So how come...
 

If a pitcher is wearing a necklace or something, the batter can complain that it's distracting and force the removal of the jewelry, but the mascot for the San Diego Padres - a paid employee of the team - is allowed to park behind home plate and make goofy gestures in the line of sight of the pitcher?

Is this something where Billingsley could complain and have the umpire force the mascot to go somewhere else, but just isn't bothered enough by it to care, or is there a double standard at work here?

Maybe since it's not a player in the game doing it? And even though it is the SD Mascot, it could just as well be some person in the stands.

1) The fan's behavior is irrelevant. He's not an employee of the team.

2) His behavior has a distracting intent behind it (even if we can argue that the pitcher should be capable of shutting that out). Something tells me that crucifix necklace (or a yin/yang or whatever else) isn't worn out there with the intent of screwing with the hitter's head while the pitcher is pitching.

If there's a double standard here, what it's saying, in effect, is unintentional distraction can be punished if it's the hitter being affected, but overt distraction by a member of the rival organization doesn't matter if it's happening to the pitcher.

I don't think it had an impact on anything. I just wonder what the deal is.

The difference is that one thing is happening on the field of play, and other is happening in the stands (if I follow you). That's a HUGE difference - I don't see the double standard. Are you saying that employees of the team shouldn't be able sit in the stands and say, boo the opposition, or otherwise verbally distract them?

That's what I just was gonna post too. The one is taking place out of the field of play. Seems like that would be the key point here.

You mean other than the fact that he's not simply happening to be employed by the team in question, he's actually executing his employment in the course of the distraction?

It's one thing if the guy works for the Padres, but he's there as a fan. Quite another, IMO, if he is actively involved as a representative of the team in question at the time.

Plus, I go back to incidental versus intentional. Incidental gets punished. The intentional, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily get addressed.

Without speaking specifically to this scenario, I think it's pretty much a given that there's a double standard when it comes to hitters vs. pitchers. Just listen whenever a team has the stones to open the rare new ballpark that's actually... GASP... pitcher friendly. Hitters always whine and moan and bellyache until management inevitably caves and moves the fences in. Generally when hitters get their panties in a bunch about anything, their concerns tend to be promptly addressed. I'm not aware of pitchers carrying the same clout.

This has nothing to do with it. If the mascot intentionally tried to distract the pitcher from the field of play, he'd be removed. If a mascot is unintentionally distracting a player from the stands, he won't be removed. The intentionality thing is thus completely irrelevant - it's all about the field of play.

Maybe the mascot was on a cell phone waving at the camera.

The answer is simple. Baseball doesn't like pitchers and/or the Dodgers.