Master Index of Archived Threads


Kevin Kernan on Richard Near today

Bret Sabermetric Apr 08 2006 10:07 AM

He noted that pushing Beltran back to acknowledge the ovation the other night would not have happened under Piazza's leadership. "Not taking anything away from Piazza, but he just wasn't that kind of leader. Julio Franco stepped up. Paul Lo Duca is a real active leader, too" bbbyyy. Just so you understand that I'm not manufacturing this "Piazza's mopiness prevented the Mets from showing competitive fire" stuff out of whole cloth.

Elster88 Apr 08 2006 10:17 AM

You're right, Piazza wouldn't have pushed him out there. Neither would have Reyes, Wright, Floyd, Beltran himself, Woodward, Glavine, Leiter, or 99% of the guys who played for the Mets over the last few years.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 08 2006 10:21 AM

Elster88 wrote: You're right, Piazza wouldn't have pushed him out there. Neither would have Reyes, Wright, Floyd, Beltran himself, Woodward, Glavine, Leiter, or 99% of the guys who played for the Mets over the last few years. I may be going out on my own limb of the Piazza-hater's loony-tree here, but I think kernan was implying that --as long as Piazza was the Mets' nominal leader--no one on the team during the Piazza years felt comfortable taking a leadership role. IOW, it was just that Mike wasn't a leader, it's that he was a bad leader who insisted on fulfilling that role but didn't actually lead. Now that he's gone, leadership is possible in a way that it would have created problems before.

old original jb Apr 08 2006 10:30 AM

Why are we even discussing this? Piazza is so last decade. Both Elster88 and BS are right; neither Piazza nor any of those other players would have intervened. That was the "old Mets" who were maybe kind of New School/Igottabeme/Generation X in their collective outlook and maybe sometimes even a bit too philosophical about winning and losing/able to console themselves with their hobbies. Others who were New School in one way or another: Steve Phillips; Bobby V (love him anyway); Al Leiter; Rey Ordonez..... Julio Franco and Paul Lo Duca strike me as kind of "old school", which may be exactly what we've needed for a long time. Omar and WWSB are definitely old school. Franco, of course, is actually old--which, as I've mentioned before--makes him my new hero. Anyone with even an outside chance to still be playing at 50 has to be doing some things right. I will feel this way until I get back to being less than 40 years old. Hate to say it, but maybe there really is something to this "knowing how to win" idea.

MFS62 Apr 08 2006 10:42 AM

I have this feeling that if neither Franco nor LoDuca had pushed Beltran out of the dugout, Wright might have. And if not this year, maybe in a year or two when he is a "veteran". Later

Yancy Street Gang Apr 08 2006 11:00 AM

Piazza was never a leader, and I doubt that he wanted to be seen as one. I think John Franco would have sent Beltran out there (if he was in the dugout) and I think Todd Zeile would have, too. And maybe Robin Ventura. But no, probably not Mike Piazza.

soupcan Apr 08 2006 11:14 AM

I heard part of that interview but didn't know it was Kiernan. What he said about Carl Pavano really struck me though. Basically he threw the guy under the bus. "Everybody in Florida knew it was a big mistake for the Yankees to sign him. He does not have the heart or the guts to pitch in New York." "He set up chairs in a semicircle around his locker to keep reporters away, if he had located his pitches as well as he set up the chairs he wouldn't have had to worry about the media." Ouch. I don't recall the last time I heard a reporter just absolutely kill a guy like that.

Frayed Knot Apr 08 2006 01:11 PM

I missed the part about Piazza insisting on fulfilling a leadership role.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 08 2006 01:19 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: I missed the part about Piazza insisting on fulfilling a leadership role. "I may be going out on my own limb of the Piazza-hater's loony-tree here, but I think kernan was implying that " Sorry if I was being unclear that I was speculating with no basis for my own opinions and not trying to deceive you into thinking that kernan had stated these things as verified fact. I can understand how you got confused.

old original jb Apr 08 2006 01:55 PM BS: It doesn't always have to be about you.

I'm more interested in the point itself, rather than whether YOU made it, professor, and I'd venture it would be better received if the emphasis seemd more on the former than on the latter.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 08 2006 02:02 PM

I think you mean to direct that comment to FK, who asked for substantiation of a point that was plainly (see red text) my view and not Kernan's.

old original jb Apr 08 2006 02:35 PM

No, it's directed to you, Prof. The whole thread takes a potentially very interesting topic and spins it into being about "see BS was right all along--he's not crazy". And it's one of many that is essentially adding a strain of red light forum to every other thread. What style of leadership Piazza did or didn't provide as a Met: interesting. Whether this adds fuel to BS or "his persecutors" on the CPF: yawn.... Nothing personal here. I've met you. I like you in person. But for the past I don't know how long, I have to close half the threads here mostly unread because they always seem to end up being about BS vs. the world. It's just tedious to read. Now when it comes to writing tedious, overlong, convoluted and near unreadable posts, I'd be the first to plead guilty--but I don't post that much so the impact is small. What you are doing has become a pattern that is taking over the whole CPF. I've stayed out of it, because I have no stomach for this stuff, but it's really getting to be a bit much. So my egocentric rule of thumb is that when original jb starts complaining about it, it's time for you to take notice and stop your nonsense. To summarize, more topic and less polemic, please. PS: If anyone wants to move this post and any subsequent responses to it to the red light forum, I'd be fine with that, but I've really said all I have to on this subject, so don't expect a whole new red light thread from me.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 08 2006 03:00 PM

I'm providing substantiation, Doctor, that someone other than me says that Lo Duca provides leadership that Piazza didn't provide. I'm happy to discuss that point, and that point alone, and did so quite contentedly in this thread until FK implied that I was drawing the false conclusion that Kernan's point was identical with mine. If you're bored reading my posts, ignore them. Don;t distort them. Let me get this straight: if i say Loduca gives more leadership than Piazza did, people get to tell me that's my fucking stupid opinion and who cares what crazy shit I think, and that's fine, and when I say that someone else says that, and it's not just me, I get told that I'm putting words in my sources's mouth, which I can only respond to at a risk of making the thread about me? We had several posts in this thread discussing Kernan's point exclusively until FK insisted on claiming I'd written Kernan had said something that I actually said. I pointed out that I was quite clear in distinguishing Kernan's views from mine. Like I said, you need to take this up with FK. And I don't really give a shit if you profess to like me personally or not. You're being a childish idiot here.

metsmarathon Apr 08 2006 03:02 PM

one could certainly argue that it is not the fault of any one player that ther wasno vocal leader on teh team, but, rather, a fault of management, perhaps, in failing to bring in such a player. mo vaughn was suposed to be that player, actually, but i think his ill-performance took away any chance at that.

old original jb Apr 08 2006 03:04 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: If you're bored reading my posts, ignore them. At this point, that's mostly what I do.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 08 2006 03:07 PM

Try doing a more thorough job, please.

soupcan Apr 08 2006 04:33 PM

metsmarathon wrote: mo vaughn was suposed to be that player, actually, but i think his ill-performance took away any chance at that. Man, I really wanted Mo Vaughn to do well here. I really, really did.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 08 2006 04:43 PM

He really didn;t do a bad job, did he? He was already a serious injury case when the Mets signed him, and predictably he got hurt, and the Mets refused to implement a backup plan. But he hit some dingers. Now Alomar, that was another story. I resent Alomar much more than Vaughan, probably because he showed no interest in winning, to my eyes. He was just collecting a paycheck, but Vaughan I thought was putting out some effort, for which I give him a few extra points.

soupcan Apr 08 2006 04:46 PM

Am I gonna be ostricized if I start agreeing with Bret too much? Because I'm starting to agree with Bret too much.

Elster88 Apr 08 2006 06:08 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Elster88"]You're right, Piazza wouldn't have pushed him out there. Neither would have Reyes, Wright, Floyd, Beltran himself, Woodward, Glavine, Leiter, or 99% of the guys who played for the Mets over the last few years. I may be going out on my own limb of the Piazza-hater's loony-tree here, but I think kernan was implying that --as long as Piazza was the Mets' nominal leader--no one on the team during the Piazza years felt comfortable taking a leadership role. IOW, it was just that Mike wasn't a leader, it's that he was a bad leader who insisted on fulfilling that role but didn't actually lead. Now that he's gone, leadership is possible in a way that it would have created problems before. So now Piazza is responsible for keeping other players from reaching their leadership potential? The list of atrocities grows.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 08 2006 06:24 PM

Elster88 wrote: So now Piazza is responsible for keeping other players from reaching their leadership potential? The list of atrocities grows. I'm not saying it's anything I'm prepared to prove, Elster (you are Elster, aren;t you, and not MFS62? Just checking). But I'm pointing out indications of evidence I find consistent with my opinions. I do think that Piazza's mopiness had an ill effect on team chemistry. I do think that a passive catcher who courts popularity with the pitching staff at the expense of results creates problems that can;t definitively be pinned to him. But the inconvenient fact that I have no proof for thinking some of the things I think doesn't mean they aren't true, just that they're unproven. What I am sure about is that the Mets from 2001 through 2005 were a huge disappointment. I'm prepared to back that up with numbers (win/payroll proportion numbers, specifically.) I think that those numbers are someone's responsibility. You don't? That's cool.

soupcan Apr 08 2006 06:56 PM

I don't agree Bret (whew!). I don't agree that Piazza was the nominal leader - at least not in the cubhouse. There's no way for us to know what the dynamic was among the players but Piazza wasn't the only veteran on those Mets teams. Floyd, Alomar, Vaughn, Leiter, Franco, etc., etc. Just because he was the 'star' and the player that management chose to be the face of the franchise doesn't mean the players (including him) felt that way. Even if they did, even if Piazza was in fact a mopey malcontent (and I'm not even conceding that) and that was in fact the reason the team failed to meet expectations then all the other veterans on the team would have been just as much to blame for allowing that mopeyness to permeate the team. These players are not boys. They've been playing this game their whole lives. They knew what it took to win. They are all to blame for any percieved underachievment. Obviously you aren't/weren't a Piazza fan but to put the disappointment of the 21st century Mets thus far solely on his shoulders is a gross injustice. Personally I think Piazza was a great asset to this team. A great player, and a great personality.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 08 2006 07:20 PM

Okay, how about I agree with you, then? It's not a big issue, and I freely concede that I'll probably never know much about the dynamic behind the clubhouse door. Lots of teams had leaders outside of their best player: Bob Gibson wrote that Kenny Boyer was the Cardinals' leader in the late 50s when Musial was still having the team's best years, because of Stan the Man's laid-back personality. I just think that after Ventura left and new potential leaders arrived, like Vaughan, they had to prove their cred to be effective leaders and they couldn't do that so the team went rudderless. But it's just a gut feeling--I could be wrong about it.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 08 2006 07:23 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Elster88"]So now Piazza is responsible for keeping other players from reaching their leadership potential? The list of atrocities grows. I'm not saying it's anything I'm prepared to prove, Elster (you are Elster, aren;t you, and not MFS62? Just checking). But I'm pointing out indications of evidence I find consistent with my opinions. I do think that Piazza's mopiness had an ill effect on team chemistry. I do think that a passive catcher who courts popularity with the pitching staff at the expense of results creates problems that can;t definitively be pinned to him. But the inconvenient fact that I have no proof for thinking some of the things I think doesn't mean they aren't true, just that they're unproven. What I am sure about is that the Mets from 2001 through 2005 were a huge disappointment. I'm prepared to back that up with numbers (win/payroll proportion numbers, specifically.) I think that those numbers are someone's responsibility. You don't? That's cool. Do you want to throw Camera Carter into the same boat? Seemed to be the same type of person, only much, much more effervecent and more media friendly

Bret Sabermetric Apr 08 2006 07:33 PM

There's a great book in here somewhere--interviews with catchers and pitchers about calling games. It would take a terrific interviewer and reporter, and it would have a fairly small audience (me and maybe 12 other geeks) but I would find it fascinating to hear about different styles of pitch-calling, different agreements as to who gets final say, memorable issues of shaking off and mound discussions, the effect of personalities on strategy.

soupcan Apr 08 2006 07:48 PM

soupcan wrote: I heard part of that interview but didn't know it was Kiernan. What he said about Carl Pavano really struck me though. Basically he threw the guy under the bus. "Everybody in Florida knew it was a big mistake for the Yankees to sign him. He does not have the heart or the guts to pitch in New York." "He set up chairs in a semicircle around his locker to keep reporters away, if he had located his pitches as well as he set up the chairs he wouldn't have had to worry about the media." Ouch. I don't recall the last time I heard a reporter just absolutely kill a guy like that. No comments on this huh? Geez I was stunned that the guy would say this on the radio.

cooby Apr 08 2006 07:52 PM

Chairs in a semicircle around a locker sounds like an invitation to sit down and chat to me

soupcan Apr 08 2006 07:54 PM

I got the impression that they were turned away from the locker smartass.

cooby Apr 08 2006 07:56 PM

Hey you asked for comments

mlbaseballtalk Apr 08 2006 08:01 PM

I'm still waiting for Bret to engage me in a Carter vs. Piazza debate!

Bret Sabermetric Apr 08 2006 08:19 PM

I'd rather argue the effectiveness of chairs as a barrier against grown reporters. "Oh, no! He's set some chairs up to keep us away? Whatever shall we do? We're doomed, I tell you, doomed!" What exactly did you want to discuss? Have Carter and Piazza ever been seen together? Did they buy a summer house together? What?

mlbaseballtalk Apr 08 2006 09:56 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: I'd rather argue the effectiveness of chairs as a barrier against grown reporters. "Oh, no! He's set some chairs up to keep us away? Whatever shall we do? We're doomed, I tell you, doomed!" What exactly did you want to discuss? Have Carter and Piazza ever been seen together? Did they buy a summer house together? What? I was being snarky in light of my assertation that Carter fits Piazza's profile except that Carter was much more media/fan friendly. More like a Curt Schilling type, but in reading books and articles about the 86 team, seems like Carter's "co-captaincy" was in legend only, almost like "Well he must be a team leader because he's a veteran and he is a catcher" Hence the same assertions that are made about Piazza can be made about Carter. You just completely no sold my comment and I was being snarky about it ;)

Elster88 Apr 08 2006 10:08 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Elster88"]So now Piazza is responsible for keeping other players from reaching their leadership potential? The list of atrocities grows. I'm not saying it's anything I'm prepared to prove, Elster (you are Elster, aren;t you, and not MFS62? Just checking). But I'm pointing out indications of evidence I find consistent with my opinions. I do think that Piazza's mopiness had an ill effect on team chemistry. I do think that a passive catcher who courts popularity with the pitching staff at the expense of results creates problems that can;t definitively be pinned to him. But the inconvenient fact that I have no proof for thinking some of the things I think doesn't mean they aren't true, just that they're unproven. What I am sure about is that the Mets from 2001 through 2005 were a huge disappointment. I'm prepared to back that up with numbers (win/payroll proportion numbers, specifically.) I think that those numbers are someone's responsibility. You don't? That's cool.[/ It also doesn't mean they are true. I'm sure you can find just as much evidence that is inconsistent with your opinions. Others have presented such information on this very site, more times than can possibly be counted. But I accept your need to hold someone responsible.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 09 2006 08:30 AM

One of the primary tangible functions of a team leader, I think, is to act as a lightning rod with the media. Carter's embracing of the spokesman role probably relieved some of the problems of ther Mets who didn't enjoy that part of their job so much, so even if Carter wasn't liked, he did perform a useful function for the team that his teammates might have been grateful for.