The mere idea of a hard baseball traveling 90-plus mph toward a human body should be enough to make you say, “You know what? There’s a strong chance this guy ends up feeling some physical pain.” But when a pitch is thrown near someone’s head, the accompanying danger is so great that it often creates a sinking feeling within onlookers. That’s why throwing at someone’s head is nothing to mess around with, and it’s exactly why Ian Kennedy deserves a big punishment following Tuesday’s brawl between the Dodgers and Diamondbacks.

Plunking batters intentionally will remain part of the game. And that’s fine. But Kennedy’s pitch to Zack Greinke in the seventh inning of Tuesday’s heated affair went beyond protecting a teammate or sending a message. It was a dangerous and reckless display of immaturity, and it’s one thing that baseball needs to clamp down on when it comes to in-game fisticuffs.

Tensions were running high at Dodger Stadium. Greinke plunked Cody Ross in the fifth inning, and Kennedy hit Yasiel Puig in the nose — yes, the nose — in the sixth inning. That particular beanball from Kennedy didn’t seem all that intentional, but it laid the groundwork for what was to come. Greinke drilled Miguel Montero in the top of the seventh inning — likely as retribution for the Puig beaning — and Kennedy responded by throwing a ball right at Greinke’s head when the pitcher came to bat in the bottom of the seventh.

Sometimes, you can debate whether a pitcher threw at a hitter on purpose, but there’s no debating Kennedy’s intentions. In fact, it’s pretty clear that Greinke drilled Montero on purpose, too. The difference is that Greinke protected his teammate by hitting Montero where the slugger was unlikely to get hurt. He didn’t go throwing up and in like a mad man — something Kennedy clearly has mastered the art of. Everything should have been over and done with once Montero was hit, the benches cleared for the first time and the fire was extinguished. Instead, Kennedy reignited the flame with his despicable antics, leading to an uglier scene than was necessary.

Kennedy appeared ready for the repercussions, as he sauntered off the mound immediately after tossing the dangerous pitch that struck Greinke high on the shoulder. Now, Major League Baseball should send a message that those repercussions are far greater than an ejection and the six-game suspension that’s typically handed down to pitchers following on-field brawls.

Drilling a batter is one thing. But there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. Kennedy chose the latter path, and it’s something that shouldn’t be tolerated.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here.

Major League Baseball reportedly is seeking to suspend about 20 players for their link to a Miami-based clinic that allegedly distributed performance-enhancing drugs. That’s all well and good. But the idea of MLB trying to hand out those suspensions based on the testimony of a less-than-credible drug dealer only increases the uneasiness surrounding the entire situation.

MLB will continue to talk about cleaning up the game — something that the vast majority of baseball fans are in favor of — but would a cleaner game really be the end result here?

It’s going to be difficult for any suspensions to hold up. The MLB Players Association will fight to the death if the league ultimately tries to lay the hammer down after its investigation, and, at this point, it’s hard to imagine that the testimony of the clinic’s former director, Tony Bosch, will be enough. But even if it is, then what? Are we any closer to getting PEDs out of baseball for good?

This isn’t to say that the players linked to the Biogenesis clinic shouldn’t be punished. But the punishments should require more than just Bosch’s testimony, and baseball fans should be skeptical of what exactly the punishments mean. The idea of Bosch giving up a bunch of names in exchange for getting off scot free doesn’t seem like a tactic geared toward cracking down on the big problem here — PED use. Instead, it seems like the easiest route MLB can take in playing public relations damage control.

It’s as if Major League Baseball thinks that by suspending 20 or so players for their connection to the clinic, the book will close on the scandalous tale. The league thinks it can wash its hands, step up to the podium and insist it’s winning the battle, because, on the surface, suspending guys like Alex Rodriguez or Ryan Braun gives off the illusion that MLB will spare no one in its quest for a PED-free game. We’re expected to just overlook the deal with the devil (in this case, Bosch).

We shouldn’t disregard whatever it is that Bosch ends up saying, as there could be a great deal of truth and substance to whatever it is he reveals. It’s just impossible to envision his revelations and any subsequent suspensions leading to any big advances in cutting down PED use, and that should ultimately be the main objective. There will be a perception of closure, and even perhaps a perception that justice was served, but it’s naïve to think that ending this huge scandal in such a manner sets the league up for a greater, cleaner, more respected future.

If the league truly wants to cut down on PED use, its focus should be geared more toward getting answers and new information from those players who get caught up in the mess. That would help get to the heart of the issue and perhaps lead to steps in the right direction over time. Promising a dealer immunity, getting a list of names and going on a suspension spree only acts to save face amid the unflattering headlines, essentially amounting to a temporary fix.

If this all plays out the way that Major League Baseball wants it to, it wouldn’t be shocking to see another scandal down the road. It’s time to stop slapping Band-Aids on these types of problems in order to manipulate public perception.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here. 

Beckett, who is currently on the 15-day disabled list with a groin strain, is dealing with numbness in the fingertips of his right hand, and the situation is apparently serious enough that the 33-year-old has thought about the possibility of retirement. If Beckett walks away now, he’ll leave behind a very complicated legacy.

Six years ago, Beckett was considered an ace, a gamer, a winner, a postseason hero and, in the minds of many, a future Hall of Famer. Now, the words commonly associated with Beckett are less than flattering. Cooperstown is merely a potential vacation spot for the right-hander; it’s no longer his place of enshrinement.

Beckett, the second overall pick in 1999, made a real name for himself when he guided the Marlins to a World Series title in 2003. He was fantastic in that postseason, even tossing a complete-game shutout in the title-clinching Game 6 at Yankee Stadium. The sky was the limit for the 23-year-old, hard-throwing Texan.

But while Beckett effectively arrived with his ’03 heroics, it was four years later when he truly began to carve out a place in baseball history. After a lackluster first season with the Red Sox in 2006, Beckett rebounded to win 20 games in 2007, before then embarking on another epic postseason run. He went 4-0 with a 1.20 ERA in four postseason starts as the Sox won their second World Series title in four years.

After that masterful ’07 campaign, Beckett was a 27-year-old with two World Series rings, both of which he played a pivotal role in obtaining. The talk was about his mound presence, his intense demeanor and his propensity for delivering in the clutch. He was all that Boston loved in a player, and he was exactly the type of workhorse that every team coveted.

By October 2008, postseason greatness was the expectation. After all, this was Josh Freakin’ Beckett. However, Beckett failed to provide the same playoff moxie in ’08 that we were accustomed to seeing, and to the bewilderment of many, he actually looked human.

At that point, the aura that surrounded “Josh Beckett: Postseason Aficionado” began to fade, even though the ego didn’t. Beckett had off-and-on success with the Red Sox from 2009 until 2012, but throughout it all, the perception of the pitcher changed. The confidence that was once lauded seemingly morphed into cockiness and a sense of entitlement, and by the time the Red Sox shipped him to the Dodgers last August, 2007 seemed like a footnote rather than the climax of Beckett’s seven years in Boston.

To say Beckett doesn’t care about the game of baseball is unfair. The guy who tagged out Jorge Posada on a slow roller up the first-base line to win a ring in 2003 loved the game. And the guy who went into Cleveland in Game 5 of the 2007 ALCS and stymied the Indians to kick off a historic comeback certainly looked like he enjoyed it as well. But somewhere, something definitely changed.

Now, Beckett, who sits at 0-5 with a 5.19 ERA, is looking to bounce back, realizing that his career has suddenly become a race against time. He’ll have his share of supporters, but he’ll also have far more haters than anyone could have ever imagined.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here.

It’s all gravy.

Sure, Beckett’s injury complications further validate the front office synopsis that his time of usefulness for the Red Sox was over, just like hearing Carl Crawford whine in Los Angeles further validates how smart it was to trade him and keep him from whining in Boston.

But the Red Sox don’t have to wait for Crawford to underachieve (which he has), Adrian Gonzalez to continue his lack of power at the plate (which he has) or Beckett to fail to be the starter he was paid to be (which he has). Boston can rest easy, because it got the better end of that monumental August trade — no matter how the players it sent west pan out.

The beauty of that late-summer heist will always be how easily the Red Sox rid themselves of pieces they absolutely had to get rid of. Everything else beyond that, such as who they received in return (some good prospects) and how the players they sent away have fared, is really inconsequential.

If Crawford and Gonzalez were to go out and bat .400, put up 40 home runs apiece and keep a team built for success from being inexplicably unsuccessful (which they haven’t), the Red Sox still couldn’t lose this deal. What they gained in salary space and clubhouse relief would have been worth them paying the Dodgers to pull it off. Boston didn’t have to do that, and now the Red Sox barely even have to think about Crawford and Gonzalez anymore as those two continue their mediocre ways out West.

Beckett, meanwhile, is dealing with the kind of injuries that happen to a 33-year-old pitcher whose stuff has diminished over recent years. Beckett has been out since May 13 with a strained groin, and he will have an MRI on Tuesday to try to figure out why his fingers are going numb, Dylan Hernandez of the Los Angeles Times reports. (Beckett was 0-5 with a 5.19 ERA when he went on the disabled list, Dylan Hernandez of the Los Angeles Times also reports.)

But Beckett’s limitations as a pitcher were, of course, the least of the Red Sox’ problems. As hard as it is to imagine slotting those numbers into this year’s Boston rotation, which has been a strong point for the team, what’s even harder to imagine is Beckett still being in the Sox clubhouse. The never-ending reports of the team being “toxic” and Beckett being a horrible person were hard to judge last year, when it was never clear who was knocking who and for what purpose. But the evidence of how well this team is doing with its markedly different perspective and upbeat attitude can’t be argued with. With Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz (to name two) taking fresh looks at how they approach the game, from their time between pitches to the tone they strike with teammates and reporters, it’s hard to see how Beckett would have fit in at all.

No one in Boston is tempted to add up the numbers and ask whether Ryan Dempster (2-5, 4.69 ERA, 67 strikeouts) is a better option than Beckett (0-5, 5.19 ERA, 41 strikeouts), if Mike Napoli (8 home runs, 39 RBIs, .262 average) is preferable to Gonzalez (6 home runs, 37 RBIs, .337), or even if Jonny Gomes (2 home runs, 10 RBIs, .176 average in 91 at-bats) is an upgrade from Crawford (5 home runs, 13 RBIs, .308 in 169 at-bats). The numbers, at this point, are of secondary concern to a Red Sox team that is the perfect real-life example of how stats don’t make winners, but teammates playing together do.

In their deal with the Dodgers last summer, the Red Sox rid themselves of huge, horrible contracts. They made a statement that whatever happened at the end of 2011 and throughout 2012 was not acceptable going forward. They got rid of three players who had proven to cause more problems than they solved in the clubhouse and on the field (while Beckett and Crawford attract obvious blame, Gonzalez’s flaw was that he was never a good fit for Boston). And they got great prospects and plenty of salary space to maneuver and build whatever they wanted for 2013.

Beckett’s injury, Crawford’s whining and Gonzalez’s solid-but-not-MVP play are fine to see whenever Sox supporters turn their eyes to Pacific Standard Time. But they’re hardly worth writing about, because this deal was a winner no matter what that trio did when it left town.

At this point, it’s all gravy.

The Yankees have been one of the biggest surprises in baseball this season, not because they’re winning, but because they’re winning with spare parts. The Bronx Bombers have been without many of their stars, including Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Mark Teixeira and Curtis Granderson, yet they’ve clawed their way to the top of the American League East.

Those setbacks, while major, pale in comparison to Pettitte’s injury, though.

The Yankees find themselves in first place largely because of their starting pitching, and Pettitte has been a big part of that. The overall numbers — 4-3 record, 3.83 ERA, 1.30 WHIP — aren’t eye-popping, but Pettitte has been very consistent with the exception of one outing. The lefty gave up seven earned runs on 10 hits over 4 1/3 innings against the Astros on April 29, but he’s allowed three runs or fewer in each of his other seven starts.

Simply put, Pettitte gives the Yankees a chance to win when he takes the mound, and now New York will be forced to rely on 25-year-old rookie Vidal Nuno. Nuno’s first major league start on Monday went well — he tossed five shutout innings and got the win — but replacing a proven veteran presence like Pettitte is no easy task, especially when Phil Hughes’ recent struggles leave questions about where his season is headed.

CC Sabathia and Hiroki Kuroda will need to continue anchoring the Yankees’ rotation in Pettitte’s absence, while the rest of the staff picks up the slack. David Phelps turned in another solid performance on Saturday, allowing just one earned run over seven innings, and he’ll need to continue pitching well for as long as Pettitte is sidelined — which the Yankees are optimistic won’t be long.

But even if Pettitte’s trip to the 15-day DL is precautionary, it still highlights just how thin of a tightrope the Yankees are walking. Ivan Nova could return before long, although he was hardly effective in his four starts before going down. And perhaps Michael Pineda, who hasn’t pitched in a Yankees uniform since being acquired prior to last season, will return and showcase his natural talent at some point this summer. Neither of those scenarios are a sure thing, though, so the Yankees should proceed with the mindset that any contribution from those two hurlers is an added bonus.

Will Pettitte’s recent injury kill the Yankees’ season? Probably not, especially if he only misses a couple of starts. However, if the injury bug sticks around and starts chomping away at him and the rest of the rotation, it could become awfully difficult for the Yankees to continue motoring along atop the division.

The Yankees have survived some big blows to their offense, but they simply cannot afford injuries to their rotation.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here.

Yu Darvish tossed 130 pitches in eight innings against the Tigers on Thursday despite the Rangers leading 10-4. Manager Ron Washington’s decision to leave Darvish in the game for so long has been a talking point ever since, but the whole debate is fruitless.

Baseball fans, coaches, players, pundits and statisticians have spent countless hours in recent years tossing in their two cents about the importance — or lack thereof — of hard-and-fast pitch counts and innings limits. Yet after sifting through all sorts of empirical data, bickering about individual scenarios and listening to plenty of stories about “how the game used to be,” we haven’t arrived at one universal rule or line of logic that makes total sense. We never will, and therefore making a firm determination on Darvish’s outing against the Tigers is downright impossible.

Every pitcher’s body is different. Every start, whether it be because of stressful situations or the types of pitches thrown over the course of the outing, is different. Every situation is different. Blah. Blah. Blah. Long story short: How long a pitcher stays in the game is something that should be determined on a case-by-case basis. No numbers, case studies, past scenarios or tall tales should override how a pitcher feels, how effective he’s been and what the situation in question calls for.

That’s why criticizing Washington as if he did something completely egregious is not only unfair, but it’s also ridiculous. We can hold Washington’s feet to the fire all we want, but then what is our end game? Are we simply making it a point to grill Washington on his managerial decision so that we have a leg to stand on if Darvish suddenly fizzles out in the second half?

Looking at the situation as a whole, there are a ton of people — myself included — who would have turned to the bullpen after Darvish threw 115 pitches through seven innings. That decision has nothing to do with pitch counts, per se, but a lot to do with whether rolling Darvish back out there with a six-run lead was all that necessary. Without being in the dugout alongside Darvish on Thursday, though, it’s stupid to definitively say, “Mr. Washington, you crossed the line.”

We can debate pitch counts and innings limits until the cows come home, and then keep a watchful eye on the cows’ workload once they enter the equation. But the topic, especially as it pertains to Darvish’s outing, is way too subjective to lay the hammer down on Washington.

Agreeing with or disagreeing with Washington’s decision is one thing. Making a big stink about a few extra pitches is another.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here.

Now, eight months later, the Nationals are faced with a bit of a health situation involving their other superstar, Bryce Harper, who ran into a wall at Dodger Stadium during Monday’s game. The whole situation involving Harper hardly matches the magnitude of the Strasburg debate, which started early last season and lingered through October and into the offseason, but the dichotomy between the two predicaments is interesting.

Tests apparently indicated that Harper didn’t suffer a concussion — and he’s in Thursday’s lineup — yet it’s hard to dismiss the whole incident because of what we’ve heard since the collision. Harper looked dazed, had no idea where he was and has thrown out words like, “crappy,” “terrible” and “carsick” when describing how he’s felt over the last few days. This isn’t to say the Nationals are lying about Harper, but for a young player who goes full steam on every play and who has a tendency to be candid with the media, shouldn’t some red flags be raised? Shouldn’t Harper’s status be handled carefully rather than simply chalking it up as him getting his bell rung?

The obvious answer is “yes,” but manager Davey Johnson‘s comments don’t exactly suggest that there is a great deal of alarm when it comes to Harper’s status.

“I wasn’t worried about the concussion. He got hit on the chin,” Johnson said. “Nobody gets a concussion from getting hit on the chin. You might get knocked out. You don’t usually get a concussion from that. He’s got a few aches and pains, but he’s young. He’ll probably be alright [Wednesday].”

Maybe Harper really is OK, and delving deeper into the topic is thus a waste of oxygen. It’s just hard to overlook the whole Harper situation, especially knowing the criticism the Nationals faced last season for being too “soft” with their other superstar. If the Nationals truly wanted to shed their “soft” label and become a team more synonymous with characteristics such as “gritty,” “tough” and “driven,” wouldn’t handling their 20-year-old phenom in an old-time baseball sort of way help do the trick? (Get up and dust yourself off, kid. We’ve got a division to win.)

Again, maybe this is reading too much into Harper’s comments about not feeling quite right. It’s just ironic that the Nationals are steadfast on his injury being nothing serious despite his comments, whereas last season’s oft-criticized shutdown of Strasburg came regardless of the right-hander feeling 100 percent fine physically.

If the Nationals are trying to adopt a tougher culture, risking the health of one of the franchise’s cornerstones — when he’s actually banged up and not the victim of some ill-advised innings limit — isn’t the way to go about it.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here.

Blue Jays third baseman Brett Lawrie owns a .179 batting average and enters Friday’s game in the midst of a 2-for-25 slump. Needless to say, he’s an easy target for all baseball fans — especially those with a computer — either amused by or disgruntled about the Blue Jays’ atrocious start to the season. The Toronto third baseman doesn’t care for the Internet criticism, though, and he decided to fire back in the most jabroni way possible.

“All u people who chirp when things don’t go good have never done anything in pro sport .. Ever .. So shut ur mouths #LetsGetThisThingg #jays,” Lawrie tweeted on Thursday.

Oh, the “I’m an athlete, and you’re stupid” card. Nicely played, Brett. Only it isn’t.

We’ve seen plenty of athletes use a similar defense mechanism in the past, and we’ll undoubtedly see it again as long as the Internet doesn’t vanish into some sort of abyss. That doesn’t make it any less lame, though, especially when said athlete fumbles all over himself from that point on.

“I expect that,” Lawrie said of the online criticism, according to the Toronto Star. “I expect a lot out of myself, but at the same time I’m not going to sit there and take all that from people that I don’t know. So if I want to say something back, I have more than the right to. Freedom of speech. People want to come at me with something then I’m not scared to say something back.”

Lawrie is absolutely right. He can say whatever he wants. That’s the luxury of free speech, and as a result, the Internet is essentially a giant free-for-all — Twitter, especially. But going off that, “I’ll say whatever the hell I want” mantra, why then should Lawrie insist his critics shut their mouths? That’s hypocritical, no?”

The hypocrisy isn’t even the worst — or best, if you’re like me and enjoy watching people say dumb things — part of Lawrie’s 140-character temper tantrum. The real genius move was him trying to delete the tweet. This is 2013 and once something’s out there, it’s out there. Why not stand by what you say (or tweet)? At least handle the backlash, especially if you’re later going to puff out your chest, toss around freedom of speech like you’re a founding father and proclaim, “I’m not scared to say something back.” It’s like the kid who causes a fight, stands in the corner and then talks after the fight about how he was ready to drop someone.

In Lawrie’s defense, he is spot-on about one thing. Even despite his struggles, his athletic ability is far superior than the average human’s. That gift enables him to play a professional sport for a living, which believe it or not, also puts Lawrie in the public spotlight. Sure, plenty of people tend to get a little too worked up — again, one man’s opinion — about players or teams who don’t play well, but the Internet trolls are something athletes and celebrities must deal with. The critics could direct their frustration toward Billy Green the city worker, but Twitter upheaval doesn’t exactly come with that profession’s territory.

The simple solution for Lawrie if he doesn’t want to put up with people’s Twitter criticism is to delete his account. It doesn’t look like that’s going to happen, though. Baseball analyst and former big league catcher Gregg Zaun suggested such, and Lawrie tweeted, “@greggzaun I should get off twitter? .. I’ll do wat I want actually .. #TakeCareNow.”

Well, if Lawrie plans to do what he wants, we should probably all do the same — athletic ability notwithstanding.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here. 

According to reporters on the scene, Joyce addressed the media after the game while literally in tears. He didn’t get belligerent or try to hide from his mistake, but owned it, openly bemoaning that “I just cost the kid a perfect game.”

Galarraga’s reaction was downright heartwarming. He showed little emotion on the field after being informed of the call — after he had already begun celebrating the non-perfect game. Afterwards, Galarraga focused not on the blown call or his robbed perfecto, but the fact that it was the best game of his career.

“[Joyce] probably feels more bad than me,” said Galarraga, noting that Joyce had approached him and apologized after the game. “Nobody’s perfect. Everybody’s human. I understand. I give the guy a lot of credit for saying, ‘I need to talk to you.’ You don’t see an umpire tell you that after a game. I gave him a hug.”

In short, what came about from that singular moment of Joyce’s failure turned out to be one of the best showings of sportsmanship in the history of professional sports. The two continue to be friends to this day and even wrote a book together about the whole ordeal.

Beyond sportsmanship, however, the underlying theme of Joyce’s redemption was one of accountability. And accountability was something that umpire Angel Hernandez was sorely missing after Wednesday night’s contest between the Athletics and Indians at Progressive Field.

After the game, which the Indians won 4-3 because Adam Rosales‘ home run was ruled a double, even after video review by the umpiring crew, Hernandez shirked accountability in a pretty stunning way. Multiple reporters on the scene noted that the 23-year umpiring veteran did answer questions after the game, but demanded that journalists were not allowed to electronically record his comments and asked to only take notes by hand.

The human element is intrinsic to baseball and will always be until cameras and computers completely replace umpires. In short, we accept missed calls as a part of the game, the idea being that everyone eventually winds up with an equal number of lucky breaks and cheated opportunities. Hernandez’s gaffe was a bad one, but it’s the apparent belligerence with which he behaved afterward is what was truly problematic.

Now, all of this being said, Hernandez is flatly a bad umpire. He’s drawn the ire of players for a long time now, and the statistics (about his work behind the plate, in particular) of his consistency also bear that out. There’s a different discussion to be had about performance reviews of umpires, but, again, even the variables of different umpires and their proclivities and weaknesses is something we accept in baseball.

If Hernandez is bad at his job, then that is something that needs to be addressed by Major League Baseball. Presumably he’s not intentionally trying to miff calls on the field. Mistakes are a part of the game, whether they’re made by coaches, player or umpires. That human element is part of what makes baseball great, and it’s also what occasionally makes moments, such as the one shared between Galarraga and Joyce, truly transcendent of sports, entirely.

If Galarraga had completed his perfect game, he would have soon been forgotten — how many people have already forgotten what Philip Humber did just over a year ago? But thanks to Joyce, Galarraga shared in a moment that will live on much longer in the annals of baseball.

Getting back to Hernandez, it’s a matter of character. This 700-word essay is not to suggest any fundamental change in MLB, or to suggest Hernandez should be fired. It’s not meant to accomplish anything at all.

The point here is nothing but mere moral outrage, and to point out the lack of character Hernandez has. Human mistakes we can live with, but failing to hold yourself accountable for them is cowardice.

On July 22, 2007 — less than a month into his coaching career — Tulsa Drillers first base coach Mike Coolbaugh was struck by a line drive on the neck. The shot essentially severed the 35-year-old’s left vertebral artery, causing a massive brain hemorrhage, which killed him on impact.

Most first base coaches stand even with the bag, so they’re also about 90 feet away from the batter. Pitchers, however, by the time they finish their motion, are about 55 feet away from the batter — and often in a poor position to protect themselves.

After being reminded again by J.A. Happ — just as we were late last season by Brandon McCarthy — that baseball can be very dangerous, the message is clear: If MLB doesn’t do something soon to address protecting pitchers, a player will die on the field for just the second time in any major American sport.

The first time a player died on the field was in football, and it wasn’t even due to injuries sustained during the game. In 1971, Detroit Lions wide receiver Chuck Hughes, who had undiagnosed arteriosclerosis, collapsed after running a route and died on the turf at Tiger Stadium.

An occurrence such as that is obviously a fluke, but if baseball actually sees a pitcher die on the field after incurring the wrath of a line drive, there’s no telling what the fallout would be. More to the point, this is a known risk that can be addressed, at least in part, by modern technology.

Again, if standing 90 feet away from a batted ball can kill you, then what, exactly, does baseball think the risk is of standing 55 feet away? A 95-mph fastball takes about four-tenths of a second to go from the pitcher’s hand to the catcher’s glove. A batted ball can come back the same way at about 110 mph, so the reaction time for a pitcher — who, again, may be in a poor position to protect himself after completing his motion — is even less.

The prospect of a pitcher dying on the field shouldn’t just be a concern to baseball. It should be viewed as an inevitability unless action is taken. Worse yet, it may not even be in the big leagues where something so horrific occurs, but in college. With the NCAA’s metal bats, which produce even faster line drives, it may well be a teenager who ends up being the unlucky one.

After suffering a cracked skull and an epidural hemorrhage from his line drive to the head, McCarthy actually spoke about the possibility of pitchers wearing some sort of helmet. Perhaps unsurprisingly, even after his personal experience, the now-Diamondbacks right-hander said he doesn’t think such helmets should ever be mandatory, comparing wearing bulky headgear to throwing with his opposite arm. But of course McCarthy is going to say something like that, as athletes are generally adverse to any change that may even imperceptibly hinder them.

The point is that the technology is out there, and it’s up to MLB to protect its players, rather than leaving it up to them to make the wrong choice. During last year’s postseason, a report even emerged that baseball was considering making minor league pitchers wear some sort of headgear as soon as 2013. Obviously that didn’t come to fruition, but it shows that not only are helmets for pitchers feasible, but eminently doable in the very near future.

In short, there’s just no reason to continue holding out on the issue of pitcher helmets. Players will complain, but, just like batting helmets first and ear flaps after that, they will adjust, and the game will be safer. Obviously a helmet may not have helped Coolbaugh, but the point is we know the very real danger of line drives to a pitcher’s head (as Forbes points out, about one in every 105 MLB pitchers is hit in the head by a line drive), and we have a technology capable of mitigating that danger.

Let’s hope this change can be implemented across baseball before an unfortunate player pays the ultimate price.

Such is the life that Bryce Harper appears to be relegated to. Harper was ejected from Sunday’s game after disagreeing with a strikeout call in the first inning, when his disagreeing escalated to the point that umpire John Hirschbeck thought the 20-year-old was showing him up. Harper raised his bat, Hirschbeck yelled, and Harper tossed his helmet. That was it for the young outfielder, who then had eight innings to cool off. His postgame comments did not further inflame the matter but rather opened the stage for everyone else to talk about how ludicrous Hirschbeck had been.

MLB is reviewing the ejection, as it does every time someone is tossed, but that doesn’t mean that the early reaction — that Hirschbeck was way out of line — is going to win the day. Hirschbeck, and other umpires who have recently found the need to express their authority, such as Tom Hallion in the infamous David Price “liar” incident, will be reviewed and punished or supported in the way that they will. The lingering lesson here is not as much about them as it is for the players who will be dealing with them for many seasons.

Harper may have been on the wrong end of a bad call, but that doesn’t mean that he can’t prevent something like this from happening again.

The biggest skill every athlete must learn is the ability to not let anything take him off his game. Whether it be a pitch he can’t handle, a crowd that gets under his skin or a weakness in his game he can’t overcome, learning to vanquish potential Achilles’ heels is what puts the great players beyond the good ones. Any time a player allows himself to have a wild card that can knock him off his game, he opens the door for the other team or circumstances to take advantage of him and diminish his potential.

Harper has such a wild card, but he’s loathe to deal with it, because it’s not a typical weakness. While others fix their swings or work on their fielding, Harper has been unmoved so far when it comes to tweaking his weakness — perhaps because it’s not an on-field issue.

Harper’s weakness is his unique personality and approach to the game. From his haircuts and eye black to the fearless way he takes at-bats and charges around the bases, Harper’s aggressive, in-your-face style is what sets him apart from fellow players and, in its brashness, gives him confidence in capitalizing on his talents.

But Harper’s unique approach, which is often coupled with outbursts, can be a weakness, too. It’s one thing to snap a bat in half after being upset about striking out, but it’s another when that anger leads to other complications. Last year, Harper went to the plate with blood trickling down his cheek after a bat shard from a post-strikeout wall-bludgeoning left him injured. This time, he missed most of a game after an umpire ejected him for menacing gestures, deserved or not.

While Hirschbeck may have been out of line for tossing Harper, it cannot be denied that the reputation Harper has built for himself in Major League Baseball contributed to Hirschbeck’s quick hook. Harper is known to toss his helmets and whack his bats, and even a merely passionate look from him has people feeling justifiably threatened if they perceive him to be a player who is angry and unhinged. Hirschbeck should have left Harper in the game, but it was Harper’s history more than his in-game histrionics that ultimately got him tossed Sunday. Hirschbeck commented later that he was reacting to Harper throwing his equipment, or the threat thereof, making his action just as much a preventative measure as it was a pugilistic one.

Harper may not like that he’s treated differently because he’s characterized as a wild brat, but it cuts two ways. Many days, a brash, passionate Harper gets a boost from his unique persona. Plenty of people support him for who he is. Other days, however, what others see as reckless anger does him harm. If Harper wants to be excused for being a one-of-a-kind player, he has to know that many people may not know how to react his one-of-a-kind ways.

Harper should never stop being who he is, especially because the way he acts fits so perfectly with his game and how great he can be. What he does need to do, however, is be aware that not everyone understands that passion is not anger, and that him getting fired up, wearing his hair funny or wearing red contacts to make him look like a devil doesn’t mean he’s unhinged.

Few understand that, though. When Harper flips his hat, umpires have reason to think that he’s going over the line. This isn’t the first time that behavior that would have been acceptable for one player instead got Harper in trouble.

It’s not Harper’s fault that he’s sometimes getting treated differently for no reason, but it is Harper’s responsibility to change something if he doesn’t want to occasionally get burnt by umps who find themselves endangered by his personality and actions. Even if it’s only a few times a year, the fact that Harper can either figuratively — or, in this case, literally — take himself out of games by appearing to be too aggressive is something that he should think about moving forward. Even if it means reeling in the way he comes across to people once in a while, even if the fault is not his, Harper has to know how to limit actions that can be used to take him out of games.

It may not be fair that Harper is always going to be that kid who gets blamed when the principal shows up in the classroom looking for the troublemaker, but he can do something about it. It starts with not playing into preconceptions.

Hirschbeck should have walked away and not tossed Harper. But Harper can always walk away, too.

For decades now, 300 wins for a pitcher has been the standard of automatic entry to baseball’s Hall of Fame. However, when Randy Johnson achieved the feat in 2009, many asked the very legitimate question of whether or not the Big Unit would be the last pitcher to ever hit that mark. Conventional wisdom says Johnson will indeed be the last.

History tells us that the Los Angeles Dodgers were the first team to go to a five-man rotation, featuring the likes of Tommy John and Don Sutton. They turned from the four-man staff in the early 1970s, and soon thereafter most of baseball followed suit. Since that point, just 10 pitchers have captured at least 300 victories, only four of those since 1990.

In short, starting pitching wins are becoming rarer, and that’s a trend not likely to change any time soon. Beyond the advent of the five-man rotation, the increased importance of relief pitchers and, moreover, the specialization of their roles has played a huge part in the decrease in total wins by starting pitchers.

This is why Tim Hudson‘s career is so impressive.

On Sunday, the 37-year-old Hudson captured his 200th career win, putting him in rarefied company. Just two other active starting pitchers have hit that total, and they — Andy Pettite and Roy Halladay — are likely to be enshrined in Cooperstown. CC Sabathia, another Hall of Fame candidate, will soon join them, standing with 195 W’s. Mark Buehrle may well get there, too, as the model of consistency has 174 victories at 34 years old.

Beyond those five, however, baseball may be hard pressed to produce another pitcher that wins 200 games any time soon, much less 300.

Justin Verlander is the sport’s best bet, with 127 wins thus far. However, at 30 years old and with already-declining velocity, the next 73 are anything but a safe bet. Ditto for Felix Hernandez, who is already halfway there with 101 and is just 27 years old. However, there will be a lot of variables over the next 99 potential wins. The same can be said for Clayton Kershaw, who, at 64 victories and 25 years of age, may be baseball’s best pitcher right now, but is a long way away from the milestone.

The point is, in the context of baseball history, Hudson’s numbers don’t seem particularly spectacular, definitely not Hall of Fame-worthy. However, when viewed through the context of the baseball history through which Hudson actually played, he ends up looking like one of the best pitchers of the era — particularly in terms of longevity.

To be sure, longevity is probably Hudson’s best case for Cooperstown, because it’s a fair knock that he was never particularly dominant. Ironically, Hudson’s best showing in the Cy Young race, a second-place finish, came in his sophomore season, which was actually the second-worst of his career. Though he went 20-6 in 2000, Hudson also carried a 4.14 ERA, a mark he only topped in 2006.

Throughout his 15-year career, however, Hudson has only garnered Cy Young votes four times. The only meaningful statistic he ever lead the league in — besides those 20 wins in 2000 — was during the 2004 campaign, when his average of 0.4 home runs per nine innings was the best in baseball.

Basically, aside from a standout 2003 campaign where he threw 240 innings with a WHIP of 1.07 and ERA-plus of 165, Hudson has never done anything truly special throughout a whole season. Year in and year out, though, overlooking Tommy John surgery-marred campaigns in 2008 and 2009, Hudson has been consistently good.

Though consistency and longevity may not mean the same things they did in the era of Satchel Paige, Hudson is, along with Pettite, Halladay, Sabathia and Buehrle, the gold standard of modern times.

So, all this being said, it may be too early to say 200 is the new 300. Buehrle’s career, in particular, ought to be an interesting test, once he retires, of the modern-day value of year-to-year consistency. However, Hudson has been a better pitcher throughout his career than Buehrle, Pettite and, perhaps surprisingly, has been virtually the same pitcher as Sabathia, according to park-adjusted ERA.

If Pettite and Sabathia are presumed Hall of Famers, then Hudson absolutely deserves his plaque in Cooperstown, too.

At 9-16, this is a team that has massively underperformed expectations, and is already seven games back of the Western Division-leading Texas Rangers. And Monday night was easily the season’s low point, with the team losing a 19-inning marathon to the Oakland Athletics on a walkoff home run by Brandon Moss, with the game ending at about 1:37 a.m. local time. And that’s not even mentioning that the Angels led 6-2 in the eighth inning, or that the team lost center fielder Peter Bourjos (its only .300 hitter) to the disabled list after the game.

That’s a bitter, bitter pill to swallow if you’re a desperate team trying to turn things around.

The good thing for the Angels is that this is probably about as bad as it gets from here on out. It’s been oft noted that the team got off to a very similarly slow start last season, before becoming one of baseball’s best teams from May through the end of the season. Likewise, based on the way the Angels have performed so far this year, the team is setting itself up for a repeat of last season’s arc — likely with the same playoff-less end.

The reason the Angels have to be better is twofold: injuries and underperformance. The fact that the team lost ace Jered Weaver two starts into the season with a freak broken arm cannot be understated. The way the team’s rotation is built, the Angels were always known to be heavily relying on Weaver and No. 2 starter C.J. Wilson to lead it. Behind them, the rotation was designed to be solid but unspectacular, with three pitchers — Tommy Hanson, Joe Blanton and Jason Vargas — who would eat innings and rely on a prolific offense to get wins.

With Weaver out of the mix, however, the rotation’s lack of upside is being thoroughly exposed, with a 5.09 ERA, good for 25th in baseball. Moreover, the Angels’ starting pitching looks even worse considering how the offense has performed.

Looking at the lineup is an easy way to figure that the Angels basically have to be better from here on out. In short, the vaunted trio of Mike Trout, Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton hasn’t lived up to its billing, with OPS figures of .755, .709 and .590, respectively. It doesn’t take a sabermetrician to figure out that those three will be better than that, and will raise those numbers significantly by the end of the season given their track records.

This all being said, no matter how the team performs for the rest of the season, it may be irrelevant to their playoff hopes. The AL West is a tough, if not deep division. Both the Texas Rangers and A’s are solid, fundamentally sound teams with playoff expectations. So, as good as those two squads are, it’s difficult to see the Angels being five and seven games better, respectively, than them for the rest of the year. Like 2012, the Angels may well again prove that Game 1 is indeed as important as Game 162.

By the same token, the grousing has already begun in Los Angeles (of Anaheim). A large section of the fan base wants manager Mike Scioscia fired — which would be a huge, unmitigated mistake — a clearing of the front office, field staff and clubhouse. Which, of course, is completely unrealistic and reactionary.

Rather, the Angels are a victim of injury and random variance — nothing more. In short, it is an absolute fluke that a team with this much front-end talent has performed so poorly, as the numbers of Trout, Pujols and Hamilton will undoubtedly show by season’s end.

That isn’t to say, however, that the Angels don’t have fundamental problems with their roster. The bullpen, in particular, which blew an MLB-leading 22 saves in 2013 is again showing just how porous it is. But, at the same time, it’s the middle relief that’s the problem, not necessarily the back end. Ernesto Frieri, Scott Downs and Sean Burnett (another injury victim) have been solid in the late innings. However, the Angels’ lack of bullpen depth has been exposed by Ryan Madson‘s injury and the starting pitching’s inability to go deep into games.

It should be a wakeup call to the organization just where its problems are that, just this last Sunday, Vargas became the first Angels starter to record an out in the seventh inning.

So, once again, the old adage is proved true: Good pitching beats good hitting every day of the week, and solid pitching is the cornerstone of a successful franchise. The Angels will, without a doubt, eventually feature the prolific offense that was promised this offseason. But will it be enough to overcome a questionable rotation and already-sizable deficits to Oakland and Texas?

Probably not.

Off to a 15-10 start, the Pirates are already the darlings of baseball, and for good reason. At this point it’s oft repeated that Pittsburgh hasn’t had a winning season since 1992. Last year’s 79-win season, when the Pirates got off to a similarly hot start, actually tied the most victories the team has had in any year since that point.

Baseball is practically begging for the Pirates to be relevant again.

Back on June 18, 2012, the Pirates held a record of 34-31, and they were beginning to get serious attention as a legitimate contender in the NL Central. On that day, I wrote that the Pirates had a bright future, but, due to their starting pitchers performing over their heads to that point, would eventually regress before the end of the season.

It gives me no pleasure that I eventually turned out to be right on that point. Likewise, it gives me no pleasure that I am about to make the exact same prediction about the Pirates for 2013 — and for the exact same reasons.

In short, the Pirates have a lot of talent on their major league roster. However, all of that talent is in the everyday lineup, which has a development curve far beyond the pitchers at this point. All-Star Andrew McCutchen leads a deep lineup that includes a bevy of solid complementary pieces such as Neil Walker, Garrett Jones, Russell Martin and Starling Marte. If Jose Tabata comes into his own and Pedro Alvarez builds on 2012′s positive step forward, the lineup could be downright dangerous.

On the other side of the ball, however, this is a starting rotation that could be even worse than the staff that yielded ERAs of 4.39 and 4.65 in August and September, respectively, in 2012.

A.J. Burnett, at 36 years old, is a year older and, quite frankly, unlikely to repeat his 2012 numbers, which were among the best of his career. Likewise, it’s something of a surprise that James McDonald remains in the rotation. The former Dodgers prospect was lights-out before the All-Star break last year but absolutely horrific afterwards. So far in 2013, he’s proven to be exactly who he is, sporting a WHIP of 1.46. Wandy Rodriguez, acquired in a 2012 trade, might end up being the best pitcher in the Pittsburgh rotation.

Behind that trio, things fall of sharply. The team’s fourth pitcher on the depth chart is former Giants southpaw Jonathan Sanchez, who almost certainly shouldn’t be on a major league roster at this point. After some ugly numbers with Kansas City and Colorado last season (good for a negative-1.7 WAR overall), Sanchez has been even worse in four starts this season, sporting an enormous WHIP of 2.56. Behind him in the No. 5 slot is Jeff Locke (no, not the UCLA punter), a 25-year-old marginal left-handed prospect with good command but short on pure stuff.

In short, Burnett and Rodriguez are solid major league starters, but they aren’t rotation leaders, and behind them in the Pittsburgh rotation are nothing but question marks.

The returns of Francisco Liriano and Jeff Karstens from injuries may help the team. However, relying on them, too, as pieces of a playoff-aspiring rotation is dubious at best. Liriano hasn’t had a WHIP below 1.47 since 2010, and Karstens has never had a full, healthy season as a starter. The fact that he’s struggling with shoulder issues should scare anyone rooting for the Pirates. Charlie Morton may also figure into the rotation picture, but he has a career WHIP of 1.56 at 29 years old.

The good news for the Pirates is that the team’s top two prospects, right-handers Gerrit Cole and Jameson Taillon, are both pitchers, and both project as future No. 1 or No. 2 starters in the big leagues. Cole, in particular, is getting tantalizingly close to major league-ready, but he also doesn’t project as an immediate impact player, at least not right now. Taillon, on the other hand, will likely spend at least half of this season in Double-A before moving up a rung.

What this all means is that the Pirates have a chance to be very good beginning around 2015. The team wisely locked up McCutchen through 2018, and Alvarez and Tabata will still be under team control for the next few years. Moreover, the front office’s ability to judge veteran talent has improved dramatically (the acquisitions of Burnett, Rodriguez and Martin stand out), meaning no more inexplicable Matt Morris-type acquisitions.

However, this is a rotation that is flatly awful behind its top two starters — who shouldn’t even be top-two starters. Ultimately, just as in 2012, this year’s edition of the Pirates will, sooner or later, fall victim to that lack of starting pitching.

We’ll see you in 2015, Pittsburgh.

Instead, the team finds itself five games under .500 almost a month into the season.

It is time to blow up the roster and start over at Citizens Bank Park.

The Phillies needed a number of scenarios to work out to the best case for this team to be competitive. Virtually none of them have worked out that way.

Roy Halladay seems to have succumbed to the shoulder issues which plagued him last season. Ryan Howard has been healthy, but has continued his precipitous decline by putting up a .734 OPS thus far, which includes only three walks. Neither Domonic Brown nor Ben Revere have worked out as full-time players, as both languish with OPS figures below .700. Revere’s is particularly ugly at .474, good for a negative-.4 offensive wins above replacement already.

About the only thing that’s gone right for the Phillies has been the resurgence of Chase Utley, who, after an injury-plagued 2012 campaign, has gotten off to a hot start with the bat.

In any case, the Phillies have an aging core which only getting older, and a roster that isn’t even winning them baseball games here and now. A drawn-out argument really doesn’t need to be made to address the Phillies’ problems: This is an old squad that went just 81-81 in 2012 after winning 102 games in 2011, and keeping the roster intact the way it is just isn’t tenable for this team.

In short, the Phillies need to rebuild immediately, or they risk dooming themselves to long-term irrelevance.

Coming into 2013, most media outlets ranked Philadelphia in the bottom third of baseball in terms of its farm system. MinorLeagueBaseball.com had the Phillies ranked 20th, while Baseball America — probably the best resource for this kind of thing — has the team ranked 24th. The team has some pitching prospects in the pipeline, but is devoid of hitters due to a heavy investment in “toolsy,” project types of players who didn’t pan out.

So, with no real impact players coming up from the farm system, this is not a team that’s going to get better by standing pat with its roster and waiting. And that is exactly why the Phillies need to trade the commodities they have while those players still have value — And make no mistake, given the fact that basically all of their real commodities are on the “wrong side” of 30, they lose value every day.

The one piece of good news for Philadelphia is that, if the team acts now, there’s still a lot of trade-market value on the roster. If the team is willing to commit to a genuine rebuild, it could acquire an impressive crop of talent and turn around its farm system — and the long-term future of the big league team — virtually overnight.

Cliff Lee, Jonathan Papelbon, reliever Mike Adams and Utley are all players who could bring back an immediate, impressive return of prospects, particularly if the team is willing to eat some salary on Lee and Papelbon. Jimmy Rollins actually might be the kind of player who has more value closer to the trade deadline than now, as teams in contention come into focus. If Derek Jeter, whose return to the Yankees has now been pushed back a couple times, was unable to come back from his ankle injury, it’s not difficult to see Rollins ending up in pinstripes (assuming the Yankees have any prospects of value left to trade).

Heck, considering the scarcity of pitching around baseball, if Halladay can return to be even half of the pitcher he was before 2012, with his contract expiring after this season even he could have value. In actuality, even though Halladay’s been hit hard and his decline in velocity has been well documented, he still has a WHIP of just 1.09 this season, with a line drive rate that is basically identical to his career norm. So a partial return to form for him — a potentially valuable chip for the Phillies — isn’t out of the question.

That brings us to Howard, aka the embodiment of the Phillies’ poor roster decisions over the years. To not mince words, Howard is one of the highest-paid players in baseball, and, at this point in his career, is barely a league-average hitter with atrocious defense at first base. He’s also 33 years old and signed through 2016 at $25 million per year — and that doesn’t include a $10 million buyout for the 2017 season.

So, the Phillies may have to live with Howard and their awful decision to extend his contract two years before he hit free agency. Then again, the Red Sox probably never thought they’d be able to rid themselves of the contracts of Carl Crawford and Josh Beckett, and they parlayed those players into top prospects Allen Webster and Rubby De La Rosa. The moral is, if the Phillies can rid themselves of Howard — even if they have to eat the majority of his contract to do so — they should jump at the chance.

All in all, it’s difficult seeing general manager Ruben Amaro and the Phillies committing to a full rebuild, not in that high-pressure city. However, if the team declines to do the prudent thing, they could be facing an even longer, more painful journey back to relevance.

Once again, the Phillies desperately need to rebuild and blow up the roster, and they need to do it as soon as possible.

Carl Crawford

Crawford once again opened his mouth, and again, the garbage that spewed out included a whole bunch of hostility toward his time with the Red Sox.

“I don’t think I smiled in two years,” Crawford told USA Today. “I was just frowning. I started growing gray hairs on my face from the stress and everything for two years straight.”

This is hardly the first time Crawford has been vocal about his less-than-stellar stint in Beantown, and if we were placing bets, the safe money is that he’ll probably bring it up again at some point. It begs the question: why do you continue to beat this lifeless horse, Carl?

Crawford underperformed in 2011 and then again in 2012 before being shipped to Los Angeles, so it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that he probably didn’t enjoy his time in Boston very much. He still feels the need to hammer his message home, though, and it’s gotten to a point where the 31-year-old is straddling obnoxiousness.

Responding to Crawford’s most recent comments hardly seems like a worthwhile endeavor. After all, not much about his stance has changed. He still seems to think he was unfairly criticized, and he still thinks that everyone was out to get him.

“I try not to even think about my days in Boston anymore,” Crawford reportedly said. “It’s still just such a nightmare. Every time I think about it, I cringe.”

Well, here’s a thought: Don’t think about it.

Crawford, to his credit, is putting together a nice season, but his Dodgers enter Thursday’s action sitting at 9-11 and in fourth place in the NL West. Surely, his new — and, evidently, much more welcoming — fans would prefer he direct his attention toward helping L.A. fulfill its lofty expectations.

That’s too easy, though. Moving on makes too much sense. The Red Sox have obviously moved on, and even the other players sent to the Dodgers as part of last August’s trade — Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett and Nick Punto — seem to have moved on. Yet, Mr. Crawford continues to bring up just how heinous it was to make roughly $33.5 million in the supposed hellhole that is Boston.

Crawford’s most recent comments really strike a chord because not only are they unnecessary, but they’re also very poorly timed. If Crawford wants to continue to spout off about his time with the Red Sox, then obviously he’s well within his right. Last time I checked, this is America. Nothing he said is really new, though, and it just seems like now would have been an appropriate time to end his yearlong tirade about Boston.

The outfielder’s ongoing beef is obviously geared more toward his experience with his former organization than the city in which the team plays, but there are plenty of Sox hat-wearing Bostonians who would prefer to move forward without the background noise that is Carl Crawford.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here. 

However, as we sit here a day after Valverde’s resurfacing with the Tigers and first save of the season, there’s nothing to suggest that his decline is imminent in 2013. Moreover, Valverde never deserved to lose the Tigers’ closer’s role in the first place, so the reunion between the two sides not only benefits both parties, but the breakup itself never should have occurred.

Back on Oct. 30, 2012, Tigers general manager Dave Dombrowski indicated to reporters that the team had no intention of bringing back Valverde. This came on the heels of the closer’s well-documented meltdown in the postseason, blowing consecutive saves in the ALDS and ALCS.

What Dombrowski exemplified was how far Valverde has fallen in Detroit, with the reliever essentially being looked at as a broken commodity. But while there’s no question that Valverde pitched very poorly during the playoffs, it begs other questions about how Dombrowski and the Tigers evaluate players.

In short, Valverde was coming off a season in which he converted 35 of 40 save opportunities, pitched almost 70 innings for the second consecutive seasons and was just a calendar year removed from finishing fifth in Cy Young voting. Given the dearth of relief pitching and dependable closers around baseball, why isn’t that a player you’d like to return for another season?

The usual mitigating stat that’s referenced on Valverde is his declining strikeout rate, which is worrying on the surface. After averaging about a strikeout an inning the previous three seasons, in 2012 Valverde’s ratio fell to .63 per inning — almost two fewer strikeouts per nine frames.

While that correlated with an ERA about a run-and-a-half higher than 2011, all of Valverde’s other peripherals say the ERA was a fluke. The likely culprit for Valverde’s ERA is an increase in home runs allowed, but that also looks like a statistical outlier.

While Valverde’s line-drive rate in 2012 was essentially identical to 2010 (around 18 percent, which is why his home run increase looks like a fluke), other peripherals improved. His walk rate fell from the previous two seasons by almost one free pass per nine innings, so while his strikeout rate fell, his strikeout-to-walk ratio only declined a tick.

Valverde’s fly ball ratio did increase in 2012, but it also fell in line with his peripherals prior to Detroit, when he was still a dependable closer. And, interestingly enough, in 2012 Valverde made no major changes in his approach — basically throwing the same pitches in the same situations about as often — so he hasn’t even begun to try to adjust his game plan as he’s aged. That bodes well going forward, as it gives him another tool to get hitters out.

Basically, Valverde’s park-adjusted ERA (ERA+) hasn’t fluctuated much since 2006. He’s just as effective as he’s always been, whatever the peripherals say.

To be fair to the counter-argument — and to show that Valverde is indeed aging — the most worrying number for the reliever, which is indicative of his declining strikeout rate, is Valverde’s falling swing-and-miss percentage. After hovering around 21 to 24 percent for most of his career, Valverde fell to 17 percent in 2010, rose to 19 percent in 2011 and fell to 12 percent in 2012.

However, that only indicates an aging pitcher. These types of peripherals by themselves don’t solely indicate success or failure, and Valverde has shown other ways — as mentioned earlier, his lower walk rate — of adjusting.

The point of all this hashing over SABR pet numbers is that, though Valverde has shown some signs of decline, he’s also showed signs of compensating and finding other ways to be effective. Basically, pitchers go through cold streaks and occasionally blow games, and the fact that Valverde fell out of favor in Detroit so hard and quick is only due to the reactionary nature of sports nowadays.

The Tigers went out on a limb with their closer and are now eating crow. The question is why, with all the indicators that Valverde should continue to be successful in the short-term, Detroit was so fast to burn its bridges with a pitcher the team now will depend on to win games.

What other point needs to be made?

The NFL technically operates as a nonprofit organization. However, this is a complete joke that likely allows the league and its owners to decline to pay its fair share in taxes and give its executives excessive multimillion dollar salaries. In reality, the league’s teams’ collectively brought in a profit of about $9 billion during the 2011 season.

Yet the league, by its own actions, doesn’t care about the well-being of the players off the backs of which those wearing suits earn their profits. While Roger Goodell sees his salary increase from $9.9 million in 2009 to $20 million by 2019, according to Business Insider, the league continues to treat its players as indentured servants, to whom it owes little to nothing after they retire.

On Wednesday, USA Today published an account of Johnson’s life in retirement, and it isn’t necessarily pretty. Though the former Vikings and Buccaneers quarterback claims that he never 0nce suffered a concussion during his career, just about every other part of his body seems to be failing him. Neck, back and knee injuries — “I know (knee replacement) is coming,” he says in the article — have left him permanently limping, unable to lift heavy objects.

But here’s the thing: Johnson doesn’t blame football for his current quality of life. He says he feels that he willingly sacrificed his body for the game, and sounds content with that decision, even while enduring its aftermath.

“You’ve got to do the work,” said Johnson. “You’ve got to put in the time. Otherwise, you’ll be passed by somebody that’s better than you. If you can play, you play.”

But, at the same time, Johnson makes a very, very cogent point in the piece: Why doesn’t the NFL do more to take care of its retired players in the form of health insurance?

While the NFL has made some strides in recent years to extend health benefits to retired players, if you’re cynical enough it’s not difficult to read into these moves as a means to avoid potential future lawsuits regarding head injuries. These changes include benefits only to players who’ve suffered “neuro-cognitive” injuries or other maladies that leave them unable to work.

But the question remains: Is the NFL such a morally devoid organization that it cares more about its bottom line than making a monetary sacrifice to take care of the players who have sacrificed their quality of life for the league’s profit?

“A lot of it to me is about the years of service, how much wear and tear they actually took and injuries that have happened,” said Johnson. “I know how I feel now every day that I wake up. I wish there was health insurance depending on years of service.

“I do think the league has done a better job as far as providing better benefits. I don’t know if they can backtrack for all the guys who played. But for the future players, I wish they would extend those benefits.”

Information on healthcare benefits in any of the major pro sports leagues is actually hard to come by. But again, for the sake of sourcing, according to Business Insider and the Bryan Cave law firm, MLB players get lifetime healthcare after just one day on an active 25-man roster. In 2011, the NFL instituted a way to get free healthcare for retired players — but only for those ages 50 to 75 years old.

There are sure to be those who will take the callous view of this information, and ask why a retired NFL player — even those who made multiple millions during their career — deserves a free service that the rest of us schmucks pay for out of pocket or pay in to only when we’re gainfully employed.

The answer is simple: The brutality of the NFL inflicts lifetime health issues on its players, regardless of whether or not they understand this going in, and as a multibillion dollar industry, should have a moral obligation to take care of its retirees.

If there are no players, there’s no league to make profit for the men in suits. Yet those suits would rather self-congratulate by paying Goodell over $10 million in 2012, paying NFL Network head Steve Bornstein more than $12 million, bringing in former commissioner Paul Tagliabue for more than $3 million as a consultant for some reason or finding it necessary to rent a space on Park Avenue in New York City for more than $11 million.

Of course, there’s no direct relationship here, and executive salaries likely have no bearing on the league’s healthcare benefits. But, on an outward level, it just looks insanely callous and out-of-touch for a league to profit from players, subsequently throw them out into the cold and all the while increase the salaries of the executives.

Shame on the NFL for rewarding its eminently replaceable suits before taking care of its irreplaceable on-field talent — those who actually need the help.

After one of the most harrowing weeks this city has ever experienced, Boston finally can begin its return to something resembling normal life. What “normal” means now is unclear, of course, as Monday’s tragedy at the marathon and Friday’s day-long manhunt redefined the word forever for the residents of Boston and its suburbs. For the families of Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, Lingzi Lu and Sean Collier, the death of one of the bombing’s alleged perpetrators and the capture of the other will never be sufficient to return their lives to the happy “normal” they knew less than a week ago.

But it is a start along the path to healing. So as the residents of Watertown awaken on Saturday morning, bleary-eyed from the surreal preceding 24 hours, they can finally begin to pretend that life is on its way back to normal. We can turn on the news to confirm to ourselves that Friday really happened, that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev truly is clinging to life in a hospital bed and not running free, then dedicate a few quiet moments to reflect in honor of the victims.

Then we can turn on the Red Sox at noon, provided the weather clears up, or the Bruins, who will line up for the opening face off around the same time Clay Buchholz‘ first pitch will sail into the catcher’s mitt at Fenway Park. Around the time those games are wrapping up, the Celtics tip off Game 1 of their Eastern Conference playoff series in New York. For a solid six hours or so, we will create the illusion that this is just another day in sports-loving Boston.

The games themselves are irrelevant, obviously. The Bruins eliminated two games from their schedule this week, the Red Sox and Celtics one each, and nobody has uttered a peep of complaint. Anyone and everyone would trade wins in all three games today if it could help bring back the four people who have lost their lives needlessly.

Yet we all know that it would not. As three of Boston’s teams return to action, the games are simply a reminder of what two men’s actions took from us — or tried to, anyway. Getting life back to normal, or something like it, begins now. On Saturday, we will show the perpetrators that Boston, for all the tears shed in the last six days, has not forgotten how to cheer.

Have a question for Ben Watanabe? Send it to him via Twitter at @BenjeeBallgame or send it here.

The two sports are so different from a physical standpoint that it’s hardly worth a comparison, but Thursday’s rumble between the Dodgers and Padres shows exactly why baseball players should refrain from the rough stuff. Simply put, nothing good typically comes from throwing down on the diamond.

Now, that might sound like something your mother would tell you, or it might even appear on some gym class poster that I’m not privy to. But mother knows best, and who am I to question the validity of gym class posters? Baseball isn’t a physical sport, so getting “hyped up” before or during a game doesn’t really play in a team’s favor. It’s wasted energy, and if anything, it can have adverse effects, as a calm and collected approach is often a much more efficient way of going about your hardball business.

In hockey, a team can rally around a fight by increasing its physicality and energy, and often times a good scrap can help build team chemistry, but in baseball, a fight almost always leaves teams worse off than they were before the mess. Thursday’s bout is no different.

The Dodgers will be without ace Zack Greinke for eight weeks because of a broken clavicle, and the Padres will be without slugger Carlos Quentin once he’s suspended. Sure, all of us baseball fans who stayed up late to watch the west coast division rivals square off were treated to some entertaining moments, but the combatants are definitely wishing the whole incident had been avoided.

Quentin was undoubtedly at fault for the entire fiasco. Given the circumstances, it was clear Greinke didn’t intentionally hit Quentin, so therefore charging the mound is as boneheaded a move as you’ll see. Greinke, while definitely the victim, didn’t help matters by gesturing toward Quentin and subsequently lowering his shoulder against a 40-pound-heavier opponent.

The real losers in the whole thing, though, are the Dodgers (mostly), the Padres and baseball as a whole. Baseball fights are fun to watch because they’re so unpredictable — and relatively rare — but once the dust settles, we see why fighting doesn’t have a place within the game. It’s easy to get caught up in the temporary high of baseball fight, but the ensuing suspensions and — even worse — injuries always have a rather deflating impact.

In fact, it isn’t all that different from getting into a street fight. At the time, you might think that what you’re doing makes sense, but then you walk away from the ordeal sore and wondering whether the result justifies the incident. The answer is usually, ‘no.’”

This isn’t to take Thursday’s incident and simply say, ‘See. Shame on you. Fighting is bad.’” But we should look at the fallout of the Petco Park pugilism and ask, ‘What was the best-case scenario for either team in that situation?’”

That’s a question that’s hard to answer. What isn’t hard to figure out, however, is the worst-case scenario, because it’s right in front of our eyes.

There are plenty of high-priced players tossing their bodies around on the field when a baseball fight breaks out, and unfortunately for the Dodgers, they’ll be without their $147 million investment going forward because some fed-up slugger decided to bring idiocy to another level. Quentin obviously made a split-second, emotional decision, and his Padres will come away from the brawl far less impacted than the Dodgers, but his senselessness leaves us in a Greinke-less baseball world for the next two months.

Am I a fan of fighting in baseball? Well, like I said, it’s entertaining. But so is drunken gambling and watching people make fools out of themselves on YouTube. It doesn’t mean it’s productive.

Am I a fan of talented players playing baseball and staying healthy? Absolutely. And that’s why I worry about the potential ramifications every time someone charges the mound.

Perhaps more players should adapt such a forward-looking approach.

Have a question for Ricky Doyle? Send it to him via Twitter at @TheRickyDoyle or send it here.