Doug Pappas’s excellent “Business of Baseball Weblog” covers a recent lawsuit against Major League Baseball filed by former players upset that the rules were changed to make it easier to vest for pensions.

They allege that they were discriminated against when the pension rules were amended 22 years ago to reduce the vesting period for pension benefits from five years to 43 days and for medical benefits from five years to one day, but only for players then active. In their world, it’s unlawful discrimination to negotiate better benefits for current employees without making those benefits retroactive for all existing retirees. In our world, it’s not. Indeed, other groups of retired players have sued and lost over this issue.

The lawsuit also complains about a one-time $10,000 payment made to former Negro Leaguers in 1997 who also weren’t eligible for the pension. (Pappas blog, Oct. 17; “Lawsuit alleges discrimination due to race”, AP, Oct. 16; complaint). When a lawyer files a class action, he or she is representing only a few members of the class who have retained that lawyer (called “the named plaintiffs”, since they are named in the caption of the suit), and is requesting the right to represent absent members of the class, who may or may not support the suit, and may or may not elect to opt out even if the court certifies the class. But the AP coverage, as is common in journalistic coverage of class actions, (see, e.g., Oct. 21), inexplicably focuses several paragraphs on prominent absent class members who had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Filed under: baseball, sports

The mock Pete Rose trial ESPN just had on TV had interesting results. 11 jurors believed Rose bet on baseball, which carries with it an automatic banishment. But of those 11, seven voted to allow Rose onto the Hall of Fame ballot.

I, for one, think Rose’s permanent expulsion should be just that — permanent. But that’s a post for a different website. What’s interesting about the faux ESPN trial is that Alan Dershowitz, the pseudo-prosecutor, asked judge Catherine Crier to charge the jury with two questions: first, did Rose gamble, and if so, shoud he be given the ole’ heave-ho? Johnnie Cochran, the defense attorney (why is this starting to sound like the lead up to a bad punchline?), objected, saying Dershowitz was changing the rules. But Dershowitz’s strategy was clear — he wanted the jury to have to reconcile their factual finding of guilt with their desire to acquit. Crier ruled in favor of Cochran.

If this were a real criminal trial, the charge wouldn’t be anything like the one here. The jury would be asked to determine simply if Rose gambled, and if they did beyond a reasonable doubt, they’d be instructed to find Rose guilty. The jury would have the power to acquit Rose; they’d simply not be told about it.

While I, and many (although admitedly a small minority) would agree with the outcome where nullification is not an option, I hope it’s clear to the thousands of people who watched this Rose trial that taking that power from the jury would make the moot court truly moot. If you ever need an example on why nullification is a proper and arguably necessary instruction, just look to this case. If the only question is “Did Pete Rose gamble on baseball,” there’s not much to debate. (Unless you’re Bill James.) But there’s certainly a debate going on, as there should be, and if it comes out in favor of the accused, let the jury set him free.

Filed under: baseball, sports

Eric Gregg’s lawsuit has been delayed yet again. Gregg, a former National League umpire, was one of 22 who (a) resigned in 1999 and (b) were shocked (shocked!) that the league actually made them stay resigned. Now he wants his severance package as if he were fired. (AP, Jul. 14; link via How Appealing).

Gregg’s case is a hysterical blend of personal responsibility — Gregg resigned out of principle, and wasn’t given his job back — and dumb luck, given his lackluster record as an ump. The story: Gregg claims that he wasn’t fired for cause: “There is no doubt that they are discriminating against me because of my weight.” (“Interview with the Umpire,” Philadephia City Paper, Aug./Sept. 1999). Ignore the fact that he resigned as part of a ploy to get MLB to choose between paying severance pay (why they’d have to pay out in cases of resignation is beyond me). But the reality is that a 1998 survey of players, coaches, and managers (run by the Players’ Association) rated Gregg as the second-to-worst ump in the NL; as Doug Pappas pointed out, “[n]o one needs statistics to conclude that the likes of Ken Kaiser and Eric Gregg don’t belong in the majors. (Pappas’ site, 1999). He was also rated one of baseball’s five worst umpires in a 1998 Baseball Weekly survery.

While his weight was made to be an issue — he was fined $5,000 in 1999 for being too fat — there could be a reason for that. It may have affected his on-field abilities. Never mind that he’d have to run into position to make a call. In 1978, Gregg bumped into a catcher trying to make a throw and called interference on himself. Almost two decades later, he was granted a leave of absence to enter a weight-loss program. (Thanks to Baseball Library for the background info.)

Filed under: baseball, sports