|
="Edgy DC":3g5oh5hv]Aaron Heilman, Grant Roberts, and Mike Pelfrey all struggled for a year or so out of the gate before finding a formula and a role that allowed them to effectively retire big league hitters. While fans sometimes grumbled in impatience, they didn't light up on them, and the media didn't attack them.
The media simply likes bigger game, always preferring to find moral failures in the richer guys, the ones that make the team look wasteful and foolish. That always sells. Maybe it always will.
Ironically, it wasn't until Aaron became consistently effective that people started treating him like shit.[/quote:3g5oh5hv]
All erstwhile starters, two of whom ended up getting shoved to the bullpen for subpar teams (which may have been a big reason they didn't get worse epithets publicly hurled their way-- the relative low pressure of their extended debuts), all of whom having received mixed coaching messages/changed approach several times while in the majors... and one of whom having received a PEDs suspension just after MLB testing.
I'm not so sure of my point... but I'm not so sure those guys make great poster boys for Team NY-Doesn't-Need-Handling.
|
Benjamin Grimm
Mar 19 2009 01:42 PM
|
|
| ]As Jim Bouton said (roughly,) “In baseball, just cause B follows A doesn’t mean A caused B.” |
Of course, that's not limited to baseball.
| ]Maybe it’s only me, but doesn’t this come off as arrogant, chest-beating talk on the part of the media. |
Yes, it does. And I think a big part of it is these guys, by saying how tough New York is, and how tough it is to succeed there, are implicitly saying, "...like I've succeeded here." If New York is tough, then someone who's been in the papers or on the radio for ten or twenty years must also be tough. Otherwise they would have been weeded out and sent back to Peoria.
|
Edgy DC
Mar 19 2009 01:49 PM
|
|
="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":16zgg5ic]="Edgy DC":16zgg5ic]Aaron Heilman, Grant Roberts, and Mike Pelfrey all struggled for a year or so out of the gate before finding a formula and a role that allowed them to effectively retire big league hitters. While fans sometimes grumbled in impatience, they didn't light up on them, and the media didn't attack them.
The media simply likes bigger game, always preferring to find moral failures in the richer guys, the ones that make the team look wasteful and foolish. That always sells. Maybe it always will.
Ironically, it wasn't until Aaron became consistently effective that people started treating him like shit.[/quote:16zgg5ic]
All erstwhile starters, two of whom ended up getting shoved to the bullpen for subpar teams (which may have been a big reason they didn't get worse epithets publicly hurled their way-- the relative low pressure of their extended debuts), all of whom having received mixed coaching messages/changed approach several times while in the majors... and one of whom having received a PEDs suspension just after MLB testing.
I'm not so sure of my point... but I'm not so sure those guys make great poster boys for Team NY-Doesn't-Need-Handling.[/quote:16zgg5ic]
These teams may have been bad, but their teammates (Benitez, Alomar, Burnitz, Beltran) were certainly being hit with journalistic "can't hack New York" attacks.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Mar 19 2009 05:05 PM
|
|
="Edgy DC":357erexh]
These teams may have been bad, but their teammates (Benitez, Alomar, Burnitz, Beltran) were certainly being hit with journalistic "can't hack New York" attacks.[/quote:357erexh]
Point taken. Money makes for a much bigger target when fit hits the shan.
(Well, Benitez's utter unsuitability for high-pressure situations, personality-wise, probably didn't help.)
I just think a young pitcher's stepping into a NY pennant race-- in which short-term results are emphasized, rewarded and apparently prized over long-term pitcher development-- when said pitcher has some key mechanical/game management issues to yet resolve can be somewhat detrimental to the pitcher's development. Continued growth in such an environment requires a more steady, nurturing hand to manage than Mets management has been able to provide with precision during the last decade.
With position guys, it's a little more cut-and-dried, it seems.
|
Frayed Knot
Mar 21 2009 06:56 AM
|
|
The 'Can he/Can't He' handle NYC topic has been thorn in my paw for a long time.
First of all because it winds up being a self-fulfilling prophecy more often than not. Had John Olerud, for example, failed here (as his Toronto mgr predicted he would) there would have been no shortage of those who "knew it all along" and would have blasted Met mgmt for being so short-sighted as to not see it coming. But, of course, he didn't and so the topic of the quiet man thriving in the city that never sleeps was never brought up meaning that no one was wrong even though they would have been right had he not. Aaron Heilman was handling NYC just fine -- right up until the moment he wasn't.
And, yes, it absolutely is used as a superiority hammer by some natives who like to claim that those who fail here must have done so because they were here. It's an ego thing for many, a way for the natives to not only make themselves seem tougher but also claim that their standards are that much higher that we cause others who don't measure up to fall by the wayside.
Adrian Beltre tanking in Seattle, on the other hand, draws no such cause/effect conclusions because it's not part of the pre-written story. Or maybe just because saying he couldn't handle a town with an abundance of sushi, rain, and coffee houses doesn't make for as interesting a story.
|
|
|
|
|
