PDA

View Full Version : Jose Reyes takes himself out of game



bucksfan2
09-29-2011, 12:51 PM
I am surprised this hasn't been talked about. Jose Reyes asked to be taken out of the game if he got a hit in his first at bat to preserve his batting title. He had a bunt hit against the Reds in the first and then proceeded to sit the rest of the game on the bench. I have never liked the guy now my opinion of him is lower. Even thought he is a great talent I don't want him anywhere near my favorite team. I was hoping that Braun would go 3-4 to screw Reyes.

Thoughts?

westofyou
09-29-2011, 01:01 PM
He's certainly not the first player to ever do it ( Ty Cobb) so my thoughts are if baseball is a team game made up of individual accomplishments that have cash and accolades tied to them why do we act surprised when it occurs in a game that has no bearing on anything?

RichRed
09-29-2011, 02:05 PM
Didn't Griffey Sr. lose a batting title to Bill Madlock by sitting out? Don't remember if it was his call or not.

redsfan30
09-29-2011, 02:22 PM
If the Mets, or even Reds for that matter, were playing for anything at all it would be an obvious huge issue.

They weren't, so as far as I'm concerned, it's not.

cumberlandreds
09-29-2011, 02:29 PM
Didn't Griffey Sr. lose a batting title to Bill Madlock by sitting out? Don't remember if it was his call or not.

Sparky sat Griffey on the last day of the 1976 season. After Madlock went 2 for 2 Sparky inserted Griffey in the lineup and he went 0-2 and the batting title went with it.
I think there was another thread talking about this in recent days that went into the details.

dfs
09-29-2011, 02:41 PM
How did you feel about Brandon Phillip's leg injury on Tuesday night?

I'm not sayin' it was or wasn't real, because I don't know, but it was awfully convenient and left a short handed club even more short handed for the last game of the season.

Caveman Techie
09-29-2011, 02:45 PM
Rosters are expanded, how are the Reds "short handed"?

RichRed
09-29-2011, 02:46 PM
Sparky sat Griffey on the last day of the 1976 season. After Madlock went 2 for 2 Sparky inserted Griffey in the lineup and he went 0-2 and the batting title went with it.
I think there was another thread talking about this in recent days that went into the details.

Madlock also went 4 for 4, so even if Griffey stayed out of the game, the Mad Dog would've won the title.

(Sorry if that was already covered in another thread - I missed it.)

kaldaniels
09-29-2011, 02:54 PM
There is a gray area to me in all of this. I for one said it is ok for players/managers to go for individual goals in the meaningless last game of the year. However when you are competing with another guy for a league title, it is somewhat weak to withdraw from the competition early to hold your number. BP sitting to maintain a .300 doesn't bother me. But Reyes does a bit because he is competing with Braun.

dfs
09-29-2011, 03:21 PM
Rosters are expanded, how are the Reds "short handed"?

The number of players who were in the dugout but unavailable because of actual injury was a constant theme of the broadcast crew in the last week.

As a short example, witness Dontrelle Willis's at bat in the top of the 10th on Tuesday with the bases loaded and two out. I know Willis is a good hitting pitcher and all that, but Hanigan and Cairo were sitting hurt on the bench unable to even pinch hit (I suppose Rolen was there as well). The best bat Dusty had left was Willis. If Phillips had stayed in the game, Frazier would have had that at bat.

Now, I suppose you can claim that Dusty shouldn't have burned through his players like a sailor burning through money on shore leave, but that's a different conversation. (And one RedsZone would never have because the reds ended up winning the game anyway.)

bucksfan2
09-29-2011, 03:37 PM
There is a gray area to me in all of this. I for one said it is ok for players/managers to go for individual goals in the meaningless last game of the year. However when you are competing with another guy for a league title, it is somewhat weak to withdraw from the competition early to hold your number. BP sitting to maintain a .300 doesn't bother me. But Reyes does a bit because he is competing with Braun.

Here is why it bothered me. I wouldn't have much of an issue had he requested to sit the game out. I think it would speak more to his competitive nature than anything else but that is fine with me. I also wouldn't have had much of an issue had his manager benched him because of the batting title. What I do have an issue with is him starting and then requesting to be taken out if he had a hit. If he said he would play he should have played. What about the pitcher who was out there busting his hump for 9 innings. Or about the other 8 players out there trying to win a game. That is where I have a problem. If your going to be in the starting lineup then you play. Don't take yourself out of the game because you think you have won the batting title.

traderumor
09-29-2011, 04:52 PM
In this day of sophistication, I find it humorous that folks are still allowing any air time for basing the "batting title" on highest batting average in the league in the first place. Shouldn't it be based on something more comprehensive than hits/"official" ABs, and until then, shouldn't we boycott any discussion on this meaningless title? (Only half-kidding)

dougdirt
09-29-2011, 06:05 PM
I don't see the big deal at all. He isn't even close to the first guy to do it and I am sure he won't be the last. There have been far worse attempts at these things. I can't recall who it was, but an NBA player needed a rebound for a triple double, so he shot at the wrong basket and got the board. The scorer didn't credit him with the rebound. That is something that is shady/wrong. What Reyes did isn't wrong at all. If his team were contending on that day for the playoffs, I would take an issue with it. But I am sure he wouldn't have requested to be pulled in that case either.

Spitball
09-29-2011, 06:26 PM
On the last day of the 1970 season, Carl Yastrzemski had a slight lead over Alex Johnson in the AL batting race. Yaz, playing on the east coast, finished his season before the Angels even started their last game. After Johnson got a couple of hits to take the lead away (by a few percentage points), he was pinch run for and the new batting champion.

RBA
09-29-2011, 06:30 PM
SNOOZE

kaldaniels
09-29-2011, 06:37 PM
Yeah I have no issue about it from the "helping the team to win" POV, but in terms of the race with Braun, from Brauns POV it sure is cowardly.

AtomicDumpling
09-30-2011, 12:36 AM
People notice when a player takes such a cowardly approach. It definitely takes some of the shine off his accomplishment in my eyes.

Chip R
09-30-2011, 12:47 AM
How did you feel about Brandon Phillip's leg injury on Tuesday night?

I'm not sayin' it was or wasn't real, because I don't know, but it was awfully convenient and left a short handed club even more short handed for the last game of the season.

If the Reds were fighting for a playoff spot I'm sure Brandon would have been in the lineup .300 batting average or not. Lord knows he's played with worse injuries.

RedFanAlways1966
09-30-2011, 08:12 AM
People notice when a player takes such a cowardly approach. It definitely takes some of the shine off his accomplishment in my eyes.

Not only his accomplishment but tells me a lot about him. Screw the 8-yr-old kid who is wearing his jersey and was brought to the game by his/her parents to see his fav player. Screw every other fan who sees him as their fav player and felt slighted for the $40 ticket they bought and got to see 3 outs in the field and a damn bunt.

It is all about using a batting title as leverage to make millions upon millions MORE money when negotiating. It is all about a piece of hardware to put in his trophy case (perhaps more about $$ IMO). IT IS ALL ABOUT HIM. He will never deserve a nickname like Jose Ballgame... they should just call him MIGHTY ME.

lollipopcurve
09-30-2011, 08:16 AM
BP sitting to maintain a .300 doesn't bother me. But Reyes does a bit because he is competing with Braun.

Good point.

Danny Serafini
09-30-2011, 10:27 AM
Not only his accomplishment but tells me a lot about him. Screw the 8-yr-old kid who is wearing his jersey and was brought to the game by his/her parents to see his fav player. Screw every other fan who sees him as their fav player and felt slighted for the $40 ticket they bought and got to see 3 outs in the field and a damn bunt.

So any time anyone takes a day off they're screwing the fans? There wasn't a single Red who played all 162, are they just a bunch of selfish jerks then?

RedFanAlways1966
09-30-2011, 11:19 AM
So any time anyone takes a day off they're screwing the fans? There wasn't a single Red who played all 162, are they just a bunch of selfish jerks then?

Really... all in the pursuit of an individual achievement? My guess is they take a game off here-and-there to keep themselves fresh and help THE TEAM. Not in order to help win an INDIVIDUAL batting, HR, etc, title.

Apples vs. Oranges.

RFS62
09-30-2011, 11:23 AM
Ted Williams' frozen head is spinning in its freezer.

traderumor
09-30-2011, 11:23 AM
Not only his accomplishment but tells me a lot about him. Screw the 8-yr-old kid who is wearing his jersey and was brought to the game by his/her parents to see his fav player. Screw every other fan who sees him as their fav player and felt slighted for the $40 ticket they bought and got to see 3 outs in the field and a damn bunt.

It is all about using a batting title as leverage to make millions upon millions MORE money when negotiating. It is all about a piece of hardware to put in his trophy case (perhaps more about $$ IMO). IT IS ALL ABOUT HIM. He will never deserve a nickname like Jose Ballgame... they should just call him MIGHTY ME.The parents need to kindly explain to their children the way the game of MLB works. The year the Reds acquired Griffey, guess what night was chosen for his first night off as a Red? Yep, the game I was attending. The next time we went he was injured. That is the way the game works. It is little wonder poor little Johnnys can't handle disappointment, because there sure are a lot of folks out there who think the world revolves around them and that every decision should involve "but what about the poor little kids...." (or "what will I tell my son?") :evil:

Danny Serafini
09-30-2011, 11:38 AM
Really... all in the pursuit of an individual achievement? My guess is they take a game off here-and-there to keep themselves fresh and help THE TEAM. Not in order to help win an INDIVIDUAL batting, HR, etc, title.

Apples vs. Oranges.

Does it really matter? The reason they're off doesn't matter, the kid in the stands still isn't getting to see his favorite player either way. At least this way the kid got to see his favorite player get a hit and win the batting title. That's not so bad.

dougdirt
09-30-2011, 11:41 AM
Not only his accomplishment but tells me a lot about him. Screw the 8-yr-old kid who is wearing his jersey and was brought to the game by his/her parents to see his fav player. Screw every other fan who sees him as their fav player and felt slighted for the $40 ticket they bought and got to see 3 outs in the field and a damn bunt.

It is all about using a batting title as leverage to make millions upon millions MORE money when negotiating. It is all about a piece of hardware to put in his trophy case (perhaps more about $$ IMO). IT IS ALL ABOUT HIM. He will never deserve a nickname like Jose Ballgame... they should just call him MIGHTY ME.

No team is going to pay him any more money because he won a batting title. They are going to pay him because he hit .336 or whatever it wound up being. Not because .336 was the best in the league.

As for little Johnny who didn't get to see Jose Reyes play a full game... this isn't 1986 when there are 8 games on tv all year. He probably was able to see Reyes play 100 times this season. Sure, they weren't all in person, but you know, he saw him bat once and that is more than he could have seen him play if he just took the day off. Life isn't fair. Learn that early.

RedFanAlways1966
09-30-2011, 01:09 PM
As for little Johnny who didn't get to see Jose Reyes play a full game... this isn't 1986 when there are 8 games on tv all year. He probably was able to see Reyes play 100 times this season. Sure, they weren't all in person, but you know, he saw him bat once and that is more than he could have seen him play if he just took the day off. Life isn't fair. Learn that early.

I forgot that the fans (of all ages) are not that important. Must be my age. I also forgot that guys like Ted Williams are better for the game than a guy like Reyes. Days off (again) are understandable for the betterment of the team... not an individual.

We should all make sure those little jackwagon kids realize this is not mamby-pamby land and multi-millionaires should be more concerned about themselves than those who help pay those millions of dollars. Also make sure that jackwagon kids do not have a reasonable bedtime and can stay up late to see the whole game. Screw the kids... mom and dad pay for everything anyhow (incl. the cable TV). Those little jackwagons should get a job and work rather than watching a stupid game. Life is tough and should be for a kid and adult who pays top $$ to see their fav players. I think I am getting it.

RFS62
09-30-2011, 01:19 PM
No team is going to pay him any more money because he won a batting title. They are going to pay him because he hit .336 or whatever it wound up being. Not because .336 was the best in the league.

As for little Johnny who didn't get to see Jose Reyes play a full game... this isn't 1986 when there are 8 games on tv all year. He probably was able to see Reyes play 100 times this season. Sure, they weren't all in person, but you know, he saw him bat once and that is more than he could have seen him play if he just took the day off. Life isn't fair. Learn that early.


So, "life isn't fair" is the lesson this teaches? Seems more to me that it teaches how to take the easy way out. "Hey, little Johnny. Cut corners, its OK. Nobody will remember, and you'll have won the batting title. The end justifies the means."

Great lesson.

Blitz Dorsey
09-30-2011, 02:03 PM
This is no different than Phillips sitting the final day of the regular season so he could finish the year with a .300 average for the first time.

cumberlandreds
09-30-2011, 02:28 PM
This is no different than Phillips sitting the final day of the regular season so he could finish the year with a .300 average for the first time.

But he was hurt. :)

I can see players wanting preserve those types of things. It can only help them in contract negotiations. But it always seemed more noble to me as to how Ted Williams went about preserving his .400 average in 1941.

signalhome
09-30-2011, 03:01 PM
I really don't understand the outrage at this. I think batting titles and other things of the sort are trivial and unimportant, much like reaching those big round numbers (30 HR, 100 RBI, .300 AVG as opposed to 29 HR, 99 RBI, .299 AVG), but if Reyes thinks that winning the batting title earns him $5 million more in free agency (probably not true), isn't it kind of understandable for him to leave the game? I don't see what's so dishonorable about Reyes trying to make more money considering his team was already eliminated from the postseason, but then again, I also think baseball's plethora of unwritten rules are pretty stupid, so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask about things like this.

westofyou
09-30-2011, 03:18 PM
Bill Madlock sat in 1983, Tim Raines sat for three games prior to the last game only to play the last game when Steve Sax was close.

Proving once again that back in the day players were just as enamored with meaningless titles tied to meaningless numbers as they are today.

Edskin
09-30-2011, 03:19 PM
Not sure how you can view this action by Reyes as anything but entirely lame.

westofyou
09-30-2011, 03:19 PM
Not sure how you can view this action by Reyes as anything but entirely lame.

Because opinions are like...

Edskin
09-30-2011, 03:42 PM
Because opinions are like...

Sure and in my opinion I can't see how anyone can view this as anything but lame :)

osuceltic
09-30-2011, 03:59 PM
Not sure how you can view this action by Reyes as anything but entirely lame.

Agreed. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Not likely to impact his next contract. Not some great illumination of his true character.

But definitely lame.

Reds1
09-30-2011, 04:06 PM
I am surprised this hasn't been talked about. Jose Reyes asked to be taken out of the game if he got a hit in his first at bat to preserve his batting title. He had a bunt hit against the Reds in the first and then proceeded to sit the rest of the game on the bench. I have never liked the guy now my opinion of him is lower. Even thought he is a great talent I don't want him anywhere near my favorite team. I was hoping that Braun would go 3-4 to screw Reyes.

Thoughts?


I'd take him! :)

Johnny Footstool
09-30-2011, 04:13 PM
Not sure how you can view this action by Reyes as anything but entirely lame.

I view it as fiscally sound.

The game was meaningless anyway. Absolutely meaningless. What other incentive did Reyes have for being out there?

The worst thing about Reyes' choice is that it gives people yet another reason to villify a professional athlete for not being a blue-collar hero.

Edskin
09-30-2011, 04:38 PM
.

The game was meaningless anyway. Absolutely meaningless. What other incentive did Reyes have for being out there?

.

I don't think it's pie in the sky to believe that one "reason" he should be out there is because it's his job and another reason because that there is a certain integrity in playing.

Again, I used the word "lame" on purpose. I don't think he's evil or anything like that. It's competitively weak. A lot like Lebron James choosing the Heat..it's his right, I don't think he's going to burn for it or anything, but just from the standpoint of competion, I think it's a lame decison.

Let's say I'm at work and I have an incentive clause that I hit. Then, before my last meeting of the quarter, I go to my boss and say, "I am going to sit this meeting out...I might mess something up in this meeting, and I'm afraid that if I mess up, you might not give me as much money when I ask for a raise next year."

Yeah, I guess that makes some fiscal sense...but again, lame.

fearofpopvol1
09-30-2011, 05:24 PM
Is there anything wrong with it? Technically no, it's not illegal or anything. But it's a cowardly move and any other player who has done so in the past or future is a coward too. It's just not really in the spirit of competition. I think Phillips doing it for his .300 average is cowardly too, but as someone else pointed out, at least he wasn't competing against Braun.

dougdirt
09-30-2011, 06:37 PM
Question.... what if Reyes made an out in his first at bat, then got a hit in his second at bat and left. Is that ok? I mean lets be honest, he could have just not played at all. For people saying he is cowardly, I think you need to look up the word, because he risked making an out and lowering his average by playing that day.

Johnny Footstool
09-30-2011, 06:44 PM
Let's say I'm at work and I have an incentive clause that I hit. Then, before my last meeting of the quarter, I go to my boss and say, "I am going to sit this meeting out...I might mess something up in this meeting, and I'm afraid that if I mess up, you might not give me as much money when I ask for a raise next year."

Yeah, I guess that makes some fiscal sense...but again, lame.

If the meeting was meaningless, and there was a chance you could get injured in that meeting (by...I don't know...staples or something) and lose a huge chunk of next year's salary, why risk it?

dougdirt
09-30-2011, 06:46 PM
I don't think it's pie in the sky to believe that one "reason" he should be out there is because it's his job and another reason because that there is a certain integrity in playing.

Again, I used the word "lame" on purpose. I don't think he's evil or anything like that. It's competitively weak. A lot like Lebron James choosing the Heat..it's his right, I don't think he's going to burn for it or anything, but just from the standpoint of competion, I think it's a lame decison.

Let's say I'm at work and I have an incentive clause that I hit. Then, before my last meeting of the quarter, I go to my boss and say, "I am going to sit this meeting out...I might mess something up in this meeting, and I'm afraid that if I mess up, you might not give me as much money when I ask for a raise next year."

Yeah, I guess that makes some fiscal sense...but again, lame.

Sports aren't comparable to every day life. Let's not pretend that they are.

Danny Serafini
09-30-2011, 07:00 PM
I think Phillips doing it for his .300 average is cowardly too, but as someone else pointed out, at least he wasn't competing against Braun.

As has been said multiple times, he was sat because he was hurt enough the night before that he was removed from the game.

Griffey012
09-30-2011, 07:02 PM
Not only his accomplishment but tells me a lot about him. Screw the 8-yr-old kid who is wearing his jersey and was brought to the game by his/her parents to see his fav player. Screw every other fan who sees him as their fav player and felt slighted for the $40 ticket they bought and got to see 3 outs in the field and a damn bunt.

It is all about using a batting title as leverage to make millions upon millions MORE money when negotiating. It is all about a piece of hardware to put in his trophy case (perhaps more about $$ IMO). IT IS ALL ABOUT HIM. He will never deserve a nickname like Jose Ballgame... they should just call him MIGHTY ME.

There were probably very few little kids in attendance on a weekday day game with both teams out of contention after school had started up. According to ESPN the attendance was a little short of 29,000. I am sure that was paid attendance and not the actual attendance in the ballpark. The portion of those who are kids wearing a Reyes jersey who's parents actually purchased a 40$ ticket to the last game of the year...probably less than a handful if any.

AtomicDumpling
09-30-2011, 07:15 PM
As has been said multiple times, he was sat because he was hurt enough the night before that he was removed from the game.

Yes that injury is what people are questioning. I am not saying he faked it, but that is the speculation in some people's minds. The exact moment he gets his average to .300 he comes up with a minor injury... makes people wonder.

dougdirt
09-30-2011, 07:16 PM
Yes that injury is what people are questioning. I am not saying he faked it, but that is the speculation in some people's minds. The exact moment he gets his average to .300 he comes up with a minor injury... makes people wonder.

HE is a coward. HE should have played through it, there was only one game left. And yes, I am kidding about all of what I just said, in case someone missed the sarcasm.

Griffey012
09-30-2011, 09:41 PM
While these numerical milestones don't mean a lot to the common fan except for bragging about which player had a better career in a non-sabermetric fashion. They can mean a lot to an individual player. .300 is the batting average that has long been a measuring stick. Kinda of like 40 HR's, 100 RBI's etc. Someday when Brandon is looking back on his career, he can now say he hit .300 once. Whether you agree or not with .300 as a measuring stick, there always has and probably always will be an aura attached to that number.

Simply based off the fact that he killed it in the leadoff spot, is amazing in the field, plays hard, and interacts with the fans and community, can't we at least just let the guy enjoy a .300 season without being ridiculed for pulling himself out of the last meaningless game of the year.

He should actually be praised for pulling himself to let a youngster get a few more AB's, since Dusty won't play the young guys the players have to force his hand. ;)

westofyou
10-01-2011, 03:30 PM
Baseball players are the same way. Batting .300 for a season is the ultimate benchmark. And players will stop at virtually nothing to get there. A pair of economists, Devin Pope at the University of Chicago and Uri Simonsohn at Wharton found that in the last quarter-century, no player batting .299 in his final at-bat of the season has ever drawn a walk. Again: In the last 25 years, no player batting .299 in his final at-bat of the season has ever drawn a walk. He would chase balls in the dirt and swing at pitches thrown furlongs outside the strike zone; anything to avoid those four balls, which, of course, would not move his average. And the strategy worked: those free-swinging .299 hitters batted almost .430 in their final plate appearance.

But then came the events of last Wednesday. Giving new zest to the phrase "Fielder's Choice," the Brewers first baseman took two pitches for balls. He swung and missed and the third. Then he took two more -- both of them errant 90 mph fastballs -- and trotted to first. He would never bat again in the 2011 regular season.

Here's what makes this even stranger: Economists believe that artificial benchmarks are often rooted in financial incentives. We have created a distinction in our minds. When we buy the $2,999.99 flat-screen we can tell our friends, "I paid less that three grand for it!" In baseball, there is a sizable financial incentive to hitting the .300 mark. Over 600 or so at-bats, the difference between .299 and .300 is comically small. A squib base hit, a bunt singles on a slick field, a charitable judgment by the official scorer. But it is worth roughly two percent of a player's salary. (We estimate it at $130,000, since players hitting .299 earn more than the $3.4 million median.)


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jon_wertheim/09/30/prince.fielder/index.html#ixzz1ZYXqKLDl

Dom Heffner
10-01-2011, 03:35 PM
If you have to win a batting title by asking out of a game after getting one hit, you didn't win the batting title.

Especially after you missed a ton of games because you're more fragile than a love bug.

This manager has no spine...

dougdirt
10-01-2011, 03:54 PM
If you have to win a batting title by asking out of a game after getting one hit, you didn't win the batting title.

Especially after you missed a ton of games because you're more fragile than a love bug.

This manager has no spine...

Actually, he did win the batting title. He had enough at bats to qualify and he had the highest average in the game of those qualified. That makes him the champ.

fearofpopvol1
10-01-2011, 04:00 PM
As has been said multiple times, he was sat because he was hurt enough the night before that he was removed from the game.

If that's true, I retract that, but this seems to be an unknown.

fearofpopvol1
10-01-2011, 04:01 PM
Question.... what if Reyes made an out in his first at bat, then got a hit in his second at bat and left. Is that ok? I mean lets be honest, he could have just not played at all. For people saying he is cowardly, I think you need to look up the word, because he risked making an out and lowering his average by playing that day.

Still lame by me. Play out all of your ABs unless you're hurt and unable.

cincinnati chili
10-01-2011, 10:25 PM
So we've established that players have been doing this for years. This just means that the old time guys were just as wrong as Reyes. I didn't know that about Raines, who I liked a lot as a player.

While batting average is a dumb stat, the title still has meaning to some people. So Reyes' behavior is lame, lame, lame.

RFS62
10-02-2011, 10:22 AM
So we've established that players have been doing this for years. This just means that the old time guys were just as wrong as Reyes. I didn't know that about Raines, who I liked a lot as a player.

While batting average is a dumb stat, the title still has meaning to some people. So Reyes' behavior is lame, lame, lame.



Exactly right.

Tony Cloninger
10-02-2011, 07:24 PM
Rose cared a lot about his stats. Could recite them all the time and knew where he was at most of the time.

If Ted Williams could have made the money they do now...You think, for all his rep (Well deserved) about what he did to not sit out the games...that he would not have possibly done the same thing?

RFS62
10-02-2011, 08:02 PM
Rose cared a lot about his stats. Could recite them all the time and knew where he was at most of the time.

If Ted Williams could have made the money they do now...You think, for all his rep (Well deserved) about what he did to not sit out the games...that he would not have possibly done the same thing?



If there was one guy out of all the players who ever played the game that I would bet would never, ever do that, it would be Ted Williams.

cincinnati chili
10-02-2011, 08:22 PM
Rose cared a lot about his stats. Could recite them all the time and knew where he was at most of the time.

If Ted Williams could have made the money they do now...You think, for all his rep (Well deserved) about what he did to not sit out the games...that he would not have possibly done the same thing?

I agree w/rfs62, Ted would have played. Also, I'll add that we're all somewhat selfish and want to draw positive attention to ourselves. We're all somewhat concerned with the way we're perceived. But it seems so obvious to me that this type of this makes people perceive you as a jackass.

And not to hijack the thread, but even if Ted Williams had gone 0 for 8 on the final day of the season and missed .400, he should have been the MVP over DiMaggio. Even accounting for defense, he was about 2-3 wins better.

dougdirt
10-02-2011, 08:27 PM
And not to hijack the thread, but even if Ted Williams had gone 0 for 8 on the final day of the season and missed .400, he should have been the MVP over DiMaggio. Even accounting for defense, he was about 2-3 wins better.

But the Red Sox didn't make the playoffs, so he couldn't have been valuable. You have to make the playoffs or you can't be valuable, didn't you know that?

RFS62
10-02-2011, 08:41 PM
I agree w/rfs62, Ted would have played. Also, I'll add that we're all somewhat selfish and want to draw positive attention to ourselves. We're all somewhat concerned with the way we're perceived. But it seems so obvious to me that this type of this makes people perceive you as a jackass.

And not to hijack the thread, but even if Ted Williams had gone 0 for 8 on the final day of the season and missed .400, he should have been the MVP over DiMaggio. Even accounting for defense, he was about 2-3 wins better.


Williams' stormy relationship with the press is the reason he wasn't MVP that year.

His disdain for those he called "the knights of the keyboard" was legendary. It was a sad chapter in sports journalism, in my opinion.

Today, he'd be worshiped for his anti-press attitude. Add that to his war record, the years he missed in his prime, and he'd be a cult figure.

Back then, the press held all the power and they vilified him every chance they got.

Scrap Irony
10-02-2011, 09:22 PM
According to John Glenn, Williams was the greatest pilot he ever saw.

Williams is also considered one of the greatest fly fishermen of all time (and is in their HoF).

Some people consider him the greatest hitter who ever played the game of baseball.

Ted Williams may be the manliest man to ever put on a jock strap.

RFS62
10-02-2011, 09:55 PM
According to John Glenn, Williams was the greatest pilot he ever saw.

Williams is also considered one of the greatest fly fishermen of all time (and is in their HoF).

Some people consider him the greatest hitter who ever played the game of baseball.

Ted Williams may be the manliest man to ever put on a jock strap.



He was Glenn's wingman in Korea, his second voluntary stint in the service.

Legend has it that he broke all the standards for eyesight and depth perception in his avaitor training.

He was John Wayne in real life.

RedsBaron
10-03-2011, 10:22 AM
He was Glenn's wingman in Korea, his second voluntary stint in the service.

Legend has it that he broke all the standards for eyesight and depth perception in his avaitor training.

He was John Wayne in real life.

I am a huge fan of Ted Williams but, IIRC, his admirable military service during the Korean War was not entirely voluntary. I think Ted was involuntarily recalled to active service and was not pleased to have to re-enter active duty at age 33. l can recall reading in his autobiography that Ted, no stranger to controversy, even got into a minor media blowup when he was quoted as criticizing President Truman, a criticism which Ted indicated Truman didn't take offense to, with Truman noting that he himself had had a few things to say over the years.
Ted's service in WWII also had its moment of controversy. While a few players such as Bob Feller and Hank Greenberg immediately enlisted after Pearl Harbor, Ted, like most players including his foremost rival Joe DiMaggio, played during the 1942 season. Ted wrote that he received some sort of criticism from Quaker Oats, causing him to never again eat any of its products. Ted then entered the USAAF after the 1942 season but did not see combat in WWII.
He did fly several combat missions during the Korean War and once crash landed his plane. His great fear was that he would be unable to bail out, given his 6'4" frame. And yes, Ted was John Glenn's wingman.

RFS62
10-03-2011, 10:36 AM
RB, I didn't know that. I stand corrected.

osuceltic
10-03-2011, 12:57 PM
But the Red Sox didn't make the playoffs, so he couldn't have been valuable. You have to make the playoffs or you can't be valuable, didn't you know that?

It's not a question of valuable/not valuable. It's "most" vs. "second-most" ... and it's not an argument that can be settled by comparing OPS numbers.

dougdirt
10-03-2011, 03:22 PM
It's not a question of valuable/not valuable. It's "most" vs. "second-most" ... and it's not an argument that can be settled by comparing OPS numbers.

Most valuable means the best. You can't provide the most value by not being the best player. That season, Ted was easily the best and most valuable player. He had the highest average in the league, by 47 points. He had the highest OBP in the league, by 101 points! He had the highest slugging percentage in the league, by 92 points! He led the league in runs scored by 13. He led the league in HR's.

Sure, about 8 people on the planet kept track of OBP in 1941.... but no numbers aside from team wins can explain why he didn't win the 1941 or 1942 MVP.

George Anderson
10-03-2011, 03:44 PM
Legend has it that he broke all the standards for eyesight and depth perception in his avaitor training.

.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/sbbw0725.htm

This is interesting.

osuceltic
10-03-2011, 04:09 PM
Most valuable means the best. You can't provide the most value by not being the best player. That season, Ted was easily the best and most valuable player. He had the highest average in the league, by 47 points. He had the highest OBP in the league, by 101 points! He had the highest slugging percentage in the league, by 92 points! He led the league in runs scored by 13. He led the league in HR's.

Sure, about 8 people on the planet kept track of OBP in 1941.... but no numbers aside from team wins can explain why he didn't win the 1941 or 1942 MVP.

Most valuable does not mean the best.

As for Dimaggio-Williams, I'm in no way discounting anything Williams accomplished. Clearly he was one of the true greats of the game and he had a great season in 1941. But you also have to consider everything that happened outside of the batter's box. Dimaggio was a phenomenal center fielder, Williams an average left fielder. Dimaggio was one of the game's best baserunners, Williams average or below. Dimaggio's 56-game hitting streak that season sparked the Yankees from fourth place to the pennant -- something you can't see when just evaluating end-of-seasons stats. Throw in the fact that the Yankees outperformed their run projections while the Red Sox underperformed, and the Yankees won the pennant over the Sox by 17 games, and I think reasonable people can see how Dimaggio may have been the more valuable player that season. If it's close -- and when you look at the entire picture, it clearly was -- then the advantage will always go to the player on the better, pennant-winning team.

These seasons have been debated for decades and convincing arguments can be made both ways. In my mind, that's a pretty good indication that there really isn't a right or wrong answer -- either guy could have won the award and been deserving.

dougdirt
10-03-2011, 04:23 PM
Most valuable does not mean the best.


So someone who isn't the best provides more value than the best?

RedsBaron
10-03-2011, 04:30 PM
Ted Williams never complained about losing the 1941 MVP award to Joe DiMaggio. While WAR gives Teddy Ballgame a healthy lead over the Yankee Clipper in 1941, IIRC by Win Shares it is quite close between the two.
The seasons Ted really complained about, and with justification, were losing the MVP award in both 1942 and 1947, seasons in which he won the triple crown.

RedsBaron
10-03-2011, 04:32 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/sbbw0725.htm

This is interesting.

One of the many things I love about Joey Votto is that I understand he has read Ted Williams's book on hitting and attempts to apply its principles.

George Anderson
10-03-2011, 04:50 PM
One of the many things I love about Joey Votto is that I understand he has read Ted Williams's book on hitting and attempts to apply its principles.

Oh "The Science of Hitting" to me is the greatest hitting book ever made. I am greatful to of found it when I was in HS because without it I doubt i would of made my HS team. I still use the principles behind it when teaching my son and other kids to hit.

Funny I just found the book last night while cleaning out a closet.

RedsBaron
10-03-2011, 05:00 PM
Oh "The Science of Hitting" to me is the greatest hitting book ever made. I am greatful to of found it when I was in HS because without it I doubt i would of made my HS team. I still use the principles behind it when teaching my son and other kids to hit.

Funny I just found the book last night while cleaning out a closet.

I read it when I was about 14 and it helped me in Babe Ruth and high school, with its stress of getting a good pitch to hit. I bought my son Jason a copy while he was in high school.

osuceltic
10-03-2011, 05:39 PM
So someone who isn't the best provides more value than the best?

If you're stacking up players in a vacuum? No. In the real world, where winning and losing matters, sometimes.

dougdirt
10-03-2011, 09:54 PM
If you're stacking up players in a vacuum? No. In the real world, where winning and losing matters, sometimes.

A player is either X amount valuable or he isn't. The team he plays on doesn't matter to his value.

westofyou
10-03-2011, 11:27 PM
Bill Madlock sat in 1983, Tim Raines sat for three games prior to the last game only to play the last game when Steve Sax was close.

Proving once again that back in the day players were just as enamored with meaningless titles tied to meaningless numbers as they are today.

I'm pulling the Madlock reference, I was wrong.

In fact Madlock tore a thumb tendon that year, in September. (and he was traded for Bobby Murcer that winter (FAIL)

Also, In 1976 he was neck and neck with Griffey and missed a handful of games in the last week whilst he was a CUb (who didn't call him "Maddog" as he is beter known for, but instead called in him "Buns" due to his ample rear end.. but I digress.)

As a Cub, Bill was mugged in the team hotel the night they checked in, teh crooks got , $50 to $70 and knocked him in the head.

He did not play until the last game of the year, a game that Ken Griffey sat out at Sparkey's advice, and then came in and failed tohold the title.

But speaking of Williams in 1941, this article is a good one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/sports/baseball/ted-williamss-406-average-is-more-than-a-number.html?pagewanted=all

as for his numbers that year:


OBA YEAR OBA AVG PA RB OUTS
1 Ted Williams 1941 .553 .406 604 335 285

BTW as far as Military service goes, he was an early deferment as the sole support for him mother.

RedsBaron
10-04-2011, 08:28 AM
I've had a chance to review my books on Ted Williams and I want to correct a couple of errors.
First, Ted wasn't in the USAAF-he was a Marine.
Second, while Ted did get in a minor controversy when he criticized President Truman, this wasn't while he was in the Marines. Ted made his comments before the 1957 season, with Ted complaining about the "lousy equipment," about our effort in Korea, and blasting everyone from the media to Truman. Ted wrote that he didn't think his comments would be reported and that Truman "was great" about the subsequent controversy.
WOY is correct. Ted had been re-classified as I-A, eligible for service in 1942, only to be re-re-classified as III-A because he was his mother's sole support. The sportwriters then blasted Ted, Quaker Oats cancelled an endorsement contract, and Ted wrote that he hadn't "eaten a Quaker Oat since." Ted then went out and won the triple crown in 1942 with a line of .356 36 137 and a .499 OBP and .648 SLG and didn't win the MVP.
Ted didn't see combat in WWII because he was such a good flyer that he was made an instructor. According to Ed Linn he finally got his wish to be transferred to a combat wing in August 1945 but the war then ended.
Ted flew 39 combat missions in the Korean War. John Glenn selected Ted as his wingman.

osuceltic
10-04-2011, 10:29 AM
A player is either X amount valuable or he isn't. The team he plays on doesn't matter to his value.

Wrong. You're only thinking about it one way.

Dom Heffner
10-04-2011, 10:38 AM
Actually, he did win the batting title. He had enough at bats to qualify and he had the highest average in the game of those qualified. That makes him the champ.

I think you know what I mean.

Roy Tucker
10-04-2011, 10:46 AM
I could have understood it better if there were direct financial rewards (i.e. a bonus) riding on it. But evidently, there wasn't. It was just the prestige of the award at stake.

So I personally think his move was bogus as well as all other players over the years that have made similar moves. Makes the title slightly contrived and artificial.

But I'm also not going to lose sleep over it. I never liked the Mets and I never liked Reyes so this just gives me another reason for both.

Roy Tucker
10-04-2011, 10:46 AM
nm

Scrap Irony
10-04-2011, 11:37 AM
Meh.

It's happened since pretty much the beginning of professional baseball.

I don't think any less of Reyes because I would expect it of almost all ballplayers.

I think more of Williams because of what was riding on his decision.

signalhome
10-04-2011, 01:38 PM
Wrong. You're only thinking about it one way.

Player X finishes the season with a .441 wOBA, -4.8 UZR, and 8.3 WAR. His team finishes .500 and misses the playoffs.

Player Y finishes the season with a .394 wOBA, -5.1 UZR, and 7.0 WAR. His team finishes 97-65 and makes the playoffs.

Specifically, and without saying "his team made the postseason" -- something that would have also been accomplished had you simply flipped the respective teams of the players, seeing as how X had the better year -- in what way is Player Y more valuable than Player X? I'm not being combative, I really want an explanation of how Y contributed more this season than X.

osuceltic
10-04-2011, 02:39 PM
Player X finishes the season with a .441 wOBA, -4.8 UZR, and 8.3 WAR. His team finishes .500 and misses the playoffs.

Player Y finishes the season with a .394 wOBA, -5.1 UZR, and 7.0 WAR. His team finishes 97-65 and makes the playoffs.

Specifically, and without saying "his team made the postseason" -- something that would have also been accomplished had you simply flipped the respective teams of the players, seeing as how X had the better year -- in what way is Player Y more valuable than Player X? I'm not being combative, I really want an explanation of how Y contributed more this season than X.

When did it happen? One guy did it when the games mattered, the other largely when they didn't. How did they compare in the big moments of the season -- key at-bats, key series, etc. How about intangibles? Was one guy a great chemistry guy and leader or was one a clubhouse lawyer?

You'll probably discount all those things, and I'm sure Doug will, but you have to look at the entire picture.

RedsManRick
10-04-2011, 02:52 PM
When did it happen? One guy did it when the games mattered, the other largely when they didn't. How did they compare in the big moments of the season -- key at-bats, key series, etc. How about intangibles? Was one guy a great chemistry guy and leader or was one a clubhouse lawyer?

You'll probably discount all those things, and I'm sure Doug will, but you have to look at the entire picture.

I wonder how often those things are actually considered vs. the short-hand of "did his team make the playoffs".

Considering things besides aggregate performance is one thing. Doing so in an objective, consistent manner is quite another. Quite often, those things you mention are cited as post hoc justifications for giving the award to the player on the better team and not accompanied with actual answers/evidence.

Most saber types I know are completely cool with using intangibles if treated properly. They're just not cool with using them inconsistently to justify decisions made on other bases.

osuceltic
10-04-2011, 04:03 PM
I wonder how often those things are actually considered vs. the short-hand of "did his team make the playoffs".

Considering things besides aggregate performance is one thing. Doing so in an objective, consistent manner is quite another. Quite often, those things you mention are cited as post hoc justifications for giving the award to the player on the better team and not accompanied with actual answers/evidence.

Most saber types I know are completely cool with using intangibles if treated properly. They're just not cool with using them inconsistently to justify decisions made on other bases.

Agreed, and I don't argue that. We've seen those arguments made to justify giving votes to guys that aren't well-liked. And I'm sure there was some of that involved in the Williams-Dimaggio voting. But in that case, and in many others, there are legitimate non-statistical reasons for favoring one great player over another great player. Stats capture a great deal, but there still is so much to the game that can't be measured. I think most people see that, but there are some -- including some on this board -- who do not.

cincinnati chili
10-05-2011, 01:19 AM
When did it happen? One guy did it when the games mattered, the other largely when they didn't. How did they compare in the big moments of the season -- key at-bats, key series, etc. How about intangibles? Was one guy a great chemistry guy and leader or was one a clubhouse lawyer?

You'll probably discount all those things, and I'm sure Doug will, but you have to look at the entire picture.

The problem I have with your line of thinking is that the logical conclusion becomes MVP = "best player on a team that made the playoffs".... or "best player on team that just barely made the playoffs."

This is hard to justify in baseball (maybe not so much in basketball) considering that the most sensational baseball position player will create no more than 1/6 of his team's runs over the course of a season. When you consider this, it's hard to deny that a single player has very little control over whether his team is a .500 team or playoff team. It's pretty much "luck of the draw" whether a great player like Derek Jeter or Ernie Banks will be on a perennial winner or perennial loser.

All you can ask of a player is to be better than other players at his particular position, offensively and defensively. You can't ask him (alone) to make his team a winning team. If he happens to be the "tipping point" in his team making the playoffs, then that is purely a product of circumstances around him that he can't control.

By nature of your "key at bats" comment, you imply that players on bad teams with good enough numbers to be considered for the MVP (e.g. Matt Kemp, Clayton Kershaw) wouldn't have put up numbers like that in a pennant race. I don't buy that. I can't think of any players off-hand who had great individual years during times when their teams were bad and then floundered in years when their teams were good.

I have no doubt that chemistry and leadership are important, but I have absolutely zero faith that MLB writers (95% of whom don't even write in the cities of a particular player) have the ability to measure a player's contribution in terms of chemistry and leadership.

Scrap Irony
10-05-2011, 11:25 AM
The problem I have with your line of thinking is that the logical conclusion becomes MVP = "best player on a team that made the playoffs".... or "best player on team that just barely made the playoffs."

This is hard to justify in baseball (maybe not so much in basketball) considering that the most sensational baseball position player will create no more than 1/6 of his team's runs over the course of a season. When you consider this, it's hard to deny that a single player has very little control over whether his team is a .500 team or playoff team. It's pretty much "luck of the draw" whether a great player like Derek Jeter or Ernie Banks will be on a perennial winner or perennial loser.

All you can ask of a player is to be better than other players at his particular position, offensively and defensively. You can't ask him (alone) to make his team a winning team. If he happens to be the "tipping point" in his team making the playoffs, then that is purely a product of circumstances around him that he can't control.

By nature of your "key at bats" comment, you imply that players on bad teams with good enough numbers to be considered for the MVP (e.g. Matt Kemp, Clayton Kershaw) wouldn't have put up numbers like that in a pennant race. I don't buy that. I can't think of any players off-hand who had great individual years during times when their teams were bad and then floundered in years when their teams were good.

I have no doubt that chemistry and leadership are important, but I have absolutely zero faith that MLB writers (95% of whom don't even write in the cities of a particular player) have the ability to measure a player's contribution in terms of chemistry and leadership.

Well said. Agreed.

Too, mostly because they love a good story, writers will often choose the "leader" rather than the superstar if given the choice. The story drags the award.

Johnny Footstool
10-07-2011, 12:32 AM
Was Larkin's MVP award deserved?

dougdirt
10-07-2011, 12:48 AM
Was Larkin's MVP award deserved?

I would have voted for Maddox and Bonds before Larkin that season. Probably Piazza as well. I do think it is a bit wild that Larkin wasn't even the highest WAR player on his own team that year (Reggie Sanders was).