Fine. We have a difference of opinion. What's ridiculous is Heyman's column from April 16. Check it out here. My favorite part:
Whether he drew blood or not, Sheffield should be suspended for actions unbecoming a big-league ballplayer. Sheffield's violent response was a stark overreaction to a fan's clumsiness.It's loaded with totally irrelevant stuff that's meant to do nothing more than bias the unsuspecting reader. Most egregious -- Sheffield's choice to play the ball "unaggresively," so "unaggressively" that the "slow-footed catcher" got a triple. What on earth does the way Sheff played the ball have anything to do with whether he deserves a suspension? If challenged, I'd bet Heyman would contend that he was just reporting the facts of the situation in the context of his opinion column. But that's total baloney. It's obvious that he means to plant the seed of criticism, in the same way that he portrays the poor fan as pursuing a mere $9 baseball in the midst of the $13-million-a-year Sheffield. As if the disparity between ball cost and Sheffield's salary somehow mitigates the fan's behavior...
This latest bit of ugliness started when Jason Varitek smoked a liner into the rightfield corner, and Sheffield played the ball so unaggressively it careened around the wall for many feet and several seconds, long enough to become a two-run triple for the slow-footed catcher. Just as Sheffield was finally reaching down to grab the rolling ball, a fan had the same idea.
The fan reached over the wall in an apparent attempt to gather the $9 baseball and nicked the $13-million-a-year Sheffield's face instead, sending the outfielder over the edge. That's when Sheffield finally decided to turn aggressive.
Don't these people have editors?
Incidentally, Sheffield did not receive a suspension.