Importance of the Code

A Retort to Will Leitch

Last week, Deadspin’s Will Leitch got one wrong. Shockingly wrong.

Leitch, the founding edtor of Deadspin, is chock full of solid opinions, and is frequently right on the money. He’s recently been previewing the upcoming baseball season, one team at a time, but when he got to the Brewers, he whiffed. Badly.

The story in question starts with praise for Prince Fielder’s “bowling ball” routine after his game-ending homer against the Giants last September. This, by itself, is nothing to get worked up over. Heck, I’ll give it a pass based only on the image of the entire roster going through a clubhouse dress rehearsal of the maneuver before the game.

Leitch, however, goes on to refute baseball’s unwritten rules as “pretty dumb” and a “vague macho code.”

As the author of a book propping up the very thing that Leitch is so casually dismissing, I bear a degree of obligation to refute his claims. The thing is, “vague macho code” is actually a fairly accurate description, at least in part. What Leitch doesn’t seem to get is that aside from being vauge and macho, the Code is also a highly effective technique by which players avoid escalating trouble, not something they utilize to find it. It’s a release valve for animosity that builds up over the course of a game, series or season—a method by which both teams can act, react and move on.

From Deadspin:

The whole idea of some sort of secret code that the players and managers use to police themselves seems based on the fundamental problem that baseball is not a contact sport.

If this is Leitch’s fundamental problem, he clearly has little clue about the unwritten rules. It isn’t contact within a sport that mandates an appropriate level of respect across the playing field (although the catcher or middle infielder at the business end of a barreling baserunner might pose a differing opinion); it’s the sport itself.

Baseball’s pace and deliberation make it unique among major American sports in that much of its action is planned: the aforementioned takeout slide against a middle infielder; a substantial hack at a 3-0 pitch while one’s team holds a huge lead late in a game; dalliances outside the batter’s box between pitches. Sometimes these acts are innocent. Frequently, they’re not.

This idea of players being thrown at by the opposing pitcher as the ultimate retribution for disrespecting the game is ridiculous. It’s all part of this vague macho code that those who play baseball have invented so that it might seem they are playing a man’s game, rather than a boy’s.

Come on, Will. Is there a professional sport in America that doesn’t have “macho” at its core? These are type-A athletes competing against other type-A athletes to establish superiority on a ballfield. Baseball is largely one-on-one, pitcher against batter. Do you really think that over the course of 40-odd such showdows per side, per game, feelings of athletic supremacy fail to rise in one side or the other? Of course it’s macho.

The point of the Code is to keep these levels of macho in check, to prevent the biggest kid on the block from acting like it. (While Barry Bonds and a handful of others have been afforded superstar leeway for things like preening after a homer, similar tenets are generally embraced throughout the sports landscape, and Bonds was the exception, not the norm.)

There’s no need to take it off the field and into the parking lot, as you suggest might be more effective, but which in reality would serve only to turn sportsmen into mere ruffians. You call it “pretend retribution” and “ascot justice,” but the goal is to enforce respect within the boundaries of the sport. No amount of parking lot muggings will further that endeavor on the field.

The Code must be carried out within the game to affect the game. Without it, intentional plunkings such as the one you cite against Roger Clemens (which, by the way, is closely examined in the book) would be nothing more than the result of angry pitchers acting like bullies. Instead, these pitches convey a variety of messages, all of which boil down to one prevailing notion: play the game right.

If you have a problem with that, we really have something to discuss.

– Jason

Excerpts

The Week Devotes Space to the Codes

The Week magazine offers up our first excerpt this week, cobbling together assorted passages from the Cheating section of The Baseball Codes in an extensive “Last Word” column.

The editors pegged the piece as a “fresh perspective” on the steroid era, framing The Baseball Codes’ wide-angle view on gaining an illicit advantage within the context of performance-enhancing drugs. A photo of Alex Rodriguez is used for illustration. We pointed out that he’s respected for his ability to decode the opposition’s signals from the basepaths; the editors added that he’s an admitted steroid user.

As a topic, we felt that PEDs were simply too massive a topic, and far too complex to adequately tackle within what would be a small section of the book. The Week brought it around, however, in a fashion that does the subject justice.

Major-league juicers of recent vintage are less a band of cheats than products of their era; they should be viewed no more or less critically than anyone else attempting to emulate a significant percentage of their colleagues in order to gain an illicit edge. The same could be said for spitballers in the 1950s, or the shockingly high percentage of players that benefited from amphetamine use from the 1960s through the ’80s.

This wasn’t the point in drafting the chapter, but it’s a fine one to make in retrospect, via a well-spun excerpt.

– Jason

David Wright, Intimidation

Wright Learning a Powerful Lesson on Intimidation

Last August, David Wright was hit in the head by a 94-mph fastball from Matt Cain, and hospitalized with a concussion. After sitting out 17 games, he missed only one more over the season’s final month, but was never truly tested during that span

As in, no balls were intentionally thrown toward his head.

That changed Monday, when Cardinals pitcher Eduardo Sanchez sent two breaking balls toward Wright’s noggin, just to see if he’d flinch before they fell away toward the strike zone.

He did. Twice.

They might have been Sanchez’s own doing, or were perhaps ordered by Cardinals manager Tony La Russa (who, if he didn’t order the pitches directly, at least has a reputation as somebody who would). And they were not in any way out of line with baseball’s code.

A large part of professional sports is about finding weakness in the opposition, then exploiting it. Rookies are constantly probed for chinks in their armor, as are veterans returning from injury.

Look no further than Ted Williams, who as a 20-year-old rookie in 1939 was immediately tested by Browns manager Fred Haney, who knew him from their days in the Pacific Coast League. When the teams met in St. Louis, the first pitch Williams saw knocked him to the ground. It didn’t have the effect for which Haney had hoped, however, as Williams slugged the next offering off the wall in right-center field for a double. In his next at-bat, Williams was again thrown at and again hit the dirt. Again he responded, blasting a home run to right on an ensuing pitch. It wasn’t long before word circulated around the league that such tactics only made the slugger better, and pitchers quickly abandoned the strategy.

Wright was clearly upset at Sanchez’s pitches, and eventually struck out on a fastball. With that as the result, he can expect similar treatment throughout the year. It will serve as an easy way to take the Mets’ best hitter out of his game.

The only way it’ll stop, of course, is for Wright to disprove the theory. A gapper or two following a pitch similar to those from Sanchez would be a good start.

– Jason

Airwaves

On the Airwaves

Update: So it seems that I might be bumped until Monday if they can get a live remote hooked up on the Stanford campus for Tara Vanderveer. Final word will come tomorrow morning.

* * * * *

Those of you in the San Francisco Bay Area can catch me on Wednesday’s edition of the KRON-4 evening news, with Gary Radnich. The segment will start sometime between 6:45 and 6:50 p.m., or so they tell me.

Also, I spent 15 minutes with Chip Howard of ESPN Radio KZNE in College Station, TX, this afternoon, discussing various aspects of the codes. He was particularly fond of the story in which Dock Ellis goes after the Reds. (If you don’t know the details, I’ll say only that they’re worth reading. This is what we in the industry refer to as a “tease.”) I’ll embed or link to the archive as soon as they put it up.

– Jason

Review

Surface Appreciation is Still Appreciation

Kevin Lager just came out with the best review yet in the “I haven’t actually read the book” category. He admitted as much up front.

Still, it didn’t stop him from giving 5 out of 5 (stars? points?) to the cover; two thumbs up for the fact that it was a collaboration; an A+ for the title; a “perfect 10” for the subtitle (despite our clear bias against Canadians); and an “E for Excellent” on the back-of-book copy (“If you’re going to read the back of one book this spring, make it the back of The Baseball Codes”).

Lager’s summation: “You can tell The Baseball Codes is Pulitzer-material without even cracking the spine.”

Thanks, Kevin. Can’t wait to hear what you think of it once you actually open the thing.

– Jason

Chris Snyder, Cliff Lee, Retaliation

Spring is for Lovers. Also, Retaliation

Spring training is fabulous for so many reasons: symbolic renewal, new gatherings of old friends, blossoming hope for the otherwise hopeless.

Plus, message pitches.

The fact that games don’t count frees pitchers to avenge past injustices (as evidenced in the Prince Fielder vs. the Giants episode earlier this month). It also lets them loose their feelings on whoever might be bugging them at the moment. Like, say, Chris Snyder.

Snyder, the Diamondbacks catcher, got tangled up with Mariners pitcher Cliff Lee on a play at the plate Monday. (Neither was actually part of the play; Lee was backing it up and Snyder was in the on-deck circle.) This much is known: Lee was taken to the ground, likely inadvertently, and subsequently battered a bit by Arizona hitters. What’s not known: the dialog between the men as it happened.

Just more than an inning later, Lee backed Snyder up with two high, inside pitches. The second was the more important, for two reasons: it emphasized Don Drysdale’s maxim that the second brushback is vital, because it shows that the first wasn’t an accident; and it came in above shoulder level. (Watch it at ESPN.com.)

The fact that it was so high that Snyder barely needed to duck to avoid it is barely germane; pitchers who throw near a guy’s head expect a response. (One came from Arizona’s Mark Reynolds, who laid it out after the game, saying, “If you’re going to hit somebody, just stay below the waist. Don’t headhunt. Don’t do any of that. It’s a bad reputation to have. It’s bush league. Stuff like that doesn’t need to happen anytime, especially in spring training.”)

On the field, there were two responses. Snyder approached the mound for some words with the pitcher (both benches subsequently emptied, though no punches were thrown), and Lee was ejected.

Lee stuck to the Code after the game, denying all intent to reporters. “I wasn’t sending a message pitch,” he said. “I had one more out and one more inning to go. A couple of pitches just got too far in. I don’t know what happened.”

Among the best results of the incident is that it inspired Larry Stone of the Seattle Times — for my money, the best chronicler of the unwritten rules in the newspaper business — to come out with a fine article on spring training retaliation. (Games not counting is only one part of this particular equation; that the Mariners don’t meet the D-Backs during the regular season might also have been a factor.)

Spring is here, everybody. Enjoy.

– Jason

ESPN.com

ESPN.com Digging the Codes

I spoke to Cam Martin of ESPN.com on Friday, and he turned around a piece on the unwritten rules this morning. Nice stuff, full of excerpts and a couple quotes.

Unfortunately, it came out on the morning after the NCAA’s selection Sunday, when all anybody cares about is basketball brackets, so its location on Page 2 is a bit buried.

On the plus side, a bunch of pals gave me a good-luck gift last night: a signed photo of the Nolan RyanRobin Ventura fight. (Signed by Ryan only. You can do the math on that one.)  It’s the exact image that ESPN.com used to illustrate the story.

So: kismet meets coverage. Not bad.

– Jason