I normally don’t question suspensions too much. Usually if something leads to a bench-clearing brawl, there’s any kind of violence involved, or general bad behavior is afoot, there’s typically cause for some kind of suspension.
The problem is that no one can seem to agree on what a suitable suspension should be. Does the punishment always fit the crime, or are suspensions largely arbitrary? In the case of Nick Castellanos’ two-game suspension for being too enthusiastic after scoring a run, that led to a scuffle between St. Louis and Cincinnati, the punishment really seemed too much.