Mets Better Not Retire Jose Reyes’ Number

On his Twitter account, Mets starter Marcus Stroman said he was going to change his number from 7 because he believes the number belongs to Jose Reyes. Now, if Stroman is making this decision on his own, he’s entitled. After all, it’s his number.

However, given the fact these are the Wilpons, there is some hesitation here.

Right before the season ended, the Mets announced they were going to retire Jerry Koosman‘s 36. At the time of the announcement, the Mets also indicated there were going to be other retirement ceremonies coming in the future.

Most assume that automatically paves the way for Gary Carter, Keith Hernandez, and David Wright to have their numbers retired. There are other players who merit consideration as well. Under no circumstance should that list of players under consideration include Jose Reyes.

While the Mets were losing Game 4 of the 2015 World Series, Reyes was spending his night in jail while his wife had to go to the hospital as a result of Reyes grabbing his wife by the throat and threw her into a sliding glass door leading out to a lanai in their hotel room at the Four Seasons in Maui.

As a result of his abuse, Reyes received what was at the time the longest ever domestic violence suspension. He’d also be released by the Colorado Rockies.

The only team willing to bring him aboard was the Mets. It wasn’t a surprise given the team’s need for a third baseman due to Wright’s stenosis, the teams shoestring budget, and this being the same team who was sued for firing an unwed pregnant woman.

After Reyes wasn’t particularly good in 2016 (-6 DRS, 0.6 WAR), the Mets brought him back in 2017. He’d be even worse in 2017 with a -0.4 WAR. Somehow, that earned him a $2 million deal to come back in 2018.

That season, Reyes was flat out terrible. Worse than that, he was a malcontent who went public with his demands for more playing time he did not merit.

In the end, that’s what you have with Reyes – a man (if you can call him that) who beats his wife and complains about playing behind players playing much better than him. When viewed through that prism, there’s absolutely no way you even contemplate retiring his number.

If you want to look past that (you shouldn’t), he still hasn’t done enough to have his number retired.

Despite playing 12 years with the Mets, he’s only 10th in career WAR. He’s not in the top 10 in average, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, wRC+, homers, or walks. Keep in mind, he has the third most plate appearances in team history.

Yes, he leads all-time in triples and stolen bases. On the later, he also has been caught stealing more than anyone too.

Looking beyond that, when he was on the Opening Day roster, the Mets went to the postseason once, and in his 11 postseason games, he hit .239/.275/.354.

In the end, there are plenty of things you can point to in making the case Reyes was a good player on the field for the Mets. He’s also clearly the best shortstop in team history. What he isn’t is someone who merits having his number retired.

19 Replies to “Mets Better Not Retire Jose Reyes’ Number”

  1. David Klein says:

    They should retire #26 and 36 for Callaway brilliant strategist

    1. metsdaddy says:


  2. RealityChuck says:

    How about 7 for Ed Kranepool?

    OTOH, I think it’s far-fetched to think this means Reyes will get his number retired. Occam’s razor: Stroman decided to give up the number on his own, especially since he could keep it until the number is official retired.

    You’re making a mountain out of an anthill. I know this is a slow time for subjects for a blog, but there’s no point in being silly about it.

    1. metsdaddy says:

      I’m not sure Kranepool did enough to have his number retired.

      I’d also note these are the Wilpons, and there is a correlation here.

  3. Blair M. Schirmer says:

    The following is not a defense of Reyes. None of us actually know what happened, but we do know what what the legal outcome was.

    MLB’s domestic violence policy is absurd–it is an offense against reason. The idea that a man (or woman) should be suspended from their job merely because of an accusation or reported incident, is ludicrous. Let due procuess take place. Let the legal process run its course. If there is a trial, let evidence be presented in a place where Constitutional protections are guaranteed–particularly in an era where those protections are under continual threat.

    In addition, every study on the matter shows the same thing: that loss of or suspension from employment only increases the chance of a recurrence of domestic violence, so that if violence was indeed perpetrated MLB’s policy doesn’t reduce the chance of a recurrence, but only increases it.

    The largest study in the world on domestic and interpersonal violence, the National Crime Victimization Survey, shows that:

    a) the majority of domestic violence is mutual, ie where both partners are violent, with women instigating that violence 70% of the time.

    b) the LEAST common form of domestic violence is a man hitting a woman who does not hit back.

    We also know–and this is something pro sports leagues should be trumpeting–that professional athletes are significantly less likely to commit domestic violence than other men in their age group of 20 to 39. Makes sense. Athletes on average are more disciplined than non-athletes. They are also less prone to excessive drinking, where alcohol is the primary precursor to episodes of domestic violence. Male athletes on average are far larger and stronger than their partners, meaning they are far less likely to feel under threat, another significant cause of domestic violence. They are significantly wealthier than average, a contributor to fewer incidents of domestic violence.

    Instead MLB, the NFL, the NBA (but not the WNBA, until recently, since as a society we conceal women’s violence) all play along with the fraudulent view that men are victimizers and women are victims. I refuse to do so, and I’ve done the research showing that view is indeed fraudulent. If there’s anything good about all this during the last decade it’s that even feminist icons like Hanna Rosin have begun to admit that women’s violence is very comparable to men’s. Even Scientific American and the American Psychological Association have published articles showing women’s violence is very comparable to men’s. We’re getting somewhere, but myths are often a long time in dying.

    MLB’s DV policy of ‘suspension upon suspicion’ accomplishes nothing constructive–in fact it’s counterproductive if the aim, as it should be, is to reduce the prevalence of domestic violence.

    1. metsdaddy says:

      That’s misconstruing MLB’s policy. The MLB policy is designed towards rehabilitation and not punishment. I’d also note creating no deterrence offers zero solution.

      Lastly, I’d note there often isn’t a trial due to intimidation of the victim.

      1. Blair M. Schirmer says:

        The MLB’s policy is aimed at satisfying a very powerful lobby, and has little to do with rehabilitation, given it’s not even interested in discerning the guilty parties. Indeed, if it was interested in rehabilitation it would acknowledge women’s role in domestic violence and encourage other young men to follow the model of professional athletes. By concealing women’s perpetration and emphasizing men’s, it does the opposite. If it was genuinely interested in rehabilitation it would and should acknowledge all of the following, but it acknowledges NONE of the following, and in so doing–in ignoring the majority of perpetrators–does nothing to help the majority of victims:

        1. 25% of couples have at least one party perpetrating domestic violence.

        2. Of the violent couples, when only one party is violent, women are the exclusive perpetrators in 33.6% of cases (8.4% of all couples), while men are the exclusive perpetrators 14.4% of the time (3.6% of all couples).

        3. Of those couples where perpetration is mutual (52% of violent couples, or 13% of all couples), women instigate the violence 71% of the times (37% of violent couples, 9% of all couples), while men instigate the violence 29% of the time (15% of violent couples, 4% of all couples).

        Unfortunately, we can’t claim MLB is interested in rehabilitation when it’s policy is designed to ignore *all* of the facts surrounding domestic violence, and when it’s policy of suspension without legal investigation and due process in fact *increases* the likelihood of domestic violence.

        By continuing to conceal women’s perpetration rates, ie the majority of perpetration, MLB makes the problem worse. It’s similar to child abuse, where as every annual DHHS Child Maltreatment report tells us, mothers acting alone are by far the primary perpetrators of child abuse. Sadly, all the ad campaigns showing “men are abusers, women and children are victims” do nothing for the majority of victims. We can’t help victims by ignoring the possibility of rehabilitating the majority of perpetrators–namely women. It’s deeply unfortunate.

        In any case, feel free to take the last word. I’m happy to link to sources, if asked, but this is a baseball site, first and foremost. Cheers.

        1. metsdaddy says:

          The MLB policy is geared towards counseling and treatment, and no, an adjudication by the courts is not required, especially with the threats made to silence the victim is.

  4. Blair M. Schirmer says:

    If the Mets go into 2020 with an open mind, and if everyone on the roster has a healthy Spring Training consistent with their most recent season on the field, what would the Opening Day lineup look like? Breaking up hitters by handedness, you’d get something like…

    CF Nimmo*
    1B Alonso
    3B McNeil*
    LF JD Davis
    RF Conforto*
    C Ramos
    2B Lowrie#
    SS Rosario

    If you go instead w a righty hitting first it gets awkward:

    JD Davis

    Rosario just isn’t a leadoff guy. He doesn’t steal enough to make it important to get him more PAs up front, and his OBP will often be 30 points lower than everyone else in the lineup–so if you don’t bat him first, you’re going to end up putting a slow guy in that slot, either Ramos or JD Davis, . The Mets are too stodgy to try it, but batting Ramos leadoff isn’t a bad idea if you decide you have to go RLRLRL against a given pitcher. Ramos’ OBP was good this year, but his power fell off. If that continues, he’d make sense in some of these lineups batting 1st with a slash line like .280/355/390. The other alternative is putting Lowrie leadoff and wasting a little of the value of his switch hitting. Over the last 2 years his OBP is something like .356. That’s not a bad way to start the game.

    If the Mets rest guys the way they should, Davis and Lowrie hold up, and Cano doesn’t play just because of the FO’s egos, they’ve got a shot when healthy at putting above average hitters at every spot in the lineup. If they can scrounge up some depth it might get interesting.

Comments are closed.