You are playing for a hapless, last-place team. The team with the worst attendance in Major League Baseball. A team that may very well fold at the end of this year.
About a week ago, your ship came in. That ship’s name was the U.S.S. Andy MacPhail. On that ship you could have taken passage to a team that is in playoff contention. A team that could mightily benefit from your bat. A team that generously offered to guarantee your salary for next year, in addition to this year.
While I respect your desire to be with your family there in Tampa Bay, may I point out something: You have more fucking money than God. Move your family to Chicago for the rest of the baseball season. They’ll get over it. I hear the Gold Coast is nice this time of year.
Its called player loyalty. If more players decided to stick to a team instead of just going where the money is maybe baseball will once again be something worth watching again.
I for one salute him.
I admire and respect McGriff for his decision. He’s abiding by his contract and doing what’s good for his family.
With all due respect, while I am sure Chicago is a nice town, I wouldn’t want to uproot my family and move my wife and kids away from their homes to live in Chicago for three months, either. McGriff is a person, not a baseball card. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to do it, so why should he?
You know why I find “professional” sports so amazingly assinine? Why the fuck should I root for the Yankees or the Mets when none of them come from New York? Those fuckers aren’t loyal to me or my city, why should I feel any connection whatsoever to them? It’s beyond stupid.
I second RickJay’s comments with regards to this. But I would go even further, and note that the desire to be on a winning team is not some moral issue. It is purely an emotional and self-aggrandizing one. A player who does not share these burning desires is not to be condemned, and one who is willing to put aside such considerations for the consideration of his loved ones is to be commended.
(This does not that a player should not want to contribute as much as possible to making his team a winner. That is what he is being paid for. This refers to making the same contribution for a winning or losing team).
What I find particularly interesting is that a lot of the people here lauding McGriff for his saintlike loyalty and staying with a last place team for emotional and personal issues are the same people who yelled at me a few months back regarding bunting to break up a nohitter because:
BASEBALL IS ALL ABOUT WINNING GAMES.
If baseball is all about winning, every single player who isn’t on a first place team should be beating down the doors of first place teams so they can win, right? Otherwise we’d have to acknowledge that maybe there’s a little something more to baseball.
Another reason I’ve heard for why he should go to the Cubs is because they are in first place – He gets into the playoffs with a shot for a ring.
Well, he already has a WS ring, with the '95 Braves. I’m not suggesting that he wouldn’t enjoy another one, but I think this might weigh much more into his decision if he wasn’t already sporting a ring. Other factors are involved as well. He is near his family, happy where he lives, and in the twilight of his career. I support his decision.
Now, he is a poopyhead for hitting the shit out of the Braves pitching, and (pretty much) single-handedly beating us two days in a row…
And jarbabyj, I support Mcgriff’s decision AND I think it’s great that the no-hitter was broken up by a bunt.
It’s appropriate because i want you to explain further.
I was saddened by the bunt breaking up the no-hitter because;
A no hitter is an exciting occurrance that I’d like to see.
I was brought up to believe that it’s just ‘tradition’ that you don’t break up a no hitter with a bunt
I was ridden out of town on a rail for stating my position on the issue because obviously I didn’t understand that “Baseball is all about winning games” and tradition and emotion and any other aspect of it is secondary.
You seem to be supporting McGriff for not being solely concerned with winning games, but breaking up a no hitter with a pussy hit is great because it’s all about winning games.
The question is: Is there more to baseball than winning? My answer. yes.
This is the quote my fiance (a huge baseball fan) has on the wall of his computer room;
“Baseball is like church. Many attend, but few understand.” - Wes Westrum
Allen Watson of the Yankees and Johnny Franco of the Mets are both from Brooklyn. Does that help?
But rooting for a team isn’t necessarily about the players, it is more (in my opinion) about the experience.
I love to watch baseball being played. The strategery and skill necessary are awe-inspiring. Now, the Mariners are my native team. I grew up watching them and I will always have a soft-spot in my heart for them.
But, for me the most important thing is the experience of watching baseball. I live in Oakland, therefore I am, first and foremost and Athletics fan. Why? Because I can, with ease and regularity, go and watch baseball be played. I still follow the Mariners and am pleased by their success, but when they are playing Oakland I root for Oakland. The joy of fandom is to sit in a stadium with 25,000 other people (or, if you are in Montreal, 5,000 other people) and share a common hope.
If I move to Denver tomorrow, I will then be a Rockies fan. If you live in New York, and you enjoy baseball (which you obviously don’t) then you should be a Yankees or Mets fan because those are the teams that provide you the most opportunities to experience the game.
jarbabyj, I would say that baseball, for the player, is not about winning at all costs but rather about doing everything in your individual power to win. McGriff can do that anywhere. Which is better? Being the 25th player for the Yankees or the 6th guy for the Red? I’d go with the latter (I am not saying, of course, that this is the situation that McGriff is in).
I see the point you are trying to make, but I disagree with one of your apparent premises, that being that McGriff cannot “be all about winning” while being a member of the lowly D-Rays. I don’t see it that way. Are you saying that the members of the Mets have a lower desire to win than do the members of the Mariners this year, only because in the difference in the win/loss columns? You’re going to have a hard time convincing me of that.
I would take your "BASEBALL IS ALL ABOUT WINNING GAMES.” and edit it to read: “Baseball is all about doing whatever it takes to help your team win”. I think that I can be consistent with both of my viewpoints under that definition.
I’m still not sure that I see the connection. There’s a difference between trying to win a given game (imperative), and trying to switch teams so as to be on a team that is already going to win more games (personal preference). The main contribution that a player gives for his paycheck is to contribute towards his team winning (or at least having a chance to win) the game. Switching teams is a case where the player’s contribution remains the same, but he benefits from the efforts of teammates to bring added glory to himself.
FWIW, I think if the no-hit game was still in contention, I have no problem with the guy bunting, even if he breaks up the no-hitter. But if the game was out of reach, and the sole purpose of the bunt was to break up the no-hitter, I agree that it is a cheap tactic.
Izzy, even if they are down, 17-0, I still don’t see it as a “cheap tactic”.
Answer a question for me, if you don’t mind. Is a bunt a “less legitmate” hit than a line drive to left?
—If you say yes, then please rate, in order of legitimacy these singles:
[ul]
[li]a squared bunt to the 3rd baseman.[/li][li]screaming line drive over the shortstop’s head[/li][li]Texas-Leaguer just out of reach of the 2nd baseman.[/li][li]a swinging bunt between the pitcher and the first baseman, speedy runner beats the toss.[/li][li]a check swing that makes it past the first baseman[/li][/ul]
Got those rated? OK – now which are OK and which are not in the 9th inning when your team is on the verge of being no-hit?
—If you say no, then why is getting a hit a cheap tactic?
See my point? A hit is a hit – some may not agree, but that’s how I see it. If not, then why not have the last batter go up there and just take 3 awful swings and “give” the pitcher the last out?
What? You shouldn’t “give” the pitcher anything? So then again, what’s the problem trying to get on base with a bunt?
Re: “and the sole purpose of the bunt was to break up the no-hitter” – Any and every player on that team should do everything in their power (within the rules, of course) to break up a no-hitter against them, IMO.
Well. RickJay says that he admires McGriff for “honoring his contract” and “doing what’s best for his family”. Nothing about making the DRays winners as an imperitive.
Friedo says that players should simply be loyal to one city regardless of winning or losing, nothing about making the DRays winners.
So both people are suggesting that perhaps there’s more to watching the sport of baseball than just making sure your team wins every time, and that’s where I found it interesting since to suggest that in the bunt/no bunt thread was to be laughed at.
Once again, it’s just my opinion that winning isn’t the singular goal. I enjoy myself at a baseball game regardless of the Cubs winning or losing. I enjoy watching the skill at work.
But I’m going to cowardly back out of this argument. I know better than to get into a debate with Izzy.
I assume McGriff is trying his best to help the Devil Rays win because that’s HIS JOB! I’m not going to say I admire the guy for just trying to win ballgames. Of course he’s trying to win ballgames. He’s a baseball player!
I admire McGriff for staying with the Devil Rays because he made a logical decision for the benefit of his family, which is more important than the stupid Cubs or Devil Rays. Good for him. That has nothing to do with whether or not he “Wants to win.” Of course he wants to win - and he’s chosen to try to win with Tampa Bay. They suck, but they have some good young pitchers and they’re finaly clearing off the deadweight. They could surprise in 2002. So, you never know. There’s always next year, you know. You should know, being a Cubs fan.
In fact, while we’re on the subject of your being a Cubs fan, how do you think recent Cubs history would have panned out if Cubs players had decided to rush off to winning teams? Sammy Sosa sure wouldn’t be a Cub; he would have left after 1997, when he was a free agent and the Cubs were coming off yet another terrible year. Ryne Sandberg never would have stayed. Mark Grace would have left a long time ago. Kerry Wood would have been angling for a trade last year. And maybe you would have switched teams, too, if we extend the argument to everyone. The Yankees would be the only team in the world with players and fans.
The reason you’re wrong about this AND wrong about the Ben Davis/Curt Schilling play is that McGriff AND Davis are both trying to do their job and help their teams win, unless you’re claiming McGriff isn’t trying his best. There’s no contradiction at all, and so you have no basis for claiming one. The fact that McGriff has, in a completely separate issue, chosen not to SWITCH teams, and has chosen to stick with his current team even though they’re having a tough season, doesn’t change that.
If it makes you feel any better, the Blue Jays are run by idiots, and you could probably get a couple of our hitters for next to nothing. Shannon Stewart’s a good hitter, could get on base for Sammy, and the Jays are already doing the PR hatchet job on him for imminent departure. You could use Jose Cruz, too; Gary Matthews is an absolute disaster and Cory Patterson isn’t going to help, so you could slot Cruz into center. The Jays could be snookered for him for spare parts, I am sad to say.
Ok Rickjay. You win, in a thousand different ways.
I’ve conceded defeat on this subject two months ago. I’ll do it today. Although I maintain that if your boss came up to you and said “here, do this job of yours in the basement with no light, no lunchbreaks, and by the way, no one you’re working with is able to spell or use a computer” or “Hi Rick, here’s a corner office, we’ve got the project all under control, just need a little tweaking from you and we can get to the top!” you would probably take the latter. Maybe I’m wrong.
And let me just say this:
I’ve lived it baby. Meet Greg Maddux. We’d have been dancin’ around in first place a long time ago if he hadn’t left.
And I do believe in team loyalty by the way. But I understand in today’s crappy MLB, it ain’t happenin’. So if Kerry leaves me (lord holy jesus christ forbid), he’ll be labeled a traitor and stricken immediately from my fantasy list. But I’ll still be a Cubs fan. At least I can be loyal.
The whole point of a no-hitter is that the pitcher overmatches 27 batter without getting bested by any. To deliberately give up some outs undermines the entire achievement. A bunt-for-a-hit is not so much a matter of the batter besting the pitcher, but is generally the result of the defense not expecting it, or a fluke. To deliberately take advantage of this type of thing in this circumstance is a cheap tactic.
No one is advocating sanctions against someone who breaks up a no-hitter with a bunt. But there is such a thing as being sporting. To break up a no-hitter in such a manner is not sporting. At the point at which the outcome of the game is settled and the remaining interest becomes whether the pitcher will accomplish a certain feat, it is not sporting to undermine the feat without confronting it directly.
I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate”. I don’t think the guy’s batting average should have an asterisk next to it. But I do think it is a cheap tactic to use this type of hit solely to break up a no-hitter.
(Aside: Pete Rose took this type of reasoning to an extreme, when his 44 game hitting streak was stopped by Gene Garber with a curveball. He thought Garber should have challenged him with a fastball. But this is excessive).
