protect your
(47:42):
broode at all times. I was always about that. And then,
like I said, in this situation, there is so many
ambiguities with this. And I listen, I'll Phil cuz he
was just under show. I'm a big Phil fan, and
Danny Belino. Danny and I talked all the time. I've
even met his family. These are really good guys. They're
you know, straightforward, up and up and outstanding what they do.
(48:04):
So i'd have to like get kicked out. You know,
when you really like umpires, You've spoken to them, have
been around them a long time, you don't want to
argue with them. But this is a situation that maybe
sometimes you have to. So yeah, I think it's gonna
happen again. I think by the fact that these guys
did call up Max, it's going to possibly embolden other
(48:25):
umpires to do something like that. For instance, there's even
umpires I would argue that when it comes down calling
you back. There's always been certain umpires that'll call block
and guys that will not. And to me, it was
always about some guys can see it and some guys cannot,
and that's that's that's part of their skill set.
Speaker 4 (48:41):
Some are better.
Speaker 3 (48:42):
Balls right umpires than others. Everybody's different, and it's hard
to without being critical, to talk about that publicly in
a sense that who's better at one thing than another?
Speaker 4 (48:53):
But it just happens to be a fact and true.
Speaker 3 (48:55):
So all this stuff is going to continue and until
maybe another method comes along that's more specific or exact.
Speaker 4 (49:03):
I think it's going to accept read a.
Speaker 1 (49:04):
Little bit, well, Joe, I'm hoping you have something to
take us out here to end this edition of the
Book of Joe Podcasts. And I was really hoping maybe
you ventured into nineteen seventy one making the boys sticky fingers.
Speaker 4 (49:17):
Wow, right, Why didn't they do that? Can't go there?
Speaker 3 (49:24):
Wow, I'd write, oh my god, so good. You know
he's seventy nine years old right now.
Speaker 4 (49:28):
Which means I'm I'm supposed to be managing for another
ten years. So we'll see what happens.
Speaker 3 (49:34):
But I went with Franklin delan or Roosevelt, and it's
I think it is apropos. It is common sense to
take a method and try it. If it fails, admit
it frankly, and try another. But above all, try something.
I think it applies.
Speaker 2 (49:50):
I think it sticks, definitely applies.
Speaker 1 (49:52):
Yeah, there's no shame in making mistakes. Baseball is a
game built on mistakes. That's just another word for perseverance.
Speaker 4 (50:00):
Right. I do it all the time, that is make mistakes.
Speaker 2 (50:03):
I love it. We'll see next time, Joe.
Speaker 4 (50:04):
All right, brother, be welcome. Doculated.
Speaker 1 (50:14):
The Book of Joe podcast is a production of iHeartRadio.
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you get your podcasts.
The Book of Joe Podcast is a production of iHeartRadio.
Hey there, welcome back. It's The Book of Joe Podcast.
It's the most interesting and unpredictable podcasts in baseball out there.
It's me Tom Berducci with Joe Madden. Who's coming off?
Speaker 2 (00:25):
I don't know, Joe. I'm gonna call this the Celebrity
Golf Tour. How's it going for you?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Actually, it's going pretty well. I just did Bruce Arians yesterday.
Joe Namath last week. I did Okay yesterday. It was
getting off the t well the rest of the irons.
I got to get my irons back together. But I'm
having a great time meeting a lot of wonderful people.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
So it's been kind of fun.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
That's awesome to hear. Well, we have this kind of
a serious topic this week. It's not golf. It's Major
League Baseball's crackdown on sticky substances. And our guest probably
knows too much about this.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
It's Scott Boris.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
He's the agent for Max Scherzer, among many great players
in this game.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Scott, Welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Hi Joe, Good morning, sir. How are you.
Speaker 5 (01:06):
I'm doing good. I always want to be on your
line out card, that's for sure.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
I miss our conversations.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
I missed our conversations behind home plate at Anaheim and
at Dodger Stadium. We always had a great time, yeah,
just filling in the blanks on different things. I was
always getting educated back there, and I do miss those moments.
Speaker 5 (01:25):
Well, it's been a lot of years, Joe, so it's
great to hear your voice again, no doubt, thank you, sir.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Well, I'm sure our fans know about what happened with
Max shows or at Dodger Stadium last week. And I
think this is an interesting topic, Joel, because we're dealing
with a crackdown on sticky substances, and by nature of
the enforcement, it's ambiguous as to what is allowed and
what's not, maybe not in terms of substances themselves, or
(01:52):
maybe actually yes, So we want to dive into that. So, Scott,
we've talked about this. I want your opinion on where
we stand now. And I know you mentioned that your
pictures are asking you what's allowed, which is kind of
difficult when we don't have let's call it the equivalent
of a speed limit for pictures. Give me state of
(02:13):
enforcement of sticky substances.
Speaker 5 (02:16):
Well, first of all, time you're talking about an MLB crackdown.
I don't think there's an MLB crackdown. I think there's
a one umpire crackdown. No other umpires in any way
approached Rule six oh two and said, hey, we were
going to take and for use of rosin and substance
(02:39):
that are allowed and sanctioned by the league. We're not
going to talk about whether or how the application of
that substance is and what standard that is.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
And so.
Speaker 5 (03:00):
I've told a number of my clients I said, look,
you're you're being asked to follow a speed limit and
your car doesn't have a speedometer. You have a subjective
measure applied to you every time you go out to
the mound, because the term is it can be tacky,
(03:24):
but it can't be taki tachi, and that adjudication is made. Apparently,
in Max's case, he threw in the third inning after
examination and he was fine, and then using the same
substance rosin, he goes out and it's now tacI tacky
(03:53):
and he's then ejected from the game. So how do
you know? What do you know? There's no quantifiable standard
for tackiness it is really a subjective driven standard that
does not provide notice to pictures, which in law due process,
(04:16):
you need notice so that you know what the qualifiable
standards are. So if you're going to be penalized and
not allowed to a search or employment, you're going to
need some sort of definite measurement and our clearance process
before you approach the mount.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Just to recap for our listeners, our buddy Phil Couzy,
who's been on this podcast examine Mac Suerzer after the
second inning, told him his fingers were sticky and he
should wash them.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
So there's no ejection at that point.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
It's the equivalent of you slow down in terms of
speed limits. He comes back for the third inning, his
hand is clean, but Phil Cousey then says his glove
is dirty and he needs to replace his glove. Again,
no ejection remains in the game that Scott mentioned when
he comes out to the fourth inning before he threw
a pitch in it inning, that is when he is
(05:15):
ejected because they found, according to Dan Bellino, the stickiest
hand they have seen in three years of enforcement. Joe,
I'm gonna put you with a position of buck show Walter,
how do you handle this.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
That's not easy, brother, I mean, you're I've been in it.
Not with Max Scherzer, I've been in it with Joel
Peralta in Washington several years ago. I kind of overreacted,
I because it was exactly precipitated by the other dugout,
you know, the other dugout started chirping because of Joel,
(05:50):
and Joel had just pitched there the year before. So
I was upset about inside information, uh that was being
utilized in order to get Joel in trouble in US.
And so in today's game, I mean, it's not necessarily
about any Nobody called anybody out, and this was purely
based on umpire discretion. And I agree with Scott in
(06:11):
a lot of ways the ambiguities of all this, and
that's the game is loaded with the ambiguities, and the
empires have to really make determinations constantly with what's going on.
So for me, I mean, for Bucks perspective, there's a
good chance I'd have gotten kicked out. There's pretty good
chance I might have gotten a little bit louder than
Buck in that situation. That's just my normal reaction because again,
(06:34):
it's like it's their opinion, and I know they've been
charged with this making or presenting this opinion, but as
a manager, I think I might have gotten a little
bit more upset, not that it would have done any good,
but again, just talking all this all the way through,
this isn't going away. I mean, I don't even know
if like more Empire is going to become more proactive
with this now in an effort to support what had
(06:55):
happened in this particular instance, or if there's going to
be a mandate from the office itself. And so for me,
it's always about what is the solution to all this
because it's it's going to remain ambiguous. There's there's nothing,
there's nothing clear cut about this to the point where
we've talked about this and Scott and you probably know
more than I do, but the baseball that has built
in tackiness to it already, where none of this other
(07:16):
stuff is necessary. So I don't know if this is
going to lead to or push to like other conclusions
or solutions, but it's going to remain ambiguous. And I
would have been upset, but frank that I probably would
have gotten kicked out.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Yeah, I agree with you, Joe, it will happen again
because we're talking about ambiguities here, don't I don't like.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Ambiguity in the game. That's what we have.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
But Scott, I think when you criticize, which is I'm
doing for the ambiguity, it criticize kind of this, this
procedural effort by baseball, you better come up with a
better solution. You know, criticizing is one thing, but I
think you need something better if you're going to criticize.
So do you have an idea of what baseball can
do better to make sure the game is played on
(08:02):
as level of playing field as we can have.
Speaker 5 (08:04):
Well, that's what they want. They want level playing fields.
And when they draft rules, we cannot subject the stars
of our game, the elite talents of our game, the
audience itself. You can't draft a rule where the rules
are generally provided, where they're controlling the substances used. That's
(08:25):
what this is about. Pitcher cannot apply a foreign substance
to the ball. And when they have rules that say, okay,
rosin legal washing your hands with alcohol, there's no rule
that prevents that. All these things that we're talking about
are really sanctioned substances that they're allowing a picture. They
(08:50):
provided their rules say nothing other than use rosin or
there's no prescription that prevents any of this. So when
you allow something to if it's a foreign instance rule
and your prescription for what the substances are is followed,
then you shouldn't be invoking anything else. Now, if you
(09:14):
want to rule as far as the adhesive quality of
those substances, that's a different rule, and that rule has
not been succinctly applied. And the thing that I've always
objected to on a Major League field, I've got men
(09:35):
who are trained so diligently throughout their careers to run
a game, and on the field in front of the audience,
they are sitting there making these players look like they
are doing something wrong. Do it down in the hallway
(09:55):
of the dugout. Have an MLB official there, have someone
who is really really trained in this. If you want
to talk about adhesive measure, but the first process is
not finding something wrong, but find something right. I go,
I check the picture privately, the picture runs out and performs.
(10:19):
That's what you do. And the reality of it is
that nature of adhesive is then determined by an MLB
official in private. I do not want our star athletes
being subjected in front of their audience to some sort
of review. And if there is objections to the review,
I want to taken care of privately before he goes
(10:42):
out there and performs. We want the focus to be
on the art. We don't want the focus to be
on whether or not the art is fraudulent or not.
And that's what we've created by not appropriately a drafting
rules and standards that they want to enforce. This is
not a level playing field issue. Why because we don't
(11:05):
know what are the amount of adhesive that's allowed. Is
allowed is a tacky or TACKI techy and you know
that's kind of what that umpire's left with. And it's
not fair to the umpires and it's not fair to
the players. But from the origins of this, whenever I
go to a game and I see after every inning,
I see some umpire coming over and dealing with players
(11:29):
and touching their hands and doing these things. That's not baseball.
And we have allowed this to happen. And the reason
these rules are not drafted the way they should be
is because in collective bargaining, we're worried about fifty five
other things we can't get to these rules when we're
reaching a CBA because we're so busy doing a lot
(11:50):
of the economic steps that it takes to find an agreement,
and these things fall in the practice. So as we
approach these what I think the call to this is
is that this event should realize that we need an
immediate yet appraisal of the ambiguities. We need to understand
what the purpose of the level playing field was, which
(12:11):
was originally we don't want foreign substances applied to a baseball.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
That's well said Scott.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
For our listeners, I think you need or would help
be helpful if you explain why Max Schures are obviously
very adamant about the fact that he was not cheating,
decided not to appeal. We saw how stridently he argued
on the field in postgame. He did have the opportunity
to file a grievance take this to an arbitrator.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Why don't you explain why that he did not take
that step?
Speaker 5 (12:41):
Well, Tom, that's actually the rules are not You don't
get to take this to an arbitrator. The grievance when
you file on the field rule violations, the process does
not include someone independent a Commissioner's office employee always invokes
(13:01):
the umpire's report, always follows the umpire's report. There's a
precedent for this. We don't have an independent arbitrator. We
don't get a chance to talk about due process under
the rules because all they do is that they have
a non legally educated arbitrator. That is very different than
(13:25):
the grievance process that we employ, where there is a
neutral arbitrator in other matters of suspension for other areas
of baseball rules, but in this case there is no
independent tribunal. There is a pattern. They followed that exact
(13:49):
pattern we knew they would follow it, and the union
lawyers are basically arguing to someone that is obviously biased
towards the enforcement of rules by the rule drafters and
(14:10):
the Commissioner's office.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
By the way, the ten game suspension is grossly outdated.
That's an automatic suspension upon being ejected. That's based off
when the game pivoted on five man rotations where guys
were pitching every fifth day fifteen years ago. Majority of
starts were made on the fifth day, so it was
intended to be a two start suspension. We're in a
game now where only only about a quarter of starts.
(14:35):
Less than twenty five percent of starts are made on
the fifth day. So Max Scherzer is losing one start.
Not too that's just you know, bookkeeping, if you will.
But essentially the penalty for missing starts for a starting
pitcher has to climbed fifty percent because.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Of the way the game is played.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Now, is there a better way to make sure the
pitchers are not gaining edges? I'm going to ask Scott
about this. Maybe there's something objective out there. When we
get back, we'll tackle that issue. Welcome back to the
(15:17):
latest episode of the Book of Joe podcast. Of course,
it is based on our book, The Book of Joe.
This is Tom Berducci joined by Joe Medden. We are
speaking with Scott Boris, the agent for mac schures Are,
and our topic is sticky stuff. Mac sures Are suspended
ten games, ejected for having too much stickiness on his fingers. So, Scott,
(15:41):
we've talked about kind of the ambiguity for umpires to
determine what's legal what's not.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
What about if we go to something that's more measurable.
Speaker 5 (15:51):
I think always when you're talking about rules, what's the
rule for the first purpose of this rule is again
to control the substances that players are allowed to use.
So we've advanced it. Before there was a laxity in
this area, and now there's a specificity in this area.
You can use rosin. But now we have a different
(16:13):
set of circumstances to where the adhesiveness caused by sanctioned
substances was by one umpire out of over ninety to
one hundred that have examined this over three years, the
adhesiveness of that using that substance was brought into question
(16:36):
and his subjective opinion was that it was too adhesive.
Yet the contemplation of the rule was about what substances
we could use, and the idea of it is is
that in this case, which is rather interesting, the player
was completely compliant. Max went in and washed his hands.
(16:58):
He showed him his hands. There was nothing found on
his hands other than rosin. He goes in and they
said his hands had Mississippi mud on it from the baseball.
His hands were too dark. The umpire said, could you
please clean your hands off? And it's not like he objected.
He went in and did it. Did it within a stringent.
It was perfectly legal to do cleaned off his hands, reapplied,
(17:21):
the rosin comes out and pitches.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Yeah, Scott, I'm glad you brought that up.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
You're talking about alcohol, correct in washing his hands, he's
ordered to wash his hands, that he uses alcohol to
wash his hands.
Speaker 5 (17:33):
Yeah, because he's got to get the darkness off of
his hands at the umpire requested for him to do.
And you can't apply water when you're a pitcher, because
what does water do to the tissue of fingers. It
softens it, And so consequently you're you're left with you
and you also got to get the mud and the
rosin cakes on his hand. You've got to apply something
(17:55):
to get that off in a rather immediate way, because
remember the game is being held up, and so you've
got this done, and then there's talk about alcohol and
rosin creates a greater adhesive. Well, the rules do not
prohibit the use of these things, and it's done in
front of him. MLB official. It is not the pitcher's
(18:19):
problem that this combination is more or less adhesive, because
he does it, because he's using substances that are designed
and was directed to do by the umpire to clean
this off. Then he goes out shows him his hands,
and he lets him pitch. And then the next inning
(18:39):
he does the same process that he had done in
the third inning, and he goes out for the fourth inning,
and all of a sudden that is adjudicated, same process,
same substances, and the third inning, agreed to perform in
the fourth inning before he performs, you are now ejected
(19:00):
because you've done the same process. How can a player know.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
There's no insinuation that he was using anything differently other
than what was prescribed, because that rock Rosen can be
extremely tacky. I was talking to Tommy before we began this,
and I know that you're aware of this too. So
if you're going to if you're going to accuse him
of doing something like this, and I understand, I think
dark hands. I mean, what does that have to do
(19:25):
with anything anyway, Because if your hands get black, that
doesn't necessarily mean you're going to create more spin or
do anything differently with the baseball. Because originally all this stuff,
you know, of course, it's about spin on the baseball,
but then there was a big argument made also about
control so that that hitters would feel safer in the
plate at the plate, which I've always there's there's all
these different thoughts and ideas that are thrown out there
(19:47):
that have never really subscribed to. So but at the
end of the day, I think if you're going to
say that it was tacky or tacky, tacky whatever, then
at some point you have to, like you're saying, what
was it? What was different about this Dolla's hand other
than using the permitted substances? Because I'm telling you, man,
(20:07):
when I first got into that rock Rosin and I
was messing with it a little bit. Just when you'd
get that and just really working within your hands, you
get real sticky. Your hands get extremely sticky just in
and of itself. So that's the part again, the ambiguities
we're talking about this. Some of you guys are making
great points with all of this, but you have to
if you're going to if you're going to check somebody
(20:28):
and be accusatory.
Speaker 4 (20:30):
Like that, what is it?
Speaker 3 (20:31):
What was it that was on his hand that wasn't
supposed to be there. That's That's what I'm curious about.
Ten games suspension. I got to be more specific.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Yeah, I think Joe, I think the problem here on
MLB side is that, yes, Rosin and sweat perfectly allowable.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Alcohol does introduce another element.
Speaker 5 (20:49):
Yeah, job, you're suggesting when you say that that alcohol
is subscribed in the rule as a foreign substances.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
No, no, no, exactly. I think you're one hundred percent right.
My point would be that the umpire is making a
judgment regardless of what subst I mean. I was used
to a world where you got thrown out for foreign substances.
Now it's possible, we've seen it to get thrown out
with legal substances, just because they're determining. There's a level
of stickiness as far as the MLB official. Just to
(21:18):
clarify that that's a game day compliance monitor. These are
part time seasonal employees that sit in a dugout essentially
to prevent sign stealing electronic devices.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Their eyes and ears.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
They have no authoritative power, they don't intervene. They're just
basically there to make sure things are on the up
and up. So, yeah, that guy is there to witness
things and report them. I don't know what kind of
power he has to say, hey, this is kosher and
this is not. But he's the eyes and ears that
they have these people in every ballpark. Just clarifying that point,
go ahead, Scott.
Speaker 5 (21:50):
No, I'm just saying if there was use of any
prohibited substance, that league official in this case, Brian Anderson
I believe his name was because I checked, would be
able to point that out. He would say, you're using
some you know, a substance outside the nature of the rules.
(22:11):
That's not the case here. And Max told the umpires
what he was doing. Hey, I'll go clean my hands. Look,
look I cleaned my hands with alcohol. I reapplied the rosin.
I'm like, okay to pitch. They touch him, they say, fine,
go throw the third. Now he does the same process
and goes out there for the fourth. They touch him. No, no, no,
you're super tacky. You're tacky. Tacky. Now you're not just tacky,
(22:32):
you're out. And so look the thing in the law,
when you draft rules and a person wants to perform
in an employment environment, you have to provide that employee
do notice, do process to his work, and he has
to know in advance what is violative of the rules
and what is and so look, we have all forms
(22:53):
of tech. If you want to go in and say that, oh,
his spin rate jumped by three hundred or four hundred
that this tackiness caused this. All of a sudden, you
can say, nope, your spin rates are up above your norm.
Your tacky, you're too tacky. You're going to have to
go clean your hands because your spin rates are way up.
(23:14):
But then you get into the idea of what is
the norm for a picture, how you do it? And
so when you draft rules, if you're going to draft
rules for a purpose, will you know that what substances
they can use has now been limited. When someone asks
you to wash your hands, you know that all substances
that were on it were off. Then you reapply the
(23:37):
substance in front of someone you know what the substance is.
You've had compliance with the foreign substance rule because you
know that there's no foreign substance because you're seeing what
they're applying on their hands. And then I know we
had an issue with the Yankee pitcher where herman the
umpire said to him, you can apply roslin in the dugout.
(23:58):
There is no rule that prevents that because now we
have a time clock and you go out, and you're
going to go out and try to adjust the tackiness
of what you have on your hands. On the mount
and then warm up. And the reality of it is
that tackiness is important to a picture because it has
to do with command and what he's going to do,
(24:18):
and he wants to know he has that feel right
before he goes out there. So we've got to rule
a broadness of a rule that was designed for foreign substances,
and yet now we have an application to the level
of the legal substances. It's a different rule, it's a
different process, and a different quantifiable standard needs to be studied.
(24:44):
Or we can go back and use go back to
the baseball thing, because that's what players have been complaining
about for years, is that our baseball, unlike the one
in Japan is, doesn't have the appropriate adhesiveness to it.
And that way we're removed the idea that the picture
can apply something extreme to the ball to his hand
(25:06):
to create it. And from a hitter's perspective on cold days,
windy days, when the ball slick or the pitcher doesn't
have proper control, we don't want that injuring players either.
So in this scenario, you can't draft rules unless contemplation
of all of these dynamics are there. Because the reason
(25:27):
you once you do this you're violating the due process
rights to the players. They have no notice of what
they can't do, and so the rule is beyond the
focus of what was originally intended, which was to limit
the substances. And now when we create this throw in
(25:48):
about ambiguity, I see why if I'm an umpire, I
see why I don't go near this because, you know what,
I don't want to be in a position when someone
asked me, well, my touch tells me, I'm going to
go back to my histore touch. Really, and you know,
we all know that kuz he's a great umpire, have
(26:09):
been in the league for a long time, and he's
a veteran. He knows how to run a game. But
in all the umpires do. But the fact of the
matter is when they go to say their touch tests,
they can't explain it. When you put men in that
position for enforcement. You know, here I'm on the freeway.
Those standard is drive safe. Well, you weren't driving safely.
Well what do you mean by that, officer, Well, by
(26:30):
my opinion, after observing you, you weren't driving safely. Or
he walks up to you and says, my odometer tells me,
you know my speed gun tells me you were going
sixty five and fifty five. That is a rule of
quantifiable standard that a driver can say, Oh, I now
understand what I'm doing. There's been a measurement. It's beyond
(26:52):
rather than him saying you weren't driving safely, and that
to me is where we're at.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
Yeah, I'm glad you brought up that point.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
You certainly the Harman situation points out the ambiguity. One
guy gets a pass, one guy is bounced for ten games.
Something doesn't sit right with me with that. But you
mentioned objection objectable or things that we can measure right.
You mentioned spin rates. I got a problem with that,
and I'll tell you why. And it relates to Max
(27:20):
Scherzer and a little bit of Joe Musgrove last year
when his spin rate was up and the Mets decided
to check him.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
It turned out there was nothing there. At least they
found nothing.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
Max Scherzer's spin rate in the second inning was the
highest in his last one hundred and forty three games.
He threw two pitches in that second inning that had
the highest spin rate of his last more than two
thousand fastballs. Now, spin rate can vary. You have to
give guys some leeway. Jacob mgrom spin rate has gone up,
(27:53):
but his velocity has gone up. Usually the parder you throw,
the more the spin rate's going to go up. I
like to look at what's called the spin to velocity ratio,
this sv ARE, And in that case, Max Schuzer's second
inning SVR was the highest it's been since June of
twenty one, when the crackdown began. Now you're looking at
these numbers, but my point, Scott, is that you can't
(28:17):
put entire faith in these numbers, because what you're doing
is you're risking discipline of players just strictly on spin
rates and svrs what he might be clean. So there's
no physical evidence if you're just going by these measurements.
So you can look at these measurements and say Max
Schurzer's velocity was down in the second inning, but his
(28:40):
spin rate was up to levels we have not seen
in one hundred and forty three starts. That can't be enough.
I'm sorry, I need more physical evidence.
Speaker 5 (28:49):
I'm not look, I'm not suggesting that I have a solution.
I'm just saying, don't draft rules when you don't have
the solution. And this is one of them. And the
reality of it is that you're looking at and by
the way Max's spin rates in the third inning, when
he perferm and got three batters out, we're right in
the line within I don't know eighty You know, when
your spin rates are within one hundred of one another,
(29:11):
they're basically about the same. I don't know what the
differences you're talking about for one or two pitches in
the second inning. But in the third inning, when he
performed and he was examined, his spin rates were the same.
He retired all the hitters and he went out and performed,
and the fourth inning, before he even threw, they didn't say, oh,
your spin rates are higher now in the fourth inning
(29:32):
because he didn't throw in the fourth inning. They just
this is not about spin rates. This about them saying
subjectively that tackiness was in their opinion, different in the
fourth inning before he threw, rather than the third inning
before he threw. And so the idea of it is
is that we're not when you're talking about a rule
(29:54):
in foreign substances. The application of that of that dynamic
is that there's nothing in this game that Max Scherzer
didn't do about any thing that was placed on his
hands that was not legally subscribed by the league. And
that's the point. The fact that his spin rates are
up or down are irregular. It's a hot day, it's
(30:15):
a day game versus a night game, it's eighty degrees
instead of seventy. All those things affect spin rates because
your adherence to the ball and what they do. So
I don't want to suggest that I have some sort
of solution. I'm giving you quantifiable measures. I said, if
you want to test for foreign substances and get a spectrometer,
(30:37):
you can do those things. But whatever you want to
do to apply a rule, before you instigate that rule
into the system and start incriminating players and suspending players,
they need due process to know how that rule is
to be applied. And now we it's clear from this
event we have a rule in operation that is subjective.
(30:59):
It doesn't provide due process, and any pitcher in the
game cannot determine what is tacky versus objectionable tacky tacking.
And that's kind of where we're at as to the
solution of it. My advice is that you do not
do it on the field. And my second ass is
(31:20):
stop no umpires other than one is taking this stance
to invoke this subjective rule, and that is what the
evidence is today. And why are not the other umpires
doing that? What would be the reason? I don't think
it's because they are not following the rules. I think
(31:41):
they're having issue with the very issue that we have
and they want to treat the players fairly in their
application of the rules.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
All great points, and that's why I think this is
going to happen again. Unfortunately, the ambiguity is not going away.
I don't know what the answer is, Joe, but and
I think Scott points out the fact that umpires and
a very tough position, very tough. So my question to you,
Joe is as a manager, what do you tell your
(32:11):
pictures or what do you do going forward as a
manager to make sure you're in compliance with an ambiguous
you know rule? It's not really that clear.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
Well yeah, I mean again, it's just like we're talking
about right now. You just go back stuff in the beginning.
What is permitted, and what is permitted is the different
versions of the ross and there's two versions, right, the
ross and rock Rosin, and there's like more of a
finely granulated Rosen and this is what you got, all right,
and then I don't know, I mean, listen, if they
if they want to walk around during spring training and
(32:45):
demonstrate tacky and tacky, tacky you want to walk through
a clubhouse and have and have like uh, you know,
umpires or other people walk around and demonstrate to these guys.
Speaker 4 (32:55):
And of course a lot of this is always going
to be on the honor system. But I do like,
I do like two things.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
I like Scott's thought and I actually had this thought
when it first began to do all this inspection stuff.
Away from the maddening crowd, do not permit your guys
to stand on the field have an umpire walk up
to him like he's frisking him, and have and go
through these gesticulations and attempt to determine in front of
(33:21):
everybody whether he's sticky or not. I'd rather yes, absolutely,
I'd rather see that away. And Also I'm always about
you know, we're always in the in the age we
live in specificity, and and actually people that are trained
to do certain things and you know umpires, I mean
how they're training and the fact that's sticky or not sticky,
that's what they're trained in. But I don't understand why
(33:42):
you can't apply something to that hand immediately and find
out if there's something other than on that particular hand
by this other officer official in the dougout. Of course,
it's going to cost more money to do that. I
get that it's not my money. But these are the
kind of things to be more exact that I think
would be great and flashpoint. And I still don't understand
why it's taken so long, other than maybe baseball manufacturers,
(34:07):
why you can't get the ball with the built in
sticky attacking this already with it. I don't if it's
already been done or being done in another league in
another part of the world.
Speaker 4 (34:17):
What's to hold up? I know, I guess. I don't know.
Speaker 3 (34:20):
If it's about the way the ball travels, I don't know.
You know what it's like when it's hit on the
ground and it picks up, you know, dirt ball in
the dirt. I don't know where the impact comes from this,
But why is that not more logical and more further
along the way regarding coming to the United States and
(34:40):
playing baseball here. So those are the two things. A
ball that's got this already built in and or at
least do this in a manner a little bit more.
I don't want to use the word casual, but away
from so that if there's anything that somebody feels as
a ride, that it could be fixed before guys actually
run out on the field an attempt to perform I
(35:02):
agree with that.
Speaker 1 (35:04):
Well, amen to the TACKI or leather baseball, Joe Baseball.
MLB has been talking about this literally for the six years,
and they've actually bought the Rollings Company in twenty eighteen.
They own the company that provides this ball that we're
talking about. There was a study done over in Japan
that found that MLB ball is twenty percent slicker than
(35:26):
the ball that's used in Japan.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
Why can't we get there?
Speaker 1 (35:29):
I mean, we're not reinventing or we're not inventing something
from scratch. We have something out there that works that
should be fast tracked.
Speaker 4 (35:37):
Does it not carry as far? Is there something about
the carrier this ball?
Speaker 1 (35:40):
Now, the ball itself is slightly smaller and slightly lighter
than the MLB ball, so there are differences. But you
can't tell me with all the technology we already have
in this game that we can't solve that problem of
having a baseball that that is too slick. Let's face it,
that's the the reality of the baseball is too slick.
Speaker 3 (36:02):
Yeah, if you could get if you could take this
away from the umpires having to subjectively just try to
determine which stack you're not tacky. I think that whatever
you could possibly do to get to that point is
the right thing to do, There's no question. And if
you can't get there relatively quick, take it off the field,
and if you have to hire people within a dugout
(36:23):
to do these things, I would do that and get
it away from this obvious shakedown as you're walking off the.
Speaker 2 (36:31):
Field Shakedown Street. I like that, Jill.
Speaker 3 (36:34):
Yeah, that's one of my favorites by Grateful Dead, by
the way, one of my favorite songs.
Speaker 5 (36:39):
And I think it's important to note Jim that Max
Schurzer never performed in a game or the remember the
umpires before he performed in the third inning, he performed
after checking and they adjudicated him to reach the standards requested,
and he threw in the game and got three hitters
(37:01):
out and walked out. He went out to perform again.
He wasn't when we use the term the player was
violating a rule or doing something. Is that in the
performance of a game, No, before he performed. Before he performed,
they ruled that his hands were too adhesive, and so
(37:23):
this was not in the performance of a game. This
was pre performance that they made this ruling. So when
people talk about what did Max Schuers or do or
not do in a game, Max Suers are in the
third inning through under the approval of the umpires, were said,
go throw and throw your inning after examination. He did
(37:46):
not throw in a game where he was using a
substance or his hands were too tacky and then through.
So I think he's getting suspended not for performance in
a game with objectionable tackiness. He's getting suspended for prior
(38:07):
to performance in the judgment of the umpire to be
too tacky. And there's a difference there about what that
suspension should be, because now I have suspension for not
performance in a game, I have suspension for application of
Rosley in a manner that they determined subjectively was not
(38:31):
appropriate and had nothing to do with his performance in
the game.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
Yeah, that's an important distinction that, as you mentioned, he
was examined before he threw it actually did not throw
a pitch in that fourth inning. It was a preemptive strike,
if you will, by Dan Bellino and Phil Cuzy. Apparently
that didn't matter that there was such a level of
stickiness to his fingers that they decided he would be
(38:56):
ejected without throwing a pitch. Scott, I don't know if
we've cleared up anything other than to point out that
pardoned upon baseball is in a sticky situation here and
will continue. This won't be the last time it happens, folks,
And it's I don't know, it's it's an issue that's
not going away. And to finish up, Scott, I'm not
(39:17):
sure if you saw some comments from the Commissioner of
Rob Manford. He spoke at an event with Associated Press
sports editors, and I'll reach his quote. You can respond
to this. Players have been clearly told that combining rosin
with another substance is not allowed. There are a variety sunscreen, alcohol,
whatever rosin that's out of the bag, that's on the man.
(39:39):
You can get that off your hand without alcohol. That's
a red herring. I want to commend the umpires who
made multiple attempts to de escalate this. I don't think
there's any confusion about combining stuff with rosin. That's the
Commissioner Rob Manford speaking to Associated Press Sports editors event Well, I.
Speaker 5 (39:59):
Would like to see in the rule where mister Manford
describes where the the player told the umpire was directed
by the umpires to make his hands left to clear
off the darkness of his hands. He has to go
into the dugout and comply with that request. The only
way he can do that is how does he clean
(40:21):
his hands and do it quickly so he doesn't hold
up the game? And the answer is in front of
an MLB official. He was not told he can't use alcohol.
There is no rule or notice that he can't use alcohol.
He does it, goes out and tells the umpire exactly
what he did with no intent to in any way
(40:44):
violate any subscribed rule. And there is no rule that
says anything about the use of alcohol to cleanse a hand.
It's not using as it's not used in any way
other than the direction of the umpire to clean his hands.
And so the suggestion by the commissioner is that this application,
(41:05):
this duality of rosin and alcohol is something that's subscribed
in their rules. It's not. It's just the subjective opinion
of the umpire that he is going to determine whether
or not he finds that there's characteristics about the tackiness
of the hand that he so finds passable. And by
(41:27):
the way, after he did this and told the umpire
that he did use the alcohol and rosin and reapplied it,
the umpire found it to be please go ahead and throw.
So while he's saying that this is something that is objectionable,
apparently not to the umpire and apparently not subscribed in
(41:47):
the rule. So I find that all that testimony to
be beyond what is written in the rules. It is
subjective again and again is pointing fingers at players, pointing
fingers of players for not having rules that are subscribed specifically.
It's like a memo from the astros is that you
(42:08):
get it in September instead of getting it in the
off season, so that you know what in the season
to do or not do. And when we have enforcement
mechanisms that are tardy and we don't have specific rules,
you can't go back and determine that players are to
be penalized. When the rules are not drafted with specificity
(42:28):
and notice.
Speaker 1 (42:29):
Well said, well, Scott, this is I think it's been educational.
I'm not sure we've solved anything other than we've certainly
pointed out what we know is going to be an
ongoing issue in baseball. So one of the things I
really respect about you is you're more than just a
great advocate for your clients.
Speaker 2 (42:47):
You respect the game and I know you want to do.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
What's best for baseball. That's with a small bee, not
necessarily MLB. And hopefully we can have you back on
again another time when we talk about some of these
on field playing issues besides the cont controversies of sticky
subf So really really really appreciate your time.
Speaker 5 (43:07):
I think the integrity of our team game Tom. And
when I heard Joe say, what would his reaction be,
I've got a man who's been in baseball his whole
Life's been a great manager, you know for multiple years.
He'd say I'd get thrown out? And why would he
say that? And the answer is that he's not going
(43:29):
to let subjectivity affect his team and his players. And
when we don't have specificity, even a veteran major league
manor manager is perplexed by judgments that he knows are
going to vary, and he can't quantify him himself. So
this has not only to do with players. It has
(43:50):
to do with men who know how to run a
team and know the impact on the game and such.
And for me, that's why, And I thanks for the
forum tone, but I just think that this is a
process that clearly is based on Joe's evaluation, is also
something that needs specificity, and if not, it can't be enforced.
Speaker 4 (44:12):
Oh Scotti, thank you for all that. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (44:14):
But yeah, it's I think one of the main duties
of the major league manager is to protect and you know,
you'll know when maybe your guy's wrong, and you'll know
when you need to stand down and let whatever it
is take its course. But then there's other times you
know that you can't stand down and you cannot permit
(44:36):
what you think is kind of an adjust moment. And
like I said, when it's when it's based on subjectivity
without any kind of real definition, that's where I would
probably get a little bit unglued. I don't know if
that's even an appropriate way to put it, too, but yeah,
I get it, I get it, and I agree with you,
(44:58):
and I appreciate your comments to me, but that's true.
You're as a major league manager. You're there to protect
your brute all the time, and again say one more time.
You'll know when it's appropriate to stand down and other
times when it's not.
Speaker 5 (45:12):
Well. I hope in the future time we're discussing about
Hall of Fame admission and the importance of defense exactly.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
I look forward to that shot with Keith R.
Speaker 5 (45:22):
Nanders and Andrew Jones. I've got a lot to talk about.
Speaker 4 (45:24):
I'm all about defense.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
When I was with the Rays, I got together with
Rawlings and in order to really emphasize defense with the Rays,
I got them to give me a gold glove just
to put in the clubhouse, just with the guys walk
by it every day. I think it's the most prestigious
award in all of baseball to receive a gold glove. Actually,
we on the wall there in Port Charlotte at the
half field where guys won for extra ground balls all
(45:48):
the time. I had our gold glove winners' names put
on the wall with the gold glove next to their name.
That's the one I want all my guys to aspire to.
I want all my regular position players I want you
to go into the season thinking that I'm going to
win a Gold Glove, and if you do that, I
promise your team's going to be pretty successful.
Speaker 5 (46:07):
No doubt.
Speaker 2 (46:08):
Thanks Gatt.
Speaker 1 (46:09):
I really appreciate it. It's really helpful.
Speaker 5 (46:11):
Oh, I appreciate it. Tom. Joe always great to see.
I hope I can see you soon.
Speaker 4 (46:14):
You two buddies, So head everybody for me please, I
will take care.
Speaker 1 (46:18):
Thanks so much, Scott, and we'll be back in a minute.
We will wrap up this edition this sticky version of
the Book of Joe podcast. Welcome back to the Book
of Joe podcast. Joe was fascinating listening to Scott. He
(46:42):
illuminates a lot of issues with the enforcement problem in
Major League Baseball.
Speaker 2 (46:48):
They don't think they have a problem.
Speaker 1 (46:49):
I think it's it is, but I'm not sure anything
can be done about it. But you brought up and
talked about as well as you can the manager's point
of view.
Speaker 2 (46:58):
I think that's fascinating as well.
Speaker 1 (46:59):
I had some people say, why wasn't Buck shaw Walter
out there arguing mo more and vociferously when his picture
gets ejected.
Speaker 4 (47:07):
Yeah, I mean it's we're all different.
Speaker 3 (47:10):
He was about just read it differently in that moment,
he might have been privy to something. Maybe it had
taken so long, Maybe the umpires have been speaking with
them in between innings.
Speaker 4 (47:19):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (47:19):
There's there's different reasons. Again from my perspective, if I
don't as a manager, there are rules, there's rules, there's
rules of the game, and there's certain times I've not
always thought they were thought all the way through well,
and I would not agree with them. And so then
I would still fight in that regard, even though I
know I'm going to lose. So but again, protect your
(47:42):
broode at all times. I was always about that. And then,
like I said, in this situation, there is so many
ambiguities with this. And I listen, I'll Phil cuz he
was just under show. I'm a big Phil fan, and
Danny Belino. Danny and I talked all the time. I've
even met his family. These are really good guys. They're
you know, straightforward, up and up and outstanding what they do.
(48:04):
So i'd have to like get kicked out. You know,
when you really like umpires, You've spoken to them, have
been around them a long time, you don't want to
argue with them. But this is a situation that maybe
sometimes you have to. So yeah, I think it's gonna
happen again. I think by the fact that these guys
did call up Max, it's going to possibly embolden other
(48:25):
umpires to do something like that. For instance, there's even
umpires I would argue that when it comes down calling
you back. There's always been certain umpires that'll call block
and guys that will not. And to me, it was
always about some guys can see it and some guys cannot,
and that's that's that's part of their skill set.
Speaker 4 (48:41):
Some are better.
Speaker 3 (48:42):
Balls right umpires than others. Everybody's different, and it's hard
to without being critical, to talk about that publicly in
a sense that who's better at one thing than another?
Speaker 4 (48:53):
But it just happens to be a fact and true.
Speaker 3 (48:55):
So all this stuff is going to continue and until
maybe another method comes along that's more specific or exact.
Speaker 4 (49:03):
I think it's going to accept read a.
Speaker 1 (49:04):
Little bit, well, Joe, I'm hoping you have something to
take us out here to end this edition of the
Book of Joe Podcasts. And I was really hoping maybe
you ventured into nineteen seventy one making the boys sticky fingers.
Speaker 4 (49:17):
Wow, right, Why didn't they do that? Can't go there?
Speaker 3 (49:24):
Wow, I'd write, oh my god, so good. You know
he's seventy nine years old right now.
Speaker 4 (49:28):
Which means I'm I'm supposed to be managing for another
ten years. So we'll see what happens.
Speaker 3 (49:34):
But I went with Franklin delan or Roosevelt, and it's
I think it is apropos. It is common sense to
take a method and try it. If it fails, admit
it frankly, and try another. But above all, try something.
I think it applies.
Speaker 2 (49:50):
I think it sticks, definitely applies.
Speaker 1 (49:52):
Yeah, there's no shame in making mistakes. Baseball is a
game built on mistakes. That's just another word for perseverance.
Speaker 4 (50:00):
Right. I do it all the time, that is make mistakes.
Speaker 2 (50:03):
I love it. We'll see next time, Joe.
Speaker 4 (50:04):
All right, brother, be welcome. Doculated.
Speaker 1 (50:14):
The Book of Joe podcast is a production of iHeartRadio.
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you get your podcasts.
Fox Sports Radio News
Host
Jonas Knox
Popular Podcasts
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.