Keith's Big Mouth

[Guest Edgy DC]

i've said before that I think what made Keith fun as a part-time broadcaster may eventually hang him (or at least marginalize him) as a full-timer.

There's a jittery impatience to him. The other day it manifested itself as he derided the umpire for not giving Jorge Julio any and all borderline pitches. (It was something like "C'mon, it's 7-2, it's the ninth inning, call anything close and let's get out of here." ) Meanwhile, the Pads were mounting a potential comeback that got the tying run on-deck, suggesting they didn't necesarily share Keith's judgment that the umpire substitute haste for objectivity. Other times, he'll deride a catcher for looking to the first- or third-base umpire for an appeal on a checked swing. ("C'mon, quit begging. Let's go.")

Obviously, it can be uglier than that. The women-in-the-dugout thing seems to me to be part of a pattern of impatiently and cockily (sometimes pissily) dismissing ideas on issues he's already thought through. As if, "I've looked at this and come to a conclusion, so therefore it's settled."

When Keith's opinion is really just received wisdom (and that's certainly not typical), and it's a newer approach that he's dismissing, that's disappointing. When Keith's opinion is narrow-minded old-boy exclusivist thinking, that's more than disappointing.

When Keith was getting set to retire, he dismissed suggestions that he had a future in the dugout as a manager or batting instructor, candidly acknowledging that baseball, apart from the hands-on practice of it, bored him. I think he's demonstrating that a little now. He's like the smart kid stuck in a class with students below his level, and, after grasping the first few concepts quickly, gets bored and loses attention or acts out, and ends up with Bs and Cs.

I've only flipped through The Bad Guys Won. It's also worth noting, however, that there was, if I recall right, a theme the author had going on of confident misogyny in the Mets clubhouse. I may have this wrong, but there was something about the esteemed Rusty Staub saying sometihing about how women just interfere with the manly practice of baseball, using the term "c**ts."

[Guest cooby]

However, Keith has a right to his opinions

[Guest Edgy DC]

Indeed, Ms. Payson.

[Guest heep]

Keith comes from a completely different era. He's oldschool. In his day, especially on the team in the 80's, if there was a woman (or 2) in the clubhouse, she was not there for personal training...

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Keith is too young to be "old school!"

He's less than ten years older than I am!

[soupcan]

I like Keith's candid ex-player's approach. Whether I agree with what he's saying or not he tells me how the players might be feeling at that moment.

A player involved in a 7-2 game in the ninth is thinking what Keth is saying. His misogynistic approach is more than likely what the vast majority of players have. Again I may not agree with it or like it but I do appreciate the insight.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I too sometimes cringe at the things Keith says, but he's genuine. It's refreshing to hear someone speaking candidly.

I would have loved to have been listening in on the phone call that Keith made to that Padres trainer. Judging from her quotes, she didn't seem mollified, but wants to put it behind her. I'll bet Keith bungled that, too.

[Guest heep]

Who could blame Keith?

I personally agree with him. You have got to be kidding me. If your playing, and your in the dugout, why the hell would you want a girl there? Boys can't be boys when the women are around.

Hey, if the Padres don't mind, then cool. But, I would not allow it on my team, and if I was on the team, I woudn't want her there, more for her sake to save her of being offended and embarrassed.

Women do not belong there. Agreed with Keith.

[Centerfield]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I too sometimes cringe at the things Keith says, but he's genuine. It's refreshing to hear someone speaking candidly. I would have loved to have been listening in on the phone call that Keith made to that Padres trainer. Judging from her quotes, she didn't seem mollified, but wants to put it behind her. I'll bet Keith bungled that, too.

I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph, soupcan too. But I couldn't disagree more with your second. I'm guessing Keith was smooth in that "I'm Keith Hernandez" way.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

From the Daily News. Both items are by Bob Raissman.

] Keith is one sorry fellow Keith Hernandez apologized again yesterday for comments he made Saturday night, on SportsNet New York, about Padres massage therapist Kelly Calabrese. On SNY's "Daily News Live," Hernandez said his comments were "tasteless." On Saturday, among other things, Hernandez said: "I won't say women belong in the kitchen. But they don't belong in the dugout." Calabrese was on camera in the San Diego dugout after Mike Piazza's second-inning home run. "I do not have a problem with females in the work force. It's not a gender issue," said Hernandez, who also offered a Sunday apology on Ch. 11 Sunday. "My remarks that were said kiddingly were in bad taste." Calabrese also appeared yesterday on "Daily News Live." She said Hernandez's comments were "disappointing "But Keith did call me and apologized," Calabrese said. "I would just like to leave it at that." Bob Raissman Hernandez can't stand heat Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 It would have been easier believing Keith Hernandez is really concerned about who is allowed in a major league dugout if he had not made it a gender issue Saturday night in San Diego. Yeah, even after Hernandez, in the second inning, made the "Morganna" reference upon seeing massage therapist Kelly Calabrese wearing a Padres uniform in the dugout, you might have believed he was only interested in MLB's rules. And even after Hernandez said, "I won't say women belong in the kitchen, but they don't belong in the dugout," you still might have thought he was doing shtick to prove a point. All pretense of Hernandez saying something in jest - or jiving - flew out the window in the fifth inning, when he verbally pounded his chest, revealing his true agenda. "I stand by those comments (made in the second inning)," Hernandez said emphatically on SportsNet New York. "I think this is a man's game and I feel very strongly about it." Those words tell you that for Hernandez it was not about the Padres' massage therapist being in the dugout. No, this was all about Kelly Calabrese, a woman, sitting in that dugout Saturday night. Yesterday, in various media corners, there was some surprise - even shock - over Hernandez's sexist commentary. For others, including some women in the sports media, Hernandez was conducting business as usual. Hernandez said yesterday that he "never had a problem" with women reporters covering baseball. This was news to Suzyn Waldman. Despite Hernandez's proclamation about baseball being a "man's game," she has earned a living in it for nearly two decades. Now, as the analyst on Yankee radiocasts, Waldman is the only woman doing that job in the big leagues. "I wasn't surprised (by what Hernandez said) since he said a lot worse to me nearly 20 years ago," Waldman said. "You get shocked, but he really got me good (with a vile response after she tried introducing herself) my first time in the Mets clubhouse. But this is nothing new. And it isn't just about Hernandez. You hear this stuff every day. If you let it stop you, it will. "There are people like Keith Hernandez all over the world. That isn't going to change," Waldman said. "He believes what he is going to believe." On Sunday, Hernandez said he was sorry. Yesterday, on SNY's "Daily News Live," he apologized again. Hernandez was even more critical of himself than he was on Sunday on Ch. 11. He referred to his Saturday commentary as "tasteless and inappropriate." He looked shaken. "In my typical fashion I knee-jerk reacted and said some very inappropriate things," Hernandez said. His apology was heartfelt. And it should be accepted. That's what Calabrese did. What's done is done. This is no time for a poltically correct lynching. Still, what Hernandez did yesterday also amounts to huge backtracking. That's to be expected. Only a fool would stick to his guns after making a fool of himself. But it was stunning that there still were people maintaining that what Hernandez said Saturday was no big deal. Maybe they should talk to some women who are baseball fans - particularly Mets fans. Many of their comments made it clear how much they liked Hernandez's work. Ane yet, in the next breath or E-mail sentence, they let you know how sad his words made them. They felt betrayed, as if a friend had let them down. "I love to hear his stories about the past and I am always learning more about the game from him," said Tracey Price, a Mets fan from Hartsdale in Westchester. "But his attitude about the Padres woman trainer has lowered my opinion of him now. ... Mr. Hernandez needs to curb his 'old school' posturing and accept the fact that women love baseball and, if qualified, should be able to hold a job in baseball." As usual, when stuff like this happens, there is an element of stupidity involved. In this case, it was not just on Hernandez's part. While baseball voices work live, with no time to edit their comments, they do have guidance in the form of colleagues working in the production truck. While a producer could not have stopped Hernandez from making his initial comments, someone could have - and should have - told him to shut his mouth in the fifth, before he poured verbal salt on the wound. Hernandez did this even after play-by-play man Gary Cohen had, in the second inning, said: "There's only trouble brewing if you say that, you know." Now, Hernandez knows.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

While I'm coming into this late, I agree with what a lot of posters have said. I like hearing Keith express his opinions, even if I disagree with them. Let him open subjects to debate, but at least he's giving us the benefit of his knee-jerk reactions, and I think that is a good thing.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Keith Hernandez: Ms. Calabrese, this is Keith Hernandez. Listen, I'm sorry if anything I said was offensive.

Kelly Calabrese: What do you mean "if." What you said was offensive.

KH: Yeah, well, I'm truly sorry.

KC: Sorry to me? Sorry to women? Sorry to baseball?

KH: I'm sorry t... What? Baseball? What do you mean?

KC: Exactly what you think I mean. You and your retrograde comments are damaging to baseball.

KH: Damaging? Ya know, I hate to brag but, uh, I did win eleven straight golden gloves.

KC: (chuckles)

KH: I wouldn't have brought it up but since you mentioned it.

KC: Ha, I didn't mention it.

KH: Well I won them anyway.

KC: Well so what? I mean you played first base. I mean, they always put the worst player on first base. That's were they put me and I stunk.

KH: Kelly, you don't know the first thing about first base.

KC: Ha ha! Well I know something about getting to first base. And I know you'll never be there.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Edgy's imagined dialog sounds plausible.

]"But Keith did call me and apologized," Calabrese said. "I would just like to leave it at that."

I may be reading too much between the lines, but that sounds to me like she's still a little pissed. My hunch is that Keith's apology missed the mark.

[Guest old original jb]

When Keith starting going off on the presence of a woman in the dugout it was a cringe moment, even if he was half or three quarters joking. I don't think he should be fired or anything, but it was still a cringe moment for me.

What is a man's game anyway? What essential dugout activity is inhibited by a female presence/ Are they supposed to sit in the dugout trading anecdotes about their sexual prowess and female anatomy, cursing, and talking about riding mowers? (I know, stereoptypical "man" topics....)

It turned disingenuous when he started in on the rulebook. Does anyone really care if they have an extra trainer in the dugout? At this point, Keith started to sound like the know-it-all, goody-two-shoes kid who provides a list of classmates' names to the substitute teacher, only to discover that s/he doesn't care that they consulted the encyclopedia on an open-book test.

As an announcer, I find him so-so. He's certainly competent and knowledgeable, but he's a little bit smug and even a little bit shrill in expressing his opinions--sometimes sounding as if only a total dunce could ever disagree with him on anything. That lends a sort of unpleasant tendentious air to the booth. For the same reasons, I don't think he would be a great coach or teacher. There's something very not entertaining about him, and to some extent, I tune into games to be entertained.

I can see why first Jerry, and then Elaine chose to stop seeing him.

[soupcan]

old original jb wrote: ...but he's a little bit smug and even a little bit shrill in expressing his opinions--sometimes sounding as if only a total dunce could ever disagree with him on anything. That lends a sort of unpleasant tendentious air to the booth. For the same reasons, I don't think he would be a great coach or teacher. There's something very not entertaining about him....

I don't agree with this at all. In fact I think almost the exact opposite.

[Guest Rotblatt]

Whaddya think Keith said to Waldman 20 years ago?

[TransMonk]

I love Keith's big mouth. After listening to the color guys in Washington, Florida, Milwaukee, San Diego and San Francisco with MLBTV, Keith says more things that pertain to how the game is played than all those guys put together. Because of that, I can tolerate the off-color things he says about things that don't pertain to baseball.

The boobs in the SF booth spent an entire half inning cooing over a 3 year old fan with a batting helmet on last night without mentioning any meaningful commentary about what was happening on the field. Unfortunately, that is the norm for booths around the league.

I'll take Keith's few and far between bad comments as long as he keeps giving pertinent analysis the majority of the time.

[Guest GYC]

I wasn't on Keith's side 'til I read Waldman's comments. Screw her. I can't stand her. She probably deserved whatever was said.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Some disappointing stuff here. Keith is a Met employee and former Met player, with a mind and mouth that is usually objective and often embodies what we like and hope for more of from the Mets.

Waldman is a Yankee employee with a mind and mouth that is usually biased (so I've read) and often embodies what we dislike about and dismiss about the Yankees.

None of that gives Hernandez a pass or discredits Waldman if he's wrong and she's right.

I like Keith and hope (though I'm pessimistic) he'll be in the Mets booth for a long time, but does anybody really doubt that women have something to offer baseball, and that, if they demonstrate qualifications, should be allowed to hold jobs within baseball?

[Guest cooby]

I don't think a massage therapist belongs in the dugout.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Perhaps no, but the issue is not about massage therapists but about women.

[Guest KC]

Do other teams have their massage therapists in the dugout? I thought the
rules were pretty strict about who can be in the dugout. If she's not "the
trainer" or someone else on the approved list, it would be fun to know if the
Pads and MLB are bending the rules. Seems to me massage therapy should
be administered in the clubhouse or trainers room or wherever away from the
camera's eye.

[Guest cooby]

If Keith thought it was some woman sitting there in camo, what's he gonna think? "Oh, she's a trainer" Nah... My point is, I really doubt he knew who she was at that moment.


What does she do, rub necks in the dugout? She (or he) belongs in the training room.


Edit: KC and me, thinking alike again...

[TransMonk]

Edgy DC wrote: does anybody really doubt that women have something to offer baseball, and that, if they demonstrate qualifications, should be allowed to hold jobs within baseball?

I have no objection to women serving any role of which they are capable in any occupation across the board. From owner to massage therapist to GM to bullpen coach to centerfielder, if a woman can demonstrate the same qualifications as a man they should be equally considered.

I think Keith ran his mouth because A) he had never seen a woman in the dugout before...neither had I, and I think we both thought that a woman breaking that barrier would have had more publicity and attention than it had. She was in uniform, which most training staff members are not. On first impression, it seemed like she was the winner of a radio contest or somebody's girlfriend or one of the foul line ballgirls which caused him to react citing the rules of baseball which prohibit certain individuals from the dugout. C) Baseball like most other sports, politics and religion have long been dominated by men. Tearing down those walls is going to be a long, slow process. I would love to say that America can immediately break those unspoken, history laden walls, but my faith in that institution is weak.

Are we discussing Keith's big mouth or gender equality?

I don't necessarily agree with the way he handled the situation, but I believe the entire situation has been blown entirely out of proportion. I'll say it again, if we allow gender issues to be dominated by the comments of an ex-baseball player, especially one who by his own admission has had somewhat of a checkered past, then we are doomed to fail from the start.

[metsmarathon]

its about women, but i'm guessing that keith just was overreacting to the situation, and thinking he was funny, and being all "guy" about it.

its offensive, and neanderthal, and i think he knew it at the time.

i'm not sure what i'm trying to say here. maybe it's "boys will be boys" i guess.

and i think monk covered the remainder of my would-be points...

[Guest Edgy DC]

]Are we discussing Keith's big mouth or gender equality?

Keith's big mouth, specifically him opening it in regards to women in the dugout.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I accept that his initial comments were possibly more about permissible personnel. But that still invites censure on two grounds. First is the assumption that a woman couldn't possibly be permissible personnel. As Monk says, it's an easy enough conclusion to jump to, but Keith is paid in part to think a little before speaking.

Second is him having it both ways. Even after finding out her role (not a contest-winner or ballgirl or girlfriend), he came out with the doozy: �I won�t say that women belong in the kitchen, but they don�t belong in the dugout.�

That's nothing about massage therapists, certainly an arguable position, but women. Perhaps sensing the deepening of his hole, he comes up with the howler: �You know I am only teasing. I love you gals out there � always have.�

He wants off the hook and pleads jocularity. But wait... by the fifth he was backtracking again. "I stand by those comments. I think this is a man's game and I feel very strongly about it."

Is too much being made of this? Maybe, but that's what we do. But I think the teasing comment and the "stand by" comments are clearly incompatible.

[Guest KC]

3.17 - Players and substitutes of both teams shall confine themselves to their team's benches unless actually participating in the play or preparing to enter the game, or coaching at first or third base. No one except players, substitutes, managers, coaches, trainers and bat boys shall occupy a bench during a game.

What's a trainer? And shouldn't they change that to bat children?

OE: hadn't read and still haven't read previous post

[Guest old original jb]

="KC"]3.17 - Players and substitutes of both teams shall confine themselves to their team's benches unless actually participating in the play or preparing to enter the game, or coaching at first or third base. No one except players, substitutes, managers, coaches, trainers and bat boys shall occupy a bench during a game. What's a trainer? And shouldn't they change that to bat children? OE: hadn't read and still haven't read previous post

What is the penalty for breaking rule 3.17b?

[Guest cooby]

]You know I am only teasing. I love you gals out there � always have

Works for me