A-Rod, Met Wannabe

[Guest AG/DC]

Can we stick to truisms that have some substantive support before accepting them as facts?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Triple Dee wrote: I didn't hear a single Met fan complain at the time of the trade, even though it involved the Mets giving up the former darling-of-the-farm-system in Alex Escobar.

I know. I admit that I was analyzing that acquisition with my hindisght goggles over my eyes. But still, does this mean that now and forever, no one is allowed to chartacterize the Alomar pickup as a Met failure?

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: Can we stick to truisms that have some substantive support before accepting them as facts?

Aren't all truisms, by definition, true? Still, which "truism" are you referring to?

[Guest Triple Dee]

Nowadays circumstantial evidence seems sufficient to try ballplayers. If others are fine by that, then so am I.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Triple Dee wrote: Nowadays circumstantial evidence seems sufficient to try ballplayers. If others are fine by that, then so am I.

Whaddya mean?

And whaddya mean by this:

Triple Dee wrote: Gee, which is more surprising; 1. The Genius disliking one of his own players; or 2. Somebody else disliking Rey-Rey.

Who's "somebody else"?

[Guest AG/DC]

What circumstandical evidence? What the hell are we talking about?

If somebody states that Willie Randolph hates David Wright and somebody else starts talking about it as if it's accepted fact and building other arguments on that, I think we want to back up and get some support and sourcing before we inculturate it as a given.

[Guest Triple Dee]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Triple Dee"]Nowadays circumstantial evidence seems sufficient to try ballplayers. If others are fine by that, then so am I. Whaddya mean?

I was replying to Edgy who commented on my assertion about Alomar and PEDs.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Triple Dee"] 2. Somebody else disliking Rey-Rey. Who's "somebody else"?

Everybody.

[Benjamin Grimm]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: But still, does this mean that now and forever, no one is allowed to chartacterize the Alomar pickup as a Met failure?

Failure, yes; dumb move, no.

[Guest Triple Dee]

AG/DC wrote: What circumstandical evidence? What the hell are we talking about? If somebody states that Willie Randolph hates David Wright and somebody else starts talking about it as if it's accepted fact and building other arguments on that, I think we want to back up and get some support and sourcing before we inculturate it as a given.

I thought you were talking about the statement I made about Alomar -- in the words of the Immortal Bard, "my bad".

[batmagadanleadoff]

Triple Dee wrote: I thought [AG/DC was] talking about the [PED] statement I made about Alomar

I thought he was talking about my "Valentine hated Rey" comment.

[Guest AG/DC]

I'm talking about a lot of assertions we're runnign wth in this thread.

Yeah, truisms are supposedly things widely accepted as true, though they aren't established enough to qualify as facts. I guess that even by calling them truisms, I'm given some assertions more credence than they deserve.

[batmagadanleadoff]

="AG/DC"]What circumstandical evidence? What the hell are we talking about? If somebody states that Willie Randolph hates David Wright and somebody else starts talking about it as if it's accepted fact and building other arguments on that, I think we want to back up and get some support and sourcing before we inculturate it as a given. *** I'm talking about a lot of assertions we're running with in this thread.

That you might be challenging my Bobby-Rey observation is fair enough and deserves some followup over and above the flippant and unsupported comment that I wrote earlier: ("I know that Valentine couldn't stand Rey")

I'd be the first to tell you that I don't know Valentine personally, never even met the man, and so unfortunately, could never supply you with a secret stash of first-hand Bobby V quotes that would settle this matter once and for all.

And so there's not gonna be any wild first-hand account here about me and Bobby V. celebrating a Met win by carousing late at night in the back of our limo, surrounded by a pleasant mix of some of the hottest supermodels of that month and those wild and barely legal DeRoulet women, with Bobby V all the while standing straight up through the limo's open sun-roof and into the night air, shouting through the streets of late night New York City that "Rey Ordonez sucks". "Ordonez is an asshole and me saying so is proof that I don't like Rey". Over and over and over again. Or how New Yorkers would shout back at us: "Big effin deal. We know Ordonez sucks. We're smart trendy New Yorkers. And besides, isn't it a truism that Rey Ordonez sucks? So quit boring us sophisticated New Yorkers with your tired cliches (which is a lot like like a truism - true but so obvious that it's not worth mentioning) about how Ordonez sucks and how it proves that you, Bobby V., don't like Rey and just tell us if A-Rod's demands were really unreasonable. Or is it that you work for a bunch of cheap bastards who like to show up at the Ferrari dealership to brag about how much money they have and then all they ever do in the end is kick the tires around a little bit. Because A-Rod is the thread topic so tell us about that, Bobby V".

So did Valentine dislike Ordonez? It's my opinion that he disliked Rey, hence the "I know" in my quote. Perhaps it's the way Valentine would shoot down Ordonez to the press whenever members of the media would cite Rey's RBI totals as evidence of Ordonez's supposed improved hitting skills. Valentine would remind the press that RBI's are contextual by nature, and have as much if not more to do with the batters in front of Rey. In that situation, wouldn't just about every other manager that ever existed simply agree with the press (sincerely or insincerely) just to throw a compliment to the player (whether deserved or not).

Perhaps it's the way those two would alway clash on those all too few days when Ordonez would be rested. Rey would pout as if he was Lou Gehrig in the middle of a consecutive games played streak, putting up such a stink over being rested that you'da thought he was leading the league in Home Runs or something. A few times, Rey demonstrated his displeasure at being rested by feigning injuries, as if to show that he couldn't play anyway because he wasn't 100% (I don't think Rey could play at 250% - haha), not because he was being benched. (and don't start up with me about prove the feigning) And so then, Bobby would respond by extending Rey's rest for yet another game. And then Rey would pout some more about being benched some more even though he wasn't supposed to be able to play anyway (here I mean literally as opposed to qualitatively) on account of him being hurt. According to him.

Perhaps it's the way it appeared, especially after the 1999 season that Valentine couldn't compliment Rey in the press unless it was done so grudgingly. Or that during the month of Melvin Mora at shortstop, when the majority of the press argued that Mora wasn't as effective as Ordonez, Valentine not only defended Mora, but referred to Rey in the press not by his name but as "that other guy" and with a look of bothered displeasure at the notion that someone could even dare to think that Rey was better than Mora.

I don't know that any of these facts individually, proves that Valentine disliked Rey. But cumulatively, and especially given Rey's dreadful performance, they lead me to believe that Valentine was no fan of Rey. And so, I can write that "I know that Valentine disliked Rey" comfortable in the sincerity of my beliefs, and that my beliefs are based on something tangible, as well as an instinct that overall, Ordonez sucked and that somebody had to see it like this besides me. Just because Ordonez was an everyday player doesn't automatically mean that Valentine was going along with it.

Look, I know that Ordonez is a very controversial Met topic. Ask a random sample of Mets fans to give you their Ordonez opinion and you are bound to elicit answers that vary in the quality of opinion, maybe more so than for any other Met ever.

I could write five more pages here, filled with statistical details, facts, notions, superstitions number crunching and all-around bullshit to explain my Ordonez opinion, which most of you already figured out, is not too high.

But I don't need to do that because you are all very knowledgeable Met fans. Some of you might not agree with my ultimate opinion of Rey, or anticipate the precise minutiae that I would rely on to justify my less than stellar opinion of Rey, but given your impressive Mets knowledge, you would all surely agree that any discussion of Ordonez would begin with the irrefutable facts that he was a bad hitter and a good fielder. That's the starting point and I'm sure nobody here would disagree. The battles would then be fought over trying to determine just how bad of a hitter he was? Or just how good of a fielder he was? And overall - ("overall" being the key word because really, you can't separate Ordonez in two, filtering out the bad and keeping whatever good one might think there is or ever was) - overall, was Ordonez good enough of a fielder to compensate for his ineptness at the plate and justify his playing time.

I'll save that one for another day, content to simply write that Ordonez sucked when the mood strikes me without beating a dead Ordonez to death.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Personally, I loved the Alomar, Bacsik, and Peoples for Escobar, Lawton, Riggan, Traber, and Snyder trade when it was finalized*. It seemed like a real no brainer trade for the Mets to pull the trigger on. I thought it would be a coup for the Mets and that Alomar would invigorate the line up. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Luckily, none of the players the Mets surrendered in the trade really went on to do much.

I was never a big fan of Rey rdonez. He made some spectacular plays defensively, but I never thought he was quite as good with the glove as most Met fans did. Offensively, he was a black hole in the line up.


*Thanks to UMD for providing the principals of the trade.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Rockin' Doc wrote: I was never a big fan of Rey Ordonez. He made some spectacular plays defensively, but I never thought he was quite as good with the glove as most Met fans did. Offensively, he was a black hole in the line up.

That about perfectly sums up what I think. The absolute worst hitter I ever saw in my entire life of baseball watching, and a flashy though spectacularly overrated fielder.

[Guest AG/DC]

He was not specatacularly over-rated. The over-rated under-rated argument is such a tirelessly pointless exercise.

And I'll add that he wasn't likely the worst hitter you ever saw. It's bad enough that half of Shea has forsaken any obligation to exercise perspective.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: And I'll add that he wasn't likely the worst hitter you ever saw. It's bad enough that half of Shea has forsaken any obligation to exercise perspective.

He was the worst because in the super-secret imaginary ranking system of bad hitters that I keep inside of my head, Rey racks up major bonus points for the unjustifiable amount of playing time that he got. There were surely worse hitters than Ordonez whether I saw them or not, or whether I even want to admit that they exist. But no one that bad gets to play everyday for as long as Ordonez did. Besides, it's no fun to pick on some scrub who for his career, was a cup of coffee in the big leagues.

[Guest AG/DC]

Well, sheesh, if you won't let me in your head,...

[batmagadanleadoff]

="AG/DC"]He was not specatacularly over-rated. The over-rated under-rated argument is such a tirelessly pointless exercise.

I happen to agree with you a whole lot about the pointlessness of the over/under rated arguments. Still, I used the term to describe Rey's fielding skills, so now I'm sorta stuck. But according to some of the hype that was out there during the reign of Rey, he was supposed to be the best fielding shortstop. Ever. The Babe Ruth of shortstop defense. And yet one could argue, and back it up with statisitcs, that Rey was never even the league's best fielder. Not even for one season. Not ever and not by the combination of measures used to rate fielders.

I don't want to make too big a deal of this because, like I said, I painted myself into the corner of over/under ratedness and in that corner, I'd be obligated to not only define his ability, but then correllate those actual skills with his percieved skills. And who am I to do that? Anyone is entitled to their opinion. And besides, I have no problem agreeing that Rey was a very good fielder. Just, you know ... overrated.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: Well, sheesh, if you won't let me in your head,...

It's for your own good. Trust me.

[Guest Triple Dee]

Career OPS+: 59.

Debate over.

Btw, his B-R page is available for sponsorship, a bargain at $15.

[Guest AG/DC]

Huh? What's over? Doug Flynn was a 57. Johnny LeMaster a 60.

[Guest AG/DC]

Tony Suck was a 25.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, but Doug Flynn loved his dog, and Rey Ordonez abandoned his family in Cuba and sent them $1 per month, or something ridiculous like that.

It wasn't just his weak bat that made Rey unlikeable. He was also a bit of a punk.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: Huh? What's over? Doug Flynn was a 57. Johnny LeMaster a 60.

Yeah, Doug Flynn's a powerfully strong contender. But he racks up good points for being a good guy; for clocking in only 3 three full seasons as a Met where he played enough to qualify for the Batting Title; for playing on Met teams so pathetically bad that it wouldnt'a mattered if you swapped Flynn for Babe Ruth. In that case, the Mets would've merely been a better bad team. Flynn's Mets were irrelevant. Ordonez's Mets mattered. Check out the 1999 NLCS.

Plus there's some regular poster here who recently wrote that Flynn was his favorite player, so I don't wanna get on that poster's s**t list. And also, 30 years ago I might have rooted for Flynn because back then I was young and stupid (instead of being 30 years older and stupid) . I didn't know any better back then.

[Guest AG/DC]

Flynn was my favorite also. Still is and I do know better.

We're livnig in an era where a guy fails and we want to abuse him and find all sorts of moral reasons to attack him when the real reason is "boo-hoo, I want to win and he isn't helping me." The divorce thing is nonsense.

My favortie, of course, is the self-serving process where a guy plays poorly, we boo him, give him a lousy enviornment in which to perform, he plays worse, and we boo him, because his inablility to climb over the emotional obstacle course we placed in his way. Now we have a moral failing we can really hang the guy for, because we flatter ourselves that we're sophisitcated people who don't merrely hate over pedestrian thing like batting average, but over moral shortcomings that hurt the commonweal.

It's bullshit. We're part of a culture of mooks. Either own it or change it, but don't lie about it.

[Guest Triple Dee]

AG/DC wrote: Huh? What's over? Doug Flynn was a 57. Johnny LeMaster a 60.

Considering they didn't play at the same time as Rey-Rey, how exactly does that disprove he wasn't the worst regular he ever saw (ignoring the OPS+ 32 he put up in 1997)?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Triple Dee wrote: ="AG/DC"]Huh? What's over? Doug Flynn was a 57. Johnny LeMaster a 60. Considering they didn't play at the same time as Rey-Rey, how exactly does that disprove he wasn't the worst regular he ever saw (ignoring the OPS+ 32 he put up in 1997)?

By the way, where are you getting those stats from, and are they adjusted stats that may be compared against stats from other seasons?

[Guest AG/DC]

I don't know who he saw. But neither was his statment about regulars.

The worst hitter I ever saw was Keith Neumann in ninth grade.

Linda Roth whacked me with a stickball bat in fifth grade and I went down like a ton of bricks. The lingering brain damage is probably why I'm continuing this foolishness. I didn't like her stroke too much at all.

[Benjamin Grimm]

AG/DC wrote: We're livnig in an era where a guy fails and we want to abuse him and find all sorts of moral reasons to attack him when the real reason is "boo-hoo, I want to win and he isn't helping me." The divorce thing is nonsense.

So we shouldn't dislike players who play poorly, and it's nonsense to dislike them because of off-the-field reasons.

If I'm reading you right, it sounds a bit like the old Kool-Aid and pajama argument.

How about this? Like and dislike are visceral emotions that we don't need to justify with concrete reasons.

I didn't like Rey Ordonez. I liked Doug Flynn well enough, but he was never my favorite. I liked John Stearns, but I didn't like Lenny Dykstra.

Am I right to like Flynn and Stearns, but wrong to dislike Ordonez and Dykstra? Who's to say?

[Guest Triple Dee]

AG/DC wrote: I don't know who he saw. But neither was his statment about regulars. The worst hitter I ever saw was Keith Neumann in ninth grade. Linda Roth whacked me with a stickball bat in fifth grade and I went down like a ton of bricks. The lingering brain damage is probably why I'm continuing this foolishness. I didn't like her stroke too much at all.

Ha Ha -- I have absolutely no comeback to that. Well played, sir.