Skip to content

Ubaldo Jimenez to return from suspension Sunday

Apr 13, 2012, 10:15 AM EDT

Ubaldo Jimenez AP

After dropping the appeal of his five-game suspension for plunking ex-teammate Troy Tulowitzki near the end of spring training Ubaldo Jimenez is scheduled to return to the mound Sunday against the Royals.

Jimenez was originally slated to start Saturday, but then Tuesday’s game versus the White Sox was rained out and because his suspension was five games rather than five days his return had to be pushed back.

Jimenez took a no-hitter into the seventh inning of his last start, settling for seven innings of two-run ball versus the Blue Jays, so the Indians will hope that a little extra time between starts won’t keep him from remaining on track after largely struggling since coming over in a midseason trade from the Rockies last year.

Overall in 12 starts for the Indians he has a 4.85 ERA and 65/30 K/BB ratio in 75 innings while showing decreased velocity, so even with the suspension behind him Jimenez will remain a big question mark until he strings together some strong outings.

  1. personalspaceinvader - Apr 13, 2012 at 10:28 AM

    Ubaldo plunked a former teammate over some media beef and walked down off the mound in a hurry. He got a 5 game suspension.

    Ozzie (who is known for these types of things) made an off color political remark that offended some (who probably don’t go to Marlins games anyway). He got the same suspension.

    Just so we’re all clear.

  2. uyf1950 - Apr 13, 2012 at 10:31 AM

    MLB suspension of pitchers is a joke. Suspended 5 games, which is 1 outing for a starting pitcher. And Jimenez made a joke out of it even more. He appeals the suspension then withdraws the appeal after his start. So he pitches against Toronto on April 7 then is eligible to pitch against KC on April 13 effectively all that happened was his start was pushed back 1 day. BIG DEAL.

    A 5 game suspension for pitchers should be the same as it it for “regular” players. It should be 5 starts.

    • nflfollower - Apr 13, 2012 at 10:35 AM

      A batter getting plunked should in no concievable way equate to losing a pitcher for five STARTS. the art of beaning is as old as the game itself, and a 5 game suspension is plenty.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Apr 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM

        the art of beaning is as old as the game itself

        Shocked a person with an nfl handle would think “this is how it was before, therefore it’s okay now” is a viable justification. Utterly shocked…

    • icanspeel - Apr 13, 2012 at 10:42 AM

      5 Starts is a little extreme.. But maybe 10 games would work since they will definitely miss 1 and probably 2 starts then

    • Utley's Hair - Apr 13, 2012 at 11:12 AM

      I am not pontificating over the legitimacy of Jimenez’s suspension.

      However, uyf1950 is correct in that suspensions for pitchers—and not just starters, I might add, because who knows how often you’ll see a reliever anyway?—need to be revised. Number of starts need to be exactly that for starting pitchers, but two starts are generally six days, with the rest days built in.

  3. randygnyc - Apr 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM

    Uyf- suspending a pitcher for 5 starts is the equivalent of suspending a regular, for 32 games. I think that’s extreme. That’s 1/6 of a pitchers regular season, right?

    • Utley's Hair - Apr 13, 2012 at 11:04 AM

      Where the hell did you learn math?

  4. randygnyc - Apr 13, 2012 at 11:10 AM

    1/6 of a season based on missing 5 of 30 starts.

  5. uyf1950 - Apr 13, 2012 at 11:31 AM

    Guys I appreciate your comments but you’re missing my point. My point is simple. Why say 5 games for a starter when everyone knows it’s 1 start. When “reg” players are suspended for 5 games It’s generally 5 games they play that they will now miss. That’s not at all the case here or with any suspension of a starting pitcher. If MLB wants to suspend a starting pitcher for 5 games only then just say 1 start don’t sugarcoat the suspension. All I’m saying is make the suspension what it is in playing time not a misleading number to make yourself feel good.

    • ptho16 - Apr 13, 2012 at 1:33 PM

      It’s a matter of semantics, if you do the numbers and 5 of 162 games is approximately 3%, if you a pitcher misses one start during a five game suspension he’s still missing about 3% of his starts. MLB can’t say a starting pitcher is suspended for one start because then the player wouldn’t be penalized when the manager could just declare that he was going to start today but he’ll serve his suspension today and start tomorrow, when in fact you had no intention of letting him pitch until tomorrow anyway. By saying 5 games, the manager atleast has to juggle the rotation a bit.

      • uyf1950 - Apr 13, 2012 at 5:04 PM

        It’s possible that with a 5 game suspension for a starting pitcher he may not be losing any starts. Just potentially having a start pushed back a day. Considering days off and rain outs it probably more then likely the Jimenez doesn’t miss any starts this season regardless of his “5 game suspension”.

    • Francisco (FC) - Apr 13, 2012 at 1:41 PM

      My point is simple. Why say 5 games for a starter when everyone knows it’s 1 start.

      Ptho16 is right, if you use the term “start” how do you enforce it? MLB doesn’t control the rotations. Managers name whoever they want, we would likely see even more shenanigans.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who are the favorites for Rookie of the Year?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. Y. Molina (3245)
  2. J. Soler (3245)
  3. R. Castillo (2833)
  4. D. Wright (2226)
  5. S. Doolittle (2057)
  1. D. Murphy (2057)
  2. B. Colon (2047)
  3. D. Ortiz (2025)
  4. T. Lincecum (1959)
  5. R. Cano (1941)