Roger's finger 'stuff'

[mbyron]

MLB managers are always controversial figures, and La Russa has had his idiot moments over a long career. But on the biggest stage in baseball, he showed a lot of class, and that counts for something.

Maybe Rogers was cheating, and maybe not. But if La Russa gets into it, then it becomes a different kind of controversy. In the event, any unfair advantage was eliminated, and the Cards still couldn't win.

La Russa's words, "If it gets fixed, let's play the game," demonstrate that he's got his priorities straight. It's about playing the game, not wheedling every possible advantage out of a situation.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

MLB managers are always controversial figures, and La Russa has had his idiot moments over a long career. But on the biggest stage in baseball, he showed a lot of class, and that counts for something.

Maybe Rogers was cheating, and maybe not. But if La Russa gets into it, then it becomes a different kind of controversy. In the event, any unfair advantage was eliminated, and the Cards still couldn't win.

La Russa's words, "If it gets fixed, let's play the game," demonstrate that he's got his priorities straight. It's about playing the game, not wheedling every possible advantage out of a situation.

You're giving LaRussa far too much credit. I believe his low key approach has more to do with Leyland knowing where the bodies are buried in St. Louis side of the field. Leyland worked with LaRussa.

LaRussa's skirt isn't all that clean. If he had come out and demanded a cavity search of Rogers, Leyland would have come out and the St, Louis pitchers, or the source of their goo, would be subjected to the same treatment.

LaRussa practically admitted this with a comment that basically said that everyone was looking for an edge and as along as it didn't go too far, it was okay.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GarthB

You're giving LaRussa far too much credit. I believe his low key approach has more to do with Leyland knowing where the bodies are buried in St. Louis side of the field. LaRussa's skirt isn't all that clean.

If LaRussa had come out and demanded a cavity search of Rogers, Leyland would have come out and the the St, Louis pitchers, or the source of their goo, would be subjected to the same treatment.

LaRussa practically admitted this with a comment that basically said that everyone was looking for an edge and as along as it didn't go too far, it was okay.

I'm so disillusioned. I hope that you're wrong: the comment you mention did not appear in the earlier post. Where did you see or hear him say that? (I'm curious, not denying what you say.)

A couple things are hard to square with your interpretation: (1) why is Leyland different from any other manager? Surely there aren't any secrets among the grizzled veterans. (2) If LaRussa were motivated as you say, why bring up the matter at all? Doesn't he run the risk of escalation merely from mentioning it to the umpires?

[SAump]

This article confirms what LaRussa said and what GarthB stated earlier.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns

"I also know that pitchers use some sticky stuff to get a better grip from the first throw in spring training to the last side they're going to throw in the World Series. Just because there's a little something that they're using to get a better grip, that doesn't cross the line, you know?"

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm so disillusioned. I hope that you're wrong: the comment you mention did not appear in the earlier post. Where did you see or hear him say that? (I'm curious, not denying what you say.)

A couple things are hard to square with your interpretation: (1) why is Leyland different from any other manager? Surely there aren't any secrets among the grizzled veterans. (2) If LaRussa were motivated as you say, why bring up the matter at all? Doesn't he run the risk of escalation merely from mentioning it to the umpires?

The comment I mentioned was in this morning's paper. Leylan worked for LaRussa. As I said, he knows where the bodies are and probably how LaRussa's pitchers work.

LaRussa had to handle it someway...the clubhouse was telling him that Fox was showing close-ups of Roger's hand. He handled it as discreetly as a manager could.

[GarthB]

Since I couldn't find the quote in my newspaper's online version, I searched and found it in a Fox article:

"There's a line that I think defines the competition — and you can sneak over that line, because we're all fighting for an edge," La Russa said. "I always think, does it go to the point of abuse? And that's where you start snapping.

"I also know that many pitchers — I was going to say, 'routinely,' but that may be too strong — use some sticky stuff to get a better grip from the first throw in spring training to the last side (session) they're going to throw in the World Series. Just because there's a little something that they're using to get a better grip, that doesn't cross the line."

The full story is here: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6088650

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by GarthB

You're giving LaRussa far too much credit. I believe his low key approach has more to do with Leyland knowing where the bodies are buried in St. Louis side of the field. Leyland worked with LaRussa.

LaRussa's skirt isn't all that clean. If he had come out and demanded a cavity search of Rogers, Leyland would have come out and the St, Louis pitchers, or the source of their goo, would be subjected to the same treatment.

LaRussa practically admitted this with a comment that basically said that everyone was looking for an edge and as along as it didn't go too far, it was okay.

Well, as I said, Tavarez got 10 days in 2004 when he played for the Cards and he got caught with pine tar on his hat brim.

When LaRussa was with Oakland....and I think that this happened in the 1989 ALCs.....a clubhouse attendant in Toronto found an emery board in Dennis Eckersley's glove after a game. LaRussa brought Eckersley in to close the next night, and the Jay's manager, Cito Gaston, immediately went to the home plate umpire to ask for a search of Eckersley's glove. I think that the ump was Davey Phillips- he talked about this play in his book iirc. The tv cameras caught Eckersley shoving something down his pants, but they never had a good shot of what it was. Phillips never found anything in the glove, and he said afterwards that there was nowayinhell that he was going into Eckersley's pants. So, yes, I agree that laRussa know what real life is like from both sides. Btw, also iirc that game ended with an Eckersley strike-out and the Oakland catcher then giving the Toronto bench the finger. That incident played big on the sports pages for a while too back then.

[David B]

Originally Posted by GarthB

You're giving LaRussa far too much credit. I believe his low key approach has more to do with Leyland knowing where the bodies are buried in St. Louis side of the field. Leyland worked with LaRussa.

LaRussa's skirt isn't all that clean. If he had come out and demanded a cavity search of Rogers, Leyland would have come out and the St, Louis pitchers, or the source of their goo, would be subjected to the same treatment.

LaRussa practically admitted this with a comment that basically said that everyone was looking for an edge and as along as it didn't go too far, it was okay.

Great perspective and I believe very true. Baseball is a dirty game - its not all good ole boys as its portrayed on TV.

We've been there as umpires in HS college and down and even with friends there is nothing above reproach when it comes to winning.

LaRussa knows what would have happened, Leyland's been around the block a few times and LaRussa probably knows that his pitchers might not be able to withstand the same treatments??

Makes you wonder ...

thanks
David

[Andy]

I was listening to the first part of the radio broadcast of last night's game three on ESPN radio and Joe Morgan indicated that he had had breakfast with Randy Marsh before the flight to St. Louis. Morgan asked Marsh why the crew never went and checked Rogers hand. Marsh replied that LaRussa never asked the umpires to do so.

I think that we have established that this is a reasonably accurate recount of the events. My question is if this is a MLB philosophy - wait for the opposing manager to request an inspection for a foreign substance on the pitcher?

How would all of you that work the levels below MLB (college, HS, LL, etc...) handle this situation? If you noticed something unusual on the pitcher's person, would you intitiate the inspection or would you wait for the opposing manager to bring it to your attention?

[LMan]

MLB 7.10: "....A manager may request that an umpire inspect an opposing pitcher for possession of an altering substance or object,but the umpire is not obligated by this request to inspect the pitcher." - quoted from J/R pg 134

[DG]

Originally Posted by Andy

I was listening to the first part of the radio broadcast of last night's game three on ESPN radio and Joe Morgan indicated that he had had breakfast with Randy Marsh before the flight to St. Louis. Morgan asked Marsh why the crew never went and checked Rogers hand. Marsh replied that LaRussa never asked the umpires to do so.

I think that we have established that this is a reasonably accurate recount of the events. My question is if this is a MLB philosophy - wait for the opposing manager to request an inspection for a foreign substance on the pitcher?

How would all of you that work the levels below MLB (college, HS, LL, etc...) handle this situation? If you noticed something unusual on the pitcher's person, would you intitiate the inspection or would you wait for the opposing manager to bring it to your attention?

I will not pick buggers. Manager is going to have to say something, especially if what I am seeing is very visible to everybody, as was the "something suspicious" on the base of Roger's thumb. He was clearly not hiding it.

[Uncle George]

First of all, LaRussa learned about the "stuff" on Rogers hand from an "reserve" player in the clubhouse who saw it on TV. He told LaRussa, who went to the ump inbetween innings. If LaRussa tells the plate ump that how was was informed, isn't using a television monitor grounds for ejection? Maybe that's whay Tony didn't force the issues. And if LaRussa didn't request the ump to pay Rogers a visit, the ump was obligated to, was he? And the fact that the pitcher is more than 60" away wouldn't it be a little hard to see the stuff on his hand where it was located? After all, the camera's had to really zoon in the show it. For me, I would have walked over to Rogers, ask to see his hand. If it was sticky, he's gone. If not, wash it off and let's play ball. Your thoughts.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Uncle George

First of all, LaRussa learned about the "stuff" on Rogers hand from an "reserve" player in the clubhouse who saw it on TV. He told LaRussa, who went to the ump inbetween innings. If LaRussa tells the plate ump that how was was informed, isn't using a television monitor grounds for ejection? Maybe that's whay Tony didn't force the issues.

The direct use of TV monitors is prohibited, as in having one in the dugout for the purpose of stealing signs, etc. The relaying of second-hand information from the monitors located in the clubhouse occurs in all MLB games, and is not illegal.