Major League Baseball and the nature of reality (part two)

Jack Moore at Sports on Earth has a post about how the Detroit Tigers have reached an impasse in talks to extend their contract with pitcher Max Scherzer. Mr. Scherzer won the American League Cy Young Award last season and is a big part of the Tigers' hopes on winning the American League Central Division and more this season.

Did Aaron Rodgers just lose a year's salary?

As Mr. Gillette points out, Green Bay QB Aaron Rodgers was a strong defender of Brewers' left fielder Ryan Braun when he was accused of juicing last year. His defense included the following exchange with a fan on Twitter:

@toddsutton ya I'd put my salary next year on it. #ponyup #exonerated
— Aaron Rodgers (@AaronRodgers12) February 23, 2012

Now that Braun has essentially confessed to using PEDs, many are saying that Rodgers lost his bet, which amounts to $8.5 million or so.

To state the obvious, there's no enforceable contract here because there was no consideration. But a tougher question, perhaps, is whether there was even a bet. Notice that Rodgers's statement is couched conditionally: "I'd put my salary next year on it." So he said that he would put his salary on it, but left unstated were the terms and conditions of the bet. People don't normally make "bets" unless they stand to gain something if they're right. So this seems like a challenge to make a bet, a dare, rather than an actual bet. There was no real offer, and no real acceptance. Most importantly, they never shook on it.

There is one countervailing piece of evidence, though: the hashtag comment "#ponyup." What does that mean? My colloquial understanding of the term is that to "pony up" means to pay up, especially after you lose a bet (particularly in a card game such as poker). Does Rodgers's use of #ponyup imply that he is promising to pay up if he's proven incorrect? Or is it a reference to winning bets he previously made to others before Braun was ephemerally #exonerated?

There's enough ambiguity in there that I would say Rodgers is not beholden under the Gentleman's Code to #ponyup this year's salary to Mr. Sutton or anyone else. But a big fat charitable donation to a worthy cause might be in order.

One final thought. I'm on record as suspecting that PEDs are rampant in pro and college football. In that light, Rodgers's over-zealous defense of Braun seems suspiciously defensive. The QB doth protest too much, methinks.

[Cross-posted at Adam's WI Sports Blog]

Sexting Scandal on Evanston Township High School's Baseball Team

My local Twitter feed blew up today with news that the Evanston Township High School (ETHS) baseball team has canceled the remainder of its season because of a sexting scandal of some sort:

On the eve of regional playoffs at Evanston Township High School, the athletic director told parents in a letter that the baseball team would forfeit the season, following allegations that players were sending indecent photographs via text message.

I don't really know what to make of this. Is sexting really so terrible? Even if it is, why not just suspend the evil-doers? Why "forfeit the season"? What is the lesson here?

I don't care at all about local high school baseball, but this possible overreaction to teenage sexuality seems like a troubling trend.

The Infield-Fly Rule

When we were studying the commerce clause (or perhaps "the dormant commerce clause") in law school, the professor asked the class, "What is the difference between Wisconsin and Iowa?"

The context was that long-haul truckers prefer to drive through Iowa rather than Wisconsin, so the answer was very clear: Wisconsin has hills, Iowa doesn't.

Still, such an open-ended question gets my jokey little brain going and, after a long uncomfortable silence where no one was willing to supply the correct answer, I found myself blurting out: "Wisconsin has a baseball team."

It got a pretty big laugh, but it also got me a homework assignment. I was to go to the library and seek out a famous law review article: "The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule." And I did. (It was actually kind of difficult because the article was too old to be found on Westlaw, so I had to pull an actual dusty book off the shelves. Ew.)

The article is hilarious. The very first word—"the"—is followed by a footnote to the OED definition of this definite article. (A not-so-subtle knock on persnickety law-review editors.) But it is also pretty informative and substantive. I recommend that anyone interested in the history of sports give it a read. It is also essential background information for evaluating John Roberts's claim that a judge is just an umpire. (Because it turns out that umpiring is more interesting and iterative than it may at first seem.)

Anyhow, the infield-fly rule is in the news because it played a significant role in the outcome of the one-game wildcard playoff game between St. Louis and Atlanta last night. It's unclear to me whether the correct call was made (though the Atlanta fans certainly made their position known), but I think it's great that this wonderful and confusing rule is in the news. Here's a nice read.

Major League Baseball and the nature of reality

Ryan Braun, the Milwaukee Brewers slugger and reigning National League MVP, will not be suspended for violating Major League Baseball's policy on banned substances. Normally, the lack of a suspension would not be news because allegations of a failed drug test are supposed to be confidential until the penalty is imposed. So, in the normal case, either a suspension is announced or nobody ever knows anything happened. In this case, though, the allegation that Braun failed a drug test was leaked to ESPN while the process was pending. Under those circumstances, Braun and his circle were perfectly happy to publicize the fact that he had been #exonerated.

Bad weekend

For those of us who root for the Minnesota Twins, it was a bad weekend. In addition to getting stomped by the Toronto Blue Jays, it was announced that Harmon Killebrew has decided to stop treating his esophageal cancer. Joe Posnanski, my nomination for official sportswriter of the Gillette-Torvik Blog, has a nice post about Mr. Killebrew.

Coincidence or powers beyond our comprehension?

Struggling Minnesota Twins pitcher Francisco Liraino throws a no-hitter against the Chicago White Sox on the same day I make my first post of the baseball season. Could there be a connection?

I keep forgetting to put titles on my posts.

Let me first say that I am impressed that you do research for these posts.  I just make stuff up.  To wit:

The first thing I thought of when you nominated Ken Griffey Jr. for a judgeship was that he'd be perfect since he known for sleeping on the job.  Then I started wondering about other baseball figures who might be good on the bench.  What about an umpire?  Or is Chief Justice Roberts close enough?  If not, how about Jim Joyce?  I can see it now:  Attorney Gillette has a perfect trial going, but Judge Joyce blows it by overruling a perfectly valid objection to an improper "golden rule" argument at the end of closing arguments...  Attorney Gillette just smiles wistfully, but he knows justice--and history--has been denied.

Now with sports.

I was doing a little research for a future post about the Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Thomas Petters, when I found something you might find interesting.

I can't remember whether we read it in criminal law or criminal procedure but at some point we read United States v. Foster, a case in which the United States Court of Appeals had to determine what the phrase "to carry a gun" meant. The dissent in Foster closes with a quote from Gavvy Cravath. Cravath was a Justice of the Peace and City Judge for Laguna Township California. His jury instruction for stealing was supposedly this:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. The defendant is charged with stealing $50 from Mr. Jones, I certainly hope that you have lived long enough to know what stealing means without my spending a couple of hours telling you the fine legal distinctions in the law on theft. Stealing means exactly what it says. The district attorney has the responsibility of proving that the defendant is guilty of theft beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. If he hasn't carried that burden, you are to acquit the defendant. You have heard the evidence and are the only ones who can decide who is telling the truth and who is not. Now retire, deliberate and come to a decision.

Anyway, the thing that struck me in re-reading the case is that Judge Cravath was, as the dissent puts it "the first acknowledged home run king before Babe Ruth." That doesn't really put Judge Cravath's accomplishments in the right light. He led the National League in home runs, six times. It took 32 years for Ralph Kiner to beat that accomplishment. After he left baseball (his final season was with the Minneapolis Millers), he was elected judge despite never going to law school or, apparently, practicing law. Maybe recently retired four-time home run champ Ken Griffy Jr., will take a similar post-baseball career path.