It's strange that Kevin was quoted as saying that he wouldn't have to put up with the Padres' criticism of his work habits. New York fans and media would apply a label to him because of this when seeing how stoic he looked on television. This was an undeserved treatment of a man who put up good numbers for a continuously contending Mets team that won another division title in 1988. Kevin gave the Mets both production and the kind of stability they had been lacking. His presence was more important than many folks cared to notice.

If the Mets had won a second World Series with Kevin on the team, would his persona be looked at so negatively? Regardless, it shouldn't have been denounced. The apparent lack of emotion was mistaken for apathy by people who like to entertain themselves with disrespect for their fellow human beings.

It's not just you, it's the whole "I love Kevin McReynolds because he bought peace and stability and good Christian values to a bunch of drug addicts and sex offenders" contingent on this site.

Sure...

McReynolds made ONE great play as Met, when he bowled over the Dodgers' catcher in Game 1 of the 1988 NLCS. And guess what? That catcher got his revenge. In that same game (Game 4), guess who the last batter was? McReynolds. Game winning situation- and he popped out.

Also, Tim McCarver agrees with me that McReynolds was a drag. How do I know that? There's a game on YouTube of a Mets broadcast from August of '87 against the Expos (day game at Shea) where McCarver points out that though McReynolds has good numbers, he hasn't hit well in high-pressure situations (up to that point in '87), and the broadcast backed it up with numbers on the screen.

So yes Glenrock, I'll give you this. McReynolds had some good games for the Mets, but so did Bruce Boisclair.