# Is Doug Mientkiewicz Being a Selfish Jerk? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 7, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636 "2005-01-07T20:22:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![shelbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@shelbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shelbo)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/121 "2005-01-11T18:27:01Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > Prove 2. Prove 3. No, see I’m just the judge. 2 and 3 were a part of my ruling – that is, based on a preponderance of the evidence, and applying applicable law (as provided by **minty** , I found 2 and 3. If you want to appeal (and please do) it is incumbent on you to show that I was wrong – however, the burden of proof has shifted. So, your task is (i) disprove 1, and (ii) disprove 2. Using something other than anecdotes. I would not be surprised to find out that my ruling was incorrect; I’m overturned on appeal at an alarming rate. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/122 "2005-01-11T19:36:34Z")
> [@shelbo](#): > > No, see I’m just the judge. 2 and 3 were a part of my ruling – that is, based on a preponderance of the evidence, and applying applicable law (as provided by **minty** , I found 2 and 3. If you want to appeal (and please do) it is incumbent on you to show that I was wrong – however, the burden of proof has shifted. So, your task is (i) disprove 1, and (ii) disprove 2. Using something other than anecdotes. > > I would not be surprised to find out that my ruling was incorrect; I’m overturned on appeal at an alarming rate. Oh, I see. Minty’s pretending he’s a lawyer, and you’re pretending you’re a judge. You kids have fun. ---
**Author:** ![Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de053/32.png) [@Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackknifed_Juggernaut)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/123 "2005-01-12T19:09:25Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Just to confuse things: [this guy](http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/01/10/who_has_the_ball/) seems to say that the ball actually belongs to the St. Louis Cardinals. This guy, [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/opinion/12finkelman.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/opinion/12finkelman.html), is a Tulsa Law professor. He also provided expert testimony in the Barry Bonds ball case. He says, the ball DEFINITELY does NOT belong to Mientkiewicz. It also doesn’t belong to the Red Sox. For a regular season game, it would belong to the home team, St. Louis Cardinals. In this case, it either belongs to the Cardinals OR Major League Baseball. He’s not sure. But he does say that what Mientkiewicz did was basically STEAL the ball. And theft is still illegal in our country. When I started this thread, I conceded that what Mientkiewicz did was probably legal, although quite assholish. Now it seems that it was assholish AND illegal. Way to stick to your guns, Minty. Good work. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/124 "2005-01-12T19:35:06Z")
Same problem as the last time. He still isn’t clear that the ball is MLB property until they dispose of it. His assertion that MLB gives the ball to the home team is not true, his “in effect” qualifier notwithstanding. MLB provides the game balls to the _umpires_, who hand them to whichever pitcher is on the mound at the time, of whichever team that pitcher happens to play for. He also ignores a century of precedent of identical incidents in which all parties to the matter have reached a conscious decision to act in the same way in which they acted this time. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/125 "2005-01-12T19:46:11Z")
Your analysis ignores the key fact that the Red Sox would not be there playing pro baseball if not for their membership in MLB, just as surely as Mientkiewicz would not be there if not for his contract with the Red Sox. MLB has spoken on the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/126 "2005-01-12T19:51:33Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > And **cricetus** ’ incredulity notwithstanding, it _is_ the common law that the employer, not the employee, is entitled to the fruits of the employee’s labor. As has already been explained, the physical baseball is not the fruits of Mientkiewicz’s labor – the act of catching the baseball and putting out the opposing player is. The best analogy that occurs to me is hiring a surgeon to remove a tumor – if he wants to keep it for research or something, he gets to do so (the removal, not the tumor itself, is what I hired him for). ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/127 "2005-01-12T19:53:48Z")
The lawyer says himself it isn’t clear if MLB or the Cards own the ball. In fact, it does belong to MLB, who has already said Mientkiewicz can keep it. Funny how the facts keep remaining the same. ---
**Author:** ![Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de053/32.png) [@Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackknifed_Juggernaut)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/128 "2005-01-12T20:17:09Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > The lawyer says himself it isn’t clear if MLB or the Cards own the ball. In fact, it does belong to MLB, who has already said Mientkiewicz can keep it. Funny how the facts keep remaining the same. MLB is allowed to decide whatever it wants. In no way should that have any bearing on the employee-employer relationship between Mientkiewicz and the Red Sox. He is not an emplyee of MLB, he is an employee of the Red Sox. I work for a corporation that has relationships with several investment banks. I notice that one of our accounts has about $1 million in stock that doesn’t belong to us. The stock was placed into our account erroneously. So I call the bank and ask them to remove that stock and return it to its rightful owner. After several months, they come back to me and say that due to some system errors, they cannot and will never be able to figure out who it belongs to. Based on the bank’s policy, they must give it to the person who discovered the error. That would be me. Am I now $1 million richer? Well, if I worked for the bank, I would be. But I work for the corporation. If I took the stock, I’d be in jail. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/129 "2005-01-12T20:22:48Z")
Still missing the point there, JJ. The same situation has occurred a number of times in the past. Your corporation, the bank, and the employees’ union of which you are a member have always awarded the money to the employee. Why is your case different? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/130 "2005-01-12T20:25:37Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > My example was in reference to the “course and scope of his duties” part of the equation, not the “abandoned property” aspect. That’s good, because the “abandoned property” aspect doesn’t hold water. If played baseballs had been “abandoned” by MLB and owned by the team whose player finally grabbed them, as you assert, MLB would be out of luck if they wanted to test a baseball for alleged tampering and the team (possibly the beneficiary of the alleged tampering) told them to take a hike. ---
**Author:** ![Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de053/32.png) [@Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackknifed_Juggernaut)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/131 "2005-01-12T20:29:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He also ignores a century of precedent of identical incidents in which all parties to the matter have reached a conscious decision to act in the same way in which they acted this time. Yes, but have any of these ever gone to court? It may be better business policy for teams to let these things slide. So instead of bringing players (who have ticket-paying fans) to court, teams could decide to let the player keep the ball. I’m pretty sure that the Red Sox wouldn’t be making a big stink if Schilling, Ortiz or Varitek had the ball. They are fan favorites, and a legal dispute would inevitably alienate a large portion of the team’s fan base. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/132 "2005-01-12T20:32:54Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > A UPS driver, while making a delivery to a house, steps out of his van onto the public road, and finds $100 lying next to his foot, picks it up, pockets it, and then goes on with his duties. Under agency law, was that $100 the fruits of his labour? > > No, because it is not part of the UPS driver’s duties to pick up money lying around on the ground. (That’s why in my example, I used a policeman.) In stark contrast, it _is_ Mientkiewicz’s duty to catch the balls thrown to him at first base. So, by your analysis, Mientkiewicz **would** own the ball if it hit the ground and he caught up to it after all runners reached home plate (it’s not his duty to gather up a baseball that cannot have any influence on the play)? ---
**Author:** ![Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de053/32.png) [@Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackknifed_Juggernaut)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/133 "2005-01-12T20:38:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Still missing the point there, JJ. The same situation has occurred a number of times in the past. Your corporation, the bank, and the employees’ union of which you are a member have always awarded the money to the employee. Why is your case different? Well, that’s the reason I asked if any of the previous examples ever went to court. In my example, at any point, my company can say: “Not this time! Give us that stock.” To which I can say, “No. You’ve always let me keep it.” And we’d go to court, and the judge would then have to consider the relationship between my company and me. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/134 "2005-01-12T20:45:39Z")
No, none of the baseball cases involving players have gone to court. In your hypothetical, your corporation might have trouble making a convincing case if you show they’ve acted differently so consistently as to constitute a policy, written or not, no? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/135 "2005-01-12T20:46:52Z")
> [@Jackknifed Juggernaut](#): > > This guy, [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/opinion/12finkelman.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/opinion/12finkelman.html), is a Tulsa Law professor. He also provided expert testimony in the Barry Bonds ball case. > > He says, the ball DEFINITELY does NOT belong to Mientkiewicz. He says “For most baseball games, the ball is provided by the home team” – which is just flat-out false. His argument is based on that false premise, and is therefore worthless. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/136 "2005-01-12T20:52:11Z")
> [@Jackknifed Juggernaut](#): > > MLB is allowed to decide whatever it wants. In no way should that have any bearing on the employee-employer relationship between Mientkiewicz and the Red Sox. He is not an emplyee of MLB, he is an employee of the Red Sox. > > I work for a corporation that has relationships with several investment banks. I notice that one of our accounts has about $1 million in stock that doesn’t belong to us. The stock was placed into our account erroneously. So I call the bank and ask them to remove that stock and return it to its rightful owner. After several months, they come back to me and say that due to some system errors, they cannot and will never be able to figure out who it belongs to. Based on the bank’s policy, they must give it to the person who discovered the error. That would be me. Am I now $1 million richer? Well, if I worked for the bank, I would be. But I work for the corporation. If I took the stock, I’d be in jail. MLB is allowed to decide whatever it wants in regards to the baseballs it provides. They pay for the balls, not the RedSox (or the Cardinals, as the case would be if the home team payed for the balls, which it doesn’t). Your example doesn’t interest me. I’m tired of “parellel cases” and generalizations. The only test case is, “what happens if a fielder picks up a ball that’s the last out in a World Series.” The answer is, always has been, “he keeps it.” All test cases bear this out. Also, I feel obligated to repeat a crucial, crucial fact: THERE IS NO LEGAL DISPUTE. The RedSox do NOT, as originally reported, claim they have a right to the ball. They have clarified this, saying they WANT the ball, but do not claim legal ownership of it. People can write all the rubbish they want, but there is no legal dispute. There is no lawsuit. No lawyers, no judges, no juries. Doug owns the baseball. I can’t even say “case closed,” because there isn’t, and won’t be, a case to close. The case was never opened. This proves one thing: even winning the World Series won’t stop RedSox fans from whining. ---
**Author:** ![Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de053/32.png) [@Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackknifed_Juggernaut)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/137 "2005-01-12T20:56:29Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, none of the baseball cases involving players have gone to court. > > In your hypothetical, your corporation might have trouble making a convincing case if you show they’ve acted differently so consistently as to constitute a policy, written or not, no? But the Red Sox hadn’t won a World Series in 86 years. There is nothing to compare to for consistency. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/138 "2005-01-13T02:22:46Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > As has already been explained, the physical baseball is not the fruits of Mientkiewicz’s labor – the act of catching the baseball and putting out the opposing player is. As has already been explained, you’re wrong. Mientkiewicz can no more walk off that field with a valuable baseball than he can walk off the field with anything else that does not belong to him. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/139 "2005-01-13T03:20:24Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > As has already been explained, you’re wrong. Mientkiewicz can no more walk off that field with a valuable baseball than he can walk off the field with anything else that does not belong to him. And yet, he did, as have countless other ballplayers. And he owns the ball; that’s not opinion, it is fact. He possesses it, and nobody is attempting to relieve him of it. Your statements do not appear to have any relationship with what is actually real. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636/140 "2005-01-13T12:58:42Z")
Possession =! ownership. And in case you missed it, the Boston Red Sox appear to be asserting a superior claim to the ownership of the ball. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-doug-mientkiewicz-being-a-selfish-jerk/283636.md?page=8)