MLB Players: Crafting a Policy Around Player Expression

Chicago White Sox infielder Tim Anderson sparks a game-wide debate.  Among MLB players, what amount of expression justifies a response.

Wednesday’s benches-clearing confrontation between the Kansas City Royals and Chicago White Sox over Tim Anderson‘s behavior underscores the glaring absence of agreement regarding the question of showboating in Major League Baseball. That absence includes whether showboating even exists and if it does, what if anything ought to be done about it.

Until such an agreement is reached AND instituted, the kinds of rhetorical fights seen Wednesday over what constitutes proper onfield behavior will continue to be inevitable.

The incident erupted after Anderson homered in the second inning against Brad Keller. Anderson demonstratively flipped his bat and appeared to very expressively yell something in the direction of his dugout.

Royals personnel appeared to interpret Anderson’s behavior as a stain on their collective escutcheon. When he next appeared at the plate, Keller drilled Anderson with a fastball on the rump.

More from Call to the Pen

• Philadelphia Phillies, ready for a stretch run, bomb St. Louis Cardinals
• Philadelphia Phillies: The 4 players on the franchise’s Mount Rushmore
• Boston Red Sox fans should be upset over Mookie Betts’ comment
• Analyzing the Boston Red Sox trade for Dave Henderson and Spike Owen
• 2023 MLB postseason likely to have a strange look without Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals

Keller later described the pitch as having “gotten away,” an explanation believed by nobody with the possible exception of Keller’s mom.

Anderson and Royals catcher Martin Maldonado exchanged comments, the benches cleared, and when all was said and done Keller, Anderson, Sox manager Rich Renteria and Royals coach Dale Sveum were ejected.

There are essentially three schools of thought in such incidents, none agree with the other two, and MLB has no comprehensive policy in such cases. That’s probably because MLB players themselves can’t agree; what one side sees as protecting its players from the risk of injury the other side sees as a necessary reaction to an attack on one’s honor.

In a sentence each, here are the three sides:

1. Let the kids play. Those ascribing to this view believe Anderson did no wrong in reacting expressively to his home run. Their response to the Royals or anybody taking offense is “get him out.”
2. Let them settle it on the field. In the minds of proponents of this view, if Anderson wants to showboat, that’s OK; if Keller wants to plunk him, that’s OK; and if the teams want to rumble, that’s OK, too.
3. The no-fun-league. Showing-up opponents is unsportsmanlike, and if you don’t like that explanation try this one: People get hurt. MLB is well aware that MLB players have – on occasion –been seriously injured in such confrontations. Beyond that, the view is it’s bad for the game’s image when MLB presents itself as a Wild West shootout.

For most of baseball history, rule 2 prevailed. A batter viewed as too expressive could expect to get flipped, and better be prepared for it. With a few exceptions for egregious or extended instances, umpires generally did not get involved.

That, however, began to change when baseball started to lose market share, especially among younger audiences, to sports viewed as more tolerant of personal expression. But that leads to an unappealing onfield dichotomy. To the extent the game allows expressions such as Andersons while prohibiting retaliation, it picks a side in the ongoing and very fluid debate between pitchers and hitters.

The argument could be made that MLB ought to take precisely such a side because while the Tim Andersons of this world are at most delivering an insult – and maybe not even that – the Brad Kellers are employing a potentially injurious weapon in the form of that baseball Anderson was hit with.

Some now are suggesting the implementation of a “third man in” rule similar to what is employed in hockey. Such a rule essentially would allow Anderson to challenge Keller — or vice versa —  but restrict any teammate from coming to the aide of either. A modification of that rule would restrict MLB players from leaving the dugout, the problem with that being it would legalize 9-on-1 confrontations.

The reality of crafting policy is made more complex by the fact that while the White Sox and Royals might occupy certain sides of Wednesday’s dispute, they could easily flip those sides the next time the two teams meet. We could be as little as one Royals bat flip away from that scenario.

So it’s understandable why there is no agreement even within major league clubhouses on what kind of policy, if any, ought to govern. And if MLB players themselves can’t agree, how can the game’s administration be expected to develop a policy that would be widely accepted?