2K24: Los Angeles Dodgers

[Ken]

Feels like everyone is jumping on semantics. We dont know *all* the facts.

[Sour Masher]

Feels like everyone is jumping on semantics. We dont know *all* the facts.

Do we ever? Even if a jury of peers convict, we are often just making best guesses based on available evidence. I should clarify that, of course, I do not believe that anyone should have their career taken from them based on an accusation of wrongdoing alone. I am not even making a moral argument in this case. I was just trying to share a hunch that given the facts we do know, the Dodgers will try to avoid Bauer pitching for them again. Revo's long list is the best evidence presented that my hunch is mistaken, but I still think Bauer's case is different, not just because it is more egregious than some on that list, but because he was such a divisive person before all of this. A lot of his Dodger teammates just do not like the guy. A lot of Dodger fans don't want him back. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Ken]

Do we ever? Even if a jury of peers convict, we are often just making best guesses based on available evidence. I should clarify that, of course, I do not believe that anyone should have their career taken from them based on an accusation of wrongdoing alone. I am not even making a moral argument in this case. I was just trying to share a hunch that given the facts we do know, the Dodgers will try to avoid Bauer pitching for them again. Revo's long list is the best evidence presented that my hunch is mistaken, but I still think Bauer's case is different, not just because it is more egregious than some on that list, but because he was such a divisive person before all of this. A lot of his Dodger teammates just do not like the guy. A lot of Dodger fans don't want him back. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I understand what you are saying, but reading through this thread at times gets tiresome when it's clear to me what Todd is saying and the response is a semantics breakdown of his words rather than an intellectual rebuttal.

Even "do we ever" is a little silly. Of course we never know ALL the facts, but in this case we don't know enough of them for the DA to determine that laws were broken beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do appreciate your clarification of the facts if anyone didn't already know what's public.

[Sour Masher]

I understand what you are saying, but reading through this thread at times gets tiresome when it's clear to me what Todd is saying and the response is a semantics breakdown of his words rather than an intellectual rebuttal.

Even "do we ever" is a little silly. Of course we never know ALL the facts, but in this case we don't know enough of them for the DA to determine that laws were broken beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do appreciate your clarification of the facts if anyone didn't already know what's public.

I certainly appreciated Todd chiming in, because I think he knows what the league and the Dodgers can or can't do better most--certainly better than me. I only responded to his post, because I think the Dodgers are likely motivated to look for a way, any way, for Bauer not to pitch for them again, and I am inclined, as rhd is, to believe the league won't stop the Dodgers from sitting him even after his league mandated suspension ends. Todd's response seemed to tie the league allowing the Dodgers to do this to the fact that Bauer will not be convicted of a crime. I wasn't trying to virtue signal in highlighting the facts that are known, but point them out in case Todd or revo or others think they might allow the Dodgers to impose its own penalty, and to bolster my claim that the Dodgers will look for a way for him not to pitch for them.

But I am totally ignorant of the league rules on this. I wouldn't have responded emphasizing the facts we do know, except Todd seemed to be hedging too, so maybe the rules on what the Dodgers can do are a gray area. I don't know. I've just been trying to argue that those inclined to roster Bauer should consider the possibility that Bauer will not be pitching for the Dodgers. I do not know if the Dodgers can stop him, if it turns out that can't trade him, but my feeling is they will try to move him and barring that, they would avoid letting him pitch, if they are allowed to do that. But what the hell do I know? Not much. I know that.

[Sour Masher]

More selfishly, I just hope, if it does look like Bauer will pitch this year, that someone in my league will push up his price, as I hate the idea that I will lose to a guy who got a $2 Bauer for the same reasons revo pointed out that the Dodgers will let him pitch for them--they would hate to cut Bauer and see him mow down their line up while they are footing the bill. I am posting on this more than I should be or usually do, because the guy in my league I think will be the biggest barrier to me winning a championship keeps texting me about how he is going to get Bauer cheap, because chumps like me won't pay fair market value for him, and I fear he is right. I'm not upset with the guy for wanting to roster Bauer or for being excited about the prospect of getting him cheap (despite our vastly different opinions on this, and just about everything outside of our love of baseball...he is a Trump supporter who believes even a centrist like Biden is a half step from Castro...we get along well and enjoy talking baseball with each other and trade a ton). I'm only hung up on how my perspective on rostering him could cost me, which is annoying me....but not as much as it would annoy me to roster Bauer, so I guess I just gotta accept the situation and move on. And I guess that is the same internal considerations the Dodgers will be having.

[Pauly]

To circle this back around to what we (should) do here, Bauer pretty much sucked after they banned the sticky stuff anyway, so let some other sucker take him.

I dont know who this guy is but i hope thenumbers are correct:

[Bene Futuis]

When did the sticky stuff "ban" start? Mid to late June 2021? I think Bauer maybe had one or two starts after that.


Edit: I think it was June 21, 2021. Bauer had two starts after that. 6 IP, 3 ER, 10 Ks vs. the Padres and 6 IP, 2 ER, 8 Ks vs. the Giants --- all the ER came on solo home runs.

[Ken]

When did the sticky stuff "ban" start? Mid to late June 2021? I think Bauer maybe had one or two starts after that.


Edit: I think it was June 21, 2021. Bauer had two starts after that. 6 IP, 3 ER, 10 Ks vs. the Padres and 6 IP, 2 ER, 8 Ks vs. the Giants --- all the ER came on solo home runs.

Check 2012-2017, before he announced he was going to use it in 2018

[Todd Zola]

It was two games. 12 IP, 18 K, 5 BB, 5 ER (all on solo shots). His 4S spin dropped 200-300 rpm.

However, it was already down his first three starts in June. This was a trend once it was announced they'd check. In those three games, Bauer threw 19.1 innings, 7 ER, 23K, 9 BB, 1 HR, .333 BABIP. ERA 3.26 (FIP 2.96, xFIP 4.19, SIERA 4.21).

Sticking to baseball (pun intended), the jury is still out, especially since there was talk of going to a ball with more natural tack.

[Todd Zola]

the jury is still out

Unfortunate pun not intended...

[Sour Masher]

there was talk of going to a ball with more natural tack.

This is such a good plan and overdue. I really hope it happens. The whole cheating thing vs the danger of wild pitches could be avoided if they either allow a reasonable, not over-the-top substance to be used or they simply make balls with a little more natural tack. Then they can enforce the heck out of the rules and ideally less pitchers will be inclined to brake them, because they will allow have a better grip. The problem with the former is that how would you be able to tell the difference between the moderate, official stuff and a knock off intended to give an extra advantage. If they can just make the balls have more natural tack, they can just ban all substances and everyone should be happy. A level playing field for all.

[ThatRogue]

The allegations were reprehensible. No one, except two people, know the facts.

I agree. But the prosecutors given reason for not pursuing charges was due to concerns about proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt…and had nothing to do with the facts, whatever they may be.

[Todd Zola]

I agree. But the prosecutors given reason for not pursuing charges was due to concerns about proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt…and had nothing to do with the facts, whatever they may be.

It has everything to do with the facts. They use facts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So the facts, as they had them, were either insufficient or could be shown to be non-factual.

PLEASE, everyone, do not interpret this as taking Bauer's side, or believing him, or whatever. I am solely coming from a practical perspective.

[ThatRogue]

I understand what you are saying, but reading through this thread at times gets tiresome when it's clear to me what Todd is saying and the response is a semantics breakdown of his words rather than an intellectual rebuttal.

Even "do we ever" is a little silly. Of course we never know ALL the facts, but in this case we don't know enough of them for the DA to determine that laws were broken beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do appreciate your clarification of the facts if anyone didn't already know what's public.

In this case, a semantics breakdown is important. Saying the facts weren’t reprehensible enough to prosecute implies that what he did wasn’t that bad, legally. But the prosecutors never said that. Based on what has been made public, there’s room for debate about whether what he did was a criminal act, and/or morally wrong. Although a jury of his peers will not decide his guilt, public perception of him has been negatively impacted, leaving it to the Dodgers and MLB to decide his immediate professional fate.

[ThatRogue]

It has everything to do with the facts. They use facts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So the facts, as they had them, were either insufficient or could be shown to be non-factual.

PLEASE, everyone, do not interpret this as taking Bauer's side, or believing him, or whatever. I am solely coming from a practical perspective.

I disagree. Fact: She agreed to rough sex. Fact: Bauer injured her to the point she suffered severe head trauma, lost consciousness and required hospitalization. Fact: Outside of sporting events, a person cannot legally grant consent to actions which might result in death or serious physical injury.

However, prosecutors are concerned that a jury will review the text messages and determine that Bauer was not criminally responsible for her injury because of the rough sex she requested per their text messages. The facts might be reprehensible…but that doesn’t mean they can legally prove criminal responsibility.

(I didn’t see you taking Bauer’s side at all…I just thought the reason you gave for the lack of criminal prosecution needed clarification.)