Jeff Kent HOF Material?
roseco...@aol.com
station KFWB-AM have been on a Kent crusade to get him into the HOF
someday.
The Rose Committee has observed, however, that if he approached
hitting like he does fielding and baserunning, Kent wouldn't even be in
the majors.
mrbisco
Played in a World Series. Been to a few all star games.
He has the credentials. He's just an asshat.
<roseco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120944740.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dr. Wayne Simon
"Wunnuy" <wun...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1120952665.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> but he's in and will go in as a Giant at this point (unless he plays a
> few years for the Dodgers, at least five full injury free seasons).
>
He will get in as second base is his position. He is a hard nosed player. He
will be a hall of famer, and he probably needs to thank Barry Bonds.
Off Base
average and steady for years. He's 37 now and overused by Jim Tracy.
And frankly, I don't care one bit that some people don't like him. Some
people didn't like Kirk Gibson either. As long as he's not a criminal
or doing steroids, and plays as hard as he does, I think he's great.
Howie C
www.baseballsavvy.com (yes bs)
The Dave©
Alot of people don't like him becuase he didn't get along with Bonds.
Maybe Bonds was part of the problem. His personality isn't exactly
welcoming.
Kent's personality doesn't translate very well through the media, but
he seems like a pretty straight forward guy. Says generally what's on
his mind, and so on.
--
"Movement is a product of that which does not move." - Barry Zito
Bryan S. Slick
[Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:33:00 GMT]
:Alot of people don't like him becuase he didn't get along with Bonds.
:Maybe Bonds was part of the problem. His personality isn't exactly
:welcoming.
:
:Kent's personality doesn't translate very well through the media, but
:he seems like a pretty straight forward guy. Says generally what's on
:his mind, and so on.
He was a whiny little fucktard as an Oriole.
He seems to be a whiny little fucktard now, albeit one with a tremendous
amount of talent.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
OtisFudpucker
"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d3b29fbe...@news-40.giganews.com...
:Alot of people don't like him becuase he didn't get along with Bonds.
:Maybe Bonds was part of the problem. His personality isn't exactly
:welcoming.
:
:Kent's personality doesn't translate very well through the media, but
:he seems like a pretty straight forward guy. Says generally what's on
:his mind, and so on.
>He was a whiny little fucktard as an Oriole.
>He seems to be a whiny little fucktard now, albeit one with a tremendous
>amount of talent.
As an Oriole? WTF are you talking about?
David Marc Nieporent
Bryan S. Slick <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote:
>[The DaveŠ n...@no.com]
>:Alot of people don't like him becuase he didn't get along with Bonds.
>:Maybe Bonds was part of the problem. His personality isn't exactly
>:welcoming.
>:Kent's personality doesn't translate very well through the media, but
>:he seems like a pretty straight forward guy. Says generally what's on
>:his mind, and so on.
>He was a whiny little fucktard as an Oriole.
>He seems to be a whiny little fucktard now, albeit one with a tremendous
>amount of talent.
WTF are you talking about, Brian? Jeff Kent was never an Oriole.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
AguaGirl
"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d3b29fbe...@news-40.giganews.com...
:Alot of people don't like him becuase he didn't get along with Bonds.
:Maybe Bonds was part of the problem. His personality isn't exactly
:welcoming.
:
:Kent's personality doesn't translate very well through the media, but
:he seems like a pretty straight forward guy. Says generally what's on
:his mind, and so on.
>He was a whiny little fucktard as an Oriole.
>He seems to be a whiny little fucktard now, albeit one with a tremendous
>amount of talent.
It's kind of odd how he comes across so different to so many
people. I didn't hear any interviews with him until this year
and what I have heard this year is just fine. I actually like him.
He understands the game, understands his role and doesn't use
pre-canned sound bites when he talks about it. I love that he knows
his BA doesn't mean squat, that his job is to drive in runs. I diss a lot
of players for being whiney all about me players (see Valdez, Ismael)
but Kent has not once come across that way this year..not to me.
AG
Bryan S. Slick
[Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:27:43 -0400]
:In article <MPG.1d3b29fbe...@news-40.giganews.com>,
: Bryan S. Slick <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote:
:>[The Dave© n...@no.com]
:
:>:Alot of people don't like him becuase he didn't get along with Bonds.
:>:Maybe Bonds was part of the problem. His personality isn't exactly
:>:welcoming.
:>:Kent's personality doesn't translate very well through the media, but
:>:he seems like a pretty straight forward guy. Says generally what's on
:>:his mind, and so on.
:
:>He was a whiny little fucktard as an Oriole.
:>He seems to be a whiny little fucktard now, albeit one with a tremendous
:>amount of talent.
:
:WTF are you talking about, Brian? Jeff Kent was never an Oriole.
Sorry, Davyd.. was meant to be x-posted to RSFC, if that's any
indication as to what I was talking about. ;)
mrbisco
is really to drive in runs. RBI is one of the more useless stats.
a non pitcher has 2 jobs. 1 - is to field well. 2 - is to get on base as
often as possible. if this entails driving in runs, great. but driving in
runs is no one's job. it is the end result of many people getting on base.
with the attitude of, my job is to drive in runs, what do you do when there
is no one on base? you don't just try to hit a home run...you try to get on
base. you are always trying to get on base.
oh..fuck jeff kent. any player who says they are leaving the team in the
middle of the world series is a grad a fucktard. so fuck kent. fuck his
motorcycle. fuck his hall of fame induction. fuck fuck fuckity fuck.
"AguaGirl" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:QYqdne6P4_u...@adelphia.com...
AguaGirl
"mrbisco" <nos...@isgoodspam.net> wrote in message
news:hygAe.19543$aA5....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> i think it's funny that you say his job is to drive in runs. no one's job
> is really to drive in runs. RBI is one of the more useless stats.
If that's true what difference does it make who bats leadoff and
who bats cleanup? why not put the pitcher in the #4 spot?
Brian Perry
I was in Houston over the weekend picking up my mother-in-law, and there
was a big article about Kent there. Apparently he's just a dickhead. He
basically wouldn't talk to anyone, including the manager unless it was a
game situation. He wouldn't respond to players in the locker room if
they addressed him. He was a fanatical gamer though. He'd take players
aside during a game and offer advice, especially younger guys. Its all
about winning with him. Other than that, I got the feeling that he
doesn't like baseball or other people all that much.
AguaGirl
"Brian Perry" <bperr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BXgAe.22127$e%5.5...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I'd be curious to know what the reporters sources were. If he doesn't
mix work and social thats one thing but I find it hard to believe that
he shows up at the stadium unwilling to talk to anyone. He is always
jawing with the guys in the dug-out on tv, he seems to give interviews
readily and I've even seen him talking to fans over the railing before
a game. If it's just a matter of the guy not attending anyones fourth of
July
bash that's fine. Lots of people don't party with their co-workers.
I can't imagine him not liking baseball, not based on interviews I have
heard. He sounds like every other player who grew up loving the sport.
Maybe he just has a bad taste in his mouth right now from a previous
experience? <g> So far I am glad to be cheering for him...subject to
change of course the first time he disses the team, the city or the fans
in the press :-)
AG
Brian Perry
They quoted several players by name. Biggio especially liked to rag on
him because he wouldn't talk. He'd leave each night telling him he'd
call him later. If Kent responded, it would be with "please don't". I
think berkman was also quaoted saying that he said hello to Kent and
didn't get a response so he repeated it thinking Kent hadn't heard him.
Kent went off on him saying he didn't want to respond to pleasantries
from guys he saw every day.
mrbisco
mainly, around the first inning. you put your best hitters in the 3 and 4
spots because they are the ones more likely to get on base when there are
people on base ahead of them.
i believe bill james has suggested a lineup that is completely based on OBP.
highest first, lowest last.
"AguaGirl" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:8PmdnW5c99M...@adelphia.com...
mrbisco
he left a world series team, in an area he was loved, with the greatest
hitter ever, for a team with no real history, and less money...and then
badmouthed his former team.
"AguaGirl" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:SqydnZ5Mloi...@adelphia.com...
OtisFudpucker
> just to get an idea what a dick kent is:
>
> he left a world series team, in an area he was loved, with the greatest
> hitter ever, for a team with no real history, and less money...and then
> badmouthed his former team.
Who cares? Kent isn't really the exception to the rule anymore. It seems
that baseball has more than it's share of "dicks" in the league. Some are
just better at PR than others.
When Kent was with the Giants, very few players outworked, outhustled or
outperformed him. That's all I care about, because I'm not 13 years old
anymore and hoping that my favorite team employs a bunch of guys ready for
sainthood.
You can badmouth him all you want, but the Giants could be significantly
better with a health Kent in their lineup.
Brad Machado
Bob Roman
wrote:
>because pitchers usually aren't very good hitters. you build your lineup,
>mainly, around the first inning. you put your best hitters in the 3 and 4
>spots because they are the ones more likely to get on base when there are
>people on base ahead of them.
>
>i believe bill james has suggested a lineup that is completely based on OBP.
>highest first, lowest last.
1. If your pitcher-centric view of line-up strategy were correct, we
would have expected to see more evolution in the AL in the past 30
years than we've seen.
2. Whether or not it is good strategy, AquaGirl is correct that
players are still hired to "drive in runs." You should not confuse
how things ought to be with how they are.
3. Your cap-button appears to be broken.
Bob Roman
mrbisco
had already decided to leave. why are you standing up for him?
"OtisFudpucker" <oti...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%VhAe.393$mN1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Tarkus
> i think it's funny that you say his job is to drive in runs. no one's
> job is really to drive in runs. RBI is one of the more useless stats.
>
> a non pitcher has 2 jobs. 1 - is to field well. 2 - is to get on
> base as often as possible. if this entails driving in runs, great.
> but driving in runs is no one's job.
With all due respect, and sabermetrics notwithstanding, a person's job is
whatever his boss tells him is his job. And that's not you.
You can say what their job SHOULD be, but that's a different animal.
I'm pretty sure many players ARE expected to do more than just get on
base. Otherwise, there would be no jobs for high SLG/low OBP players.
--
"Maybe I should get on the stuff, so I'd hold up better.
Get a bigger neck, get some zits on my back."
- Greg Maddux on the subject of steroids
Now playing: "Led Zeppelin - Communication Breakdown"
Tarkus
> you build your lineup, mainly, around the first inning. you put your
> best hitters in the 3 and 4 spots because they are the ones more
> likely to get on base when there are people on base ahead of them.
Huh? Why are you talking about hitting instead of just OBP? IOW, who
cares if they're your best hitters, as long as they get on base?
--
"I don't think I've ever thrown him a changeup in my career and he's
sitting on it. I think he's from another planet, in my opinion."
- Kent Mercker on Barry Bonds
Now playing: "Led Zeppelin - C'mon Everybody"
OtisFudpucker
> kent would not have resigned with us. he was offered more money by us.
> he had already decided to leave. why are you standing up for him?
>
>
that he's a "dick"? I'm trying to figure out why that matters? The guy
honored his contract, and picked another team to play with as a free agent.
So what's the problem? Don't feel jilted - this isn't the old days, guys
move around a lot.
Maybe you should respect the guy for not taking more money and playing where
he wanted to play.
mrbisco
they have one game to go to win it all and he's mouthing off about how he
can't wait to get out of here.
i've seen and heard a lot of fucked up shit in my years as a baseball fan,
but that is perhaps the worst.
"OtisFudpucker" <oti...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:96jAe.253$_%4....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
OtisFudpucker
Actually, I take that back. Jeff Kent's behavior was much worse than the
recent Kenny Rogers incident. And even worse than the Texas Rangers bullpen
going into the Oakland stands.
And that sound you hear over usenet is me rolling my eyes.
First, this is just my opinion, but it sounds like you need to build a
bridge and get over it.
Second, I'm having a heck of a time finding these alleged comments Kent
made. I've done some net searching and the most I can find is him getting
testy with reporters after the series ended because they were bothering him
to make a decision.
Third, even if he said that, have you ever seen any indication on the field
that Kent was doing anything other than giving maximum effort?
"mrbisco" <nos...@isgoodspam.net> wrote in message
news:F_jAe.5098$rF5....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Dvd Avins
> because pitchers usually aren't very good hitters. you build your lineup,
> mainly, around the first inning. you put your best hitters in the 3 and 4
> spots because they are the ones more likely to get on base when there are
> people on base ahead of them.
>
> i believe bill james has suggested a lineup that is completely based on OBP.
> highest first, lowest last.
No, iirc, James actually criticized that notion, which predated his work
by about 20 years.
--
Any time you get members of a government preaching out -against
government-, it's a sure bet they're looking to replace it with whatever
ELSE they own. -- Skyler Bode
mrbisco
walking thru the players parking lot after game 5.
Mark came forth with these comments after Kent signed with Houston. He did
it on the Razor and Mr. T show, I think, when he was subbing for one of
them.
The comment was something like, You can kiss my ass goodbye because there is
no way I am coming back.
You'd have to take it up with Mr. Ibanez directly to get the correct quote.
It was pretty fucked up. Why do I find it so distasteful in comparison with
player/fan incidents. Because the team was one win away from a World Series
and his focus was not on winning but on leaving the team.
That is not getting upset with a fan. That is complete disloyalty and
disrespect to your teammates and to your fans.
So again, Fuck Jeff Kent.
"OtisFudpucker" <oti...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:GGkAe.159$Rv7...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Brad Machado
team. That melon-headed steroid freak dictated everything. And as I
remember, it wasn't Kent who cost them the series, it was the lizard.
Realto Margarino
> i think it's funny that you say his job is to drive in runs. no one's job
> is really to drive in runs. RBI is one of the more useless stats.
No. The two most important stats are runs scored and runs driven
in.
> a non pitcher has 2 jobs. 1 - is to field well. 2 - is to get on
> base as often as possible.
No. The hitter's most important job is to score runs, or at least
drive them in.
> if this entails driving in runs,
> great. but driving in runs is no one's job.
No, it's not just "great." Driving in runs is essential. If you
drive in runs you win games. You cannot win a game without driving
in runs. Getting on base is "great" but if nobody drives you in,
you will not win the game.
> it is the end result of many people getting on base.
Well you say that driving in runs is not important because it relies
on more than one person to score a run. Now you are saying that
everybody has to get on base.
Your head is jammed way, way, way, up your ass. You don't
understand baseball. You never will understand baseball.
You are asked not to post to this group.
Bugger off.
cordially, as always,
rm
AguaGirl
> he said it to Mark Ibanez of KTVU channel 2. Based in Oakland. It was
said
> walking thru the players parking lot after game 5.
>
> Mark came forth with these comments after Kent signed with Houston. He
did
> it on the Razor and Mr. T show, I think, when he was subbing for one of
> them.
>
> The comment was something like, You can kiss my ass goodbye because there
is
> no way I am coming back.
>
> You'd have to take it up with Mr. Ibanez directly to get the correct
quote.
> It was pretty fucked up. Why do I find it so distasteful in comparison
with
> player/fan incidents. Because the team was one win away from a World
Series
> and his focus was not on winning but on leaving the team.
>
> That is not getting upset with a fan. That is complete disloyalty and
> disrespect to your teammates and to your fans.
>
> So again, Fuck Jeff Kent.
>
should thank the gint brass, the fans and Barry Bonds for making
SF such an inhospitable place for him. We will be sure not to
make the same mistake of letting him know he is much less important
than any other player on the team.
AG
OtisFudpucker
verification you accept it as gospel? Lets face it, Kent was leaving, you
were pissed and willing to believe any negative story thrown out there. I'm
sure if this "story" is true, there must have been other writers / reporters
around.
Tell me this, do you believe Ron Kittle when he says that Barry Bonds made
racist comments towards him? Probably not, since he is still on the
ballclub.
If Kent's statement is true, I guess I can see how it might make a fan
momentarily upset. However, I will ask you again - do you think that Jeff
Kent played hard every day? Maybe I'm blinded, but I can't remember that
happening.
Also, if you were nearing the end of your contract, and you were in a
situation you didn't care for, wouldn't you know in advance that you weren't
coming back? Most likely Kent knew a long time before the end of the season
he was leaving.
The man fulfilled his contract and gave the fans his best effort for six
years. And in one alleged statement, you see him throwing away all that
goodwill - give me a break.
"mrbisco" <nos...@isgoodspam.net> wrote in message
news:iPoAe.11344$3o4....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
AguaGirl
> because pitchers usually aren't very good hitters. you build your
lineup,
> mainly, around the first inning. you put your best hitters in the 3 and 4
> spots because they are the ones more likely to get on base when there are
> people on base ahead of them.
>
> i believe bill james has suggested a lineup that is completely based on
OBP.
> highest first, lowest last.
OK...so then explain to me why the fans in SF get so upset whenever
an opposing pitcher walks Bonds. What difference does it make
if he gets a chance to hit the ball as long as he gets on base? You
should be cheering it, throwing parties to his OBP. The truth
is you want your big hitters to have a chance to DRIVE in runs
because not everyone in the line-up has the same chance of getting
on base. If every single player including the pitcher was of the same
caliber hitter, and all could be counted to get on base more often than
not then your hypothesis might hold weight. It doesn't. You couldn't
afford
to field a team where every player got on base most of the time. So you
hire a power hitter or two and hope they have an opportunity to drive in
runs. Games tied 2-2 in the bottom of the 9th, there is one out, man on
third. How important is it that the hitter get on base? Is it better if he
can just hit a long fly out? Heck, anythime during the game that you have
a man on second I am hoping the ball gets put into play some where that
advances the runner to set up that opportunity to get one run. Rallies are
nice and if every man in the line-up was equally good at the plate than
a walk is fine but if you have the 8th spot coming up then a walk just
sets up the double play. Live in the real world and you know RBI's matter.
They may be a team stat but they still matter and some players are still
hired to get them. Personally I think this whole argument is more about you
not liking Kent and wanting to down-play his contributions.
AG
A Jaunty One
there
> was a big article about Kent there. Apparently he's just a dickhead.
He
> basically wouldn't talk to anyone, including the manager unless it was
a
> game situation. He wouldn't respond to players in the locker room if
> they addressed him. He was a fanatical gamer though. He'd take players
> aside during a game and offer advice, especially younger guys. Its all
> about winning with him. Other than that, I got the feeling that he
> doesn't like baseball or other people all that much.
I think he's been quoted as saying he doesn't like baseball. IOW he's
just doing it for the money. But then early this year I think he said
he grew up as a Dodgers fan, so I don't know what the hell he was
talking about. Although it won't be the first time he lied, right?
(Truck washing...)
A Jaunty One
and
> > disrespect to your teammates and to your fans.
> >
> > So again, Fuck Jeff Kent.
> >
> Well we are glad to have him thank you very much. In fact I
> should thank the gint brass, the fans and Barry Bonds for making
> SF such an inhospitable place for him. We will be sure not to
> make the same mistake of letting him know he is much less important
> than any other player on the team.
So it sounds like he didn't get along in SF nor Houston, but he fits
right in in LA. Didn't he mention at the press conference when LA
signed him that he was a big time Dodgers fan? Hmm...
Off Base
I think it's one of the most useful stats. The object of the game is to
score runs, although Jim Tracy often talks about the object being to
get a man to third. What does he know?
Hey, check out my new article, www.baseballsavvy.com.
AguaGirl
"A Jaunty One" <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote in message
news:42d2e...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "Brian Perry" <bperr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
> > I was in Houston over the weekend picking up my mother-in-law, and
> there
> > was a big article about Kent there. Apparently he's just a dickhead.
> He
> > basically wouldn't talk to anyone, including the manager unless it was
> a
> > game situation. He wouldn't respond to players in the locker room if
> > they addressed him. He was a fanatical gamer though. He'd take players
> > aside during a game and offer advice, especially younger guys. Its all
> > about winning with him. Other than that, I got the feeling that he
> > doesn't like baseball or other people all that much.
>
> I think he's been quoted as saying he doesn't like baseball.
source?
AguaGirl
"A Jaunty One" <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote in message
news:42d2e...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>> > >
> > should thank the gint brass, the fans and Barry Bonds for making
> > SF such an inhospitable place for him. We will be sure not to
> > make the same mistake of letting him know he is much less important
> > than any other player on the team.
>
> So it sounds like he didn't get along in SF nor Houston, but he fits
> right in in LA. Didn't he mention at the press conference when LA
> signed him that he was a big time Dodgers fan? Hmm...
I don't recall but he could be and it could be why he seems to
be doing fine here. Then again it could be because the situation
is entirely different than it was in SF. Not sure what went on in
Houston. Might be a case of left over hostility...kind of like a
bad hangover :-). Seriously, you have to recognize that after his
brush up with Bonds he was going to be personna non grata in
SF. With no one supporting him is it any surprise he couldn't
wait to get the hell out. Ask Shaq how he feels about playing
in LA again. (then duck)
AG
OtisFudpucker
Not sure of a source, but that's been brought up on KNBR from time to
time. Kent used to do a weekly appearance on that station, and I
remember them laughing about it. I think it's actually pretty well
known.
Again, I'm not sure that's all that rare with the current crop of big
league players.
Ima Pseudonym
wrote:
I don't think it's necessarily rare in any sport. I've heard that
about Kent, too (I forget what his actual preference is) - not that he
doesn't like baseball per se, just that he'd rather be able to be a
pro in some other sport - I forget which one.
Keep in mind that Michael Jordan preferred baseball over basketball -
it didn't stop him from being as effective as possible on the
basketball court, which as fans is really all that is relevant.
John Walsh
I heard him on ESPN this afternoon, with Dan Patrick. He seems to like
baseball just fine, however, he's not the type of person who puts much
importance in statistics. He doesn't like reading the sports section
and he couldn't tell you his most significant hit, but he likes playing
baseball.
Jeanne Douglas
"OtisFudpucker" <oti...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I don't know where, but I've read that about him too (not especially
liking baseball).
--
JD
"Baseball is a dull game only for those with a dull mind"--Red Smith
Cody M. Stumpo
: On 11 Jul 2005 16:48:55 -0700, "OtisFudpucker" <oti...@sbcglobal.net>
: wrote:
In his dreams, he's a motorcross bike-racer.
---------------------------*************************------------------------
co...@soda.CSUA.berkeley.edu http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~cody/
Holding a titular Archbishopric since 1999.
A Jaunty One
>
> "A Jaunty One" <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote in message
> news:42d2e...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >
> > "Brian Perry" <bperr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > > doesn't like baseball or other people all that much.
> >
> > I think he's been quoted as saying he doesn't like baseball.
>
> source?
I know how to look up stats, but I'm not good at finding quotes. Plus I
don't even remember if I read it somewhere or heard it on TV (probably
both). I just sort of remember it because I found it odd that a
baseball player would say he doesn't like baseball; not that he doesn't
like baseball, but the fact that he'd actually *say* he doesn't like it.
Jordan might like baseball more than basketball, but he never said he
doesn't like basketball.
A Jaunty One
I don't know. I think he's just that kind of person. But maybe he
likes the Dodgers so much that he's finally behaving. So far he's got
bad rap in SF and Houston, so maybe we need a Mets fan to confirm it.
:-)
Ima Pseudonym
But was it that Kent didn't like baseball, or didn't like being a pro
baseball player? I find it hard to believe that somebody would put
the hard work necessary as an amateur to get to the pro level without
in some way enjoying the game. But that's not the same as liking
spending about 8 months out of the year travelling, for instance.
>
A Jaunty One
"Ima Pseudonym" <akra...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148d11qml569ks30...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:06:00 -0700, "A Jaunty One"
> >
Plus I
> >don't even remember if I read it somewhere or heard it on TV
(probably
> >both). I just sort of remember it because I found it odd that a
> >baseball player would say he doesn't like baseball; not that he
doesn't
> >like baseball, but the fact that he'd actually *say* he doesn't like
it.
> >Jordan might like baseball more than basketball, but he never said he
> >doesn't like basketball.
>
> But was it that Kent didn't like baseball, or didn't like being a pro
> baseball player? I find it hard to believe that somebody would put
> the hard work necessary as an amateur to get to the pro level without
> in some way enjoying the game. But that's not the same as liking
> spending about 8 months out of the year travelling, for instance.
I don't think he ever elaborated on that, so you'll have to ask him.
But who knows? It's possible that he found out he was pretty good at it
from the beginning, and realized that it's the only sport he had a
chance of making it, and decided to stick with it. Money is everything.
;-)
AguaGirl
"A Jaunty One" <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote in message
They were talking about Kent at work yesterday and I asked the guys
about the "I don't like baseball" thing. Two of them never heard that,
one had, and one said that I was mis-quoting. According to him Kent
said baseball wasn't his favorite sport growing up. Again, this is some
guy who heard some thing. No source, no quote. I don't know, there is
a lot of myths that spring up from things that everyone "heard about" or
"knows" but can't trace back. This may be just another urban legend
like the scary hook guy on lovers lane or like Barry Bonds being an
elitist in the club house. .... :-)
AG
Dan Szymborski
som...@somewhere.com says...
You're right, he's wrong. Here's Kent's quote:
"People misunderstand this," the Dodgers second baseman
said, "but I'm not a fan of the game. I'm not a fan of
baseball, and I never was. I never collected baseball cards.
I never got autographs, and I never watched SportsCenter. I
went to a handful of games when I was young, but if I had my
druthers, I would have made money racing motorcycles. But I
couldn't do that."
--
Dan Szymborski
d...@REMOVEbaseballprimer.com
"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not a
supporter of what is good."
- Robert Schumann
Ima Pseudonym
<SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote:
>
>"Dan Szymborski" <d...@REMOVEbaseballprimer.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1d42d6718...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>Why? It sounds exactly like he doesn't like baseball. That doesn't
>mean he hates it. I don't like hockey, but I don't hate it either. I
>just don't care for it. It sounds exactly like he's just doing it for
>the money.
No. There's exactly nothing in his quote that says that he doesn't
like playing it - it's just that he doesn't watch it.
I can think of many things that I like to do, that I wouldn't want to
follow as a spectator sport. For instance, I enjoy driving fast on
curvey roads - but I get exactly zero pleasure from watching auto
racing in any of its forms.
As I said before, I have a hard time believing that Kent would have
played enough baseball to become a pro prospect if he didn't like
playing the game.
>
A Jaunty One
> >>
> >>
> >> "People misunderstand this," the Dodgers second baseman
> >> said, "but I'm not a fan of the game. I'm not a fan of
> >> baseball, and I never was. I never collected baseball cards.
> >> I never got autographs, and I never watched SportsCenter. I
> >> went to a handful of games when I was young, but if I had my
> >> druthers, I would have made money racing motorcycles. But I
> >> couldn't do that."
> >
> >Why? It sounds exactly like he doesn't like baseball. That doesn't
> >mean he hates it. I don't like hockey, but I don't hate it either.
I
> >just don't care for it. It sounds exactly like he's just doing it
for
> >the money.
>
> No. There's exactly nothing in his quote that says that he doesn't
> like playing it - it's just that he doesn't watch it.
>
> I can think of many things that I like to do, that I wouldn't want to
> follow as a spectator sport. For instance, I enjoy driving fast on
> curvey roads - but I get exactly zero pleasure from watching auto
> racing in any of its forms.
:-) You're comparing driving fast on curvy roads to professional auto
racing? A lot of people I know enjoy driving fast too, but that's very
different from someone who works his butt off on the race track day in
and day out trying to be a professional racer, like the amount of time
Kent's spent on baseball.
> As I said before, I have a hard time believing that Kent would have
> played enough baseball to become a pro prospect if he didn't like
> playing the game.
You have a point there. OTOH, I also find it hard to believe someone
who spent so much time on baseball *as a kid* never watched
Sportscenter, never interested in how the pros do it, when he was trying
to be one of them. And baseball is not like auto racing; you're not
just watching a bunch of cars going in circles. And as a kid he grew up
in LA in the '70s/'80s, when his dad's brought him to Dodgers games,
when his middle school or high school teammates probably talked about
the Dodgers on a daily basis, when LA was throwing World Series parades,
it's hard to imagine a *kid* who spent so much time in baseball could've
blocked out everything. This seems especially hard to do in places like
LA and New York.
Maybe he likes to say stuff for shock value. It's not like his
credibility is very good. We all know he's made up stuff before on
record.
Then again, I can also see someone who doesn't really like something,
but is very good at it right from the start, much better than everyone
around him, and know that he could make a lot of money off of it, to
work his butt off without liking it. I can think of a couple of
examples.
1) I know a teenager who hates studying. She's repeatedly told me she
doesn't like to study, but she studies her butt off, because she's good
at it. She was a valedictorian 4.0 student all through middle school,
and made it to the top high school in the city, getting consistently 3.8
to 4.0 there also.
2) I've read a story about Isiah Thomas. Well, he probably did like
basketball, but even if he didn't, he probably still would've worked his
butt off to get to the pros and out of poverty. He was the youngest of
10 or so kids, and had a couple of brothers who who according to him
were even better than him in basketball but screwed up either by going
to jail or involved with drugs. He woke up before dawn every morning
braving freezing cold weather to go to school for one purpose only, to
play basketball. All his brothers told him he was their last hope.
Well, you get the point.
3) I don't know if all those kids in Central and South America really
loved baseball, but they all know how much money they can make if they
make it to the bigs. I think that's a good enough motivation to work
their butts off whether they enjoy the sport or not. Of course, you
usually find out very early on if you're gifted at something or not.
4) I know a few people who didn't really like engineering as their
college major, but they were good at it, and they knew they'd make good
money with it, so they stick with it and really worked their butts off
to get the degree.
You probably know some people around you who fit the description too.
If someone is really good at something, there's a good chance they'd
stick with it even if they don't like it, especially if it's profitable.
But after saying all this, you could still be right. Maybe Kent really
liked playing baseball without caring a bit about his Dodgers. The
chances are slim, but he *is* a weirdo. ;-) It's sort of like a young
high school basketball star growing up in LA who tells you he's not a
fan of the NBA or the Lakers. You'd be scratching your head too.
Hoo, that was a lot of typing. ;-) But Tomko's throwing BP to you guys
at the moment, and I have nothing better to do...
Brad Machado
bucks a year between them, and for what?
Ima Pseudonym
Machado) wrote:
>Could Ishii and Nomo be any worse than Perez and Lowe are?
Yes, vastly worse. Shockingly, amazingly worse.
I'm surprised you didn't know that.
Ima Pseudonym
You have no idea how much time I've spent driving fast :-)
In any case, the idea stands - you can like doing something, but not
care about watching others do it.
>
>> As I said before, I have a hard time believing that Kent would have
>> played enough baseball to become a pro prospect if he didn't like
>> playing the game.
>
>You have a point there. OTOH, I also find it hard to believe someone
>who spent so much time on baseball *as a kid* never watched
>Sportscenter
Sportscenter wasn't actually around when he was a kid of course.
>, never interested in how the pros do it, when he was trying
>to be one of them.
His quote didn't say that he wasn't interested in how the pros did it
- it said he didn't collect baseball cards and the like. He wasn't a
fanboy. Maybe he realized that the best way to learn how to play
baseball was to play it. And maybe - just like most kids - he played
it for its own sake, and didn't really think of turning pro until near
the end of his amateur career, when he realized he was vastly better
than most his age.
? And baseball is not like auto racing; you're not
>just watching a bunch of cars going in circles.
Friends who are into watching various forms of racing assure me that
there is more to it than that. I don't care though. I like the surge
of speed when I'm doing it, I can understand the intricacies of
fighting for position - but I think it makes poor viewing. Maybe Kent
feels the same way about baseball? Obviously he understands very many
intricacies of the game, but maybe he only appreciates them as he's
playing them, not when he's watching the game remotely. You've yet to
explain what is so absurd about that.
> And as a kid he grew up
>in LA in the '70s/'80s, when his dad's brought him to Dodgers games,
>when his middle school or high school teammates probably talked about
>the Dodgers on a daily basis, when LA was throwing World Series parades,
>it's hard to imagine a *kid* who spent so much time in baseball could've
>blocked out everything. This seems especially hard to do in places like
>LA and New York.
I see nothing hard about that. A lot of people don't get especial
pleasure from being spectators, especially when they're so busy
actually doing things. Kent was playing baseball on a heavy basis,
doing his school stuff, and riding motorcycles when he had time.
Given that, what is so surprising that he might not get a huge thrill
from sitting and watching sports? If you haven't met people like
that, then you have a very narrow circle of friends. I'm not trying
to be insulting, but there are a LOT of people who don't enjoy
spectator sports, including people who are into participating in
sports.
>
<skip the rest, as not relevant to the point I'm making>
A Jaunty One
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:45:56 -0700, "A Jaunty One"
> <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote:
> >
> >:-) You're comparing driving fast on curvy roads to professional
auto
> >racing? A lot of people I know enjoy driving fast too, but that's
very
> >different from someone who works his butt off on the race track day
in
> >and day out trying to be a professional racer, like the amount of
time
> >Kent's spent on baseball.
>
> You have no idea how much time I've spent driving fast :-)
5 hours a day? You a taxi driver? ;-)
> In any case, the idea stands - you can like doing something, but not
> care about watching others do it.
Of course it's possible; I already mentioned that. It's just unlikely
given the place he grew up in and the sport being one of the 3 main
sports in the U.S.
> Sportscenter wasn't actually around when he was a kid of course.
Depends on what age you're talking about. It was around when he was a
teenager. And I'd think broadcasted baseball games were around when he
was in little league.
> >, never interested in how the pros do it, when he was trying
> >to be one of them.
>
> His quote didn't say that he wasn't interested in how the pros did it
So you're saying he was interesting in how the pros do it, but yet
didn't like to watch games? That's an interesting thought.
> - it said he didn't collect baseball cards and the like. He wasn't a
> fanboy. Maybe he realized that the best way to learn how to play
> baseball was to play it. And maybe - just like most kids - he played
> it for its own sake, and didn't really think of turning pro until near
> the end of his amateur career, when he realized he was vastly better
> than most his age.
It's rare that it'd take that long for him to realize it. Most of the
time you'll find out very early if you're gifted at something.
> ? And baseball is not like auto racing; you're not
> >just watching a bunch of cars going in circles.
>
> Friends who are into watching various forms of racing assure me that
> there is more to it than that. I don't care though.
Exactly. People who are into something will find it more interesting.
For most people, it's just a bunch of cars going in circles. I'd say
it's even more boring to watch than golf, a sport that a lot of people
like to play but very few like to watch. You've picked just about the
worst spectator sport for your argument, but I guess it's convenient.
It's just about on par with watching a marathon. Fortunately for us
yoga is not a competitive sport yet. ;-)
> I like the surge
> of speed when I'm doing it, I can understand the intricacies of
> fighting for position - but I think it makes poor viewing. Maybe Kent
> feels the same way about baseball? Obviously he understands very many
> intricacies of the game, but maybe he only appreciates them as he's
> playing them, not when he's watching the game remotely. You've yet to
> explain what is so absurd about that.
I wouldn't say absurd, just unlikely. Like I said, a kid who was into
baseball and grew up in LA at a time when the Dodgers were going to the
World Series regularly is simply unlikely. Not impossible but rare.
And he's said his dad used to bring him to Dodgers games, so sounds like
his dad was a Dodgers fan.
> > And as a kid he grew up
> >in LA in the '70s/'80s, when his dad's brought him to Dodgers games,
> >when his middle school or high school teammates probably talked about
> >the Dodgers on a daily basis, when LA was throwing World Series
parades,
> >it's hard to imagine a *kid* who spent so much time in baseball
could've
> >blocked out everything. This seems especially hard to do in places
like
> >LA and New York.
>
> I see nothing hard about that. A lot of people don't get especial
> pleasure from being spectators, especially when they're so busy
> actually doing things. Kent was playing baseball on a heavy basis,
> doing his school stuff, and riding motorcycles when he had time.
Hmm... I sure hope he wasn't busy riding a motocycle when he was 8 or 10
yrs old (or even 12 or 14)! Doing school stuff and and playing a sport
is what all school athletes go through; probably close to all of them
are fans of the sport they're into. Yet you make it sound like school
athletes are too busy to do anything. I know a lot of school athletes
throughout middle school, high school, and college. None of them fit
into what you're talking about. My football friends are easy, since the
49ers have been so good for 2 decades, but even my baseball fans all
liked the Giants. Now, they might be "too busy", as you said, to follow
the sport closely, on a day to day basis, but "not a fan of baseball"?
Hardly. None of them were that extreme.
> Given that, what is so surprising that he might not get a huge thrill
> from sitting and watching sports? If you haven't met people like
> that, then you have a very narrow circle of friends. I'm not trying
> to be insulting, but there are a LOT of people who don't enjoy
> spectator sports, including people who are into participating in
> sports.
Narrow circle of friends? I'm pretty sure I know at least as many, if
not more, school athletes than you do. I used to play ball with them
quite often. In fact, I might have been on the high school baseball
team if not for personal reasons. A few of my friends who made the team
were at best as good as me. But I'll have to admit neither my middle
nor high school teams were very good.
> <skip the rest, as not relevant to the point I'm making>
You mean the part where it wouldn't be the first time Kent lie to the
media? ;-)
OtisFudpucker
news:42dac...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Jeff Kent likes to play baseball or not? :-)
JVV...@yahoo.com
"A Jaunty One" <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote in message
Kent's full of shit. He did a big phony crying jag at his Dodgers press
conference about finally playing for the Dodgers.
At his press conference when he became an Astro, he ripped California and
talked about how wonderful it was to play near his ranch.
And then there's the whole lying about washing his truck
business............
JVV...@yahoo.com
> The man fulfilled his contract and gave the fans his best effort for six
> years. And in one alleged statement, you see him throwing away all that
> goodwill - give me a break.
If he didn't come back healthy after 'washing his truck,' the team likely
would have voided his contract for violating it by riding his motorcycle
recklessly.
JVV...@yahoo.com
>> I think he's been quoted as saying he doesn't like baseball.
>
> source?
He's said several times that he doesn't know the history of baseball and
doesn't care. I recall him being compared to Rogers Hornsby, and his
response was basically that he didn't know who that was and that "Rogers" is
a weird first name.
Ima Pseudonym
<SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote:
>> Friends who are into watching various forms of racing assure me that
>> there is more to it than that. I don't care though.
>
>Exactly. People who are into something will find it more interesting.
Well, except that you are ignoring that I like the participation part
- I just don't find watching it particularly interesting.
I think if you did a poll of pro athletes, you'd find a decent number
like that - not a majority, maybe not even close, but not uncommon -
there are people who like to do things, but don't really care about
watching others do them. Has Kent ever said that he likes to watch
dirt bike racing?
>I wouldn't say absurd, just unlikely. Like I said, a kid who was into
>baseball and grew up in LA at a time when the Dodgers were going to the
>World Series regularly is simply unlikely. Not impossible but rare.
>And he's said his dad used to bring him to Dodgers games, so sounds like
>his dad was a Dodgers fan.
Which still doesn't mean that Kent likes to watch any spectator sport.
What is so hard to understand about some people liking to
participate, but not to watch?
>Hmm... I sure hope he wasn't busy riding a motocycle when he was 8 or 10
>yrs old (or even 12 or 14)!
Maybe not - but the predecessor sports were active in my neighborhood
(and I grew up in a suburb of LA a few years before Kent) among young
kids. Living in Norwalk in pre high-school years, Holyfield park was
well known for the bike riding hill in the middle of it. And a
number of kids who were good athletes, who liked to play every sport,
seemed to get a special thrill from the leaps etc involved in it.
From my experience, Kent's words aren't exactly normal, but aren't
radically bizarre either.
> Doing school stuff and and playing a sport
>is what all school athletes go through; probably close to all of them
>are fans of the sport they're into. Yet you make it sound like school
>athletes are too busy to do anything. I know a lot of school athletes
>throughout middle school, high school, and college. None of them fit
>into what you're talking about.
Then you don't know enough. Not every athlete spends his free time
watching the sport he's best at. That isn't the same as not enjoying
playing it.
>You mean the part where it wouldn't be the first time Kent lie to the
>media? ;-)
>
Yes, since nothing you've said, even with this next post, has shown
anything.
Your argument is predicated on there not being any other athletes who
don't like to watch sports. But that's silly, as I've pointed out.
There is a radical difference between playing a sport and watching it.
Some people watch sports they would hate playing. Some watch sports
they enjoy playing. And, believe it or not, some play sports and
enjoy them that they aren't overly interested in watching.
JVV...@yahoo.com
What's on the record -- and what's off
Athletes' off-color words often unreported
Ron Kroichick, Mark Fainaru-Wada, Chronicle Staff Writers
Sunday, December 1, 2002
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/12/01/
SP243223.DTL
A month ago, after a 49ers game at Candlestick Park, Fresno Bee columnist
Milo
F. Bryant asked running back Garrison Hearst about the possibility of having
a
gay teammate. Bryant held a tape recorder and notebook in his hand, and he
scribbled down Hearst's now-infamous slur.
Four months earlier, after a Giants game at Pacific Bell Park, a group of
reporters waited near Jeff Kent's locker to ask him about the team's
performance. Kent returned from the shower and, just before removing his
towel
to get dressed, turned to the media and asked sarcastically, "Any women or
queers here? I don't want to offend anybody."
Once Hearst's words became widely reported, the headlines were loud, the
fallout swift and the repudiation of him emphatic. But Kent's comment did
not
reach print until it surfaced two months later in a New York Times Magazine
story about Barry Bonds, buried in the middle of an 8,000-word epic.
These two episodes illustrate the curious and cloudy culture of the locker
room
in major professional sports. It is a unique environment, where highly paid
athletes dance an uneasy tango with reporters, where the line between
comments
for public consumption and those of idle chatter is not always as clear as
the
lines on the playing field.
"If you want to go into any NFL locker room and be a fly on the wall,"
former
49ers tight end Jamie Williams said, "you will hear more profanity and more
politically incorrect statements (than anywhere)."
But much of what is said will never make it into print, as reporters work
the
inexact science of wading into an often crude atmosphere in search of
salient
information. It's a job of choices performed against the backdrop of
establishing relationships and trust.
WHAT IS RELEVANT, WHAT IS NOT
So it is that many off-color remarks or thoughtless comments never leave the
locker room. Like when a prominent 49ers player, shortly after the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks, said he intended to go after his next opponents as if
they
were Osama bin Laden. Or the instance earlier this year when quarterback
Jeff
Garcia made an amusing but ill-conceived put-down that surely would have
landed
on the opposing team's bulletin board. Or the time several years ago when
then-Mets manager Dallas Green cracked that losing was becoming so
frustrating,
it made him want to go home and beat his wife. Only one reporter, a female,
used the quote.
Many pieces of information are widely considered taboo to print -- such as a
player's sexual infidelities on the road, often known by reporters -- but
others fall into that vast gray area.
"I guess the question I always ask myself is, 'Is this relevant to the story
or
who this person is?' " said Chicago Tribune sports editor Dan McGrath,
a onetime Giants beat writer and later The Chronicle's sports editor. "I
think
you make judgments based on that."
The locker room is a world unto its own. It's a place athletes view as
extensions of their own homes, only this home has a bay window the public
can
peer into through the eyes of the media. Reporters are guests, but they're
everyday guests -- regular, mostly unwelcome visitors who spend more time
waiting than interviewing.
Waiting for a player to make himself available . . . waiting in the middle
of
the room . . . waiting to gather one morsel of information that might be
useful
now or in the future.
POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT
In the NFL, the environment is strictly controlled, with reporters permitted
in
the locker room in some cases as little as 45 minutes a day, three times per
week (plus postgame access). Baseball is at the other end of the spectrum, a
free-for-all of access that allows the media in the clubhouse for hours
every
day, starting with spring training in February and sometimes stretching
through
October.
That's a recipe for more idle time than in any other sport and more
opportunity
to cultivate relationships -- but also more potential for conflict.
"My father always said, 'Boy, the writers and the players must be really
good
friends, always hanging out,' " said Jay Alves, a longtime baseball public
relations director formerly with the A's and now with the Colorado Rockies.
"I
said, 'Dad, you have no idea. Nothing is further from the truth.' "
Plus, the relationship between players and the media is far different than
it
once was. A generation ago and beyond, reporters commonly socialized with
the
athletes, traveling on charter flights with the teams they covered. Now, in
part because the growth in media outlets (ESPN, Internet sites, etc.) has
created fierce tussles for distinctive stories, the interactions often are
adversarial.
St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa, who previously spent nine-plus
years
managing the A's, cited the increased celebrity of some members of the
media --
either at their newspapers or by hopping to television, an option seldom
available in the past.
MEDIA STARS
"The biggest issue that's changed the locker room dynamics is more and more
media types have become personalities in their own right," La Russa said.
"There's a competition in the locker room between the columnist trying to be
really cute or the interviewer who really wants to make a mark with a tough
question.
"So there's a real suspicion among people in uniform that instead of a
responsibility to communicate with fans, it's really fodder for a (media)
personality trying to make his mark. When you get that feeling, it changes
the
atmosphere."
Clearly, nobody was trying to make his mark when Kent strolled to his locker
and uttered the slur toward gays. By then, tension between Kent and Giants
beat
writers was ever-present, growing first out of his spring-training
motorcycle
accident and expanding after his June 25 dugout scuffle with Bonds. The day
after the Bonds scrap, Kent mooned several reporters and then apparently
became
miffed when they mentioned it in their stories.
For several days thereafter, he greeted waiting reporters with some sort of
sarcastic remark before taking questions. Even when the sarcasm included the
"queers" quote, the reporters standing there -- nearly a dozen of them,
including the regular beat writers -- chose not to use it, agreeing
afterward
Kent had made his comment before the interview actually began.
IS THE NOTEBOOK OPEN OR CLOSED?
By contrast, Hearst's inflammatory remark -- "I don't want any faggots on my
team" -- came when Bryant, a columnist who had established a rapport with
Hearst over a few years, asked specifically about the issue of gays in
football
and was unmistakably seeking an on-the-record comment.
Early on, Bryant had helped forge his relationship with Hearst by discussing
one area of common ground, the Southeastern Conference. Bryant was an
Arkansas
Razorback, Hearst a Georgia Bulldog, and the two of them, along with
fullback
and Auburn man Fred Beasley, would good-naturedly kid each other about their
respective schools. And as with any relationship, there were times just for
talking and times for talking business.
Those times, Bryant and others will tell you, can be readily made clear
based
on whether a notebook is open or closed. That's a key distinction in the
ever-delicate balancing act between building a relationship and reporting
the
news.
"If I'm just having a conversation with an athlete and he says something
that
strikes me as newsworthy, I'll pull out my notepad and say, 'Hey, I'm going
to
use that,' " Arizona Republic columnist Pedro Gomez said. "And if they say,
'No, I was just talking,' then I respect that. They have the choice of
saying
no."
It's also not only what reporters hear in the locker room that creates
questions about what's fair game. For example, Associated Press sportswriter
Steve Wilstein was criticized for reporting in 1998 that Mark McGwire was
using
the muscle-enhancing drug androstenedione. Wilstein found out about the
andro
when, while standing with several reporters waiting for the St. Louis first
baseman to return from the shower, he saw a bottle of it plainly visible in
McGwire's locker.
McGwire, the Cardinals organization and, consequently, some fans said
Wilstein
got his story through snooping in the player's locker. The team even tried,
unsuccessfully, to ban AP reporters from their games after the story ran.
"You learn to disagree with the media without being disagreeable," said
longtime NFL cornerback Albert Lewis, who retired in 1998 after 16 seasons
in
the league. "The biggest thing is you have to control the perception of
seeing
the media as the enemy and build a relationship with them."
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle. Page B - 3
Lines: 173
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
From: jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: 02 Dec 2002 09:56:00 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: On and Off the Record
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <20021202045600...@mb-mu.aol.com>
A Jaunty One
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:51:07 -0700, "A Jaunty One"
> <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote:
>
>
> >> Friends who are into watching various forms of racing assure me
that
> >> there is more to it than that. I don't care though.
> >
> >Exactly. People who are into something will find it more
interesting.
>
> Well, except that you are ignoring that I like the participation part
> - I just don't find watching it particularly interesting.
As I already mentioned, you picked a ridiculously boring spectator sport
for example. Why don't I help you out: People who like to run marathons
probably don't like to watch marathons on TV a whole lot either. And
you're giving yourself too much credit. "Like driving fast" and actual
auto racing are miles apart. You're so far apart from someone who do
laps on the track day in and day out.
> I think if you did a poll of pro athletes, you'd find a decent number
> like that - not a majority, maybe not even close, but not uncommon -
> there are people who like to do things, but don't really care about
> watching others do them. Has Kent ever said that he likes to watch
> dirt bike racing?
And I think if you did a poll of pro athletes, you'd find a decent
number who play just because of money; otherwise they might not even
bother to touch a baseball glove.
> >I wouldn't say absurd, just unlikely. Like I said, a kid who was
into
> >baseball and grew up in LA at a time when the Dodgers were going to
the
> >World Series regularly is simply unlikely. Not impossible but rare.
> >And he's said his dad used to bring him to Dodgers games, so sounds
like
> >his dad was a Dodgers fan.
>
> Which still doesn't mean that Kent likes to watch any spectator sport.
> What is so hard to understand about some people liking to
> participate, but not to watch?
And what is so hard to understand that some people, a *lot* of people,
do it just for the money?
> > Doing school stuff and and playing a sport
> >is what all school athletes go through; probably close to all of them
> >are fans of the sport they're into. Yet you make it sound like
school
> >athletes are too busy to do anything. I know a lot of school
athletes
> >throughout middle school, high school, and college. None of them fit
> >into what you're talking about.
>
> Then you don't know enough. Not every athlete spends his free time
> watching the sport he's best at. That isn't the same as not enjoying
> playing it.
They might not watch it a lot, but that's still different from not
liking it. Kent himself said he'd rather race bikes than play baseball,
so why is he not racing bikes? Perhaps because there's no money in it?
> >You mean the part where it wouldn't be the first time Kent lie to the
> >media? ;-)
>
> Yes, since nothing you've said, even with this next post, has shown
> anything.
To you maybe. You choose to blindly believe everything Kent says.
We've learned from experience to not always do that.
> Your argument is predicated on there not being any other athletes who
> don't like to watch sports.
No, my argument is predicated on not believing everything Kent tells
you. Just because he tells you he's not a baseball fan doesn't mean
it's true. Just because he tells you he hurt himself watching his truck
doesn't mean it's true. So you believe he's not a Dodgers fan, yet he
was so emotional when he signed with them. Do you think the crying was
fake, or the "not a fan of baseball" was fake?
Well, the weekend is over, and I'm tired of this thread now, so I'll
stop here. Kent is your boy now; you can believe anything you want.
It'd be great if he comes up with another truck washing incident down in
SoCal just for you. ;-)
A Jaunty One
"OtisFudpucker" <oti...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:WDzCe.230
> >
> Wow...what a long thread on a silly subject. So, we are arguing
whether
> Jeff Kent likes to play baseball or not? :-)
OK, is this short enough for you? ;-) Yeah, "concise" is not my forte,
so here I go babbling again. I guess I'm not sure how much I believe
Kent. As JVV's posts pointed out, he's sometimes full of shit and I
think he sometimes say things to make himself different or stand out
from others. Saying he doesn't like baseball, making gay jokes, mooning
reporters, lying about his injury, all choked up and cried about signing
with the Dodgers, and I think it was him, but not sure, who said some
bad (and weird) stuff about the Giants uniform (too yellow?). Seems
like he sometimes say or do stuff just to get on the news or get
noticed. Maybe he was telling the truth on some of them, but I just
don't feel like blindly believe everything that he says.
AguaGirl
"A Jaunty One" <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote in message
> Maybe he was telling the truth on some of them, but I just
> don't feel like blindly believe everything that he says.
Well I don't blindly believe ANYTHING ANYONE tells me...
Jeff Kent is no different. And frankly, I don't care if he doesn't
really care for the game as long as he continues to play it like
he does. As for all the other comments attributed to him...unless
I see the video clip or actually hear them say it during an interview
I tend to ignore it. People, reporters especially, tend to exaggerate,
misquote and just make stuff up if it improves the story. Not that
it might not all be true but come on, ya gotta know they fib as much
as anyone. NO worries... I am still thrilled he is on the team and
enjoy his post/pre-game interviews more than almost anyone elses
on the club. For not liking the game he sure as heck has a good
understanding of it.
AG
Marc M
Makes sense. I LOVE playing golf. I'm terrible at it, but that's another
story. I can't sit and watch golf for more than 5 minutes on TV. Boring...
I know a ton of people who say the same about baseball.
Ima Pseudonym
<SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote:
>
>"Ima Pseudonym" <akra...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7a9md1pbp76nkrko4...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:51:07 -0700, "A Jaunty One"
>> <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Friends who are into watching various forms of racing assure me
>that
>> >> there is more to it than that. I don't care though.
>> >
>> >Exactly. People who are into something will find it more
>interesting.
>>
>> Well, except that you are ignoring that I like the participation part
>> - I just don't find watching it particularly interesting.
>
>As I already mentioned, you picked a ridiculously boring spectator sport
>for example.
A number of people who like sports don't like baseball. A number of
otherwise rational people like watching auto racing.
Why don't I help you out: People who like to run marathons
>probably don't like to watch marathons on TV a whole lot either. And
>you're giving yourself too much credit. "Like driving fast" and actual
>auto racing are miles apart. You're so far apart from someone who do
>laps on the track day in and day out.
>
>> I think if you did a poll of pro athletes, you'd find a decent number
>> like that - not a majority, maybe not even close, but not uncommon -
>> there are people who like to do things, but don't really care about
>> watching others do them. Has Kent ever said that he likes to watch
>> dirt bike racing?
>
>And I think if you did a poll of pro athletes, you'd find a decent
>number who play just because of money; otherwise they might not even
>bother to touch a baseball glove.
As I've said before - I find it hard to believe that somebody would
put forth the effort needed to get to amateur prospect status without
enjoying it somewhat. Maybe if the father is really pushy about it -
but I've never heard any indication that Kent's dad was like that.
>
>> >I wouldn't say absurd, just unlikely. Like I said, a kid who was
>into
>> >baseball and grew up in LA at a time when the Dodgers were going to
>the
>> >World Series regularly is simply unlikely. Not impossible but rare.
>> >And he's said his dad used to bring him to Dodgers games, so sounds
>like
>> >his dad was a Dodgers fan.
>>
>> Which still doesn't mean that Kent likes to watch any spectator sport.
>> What is so hard to understand about some people liking to
>> participate, but not to watch?
>
>And what is so hard to understand that some people, a *lot* of people,
>do it just for the money?
Growing up? For the 10-12 years of practice it takes most players
before being drafted? You're reaching. All the more so, since Kent
was a 20th round draft pick, so it wasn't even the case that he was a
phenom who could expect a good chance of making lots of money. 20th
round draft picks get a token bonus, and then spend their first year
or two making almost as much as McDonald's employees.
>They might not watch it a lot, but that's still different from not
>liking it. Kent himself said he'd rather race bikes than play baseball,
>so why is he not racing bikes? Perhaps because there's no money in it?
Sure. He's said that. Liking something more doesn't mean that he
doesn't like playing baseball, though.
>
>> >You mean the part where it wouldn't be the first time Kent lie to the
>> >media? ;-)
>>
>> Yes, since nothing you've said, even with this next post, has shown
>> anything.
>
>To you maybe. You choose to blindly believe everything Kent says.
>We've learned from experience to not always do that.
Umm, no. You're the one who is adding on to what Kent has said. Kent
has said that he doesn't like to watch baseball, that he didn't
collect cards when he was a kid, etc. You are the one who then takes
the unjustified logical leap of saying that he doesn't like playing
baseball, even though there is good reason to think that he does.
JVV...@yahoo.com
Remember: you're not allowed to believe any of his comments unless you see
or hear them.
> For not liking the game he sure as heck has a good
> understanding of it.
He dives into first.
A Jaunty One
"Dan Szymborski" <d...@REMOVEbaseballprimer.com> wrote in message
Why? It sounds exactly like he doesn't like baseball. That doesn't
AguaGirl
<JVV...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mN1De.8268$NU2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
exactly...and listening to him talk to A. Martinez is how I formed my
opinion...not by reading TJ Simmers.
AG
Ima Pseudonym
wrote:
Well, JVV is in the bay area, as far as I can remember. But of
course, no sane person forms opinions by reading TJ Slimers. A brief
reading of him makes it clear that he doesn't want to be taken
seriously.
That being said, I don't think Kent has hurt his HoF chances this
season - he's been the best second baseman in the league again.
He's done some things wrong over his career, but much more right. And
the things he's done wrong have gotten some people to stretch things
against him. (which is what much of this thread is about).
In terms of wrong over his career, the biggest is the motorcycle
incident (i.e., the truck washing incident). There was also a
confrontation with Bonds in the dugout, which was more likely Kent's
fault, although that is not entirely clear. OTOH, Kent has been an
excellent player for many years, doing what he can to help his teams
to win with his skills - and by that I mean both on offense and
defense.
OTOH, all reports I've been aware of have had Kent as a good clubhouse
influence with the Dodgers - one who wants the team to win. Which is
what I want in a Dodger player. Giant players might have a lower
standard, though. ;-)
Jeanne Douglas
Ima Pseudonym <akra...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
And I cannot wait to see his latest outrageousness. Some of the things
he says make my jaw drop.
--
JD
"Baseball is a dull game only for those with a dull mind"--Red Smith
Jim Garaventa
> In terms of wrong over his career, the biggest is the motorcycle
> incident (i.e., the truck washing incident). There was also a
> confrontation with Bonds in the dugout, which was more likely Kent's
> fault, although that is not entirely clear.
Actually, it was very clear. The dugout confrontation came when 3B
David Bell tried to get an out by throwing the ball to Kent at second
instead of to first. Kent thought the ball was going to first and
wasn't on the bag like he should have been. He make awkward stab at the
base with his foot but didn't get the runner. After the inning was
over, Kent started yelling at the mild mannered Bell in the dugout.
Bonds defended Bell and told Kent that he should have been at the bag
and to leave Bell alone. Kent started yelling at Bonds and the shoving
match occurred.
> OTOH, Kent has been an
> excellent player for many years, doing what he can to help his teams
> to win with his skills - and by that I mean both on offense and
> defense.
Well, unless he's suddenly become Robbie Alomar in the field this year,
I think your perception of his defensive skills are a little off. He's
serviceable at best at second. His range was so bad with the Giants
that they tried to play him at first. (Unfortunately, things haven't
improved with Durham)
> OTOH, all reports I've been aware of have had Kent as a good clubhouse
> influence with the Dodgers - one who wants the team to win. Which is
> what I want in a Dodger player. Giant players might have a lower
> standard, though. ;-)
Cute....Not! Again, unless he's become Mother Teresa, I doubt he's the
good clubhouse influence that they report him to be. He's the guy who
ratted out his teammate to an SI writer, was well known for his
aloofness, and been labeled as a head case everywhere he's been. Put it
this way: He's not going to win any popularity contest among his Giants
teammates and that's a dugout that includes Barry Bonds.
But you'll find this out as Kent's tenure goes on. Just don't say we
didn't warn you. I can't wait to see what he's got to say about L.A.
after he leaves the Dodgers.
Jim
Ima Pseudonym
>Ima Pseudonym wrote:
> > OTOH, Kent has been an
> > excellent player for many years, doing what he can to help his teams
> > to win with his skills - and by that I mean both on offense and
> > defense.
>
>Well, unless he's suddenly become Robbie Alomar in the field this year,
>I think your perception of his defensive skills are a little off. He's
>serviceable at best at second. His range was so bad with the Giants
>that they tried to play him at first. (Unfortunately, things haven't
>improved with Durham)
Alomar was egregiously overrated for most of his career, of course.
Mitchell Lichtman, who does defensive analysis for the Cardinals,
disagrees with you on Kent's defense, btw. Whether it's positioning
or whatever, Kent has consistently turned a somewhat above average
number of balls hit in his area into outs - and last season was way
above average.
But I'm happy that the Giants ignored actual performance for how
stylish a player looks at a position.
>
>> OTOH, all reports I've been aware of have had Kent as a good clubhouse
>> influence with the Dodgers - one who wants the team to win. Which is
>> what I want in a Dodger player. Giant players might have a lower
>> standard, though. ;-)
>
>Cute....Not! Again, unless he's become Mother Teresa, I doubt he's the
>good clubhouse influence that they report him to be. He's the guy who
>ratted out his teammate to an SI writer, was well known for his
>aloofness, and been labeled as a head case everywhere he's been.
Not in Houston. They didn't label him a headcase. Not in LA, either.
Not really in Cleveland, either. So by saying that he's been labelled
as a head case everywhere he's been, you really mean he and Bonds
didn't get along.
I don't particularly care if a player is aloof - although if that's
such a big problem, what does that say about Bonds and his recliner
and big screen tv? Seriously, isn't it hypocritical to blast Kent for
being "aloof" and not blast Bonds for being much worse in terms of
that?
But in fact, Kent has been a team leader this season for the Dodgers.
Not perfect, but it's documented that he's called several players'
meetings, for instance.
> Put it
>this way: He's not going to win any popularity contest among his Giants
>teammates and that's a dugout that includes Barry Bonds.
What does a popularity contest have to do with it? Being a good
influence with teammates thanks to having a drive to win isn't the
same as being popular. In the non-sporting world, being the most
popular co-worker isn't even close to being a good influence in the
workplace - sometimes they coincide, but it's accidental when that
happens.
JVV...@yahoo.com
I'd have to look it up, but last year, when it seemed like the Astros were
going to trade him to Oakland, I think I recall Bay Area media folk saying
that Kent had worn out his welcome in Houston (I don't remember if that was
directed at Houston's front office, the players, or the Houston media).
.........I did a search for articles on Kent in Houston, and pasted one that
found (actually a posting I made last year from a Houston paper)..........
> Not in LA, either.
> Not really in Cleveland, either.
He definitely has a reputation for surliness before he was a Giant. I
searched Google Groups for quotes about him in 1997, the year of the trade,
and this seems came from the Contra Costa Times:
"When a Phoenix-area reporter wandered into the Giants clubhouse the
other day and wondered aloud who all these new faces were, Kent piped
up and gave the guy the best, most humorous quote to come out of
Scottsdale this spring.
"We're the best looking guys in the National League," Kent said. "We
might not be able to play, but we can dress the part and look good.
Chicks dig us, which is important."
Laughs all around.
By the way, you might not have caught the Bill Murray allusion. That
"chicks dig us" line is lifted from Murray's comedy masterpiece,
"Stripes." Those who do not know Kent well would think, Hmm, here's a
fun-loving guy.
Kent, the former Cal star who helped lead the Bears to the College
World Series in 1988, is trying -- really, he is -- to play that part,
to get a fresh start with the Giants after gaining the reputation as a
royal grump with the New York Mets and Cleveland Indians, his past two
clubs.
And, here's another shocker for those tabloid New York media types who
speculated after Kent joined the Giants as part of the Williams trade
that he'd rival Barry Bonds on the surliness scale: Kent told an
anecdote the other day. Yes, stop the presses.
Kent was asked whether, while going to school in Berkeley, he ever
ventured over the Bay Bridge to watch the Giants play. He cracked a
thin smile and responded.
"Heck, yeah," Kent said. "I was one of those tourist fans that came out
to Candlestick -- or, what is it now, 3Com -- with just a jacket on and
a light pair of jeans. I'm telling you, I just froze my butt off come 9
o'clock at night. They forgot to tell me I needed a down jacket, a mask
and ski boots just to watch a baseball game."
He paused, and added a postscript.
"I actually was more a fan of the team on the other side of the bay
(the A's)," Kent said, in a mock whisper. "But don't tell the Giants
that."
All right, so he's no stand-up comic. But it's the effort that counts.
Kent bristles when asked about his reputation as a hard guy to get
along with, a moody loner whose white-hot intensity can grate on
teammates and people on the periphery.
"I'm not going to defend myself," said Kent, serious now. "But, I
didn't allow the media to take advantage of me and my teammates, and
that put a damper on my relationship with them. I heard all the rumors
and they come from the New York media. They'd try to manipulate us.
They'd lie. ... it was frustrating. New York loves the exaggerated
story. They're a little more emotional back there.
"I have no vendetta and gripes, just a little disappointment in how
things turned out there. And maybe I was a little defensive. I'm a
private, personal guy. I'm human. When people rag on me or my
teammates, I stick up for them. I can be stubborn."
"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants/msg/7640891086e9a6f6?hl=en&
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants/msg/490483472616001b?hl=en&
Jeff Kent is wowing them in Houston
JVV4sm Aug 30 2004, 5:54 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants
From: jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) - Find messages by this author
Date: 31 Aug 2004 00:54:52 GMT
Local: Mon,Aug 30 2004 5:54 pm
Subject: Jeff Kent is wowing them in Houston
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original | Report
Abuse
Aug. 9, 2004, 1:13AM
Benching Kent would be fine start
By RICHARD JUSTICE
MY favorite moment of the weekend at Minute Maid Park occurred when Jeff
Kent
got caught loafing Saturday night.
He was thrown out at second base on what should have been a routine double,
and
amid a sea of misplays, poor swings and bad pitches, Kent's lack of effort
spoke volumes about the Astros.
If they haven't quit, Kent showed that at least one of them seems intrigued
by
the idea.
So before the Astros do one more thing, before they again shuffle the
bullpen
or rearrange the batting order, they ought to send a message about what will
and won't be tolerated for these final 51 games.
They should begin with Jeff Kent.
If he's injured, he should be placed on the disabled list. If he's healthy,
he
ought to be benched.
He was out of the starting lineup Sunday afternoon when the Astros wasted
another terrific performance by Roger Clemens on their way to a 5-2 loss to
the
Montreal Expos.
The Astros scored two measly runs on a day when the Expos didn't have a
rested
starting pitcher. No problem there. Four relievers you've probably never
heard
of combined on a seven-hitter.
Once again, no excuses
Afterward, the Astros who still care didn't hide their embarrassment.
"It's just amazing," Jeff Bagwell said. "We have no excuses."
As for Kent, he apparently wasn't being punished for not running hard.
Manager
Phil Garner said he was "a little beat up" and getting a day off.
Jimy Williams was fired, in part, because team officials believed he was too
soft with the team's veteran core.
Garner now has a chance to show he's not Jimy Williams.
Kent reminded the Astros again this weekend why his signing after the 2002
season was a terrible mistake. Including a no-trade clause made it even
worse.
His arrival forced Craig Biggio to move to the outfield, which blocked Jason
Lane's path to the big leagues. Now, Kent's presence is keeping Chris Burke
in
the minors.
Work the phones
The Oakland A's wanted Kent a few weeks ago. If they're still interested,
this
might be a good day to telephone Astros general manager Gerry Hunsicker.
Judging by Hunsicker's body language after Sunday's loss, he might not want
to
stop with Kent.
If I were Hunsicker, I'd walk into team owner Drayton McLane's office this
morning and attempt to persuade him that the time has come to begin planning
for 2005.
They shouldn't look at these final 51 games as the end of a terrible season,
but the start of a new one.
They should keep in mind that the day of the three-year rebuilding plan is
over. Baseball's depressed free-agent market means opportunity for the
aggressive buyer.
The Astros have a core group of players on which to build, but they've got
to
start addressing their problems and making evaluations.
They should start with Andy Pettitte and Wade Miller. If either of them is
headed for offseason surgery, he ought to have it immediately and begin
getting
ready for spring training.
Lefthander Carlos Hernandez should begin his preparation for 2005 as well.
He's
throwing pain-free in New Orleans and should be returned to the big leagues
immediately.
If everything falls into place, the Astros could open next season with a
starting rotation of Clemens, Pettitte, Miller, Hernandez and Roy Oswalt.
Perhaps only the Cubs would have a better one in the National League.
Now is also the time to put Lane in the lineup, and if it means less playing
time for Biggio, so be it.
Lane has already waited too long for his chance. He has succeeded at every
level of the minor leagues, and as he approaches his 28th birthday, his time
has come.
Other than deciding where to start Round Rock center fielder Willy Taveras
next
season, every other significant decision concerns the bullpen.
Righthanders Chad Qualls and Brandon Backe probably will be brought back to
the
big leagues this week for what amounts to an audition for next season's
innings
in front of closer Brad Lidge.
Regardless of how they do, Hunsicker must spend every available dollar this
winter on shoring up the bullpen.
Last winter, McLane apparently didn't understand the magnitude of the
bullpen
problems. Now, he surely does.
Hunsicker and McLane have seemed close to distraught in recent days as
they've
come to the realization that this team is not what they thought it was.
The good news is that the Astros can be fixed. If Miller and Pettitte are
healthy in 2005, their rotation will be solid. Burke and Lane will give the
offense a new look, and Taveras could have a dramatic impact at some point
in
2005.
Tweaking the middle relief is relatively painless.
The first thing they have to do is acknowledge that the time has come to
start
living in the future instead of the present. If the Expos pushed them in
that
direction this weekend, the Astros will owe them a debt of thanks.
AguaGirl
<JVV...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Wg1Fe.270$kk6...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > Not in Houston. They didn't label him a headcase.
>
> I'd have to look it up, but last year, when it seemed like the Astros were
> going to trade him to Oakland, I think I recall Bay Area media folk saying
> that Kent had worn out his welcome in Houston (I don't remember if that
was
> directed at Houston's front office, the players, or the Houston media).
>
> .........I did a search for articles on Kent in Houston, and pasted one
that
> found (actually a posting I made last year from a Houston paper)..........
Again...one reporters opinion. It seems you haven't really made it
until the reporters start dissing you. Of course, if you can't believe
them...who can you believe. If it werent for the press we wouldn't
know what a selfish &^#%$(*@ Barry Bond is. And then of course
it's thanks to them that we know about all the steroid junkies in the
majors. Pretty much anyone who hits over 20 home runs a year
is on the juice. yeah...ya gotta love the press.
AG
Ima Pseudonym
>> Not in Houston. They didn't label him a headcase.
>
>I'd have to look it up, but last year, when it seemed like the Astros were
>going to trade him to Oakland, I think I recall Bay Area media folk saying
>that Kent had worn out his welcome in Houston (I don't remember if that was
>directed at Houston's front office, the players, or the Houston media).
When the Dodgers visited the Astros, Kent's old teammates were
clowning around with him a bit.
Normally you wouldn't do that for somebody who "wore out his welcome".
That bay area reporters reported it, most likely means that they had
already categorized him based on his conflicts with Bonds.
JVV...@yahoo.com
The first article I quoted was from Richard Justice, who was working for the
Houston Chronicle.
Jim Garaventa
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 03:58:02 -0700, Jim Garaventa <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>Ima Pseudonym wrote:
>
>>>OTOH, Kent has been an
>>>excellent player for many years, doing what he can to help his teams
>>>to win with his skills - and by that I mean both on offense and
>>>defense.
>>
>>Well, unless he's suddenly become Robbie Alomar in the field this year,
>>I think your perception of his defensive skills are a little off. He's
>>serviceable at best at second. His range was so bad with the Giants
>>that they tried to play him at first. (Unfortunately, things haven't
>>improved with Durham)
>
> Alomar was egregiously overrated for most of his career, of course.
Oh, of course. Any second baseman I would have used as an example would
have been overrated I sure.
> Mitchell Lichtman, who does defensive analysis for the Cardinals,
> disagrees with you on Kent's defense, btw. Whether it's positioning
> or whatever, Kent has consistently turned a somewhat above average
> number of balls hit in his area into outs - and last season was way
> above average.
Well, good for Mitchell. I've seen Kent play. Has this Mitchell or
does he rely on a bunch of numbers to "prove" his analysis?
> But I'm happy that the Giants ignored actual performance for how
> stylish a player looks at a position.
Believe what you want to believe; It's no skin off my back. BTW, I said
he lacked range, not style.
>>>OTOH, all reports I've been aware of have had Kent as a good clubhouse
>>>influence with the Dodgers - one who wants the team to win. Which is
>>>what I want in a Dodger player. Giant players might have a lower
>>>standard, though. ;-)
>>
>>Cute....Not! Again, unless he's become Mother Teresa, I doubt he's the
>>good clubhouse influence that they report him to be. He's the guy who
>>ratted out his teammate to an SI writer, was well known for his
>>aloofness, and been labeled as a head case everywhere he's been.
>
> Not in Houston. They didn't label him a headcase.
Yeah, right.
> Not in LA, either.
Not yet, but you'll see.
> Not really in Cleveland, either. So by saying that he's been labelled
> as a head case everywhere he's been, you really mean he and Bonds
> didn't get along.
No, by saying that he's been labeled as a head case everywhere he's
been, I really mean that he's been labeled as a head case everywhere
he's been. Just because you haven't read the reports doesn't mean they
don't exist. When he was traded to the Giants, he already had a bad
reputation for the three teams he had played for.
> I don't particularly care if a player is aloof - although if that's
> such a big problem, what does that say about Bonds and his recliner
> and big screen tv? Seriously, isn't it hypocritical to blast Kent for
> being "aloof" and not blast Bonds for being much worse in terms of
> that?
Hypocritical? No, the subject of this thread is Kent and I was writing
about him. Yes, Bonds is aloof, too, but as every Giants fan will tell
you, Kent was the bigger asshole. And it wasn't that way at first, but
Kent's actions alienated him from the fans as well as his teammates.
He's worn out his welcome everywhere he's been and he'll do it in L.A. too.
> But in fact, Kent has been a team leader this season for the Dodgers.
> Not perfect, but it's documented that he's called several players'
> meetings, for instance.
Good for him. Maybe he's seeing his chance of winning a World Series
slipping away. Too bad he won't get it playing in the Southland.
>>Put it
>>this way: He's not going to win any popularity contest among his Giants
>>teammates and that's a dugout that includes Barry Bonds.
>
> What does a popularity contest have to do with it? Being a good
> influence with teammates thanks to having a drive to win isn't the
> same as being popular. In the non-sporting world, being the most
> popular co-worker isn't even close to being a good influence in the
> workplace - sometimes they coincide, but it's accidental when that
> happens.
Whatever. My point was that Kent was more of a asshole and backstabber
than anyone else in the Giants' clubhouse.
Look, I don't care if you think he's the greatest thing since sliced
bread, I'm just telling you his history with the other teams he played
especially the Giants. If you don't want to believe it, fine. When it
happens to the Dodgers, that laughing sound you'll hear from up north is
Giants fans saying, "We told you so."
Jim
Dan Szymborski
says...
> Ima Pseudonym wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 03:58:02 -0700, Jim Garaventa <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >>Ima Pseudonym wrote:
> >
> >>>OTOH, Kent has been an
> >>>excellent player for many years, doing what he can to help his teams
> >>>to win with his skills - and by that I mean both on offense and
> >>>defense.
> >>
> >>Well, unless he's suddenly become Robbie Alomar in the field this year,
> >>I think your perception of his defensive skills are a little off. He's
> >>serviceable at best at second. His range was so bad with the Giants
> >>that they tried to play him at first. (Unfortunately, things haven't
> >>improved with Durham)
> >
> > Alomar was egregiously overrated for most of his career, of course.
>
> Oh, of course. Any second baseman I would have used as an example would
> have been overrated I sure.
>
> > Mitchell Lichtman, who does defensive analysis for the Cardinals,
> > disagrees with you on Kent's defense, btw. Whether it's positioning
> > or whatever, Kent has consistently turned a somewhat above average
> > number of balls hit in his area into outs - and last season was way
> > above average.
>
> Well, good for Mitchell. I've seen Kent play. Has this Mitchell or
> does he rely on a bunch of numbers to "prove" his analysis?
I'd be more prone to use "prove" for you unless you've seen
every play that every other second baseman has made this
season and have a brain that has evolved millions of years
ahead of schedule and can actually process this type of long-
term mass data which our current brains have been shown to be
pretty hopeless at.
--
Dan Szymborski
d...@REMOVEbaseballprimer.com
"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not a
supporter of what is good."
- Robert Schumann
Ima Pseudonym
>Ima Pseudonym wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 03:58:02 -0700, Jim Garaventa <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>Ima Pseudonym wrote:
>>
>>>>OTOH, Kent has been an
>>>>excellent player for many years, doing what he can to help his teams
>>>>to win with his skills - and by that I mean both on offense and
>>>>defense.
>>>
>>>Well, unless he's suddenly become Robbie Alomar in the field this year,
>>>I think your perception of his defensive skills are a little off. He's
>>>serviceable at best at second. His range was so bad with the Giants
>>>that they tried to play him at first. (Unfortunately, things haven't
>>>improved with Durham)
>>
>> Alomar was egregiously overrated for most of his career, of course.
>
>Oh, of course. Any second baseman I would have used as an example would
>have been overrated I sure.
No. Just one like Alomar who sacrificed effective range for much of
his career by playing back far enough that he looked great at going
side to side, but actually gave up more infield hits than average
thanks to playing back so far for much of his career. Not a bad
fielder overall, just not the great one that people think - if by
great you mean someone who turns far more ground balls into outs than
average.
>
>> Mitchell Lichtman, who does defensive analysis for the Cardinals,
>> disagrees with you on Kent's defense, btw. Whether it's positioning
>> or whatever, Kent has consistently turned a somewhat above average
>> number of balls hit in his area into outs - and last season was way
>> above average.
>
>Well, good for Mitchell. I've seen Kent play. Has this Mitchell or
>does he rely on a bunch of numbers to "prove" his analysis?
He does watch baseball. But as Dan pointed out, unless you've seen
every second baseman play in person multiple times, and watched them
more closely for defensive performance than non-scouts generally do,
AND have the super-human ability to keep track of that many
performances without resorting to statistics, then I'll trust closely
tallied play by play data (including records of exactly where the ball
was hit, and approximately how hard) over your memory.
Otherwise, it would be like you saying that so and so is a great
hitter, but ignoring the historical record that shows him to be
average or worse in batting average, on base percentage, all power
statistics, etc.
>
>> But I'm happy that the Giants ignored actual performance for how
>> stylish a player looks at a position.
>
>Believe what you want to believe; It's no skin off my back. BTW, I said
>he lacked range, not style.
But in fact, he has superior range - if by range you mean turning more
ground balls hit towards second base into outs than an average second
baseman.
>
>>>>OTOH, all reports I've been aware of have had Kent as a good clubhouse
>>>>influence with the Dodgers - one who wants the team to win. Which is
>>>>what I want in a Dodger player. Giant players might have a lower
>>>>standard, though. ;-)
>>>
>>>Cute....Not! Again, unless he's become Mother Teresa, I doubt he's the
>>>good clubhouse influence that they report him to be. He's the guy who
>>>ratted out his teammate to an SI writer, was well known for his
>>>aloofness, and been labeled as a head case everywhere he's been.
>>
>> Not in Houston. They didn't label him a headcase.
>
>Yeah, right.
What a rejoinder!
However, as I pointed out, when the Dodgers visited the Astros earlier
this season Kent's former teammates were happy to see him.
>
>> Not in LA, either.
>
>Not yet, but you'll see.
>
>> Not really in Cleveland, either. So by saying that he's been labelled
>> as a head case everywhere he's been, you really mean he and Bonds
>> didn't get along.
>
>No, by saying that he's been labeled as a head case everywhere he's
>been, I really mean that he's been labeled as a head case everywhere
>he's been.
Well, except in Houston, and Cleveland, and New York.
Just because you haven't read the reports doesn't mean they
>don't exist. When he was traded to the Giants, he already had a bad
>reputation for the three teams he had played for.
Evidence?
Didn't think so.
>
>> I don't particularly care if a player is aloof - although if that's
>> such a big problem, what does that say about Bonds and his recliner
>> and big screen tv? Seriously, isn't it hypocritical to blast Kent for
>> being "aloof" and not blast Bonds for being much worse in terms of
>> that?
>
>Hypocritical? No, the subject of this thread is Kent and I was writing
>about him. Yes, Bonds is aloof, too, but as every Giants fan will tell
>you, Kent was the bigger asshole.
Ah, so you're admitting that Bonds is an asshole?
Careful, you might be run out of town for that.
How could Kent be more aloof than a guy who watches tv by himself in
the clubhouse before every home game?
And it wasn't that way at first, but
>Kent's actions alienated him from the fans as well as his teammates.
>He's worn out his welcome everywhere he's been and he'll do it in L.A. too.
He didn't wear out his welcome in Houston.
Cleveland traded him because he hadn't been productive yet, and they
were offered Matt Williams.
New York traded him because they were offered an all star second
baseman for him.
So not actually ANY case of wearing out his welcome.
>
>> But in fact, Kent has been a team leader this season for the Dodgers.
>> Not perfect, but it's documented that he's called several players'
>> meetings, for instance.
>
>Good for him. Maybe he's seeing his chance of winning a World Series
>slipping away. Too bad he won't get it playing in the Southland.
Better chance than if he'd stayed in San Fran, at least.
>
>>>Put it
>>>this way: He's not going to win any popularity contest among his Giants
>>>teammates and that's a dugout that includes Barry Bonds.
>>
>> What does a popularity contest have to do with it? Being a good
>> influence with teammates thanks to having a drive to win isn't the
>> same as being popular. In the non-sporting world, being the most
>> popular co-worker isn't even close to being a good influence in the
>> workplace - sometimes they coincide, but it's accidental when that
>> happens.
>
>Whatever. My point was that Kent was more of a asshole and backstabber
>than anyone else in the Giants' clubhouse.
Well, at least he didn't get along with Bonds, which means the same
thing to some people, apparently.
>
>Look, I don't care if you think he's the greatest thing since sliced
>bread, I'm just telling you his history with the other teams he played
>especially the Giants.
Well, you haven't actually told any history except with the Giants.
You've made assertions that aren't actually backed by facts for other
places - especially Houston, where the fact that his former teammates
were happy to see him rather tells against your lies.
If you don't want to believe it, fine. When it
>happens to the Dodgers, that laughing sound you'll hear from up north is
>Giants fans saying, "We told you so."
I'd think Giant fans were too busy laughing at their own team.
Lance Freezeland
<d...@REMOVEbaseballprimer.com> gave us:
I can do that. Go ahead, ask me a question, I dare you.
--
Lance
"He (Darryl Strawberry) is not a dog; a dog is loyal
and runs after balls." Tommy Lasorda
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Dan Szymborski
freezeland...@consolidated.net says...
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:54:41 -0400, Dan Szymborski
> <d...@REMOVEbaseballprimer.com> gave us:
> >In article <11ehh44...@corp.supernews.com>, a...@b.com
> >says...
> >> Ima Pseudonym wrote:
>
> >> > Mitchell Lichtman, who does defensive analysis for the Cardinals,
> >> > disagrees with you on Kent's defense, btw. Whether it's positioning
> >> > or whatever, Kent has consistently turned a somewhat above average
> >> > number of balls hit in his area into outs - and last season was way
> >> > above average.
>
> >> Well, good for Mitchell. I've seen Kent play. Has this Mitchell or
> >> does he rely on a bunch of numbers to "prove" his analysis?
>
> >I'd be more prone to use "prove" for you unless you've seen
> >every play that every other second baseman has made this
> >season and have a brain that has evolved millions of years
> >ahead of schedule and can actually process this type of long-
> >term mass data which our current brains have been shown to be
> >pretty hopeless at.
>
> I can do that. Go ahead, ask me a question, I dare you.
No way; I can't afford the hourly fee of a superhuman lawyer.
A Jaunty One
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:41:55 -0700, Jim Garaventa <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >
> >Oh, of course. Any second baseman I would have used as an example
would
> >have been overrated I sure.
>
> No. Just one like Alomar who sacrificed effective range for much of
> his career by playing back far enough that he looked great at going
> side to side, but actually gave up more infield hits than average
> thanks to playing back so far for much of his career. Not a bad
> fielder overall, just not the great one that people think - if by
> great you mean someone who turns far more ground balls into outs than
> average.
I think one's credibility is all gone when he rips Alomar's defense and
compliments Kent's defense. At the worst you can only say they're not
far apart.
> He does watch baseball. But as Dan pointed out, unless you've seen
> every second baseman play in person multiple times, and watched them
> more closely for defensive performance than non-scouts generally do,
> AND have the super-human ability to keep track of that many
> performances without resorting to statistics, then I'll trust closely
> tallied play by play data (including records of exactly where the ball
> was hit, and approximately how hard) over your memory.
>
> Otherwise, it would be like you saying that so and so is a great
> hitter, but ignoring the historical record that shows him to be
> average or worse in batting average, on base percentage, all power
> statistics, etc.
So can you provide these stats that show Kent is such a great fielder
and Alomar is so-so? Or are you making this all up?
> >> But I'm happy that the Giants ignored actual performance for how
> >> stylish a player looks at a position.
> >
> >Believe what you want to believe; It's no skin off my back. BTW, I
said
> >he lacked range, not style.
>
> But in fact, he has superior range
"Superior" range??? lol Can you provide any proof? Unless you mean
diving for routine groundballs is superior range. But some people are
easily impressed by players diving. He also loves to dive to 1B, 3B, or
just about any base. He used to always try to stretch a double to a
triple and gets thrown out by 30 feet. Not sure if you guys get to see
that anymore; he might be too old to try it nowadays.
> >>>>OTOH, all reports I've been aware of have had Kent as a good
clubhouse
> >>>>influence with the Dodgers - one who wants the team to win. Which
is
> >>>>what I want in a Dodger player. Giant players might have a lower
> >>>>standard, though. ;-)
Have you heard or read the SI article when Kent ripped Bonds in the
middle of the pennant race in '02? What kind of *team player* would do
that? *Some* team player he was!
> >No, by saying that he's been labeled as a head case everywhere he's
> >been, I really mean that he's been labeled as a head case everywhere
> >he's been.
>
> Well, except in Houston, and Cleveland, and New York.
>
> Just because you haven't read the reports doesn't mean they
> >don't exist. When he was traded to the Giants, he already had a bad
> >reputation for the three teams he had played for.
>
> Evidence?
You probably didn't follow this whole thread. If you search in google's
archive, post #25 of this thread reads:
------------------------Begins-----------------------
25. Brian Perry Jul 10, 3:26 pm
>>I was in Houston over the weekend picking up my mother-in-law, and
there
>>was a big article about Kent there. Apparently he's just a dickhead.
He
>>basically wouldn't talk to anyone, including the manager unless it was
a
>>game situation. He wouldn't respond to players in the locker room if
>>they addressed him. He was a fanatical gamer though. He'd take players
>>aside during a game and offer advice, especially younger guys. Its all
>>about winning with him. Other than that, I got the feeling that he
>>doesn't like baseball or other people all that much.
> I'd be curious to know what the reporters sources were. If he doesn't
> mix work and social thats one thing but I find it hard to believe that
> he shows up at the stadium unwilling to talk to anyone. He is always
> jawing with the guys in the dug-out on tv, he seems to give interviews
> readily and I've even seen him talking to fans over the railing before
> a game. If it's just a matter of the guy not attending anyones fourth
of
> July
> bash that's fine. Lots of people don't party with their co-workers.
> I can't imagine him not liking baseball, not based on interviews I
have
> heard. He sounds like every other player who grew up loving the
sport.
> Maybe he just has a bad taste in his mouth right now from a previous
> experience? <g> So far I am glad to be cheering for him...subject to
> change of course the first time he disses the team, the city or the
fans
> in the press :-)
> AG
They quoted several players by name. Biggio especially liked to rag on
him because he wouldn't talk. He'd leave each night telling him he'd
call him later. If Kent responded, it would be with "please don't". I
think berkman was also quaoted saying that he said hello to Kent and
didn't get a response so he repeated it thinking Kent hadn't heard him.
Kent went off on him saying he didn't want to respond to pleasantries
from guys he saw every day.
-----------------------------Ends------------------------
But of course, you'll blindly believe anything that Kent says, but don't
believe any bad things other people say about him.
Ima Pseudonym
<SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote:
>
>"Ima Pseudonym" <akra...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ua9ie1190lf5flf4g...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:41:55 -0700, Jim Garaventa <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Oh, of course. Any second baseman I would have used as an example
>would
>> >have been overrated I sure.
>>
>> No. Just one like Alomar who sacrificed effective range for much of
>> his career by playing back far enough that he looked great at going
>> side to side, but actually gave up more infield hits than average
>> thanks to playing back so far for much of his career. Not a bad
>> fielder overall, just not the great one that people think - if by
>> great you mean someone who turns far more ground balls into outs than
>> average.
>
>I think one's credibility is all gone when he rips Alomar's defense and
>compliments Kent's defense. At the worst you can only say they're not
>far apart.
Saying somebody is overrated isn't ripping him. If some people think
that Alomar is one of the greatest fielders ever, and he is merely
good, that means that he's overrated.
>
>> He does watch baseball. But as Dan pointed out, unless you've seen
>> every second baseman play in person multiple times, and watched them
>> more closely for defensive performance than non-scouts generally do,
>> AND have the super-human ability to keep track of that many
>> performances without resorting to statistics, then I'll trust closely
>> tallied play by play data (including records of exactly where the ball
>> was hit, and approximately how hard) over your memory.
>>
>> Otherwise, it would be like you saying that so and so is a great
>> hitter, but ignoring the historical record that shows him to be
>> average or worse in batting average, on base percentage, all power
>> statistics, etc.
>
>So can you provide these stats that show Kent is such a great fielder
>and Alomar is so-so? Or are you making this all up?
UZR can be found in discussions on Baseball Think Factory. Some
archived results can be found at
"http://www.tangotiger.net/UZR9903TT.html"
>
>> >> But I'm happy that the Giants ignored actual performance for how
>> >> stylish a player looks at a position.
>> >
>> >Believe what you want to believe; It's no skin off my back. BTW, I
>said
>> >he lacked range, not style.
>>
>> But in fact, he has superior range
>
>"Superior" range??? lol Can you provide any proof? Unless you mean
>diving for routine groundballs is superior range. But some people are
>easily impressed by players diving. He also loves to dive to 1B, 3B, or
>just about any base. He used to always try to stretch a double to a
>triple and gets thrown out by 30 feet. Not sure if you guys get to see
>that anymore; he might be too old to try it nowadays.
Actually, this shows that you don't actually watch him - he dives LESS
often than most second basemen - a heck of a lot less than Alex Cora
did as a Dodger. He does, however, seem to position himself well.
So much for your scouting prowess.
>
>> >>>>OTOH, all reports I've been aware of have had Kent as a good
>clubhouse
>> >>>>influence with the Dodgers - one who wants the team to win. Which
>is
>> >>>>what I want in a Dodger player. Giant players might have a lower
>> >>>>standard, though. ;-)
>
>Have you heard or read the SI article when Kent ripped Bonds in the
>middle of the pennant race in '02? What kind of *team player* would do
>that? *Some* team player he was!
We've agreed that Kent and Bonds didn't get along. You've been
arguing (lamely) that he had problems everywhere. I've pointed out he
hasn't with the Dodgers, and that he was greeted warmly by his former
teammates in Houston - both of which militate against your contention
that he's had problems everywhere.
>
>> >No, by saying that he's been labeled as a head case everywhere he's
>> >been, I really mean that he's been labeled as a head case everywhere
>> >he's been.
>>
>> Well, except in Houston, and Cleveland, and New York.
>>
>> Just because you haven't read the reports doesn't mean they
>> >don't exist. When he was traded to the Giants, he already had a bad
>> >reputation for the three teams he had played for.
>>
>> Evidence?
>
>You probably didn't follow this whole thread. If you search in google's
>archive, post #25 of this thread reads:
I read it. But, once again - I don't necessarily believe everything
that gets posted, when it contradicts known facts.
In any case, didn't you say that you weren't going to be posting in
this thread anymore? Or did you just mean that you were going to
repost things without advancing the discussion?
In fact, your exact quote was "Well, the weekend is over, and I'm
tired of this thread now, so I'll
stop here. Kent is your boy now; you can believe anything you want. "
>
Not when it's contradicted by the warm reception the Astros players
gave him when he returned.
Incidentally, by your standards isn't Biggio a bad team player for
being quoted negatively about a teammater during a pennant race?
JVV...@yahoo.com
>>No, by saying that he's been labeled as a head case everywhere he's
>>been, I really mean that he's been labeled as a head case everywhere
>>he's been.
>
> Well, except in Houston, and Cleveland, and New York.
I posted articles to the contrary.
I would say that the only teams he's played for where he wasn't labelled a
head case were the Blue Jays and Dodgers.
> Just because you haven't read the reports doesn't mean they
>>don't exist. When he was traded to the Giants, he already had a bad
>>reputation for the three teams he had played for.
>
> Evidence?
>
> Didn't think so.
I posted an article from 1997 in which his surly reputation in NY and
Cleveland is noted.
A Jaunty One
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:58:09 -0700, "A Jaunty One"
> <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote:
> >
> >"Superior" range??? lol Can you provide any proof? Unless you mean
> >diving for routine groundballs is superior range. But some people
are
> >easily impressed by players diving. He also loves to dive to 1B, 3B,
or
> >just about any base. He used to always try to stretch a double to a
> >triple and gets thrown out by 30 feet. Not sure if you guys get to
see
> >that anymore; he might be too old to try it nowadays.
>
> Actually, this shows that you don't actually watch him - he dives LESS
> often than most second basemen - a heck of a lot less than Alex Cora
> did as a Dodger. He does, however, seem to position himself well.
>
> So much for your scouting prowess.
We've watched him for 6 years. You've watched him for half a season.
But of course, you always think you're right, just because you guys had
a sorry Alex Cora diving everywhere. Hey, Kent's getting up there in
age, so he might not be diving as much now, but watching someone for
just a few months and assume he's been doing the same his whole career
is pretty naive.
> >Have you heard or read the SI article when Kent ripped Bonds in the
> >middle of the pennant race in '02? What kind of *team player* would
do
> >that? *Some* team player he was!
>
> We've agreed that Kent and Bonds didn't get along.
So does that make it right for what he did, in the middle of a pennant
run? Think about that for a moment.
> You've been
> arguing (lamely) that he had problems everywhere. I've pointed out he
> hasn't with the Dodgers,
That doesn't mean much. He's been there only a few months, plus I think
he likes LA more than any other places he's been (crying in the press
conference was a big clue), and he grew up in LA. It's his *hometown*!
Does that help you a little?
> and that he was greeted warmly by his former
> teammates in Houston - both of which militate against your contention
> that he's had problems everywhere.
That's funny. Just by what you perceived as a warm greeting means
everything else is false, including actual quotes by Houston players.
Anything that you don't want to believe is false; everything you want to
believe is fact. Kent's always had a bad reputation even before he came
to SF. Brian Perry and JVV4sm have cited different articles to confirm.
We've watched him for 6 years here. But just because you, and you
alone, think that's not true, you conclude that the whole world is wrong
and you alone is right, just from watching him for a mere few months, in
his hometown where he might behave better. And you think all of us in
SF don't like him just because he didn't get along with Bonds. You
think we're all just biased towards Bonds. You think none of us can
tell a good person from an asshole. You think none of us know that
Bonds is an asshole himself. You just think you're right and everyone
else is wrong, even though it seems like not even your fellow Dodgers
fans are agreeing with you much on this.
> >You probably didn't follow this whole thread. If you search in
google's
> >archive, post #25 of this thread reads:
>
> I read it. But, once again - I don't necessarily believe everything
> that gets posted, when it contradicts known facts.
Sure, everything that everyone else said are lies; whatever you believe,
and you alone believe, are facts.
> In any case, didn't you say that you weren't going to be posting in
> this thread anymore? Or did you just mean that you were going to
> repost things without advancing the discussion?
>
> In fact, your exact quote was "Well, the weekend is over, and I'm
> tired of this thread now, so I'll
> stop here. Kent is your boy now; you can believe anything you want. "
Well, this might be tough for you to grasp, but look at your calender;
today *is* a weekend day. More importantly, at the time it was mostly
just me and you, so I thought the thread would end if I stopped. I
never thought it'd keep going to today, and I just can't help but step
in again, watching you keep acting like you and only you are right and
the whole world is wrong.
But then again, seeing that you were stuck with Alex Cora before, it's
no wonder even Kent's poop smells good to you. ;-)
[snipped quoted post]
> >But of course, you'll blindly believe anything that Kent says, but
don't
> >believe any bad things other people say about him.
>
> Not when it's contradicted by the warm reception the Astros players
> gave him when he returned.
So is it beyond this universe for you to think they simply did the
politically correct thing? I've even seen couples who had nasty
breakups to smile and say hi months after.
> Incidentally, by your standards isn't Biggio a bad team player for
> being quoted negatively about a teammater during a pennant race?
How would I know? I don't follow Biggio. And what are you talking
about "during a pennant race"? The poster said he was *in Houston over
the weekend* when he read the article, which is what, 9 months after
Kent left the Astros? You're not making any sense.
JVV...@yahoo.com
"A Jaunty One" <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote in message
news:42ec3...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "Ima Pseudonym" <akra...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a36ne19i6okf8r6vc...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:58:09 -0700, "A Jaunty One"
>> <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Superior" range??? lol Can you provide any proof? Unless you mean
>> >diving for routine groundballs is superior range. But some people
> are
>> >easily impressed by players diving. He also loves to dive to 1B, 3B,
> or
>> >just about any base. He used to always try to stretch a double to a
>> >triple and gets thrown out by 30 feet. Not sure if you guys get to
> see
>> >that anymore; he might be too old to try it nowadays.
>>
>> Actually, this shows that you don't actually watch him - he dives LESS
>> often than most second basemen - a heck of a lot less than Alex Cora
>> did as a Dodger. He does, however, seem to position himself well.
>>
>> So much for your scouting prowess.
I'm wondering --- Jaunty was commenting on Kent's proclivity toward diving
into first on balls he hit, and his proclivity toward trying to stretch
doubles into triples and getting thrown out by a large margin.
The response seems to address Kent's defense, which would be a non sequitur.
JVV...@yahoo.com
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Bradley: 'I'm always OK. As long as I'm black, I'm fine'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press
MIAMI -- Dissension in the Los Angeles Dodgers' clubhouse sent center
fielder Milton Bradley to the manager's office following Saturday's victory
at Florida.
Bradley said he requested the private, 25-minute meeting with manager Jim
Tracy, apparently to discuss discord with a teammate.
"I want people to say Milton Bradley was a pretty good ballplayer and a
pretty good person," Bradley said. "Anybody who is going to stand between me
getting there, then they need to be eliminated."
Bradley and Tracy declined to provide specifics.
"It's internal," Tracy said. "I had a chat. It has nothing to do with
anything he did, right or wrong."
Roy Smith, vice president for scouting and player development, sat in on
part of the meeting.
Bradley, who acknowledged he hasn't always done things "the right way," said
he had no issues with Tracy and has gotten along well with the manager since
joining the Dodgers last year.
"That's my pops," Bradley said, tears welling in his eyes. "From Day 1 he
has treated me with respect. I know if I go 0-for-5, he'll still put his arm
around me."
Bradley said he has improved his attitude and behavior in recent seasons and
now deserves respect.
"Some people, that's all their life is -- is baseball ... how many hits they
get, how many runs they drive in, how many plays they make," Bradley said.
"They're working for a plaque. I'm not working for a plaque. I'm working to
put food on my table."
When asked by a reporter if he was OK, Bradley replied, "I'm always OK. As
long as I'm black, I'm fine."
Bradley went 1-for-4 in the Dodgers' 11-6 victory.
AguaGirl
skin. The guy has issues that go way beyond player
chemistry. Heck...we had these kinds of things going on
the first half of last year when the writers couldn't say
enough about the clubs chemistry.
I still think I would have won the Bradley suspension
pool if he hadn't gone on the DL
AG
<JVV...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bWeOe.114$sV7...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Ima Pseudonym
wrote:
>Consider the source... Bradley is a hot head with thin
>skin. The guy has issues that go way beyond player
>chemistry. Heck...we had these kinds of things going on
>the first half of last year when the writers couldn't say
>enough about the clubs chemistry.
>I still think I would have won the Bradley suspension
>pool if he hadn't gone on the DL
I'm not surprised that a Giants fan would jump on it before any
semblance of all the facts came out. By this stage of course it's
painfully obvious that Bradley was just freaking out. Which he's done
before.
Even the race card Bradley played the other day is predictable - he's
done that before. But I guess it's easier to blast Kent in a knee
jerk way than to wait for any facts.
JVV...@yahoo.com
> Even the race card Bradley played the other day is predictable - he's
> done that before. But I guess it's easier to blast Kent in a knee
> jerk way than to wait for any facts.
When the facts came out regarding Kent's truck-washing, he still refused to
bow to the truth.
Ima Pseudonym
And that's relevant to the current situation exactly how?
The truth is, you posted trying to blast Kent for the current
situation, but all the evidence suggests that Bradley is having one of
his freakouts.
Kent _privately_ (and face to face) criticized Bradley for not
hustling - and it is routine for vets to criticize younger players for
perceived problems, as you well know - and Bradley first tried to
blast Kent for doing it for the purpose of his stats, and when that
didn't work, he played the race card.
So your reaction is to ignore all that, and STILL blast Kent?
Seriously, I would be embarrassed if I were you. There are times when
it's better to not post, than to continue posting in an idiotic cause.
Kent may not be perfect, but pretending that Kent is substantially to
blame for this situation is ridiculous - and you are far too
intelligent JVV to not realize that.
Kent might have handled it better - but given Bradley's statements it
is obvious that he felt that he was appointed team leader by the
Dodgers' management when they told him that they wanted him to be a
better role model. (and we all know that team leaders come from within
the team, and aren't appointed) And he couldn't handle it when the
most veteran player, who is also having the best season on the team,
questioned his effort face to face. Rather than learning from it, or
disagreeing with it and pointing out how he was hustling to Kent, he
had a crying jag, and then blasted Kent for different reasons on
multiple times to the press - which team leaders definitely DON'T do.
Like he did to the Indians' manager in 2004.
Really. What evidence we (as outsiders) have indicates rather
strongly that it's a Bradley freakout. How can you STILL be blasting
Kent? I've seen your posts over the years on RSB - I know you usually
show much more impartiality in your posts than this.
AguaGirl
"Ima Pseudonym" <akra...@nospam.hotmail.com>
>
> Really. What evidence we (as outsiders) have indicates rather
> strongly that it's a Bradley freakout. How can you STILL be blasting
> Kent? I've seen your posts over the years on RSB - I know you usually
> show much more impartiality in your posts than this.
>
Emotions run just as strong among fans as it does among players.
Kent got into it with the Giants only claim to fame. It didn't matter
to anyone is Kent was right or wrong in the Bonds vs Kent
drama. He immediately won the role of villain and that black
hat is going to follow him no matter where he goes in the eyes
of a lot of Giants fans. I suppose if anyone were to get in a
pissing match with Gagne a lot of Dodger fans would do the same.
Luckily my reasons for liking or disliking a player are entirely
arbitrary and therefore can't be swayed by anything any other
fan or reporter tells me. When Kent does an on air interview
with A Martinez and talks bad about the Dodger players, management,
fans or even the town (ala Hundley) then I will happily jump on the
I Hate Kent bandwagon. Until then I like the guy and am thrilled he is
on the team.
AG
JVV...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:41:47 GMT, <JVV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ima Pseudonym" <akra...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:n1p4h1t91cpuv0pgc...@4ax.com...
>>> Even the race card Bradley played the other day is predictable - he's
>>> done that before. But I guess it's easier to blast Kent in a knee
>>> jerk way than to wait for any facts.
>>
>>When the facts came out regarding Kent's truck-washing, he still refused
>>to
>>bow to the truth.
>
> And that's relevant to the current situation exactly how?
Just reminding people that Kent has low regard for facts or facing
consequences.
> The truth is, you posted trying to blast Kent for the current
> situation, but all the evidence suggests that Bradley is having one of
> his freakouts.
>
> Kent _privately_ (and face to face) criticized Bradley for not
> hustling - and it is routine for vets to criticize younger players for
> perceived problems, as you well know - and Bradley first tried to
> blast Kent for doing it for the purpose of his stats, and when that
> didn't work, he played the race card.
Has anyone other than Kent or Bradley quoted the exact words Kent has used
to criticize Bradley?
> So your reaction is to ignore all that, and STILL blast Kent?
>
> Seriously, I would be embarrassed if I were you. There are times when
> it's better to not post, than to continue posting in an idiotic cause.
>
> Kent may not be perfect, but pretending that Kent is substantially to
> blame for this situation is ridiculous - and you are far too
> intelligent JVV to not realize that.
>
> Kent might have handled it better - but given Bradley's statements it
> is obvious that he felt that he was appointed team leader by the
> Dodgers' management when they told him that they wanted him to be a
> better role model.
I thought he felt that he was appointed team leader because he said that he
was:
"I was told in spring training I was the team leader by Paul DePodesta. By
Jim Tracy. By Frank McCourt," Bradley said of the Dodgers' general manager,
manager and owner.
>(and we all know that team leaders come from within
> the team, and aren't appointed) And he couldn't handle it when the
> most veteran player, who is also having the best season on the team,
> questioned his effort face to face. Rather than learning from it, or
> disagreeing with it and pointing out how he was hustling to Kent, he
> had a crying jag, and then blasted Kent for different reasons on
> multiple times to the press - which team leaders definitely DON'T do.
> Like he did to the Indians' manager in 2004.
> Really. What evidence we (as outsiders) have indicates rather
> strongly that it's a Bradley freakout. How can you STILL be blasting
> Kent? I've seen your posts over the years on RSB - I know you usually
> show much more impartiality in your posts than this.
I've seen Jeff Kent up close for years. He and Bradley are useless punks.
They can both be in the wrong, and usually are.
A Jaunty One
> Kent got into it with the Giants only claim to fame. It didn't matter
> to anyone is Kent was right or wrong in the Bonds vs Kent
> drama. He immediately won the role of villain and that black
> hat is going to follow him no matter where he goes in the eyes
> of a lot of Giants fans.
See, you don't know half the story and you immediately jumped to
conclusion that we Giants fans are wrong, that we're on Bonds' side no
matter who was right. Therefore you're doing exactly what you *think*
we did to Kent. So let's tell you what happened:
David Bell, the 3rd baseman, fielded a grounder and wanted to go to 2B,
but Kent totally forgot to cover 2B; even Krukow rightly criticized that
it was Kent's fault. And you know what happened after they went back
into the dugout? The camera caught Kent yelling the hell out of Bell,
at which point Bonds came over to Bell's rescue, separated the two, held
Kent by his neck, and said something to him. The whole incident was
Kent's fault from beginning to end, but of course, to you guys, we were
just biased towards Bonds. You guys have *already* made up your mind
that we were biased, no matter that Kent was right or wrong. Pot,
kettle...
> When Kent does an on air interview
> with A Martinez and talks bad about the Dodger players, management,
> fans or even the town (ala Hundley) then I will happily jump on the
> I Hate Kent bandwagon. Until then I like the guy and am thrilled he
is
> on the team.
Funny you mentioned that, because Kent did just that in 2002. It was in
an Sports Illustrated article, an exclusive Kent interview. Kent was
talking bad about Bonds, in the middle of a pennant run. It was pretty
big news at the time; even ESPN mentioned it. Surprised you didn't know
about it.
A Jaunty One
<JVV...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TkRQe.224$hc4...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> > hustling - and it is routine for vets to criticize younger players
for
> > perceived problems, as you well know - and Bradley first tried to
> > blast Kent for doing it for the purpose of his stats, and when that
> > didn't work, he played the race card.
>
> Has anyone other than Kent or Bradley quoted the exact
> words Kent has used to criticize Bradley?
Exactly. No one besides them knows what he really said, but here we
have someone automatically defending Kent and blaming Bradley. This is
the exact same thing they accused us Giants fans of doing to Bonds vs.
Kent. Pot, kettle.
Ima Pseudonym
>
>I thought he felt that he was appointed team leader because he said that he
>was:
>
>"I was told in spring training I was the team leader by Paul DePodesta. By
>Jim Tracy. By Frank McCourt," Bradley said of the Dodgers' general manager,
>manager and owner.
>
Oh, COME ON, JVV. You know enough to realize that a team leader CAN'T
be appointed by management - it's gotta be somebody that the team
wants as a leader. You earn leadership, through experience, through
skill, and by being somebody that your teammates look up to.
Management told Bradley that for the rather obvious reason that they
were trying to motivate him to behave. Because while Bradley is
extremely talented, he is a child in terms of emotions. And it worked
for a little while. But when the going got tough, Bradley went
berserk.
>
>
>
>
>>(and we all know that team leaders come from within
>> the team, and aren't appointed) And he couldn't handle it when the
>> most veteran player, who is also having the best season on the team,
>> questioned his effort face to face. Rather than learning from it, or
>> disagreeing with it and pointing out how he was hustling to Kent, he
>> had a crying jag, and then blasted Kent for different reasons on
>> multiple times to the press - which team leaders definitely DON'T do.
>> Like he did to the Indians' manager in 2004.
>> Really. What evidence we (as outsiders) have indicates rather
>> strongly that it's a Bradley freakout. How can you STILL be blasting
>> Kent? I've seen your posts over the years on RSB - I know you usually
>> show much more impartiality in your posts than this.
>
>
>I've seen Jeff Kent up close for years. He and Bradley are useless punks.
>They can both be in the wrong, and usually are.
How up close have you been? Are you somebody who is regularly in the
Giants' clubhouse? Or something less? Because so far you are coming
across as somebody who knows Kent from talk radio. Have you ever
actually met Kent? As regular posters to ASBLA-D know, I have at best
a thinly veiled contempt for sportswriters' analysis of player
personalities, so I hope you aren't relying on second hand reports.
So how well do you know Kent personally?
>