Reyes vs. Braun & Other Average Troublemakers

[metsmarathon]

on the bright side, at least we know of one 2011 met who could lay down a fucking bunt.

its all the more reason to bring him back next year.

and if other teams are out there thinking that this knocks reyes down a peg, i'm cool with that too.

i want him back. as much as any individual baseball related thing that can happen for the mets this offseason, i want jose reyes back.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy DC wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I want to sleep with that card.

After he's done with it, I want to teach that card how to trust and love again.

[Edgy MD]

"I just want to say I'm humbled and honored to win the batting title," Reyes said in a statement. "It means so much to my family and my country, the Dominican Republic. I have been through a lot over the past few years so this really means a lot to me. It's also very special to be the first Mets player to win a batting title. There have been so many great players throughout our history. I want to thank Terry Collins, my coaches and all my teammates and of course all the Mets fans who have always supported me and been behind me 100 percent."

"I said, 'If I go 1-for-1, take me out of the game,'" Reyes said. "And I did that. If I went 0-for-1, maybe I'm still in the game until I get a hit. ... I wanted to stay in the game, but (Mets fans) have to understand, too, what's going on. They have to feel happy about it if I win the batting title. I do that for the team, for the fans too, because they've been supporting me all the way through. I've (had) throughout my career a lot of ups and downs here with a lot of injuries. One thing I do all the time is give 100 percent on the field."

[Vic Sage]

I disagree with you on what has meaning. I also disagree that putting winning a batting average title above honor is good. You put "honor" in quotes, so we apparently disagree on what is honorable.

this. exactly this.

I lose respect for guys who play for individual accomplishments and solely to pad their stats. and that's exactly what he did.
He wasn't resting up for the playoffs, or ducking out early cuz he's hurt. he himself said he would have stayed in if he had not gotten a hit that first AB. so this was SOLELY about attaining a personal accomplishment that has nothing to do with the team or the franchise.
The notion that this is somehow good for the mets, or for me as a fan, is laughable. I want a guy who wants to win every single day, regardless of standings, and wants a chance to hit every AB that he is able to do so. And if he wins a HR title, or batting title, or cy young, or whatever, as a consequence, then that's great. good for him, and good for the team, and good for me for rooting him on. But if he is actually strategizing about how NOT to play so he can meet some statistical goal, actually abstaining from the competition since he's ahead now, well then i'm not impressed, i'm not rooting for him, and i'm certainly not taking any pleasure from it as a fan of the franchise.

have other guys done it too? yeah, of course. but not all of them. and i've never liked it no matter who did it. what kind of hypocrite would i be if i were to applaud it now?

I wanted to stay in the game,

well, then you SHOULD HAVE, since it was your decision to come out.

I do that for the team,

No, you did this for yourself, so you can go into free agency with a batting title.

for the fans, too...

really? you didn't do this for me, Jose.

They have to feel happy about it if I win the batting title.

not this way we don't.

One thing I do all the time is give 100 percent on the field.

yeah, except when you decide not to go out on the field.

And to all of those who keep saying "chill out", not a big deal, everybody does it... those are standard rationalizations for inappropriate behavior. Why doesn't anything mean anything anymore? what the fuck? chill out? why don't you heat up? If you don't care, you don't care, but stop telling the rest of us "no big deal" simply cuz YOU don't care.

[dgwphotography]

Vic Sage wrote: I disagree with you on what has meaning. I also disagree that putting winning a batting average title above honor is good. You put "honor" in quotes, so we apparently disagree on what is honorable. this. exactly this. I lose respect for guys who play for individual accomplishments and solely to pad their stats. and that's exactly what he did. He wasn't resting up for the playoffs, or ducking out early cuz he's hurt. he himself said he would have stayed in if he had not gotten a hit that first AB. so this was SOLELY about attaining a personal accomplishment that has nothing to do with the team or the franchise. The notion that this is somehow good for the mets, or for me as a fan, is laughable. I want a guy who wants to win every single day, regardless of standings, and wants a chance to hit every AB that he is able to do so. And if he wins a HR title, or batting title, or cy young, or whatever, as a consequence, then that's great. good for him, and good for the team, and good for me for rooting him on. But if he is actually strategizing about how NOT to play so he can meet some statistical goal, actually abstaining from the competition since he's ahead now, well then i'm not impressed, i'm not rooting for him, and i'm certainly not taking any pleasure from it as a fan of the franchise. have other guys done it too? yeah, of course. but not all of them. and i've never liked it no matter who did it. what kind of hypocrite would i be if i were to applaud it now? I wanted to stay in the game, well, then you SHOULD HAVE, since it was your decision to come out. I do that for the team, No, you did this for yourself, so you can go into free agency with a batting title. for the fans, too... really? you didn't do this for me, Jose. They have to feel happy about it if I win the batting title. not this way we don't. One thing I do all the time is give 100 percent on the field. yeah, except when you decide not to go out on the field. And to all of those who keep saying "chill out", not a big deal, everybody does it... those are standard rationalizations for inappropriate behavior. Why doesn't anything mean anything anymore? what the fuck? chill out? why don't you heat up? If you don't care, you don't care, but stop telling the rest of us "no big deal" simply cuz YOU don't care.

Thank you.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Vic Sage wrote: And to all of those who keep saying "chill out", not a big deal, everybody does it... those are standard rationalizations for inappropriate behavior.

The reason I'm saying "chill out" is that, relatively, it's a minor transgression. The reason I'm saying "It's no big deal" is because it isn't, rising less to the level of "wrong" and more to the level of "I'd have done differently, probably." The reason I'm not yelling a lot about it isn't because nothing means anything... but because not everything is worth yelling, and writing, and haranguing others about. This isn't about morals... it's about taste.

Why doesn't anything mean anything anymore? what the fuck? chill out? why don't you heat up? If you don't care, you don't care, but stop telling the rest of us "no big deal" simply cuz YOU don't care.

And how is moralizing loudly and repeatedly when the people around you tell you that they don't care any less of a transgression of manners?

[Edgy MD]

Well, I'm not yelling. And I'm not haranguing. But I disagree with the notion that there's no moral dimension to this.

[Willets Point]

This is just ridiculous. We really don't need holier-than-thou types making moral issues out of a meaningless baseball game. Just take a moment to look at what you're saying and realize just how petty it is.

I seriously have had enough of this forum.

[Vic Sage]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Vic Sage wrote: And to all of those who keep saying "chill out", not a big deal, everybody does it... those are standard rationalizations for inappropriate behavior. The reason I'm saying "chill out" is that, relatively, it's a minor transgression. The reason I'm saying "It's no big deal" is because it isn't, rising less to the level of "wrong" and more to the level of "I'd have done differently, probably." The reason I'm not yelling a lot about it isn't because nothing means anything... but because not everything is worth yelling, and writing, and haranguing others about. This isn't about morals... it's about taste. Why doesn't anything mean anything anymore? what the fuck? chill out? why don't you heat up? If you don't care, you don't care, but stop telling the rest of us "no big deal" simply cuz YOU don't care. And how is moralizing loudly and repeatedly when the people around you tell you that they don't care any less of a transgression of manners?

So, it's not a moral issue because it's not a moral issue... it's a minor transgression because it's a minor transgression... it's not a big deal because it isn't... The circularity of your logic is making me dizzy.

And i didn't use CAPS, so don't accuse me of yelling.

And yes, standing up on principle is often considered bad manners by those who are oblivous or insensitive to the principle being espoused. But i can live with that.

[Vic Sage]

Willets Point wrote: This is just ridiculous. We really don't need holier-than-thou types making moral issues out of a meaningless baseball game. Just take a moment to look at what you're saying and realize just how petty it is. I seriously have had enough of this forum.

then FUCK OFF ALREADY and stop making goodbye speeches. And don't let the cyber door hit you in your virtual ass on the way out.

[Edgy MD]

Willets Point wrote: This is just ridiculous. We really don't need holier-than-thou types making moral issues out of a meaningless baseball game. Just take a moment to look at what you're saying and realize just how petty it is. I seriously have had enough of this forum.

I asked you before. What have I said that offends you so?

(Tryin' to have a conversation here.)

[Vic Sage]

I asked you before. What have I said that offends you so?

Willets isn't talking to you, Ed. He's talking to... i mean, about... me. He's had a stick up his ass about me for as long as we've both been on this forum. so don't take it personally.

[Guest holychicken]

Edgy DC wrote: Playing something close to a full game for a group of 30,000 fans who showed up for a weekday game to delight in him, celebrate him, love him, photograph him, and express their appreciation for him one more time before he possibly disappears.

Other than the "one more time before he possibly disappears," you are talking about something he has done roughly 500 times vs something a Met has never done. Again, it is subjective opinion, so it is hard to debate. But to me you are putting something that has happened numerous times above something that a Met has never done.

First you say winning doesn't matter --- 76 versus 77 wins is irrelevant --- and then you say you play to win.

I never said winning doesn't matter. What I said is that one win is irrelevant. If he did something like this when they still had a shot at the post season, I would be bothered by it. But that batting title is more of a win, for both Reyes and the fans, than win #76.

If you don't see any higher code of honor you'd like the players on your team to display than staying within the baseball rulebook to serve their own wants, then I'm not going to try and evangelize you. I see it different.

I don't see it as solely a selfish move. It is something that the franchise and the fans will always have now. It's not just his. What I am saying is that what he did is not dishonorable, he played within the rules to win a title.

[G-Fafif]

77 wins, thank you very much.

And there were nowhere close to 30,000 in the building. The paid attendance figures have as much to do with reality as Rob Parker.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Vic Sage wrote: So, it's not a moral issue because it's not a moral issue... it's a minor transgression because it's a minor transgression... it's not a big deal because it isn't... The circularity of your logic is making me dizzy.

I was responding specifically to the charge that those of us who don't think this is all that big a deal are using the "everybody does it" defense. I wasn't building a case.

But, sure, let's do that-- mine is brief. It's not a moral issue because playing for an individual goal in what, frankly, IS an individual sport (offensively, at least) where the guys all wear the same clothes isn't flatly immoral. This is an act that chafes against your very specific principles (shared by some loud, less couth others), not a transgression of an agreed-upon collective moral code. That's why it's a matter of taste.

And yes, standing up on principle is often considered bad manners by those who are oblivous or insensitive to the principle being espoused. But i can live with that.

So I gather. I'm pretty sure Reyes is okay with what he did, too. I'm not the biggest fan of it, but he hasn't made my personal blacklist.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Is Big Brother citing 30,000 people as yesterday's attendance? Believe me, there weren't even 30,000 eyeballs or thumbs in attendance.

[Edgy MD]

holychicken wrote: Playing something close to a full game for a group of 30,000 fans who showed up for a weekday game to delight in him, celebrate him, love him, photograph him, and express their appreciation for him one more time before he possibly disappears. Other than the "one more time before he possibly disappears," you are talking about something he has done roughly 500 times vs something a Met has never done. Again, it is subjective opinion, so it is hard to debate. But to me you are putting something that has happened numerous times above something that a Met has never done.

I think it's a highly significant "other than." It's why many of them showed up. It was how interest was generated for the game. It's how the announcers billed it. It's how my thread title billed it.

holychicken wrote: First you say winning doesn't matter --- 76 versus 77 wins is irrelevant --- and then you say you play to win. I never said winning doesn't matter. What I said is that one win is irrelevant. If he did something like this when they still had a shot at the post season, I would be bothered by it. But that batting title is more of a win, for both Reyes and the fans, than win #76.

I disagree. A lot of fans disagree. They came to see him with a predisposition to cheer him so profound that they dropped good money for the privilege. They got an ephemeral appearance and very many booed instead, and took little solace in a battle average title completed, in the end, the shade of the dugout.

holychicken wrote: If you don't see any higher code of honor you'd like the players on your team to display than staying within the baseball rulebook to serve their own wants, then I'm not going to try and evangelize you. I see it different. I don't see it as solely a selfish move. It is something that the franchise and the fans will always have now. It's not just his. What I am saying is that what he did is not dishonorable, he played within the rules to win a title.

Again with the rules. Nobody is claiming this is about the rules. I could cite for you dozens of behaviors far more troubling than this that weren't in contempt of the major league rule book. That's not what's at issue.

And if what he did was for the fans, I'm not hearing an overwhelming joy among them.

Do you really think that it arguably wasn't a "solely" selfish move speaks well of him? That his last act as a Met wasn't "solely" selfish? This was a dramatic stage which a conspiracy of fate and human will had set up for him to possibly cap his legacy. And he exited it near immediately in an act that you defend as not solely selfish?

I think that's pretty disappointing.

[TransMonk]

Braun takes high road on Reyes' decision

(Quotes before last night's game)

The Wisconsin State Journal wrote: "I don't think my opinion really matters about what the ethics of it are," Braun said. "I respect whatever decision he decided to make. Ultimately, he left the door open for me. It's not impossible. I've gotten three hits in a game plenty of times. It's still attainable. It's still a possibility. If he had stayed in the game and gotten multiple hits, it may not have been a possibility at all. I respect whatever decision he decided to make. I'm not really here to judge him." Reyes is being criticized for bunting his way on as well, but once again Braun chose to take the high road when asked about the relatively cheap hit. "That's a part of his game," Braun said. "I don't fault him for that. I can never fault him for trying to get a hit. That's what he does. He's fast, he's an exciting player and I bet you he's gotten plenty of bunt hits this year. I don't think it's anything that's out of the ordinary. I don't think there's anything wrong with that."

[Edgy MD]

I got no problem with the bunt. And I wouldn't expect Braun to play the victim. He's got to look ahead.

[Centerfield]

I don't know if any of this is directed at me but since I'm one of the "not a big deal" guys, I feel compelled to chime in.

I acknowledge that it's a shitty thing to do (said so in my first post). If I were Reyes, I would have played. And if my manager had taken me out after a hit or two, I'd put up an objection but I'd secretly be very glad he did so. After all, no matter what anyone says, every person on earth wants to win a batting title.

I don't think it's a big deal, not because there's no honor component to it (there is) but because I just don't think the transgression is all that great. Ideally he should play the whole game, but there's a lot of things I'd like to see that just don't happen. I think teams that have clinched have an obligation when playing a contender to put their A team out there and not treat it as a spring training game. I think Rivera should have pitched the ninth yesterday (when is his next game? Saturday? I don't see it realistically affecting his post-season at all). I think sack dances in football are terrible, scripted touchdown celebrations even worse. But when I see these things, I don't get that bent out of shape. And when a player does something great like win a batting title, I don't think that skipping his last few at-bats outweighs the greater accomplishment.

But that's my opinion. Others may feel otherwise.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: I asked you before. What have I said that offends you so? Willets isn't talking to you, Ed. He's talking to... i mean, about... me. He's had a stick up his ass about me for as long as we've both been on this forum. so don't take it personally.

Well, he's speaking pretty broadly, so I dunno.

As fellow Angry Liberals with a Thing for Redheads, I see it as you two having more in common here than most. Maybe you two could meet at the next convention and, you know, square things.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy DC wrote: Vic Sage wrote: I asked you before. What have I said that offends you so? Willets isn't talking to you, Ed. He's talking to... i mean, about... me. He's had a stick up his ass about me for as long as we've both been on this forum. so don't take it personally. Well, he's speaking pretty broadly, so I dunno. As fellow Angry Liberals with a Thing for Redheads, I see it as you two having more in common here than most. Maybe you two could meet at the next convention and, you know, square things.

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

[Guest holychicken]

G-Fafif wrote: 77 wins, thank you very much.

And there we reveal how much I care about it.

[Guest holychicken]

Edgy DC wrote: I think it's a highly significant "other than." It's why many of them showed up. It was how interest was generated for the game. It's how the announcers billed it. It's how my thread title billed it.

Effectively, there is no difference between the last game I saw him in and his last game as a Met. It's something that exists solely in the heads of the (limited) number of fans there.

I disagree. A lot of fans disagree. They came to see him with a predisposition to cheer him so profound that they dropped good money for the privilege. They got an ephemeral appearance and very many booed instead, and took little solace in a battle average title completed, in the end, the shade of the dugout.

You all are free to feel that way. It would be far from the first time I disagree with other Mets fans.

Again with the rules. Nobody is claiming this is about the rules. I could cite for you dozens of behaviors far more troubling than this that weren't in contempt of the major league rule book. That's not what's at issue.

Yeah, it's about some, IMO, phony definition of honor that means putting yourself, and the fans, more at risk of losing something that they have never gotten.

Do you really think that it arguably wasn't a "solely" selfish move speaks well of him? That his last act as a Met wasn't "solely" selfish? This was a dramatic stage which a conspiracy of fate and human will had set up for him to possibly cap his legacy. And he exited it near immediately in an act that you defend as not solely selfish? I think that's pretty disappointing.

Playing baseball, in and of itself, is not even remotely a selfless act. Finishing the game because he wants to defend his "honor" would be a partially selfish act as well.

Personally, I wish he had just stayed in the game just so there weren't all this handwringing over it. But, in my eyes, it shouldn't hurt his legacy. He gave us an entertaining offensive year and he did what was the right move to gain the batting title. . .I wouldn't have expected this much consternation because of it either. It's a shame that so many people are making such a big deal out of this. But, then again, people will make a big deal out of a manager making the correct (statistical) move and it going badly. So I guess I should expect it here as well.

[Edgy MD]

holychicken wrote: Again with the rules. Nobody is claiming this is about the rules. I could cite for you dozens of behaviors far more troubling than this that weren't in contempt of the major league rule book. That's not what's at issue. Yeah, it's about some, IMO, phony definition of honor that means putting yourself, and the fans, more at risk of losing something that they have never gotten.

There is nothing phony about it, and you clearly don't speak for all the fans.

Do you really think that it arguably wasn't a "solely" selfish move speaks well of him? That his last act as a Met wasn't "solely" selfish? This was a dramatic stage which a conspiracy of fate and human will had set up for him to possibly cap his legacy. And he exited it near immediately in an act that you defend as not solely selfish? holychicken wrote: Playing baseball, in and of itself, is not even remotely a selfless act. Finishing the game because he wants to defend his "honor" would be a partially selfish act as well.

I'd really like to hear about how. It's clear we have very different lexicons. I certainly don't get the continued setting of "honor" in quotation marks. It does have a meaning.

It's a shame that so many people are making such a big deal out of this.

I can only speak for myself. I'm not making such a big a deal out this.

[Elster88]

Joshua wrote: [sometimes] the only winning move is not to play.

[G-Fafif]

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

This is indeed sweet.

Do they still do leader cards? And have they been extended into advanced stats?

[Edgy MD]

Willets has indeed closed his account. Not to talk about him behind his back, but I'm sorry to see him go.

Try as I might, I can't see why this disagreement should be so much more distressing than any others. We're certainly not going to agree on everything. No need to make it or take it personal.

[batmagadanleadoff]

G-Fafif wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: This is indeed sweet. Do they still do leader cards? And have they been extended into advanced stats?

Sometimes. Not that I know of.

[Vic Sage]

I'm not the biggest fan of it, but he hasn't made my personal blacklist.

I haven't damned him for all time. i'm just disappointed in him. i never got the impression that this was who he was.

Nobody -- well, nobody HERE... maybe they are on FAN but i stopped listening to that crap ages ago -- is saying what he did is a hanging offense, or that it is somehow against the rules, or all that uncommon, or even that we shouldn't pursue him in free agency because it discloses something about his character (i think it does, but lets leave that aside). some here are simply saying it was a shitty thing for him to do and it taints the accomplishment to some degree. It was cunning instead of courageous; craven instead of competitive; small and selfish instead of big and selfless. But that's on him. What's on US is how we deal with that. And for me, a response of "aw, no big deal, we got a batting champ out of it; chill out, you're overreacting" is not our finest hour either.

And if THAT position is all it took to drive Willets out of the pool, i should have tried it years ago. I could have saved myself from enumerable ad hominem attacks because he didn't like what i said about movie lists, or soccer rules, or whatever.