|
|
Am I allowed to ask a question about the Mets as it pertains to the last World Series on this forum. The question specifically pertains to how self-serving Harvey put his own personal interests ahead of team interests. I don't want to be out of line if one is not allowed to discuss any other baseball team on this particular forum. Please advise.
|
|
|
I will allow this discussion as long as you agree that the Mets suck. These players today are self serving - going above and beyond is prohibited by their agents. Look at the Nats - they had their best shot to win the World Series a couple of years ago but "rested" Strasburg because of some innings limit that has no basis of fact behind it.... he'll get his 9 figure deal someday but Nats fans will be still waiting for a titlle...
|
|
|
Well, I don't know all that much about baseball but if what happened in the World Series is typical, then absolutely they do suck. So here is my question. They are winning in the 7th inning and the manager wants to pull out Harvey - who has done well thus far i.e. they are winning - and presumably put in a closer. Isn't this why we have closers? Is not it also common sense that a fresh pitcher is the best thing for the team i.e. the TEAM - last I heard baseball is a team sport. We are not talking golf here. So Harvey - in the interest of personal glory and presumably record setting - gives the manager a hard time and insists on staying in. First of all, he is not in charge and second of all since when is the world series about him. Well, no-backbone manager - I forgot his name - gives in and leaves him as the pitcher. Again, why do we have closers in the first place. Long story short, the opponents get ahead - the game goes into extra innings and the Mets lose. Recall, they were winning in the 7th. So here's my question 1. How come no one anywhere says anything about how inappropriate it is for a team member (Harvey) to put his own personal interests ahead of the general team interest. Literally, I could find no one who took that position. Who gives two f__ks about his personal glory. Isn't this suppose to be about the team winning the world series? 2. How come there are no reprocussions for the manager who obviously gives into a child. Is that not why we have parents for children and also why we have managers for teams - heck what do I know. Everything, I read was supportive of the manager and states that what he did was "understandable" What!!!!! What is wrong with "Listen, Jack, I am running this show and when I tell you that I am putting in another pitcher, you go back to the dugout and keep quiet." Why is no one but me critical of his weak management style. So I am wonderig, is baseball one of those arenas where we do not say anything blunt i.e. call it like it is. Is this some politically correct sport where everyone is very polite and does not bring up these sort of topics? Could be for all I know. I am not a sports person. I do know that nobody is saying the obvious. I read all the sports articles and no one said anything similar to what I put forth. To me it is blantantly obvious as to what happened. Why does no one else see it?
|
|
|
Well, I don't know all that much about baseball but if what happened in the World Series is typical, then absolutely they do suck. So here is my question. They are winning in the 7th inning and the manager wants to pull out Harvey - who has done well thus far i.e. they are winning - and presumably put in a closer. Isn't this why we have closers? Is not it also common sense that a fresh pitcher is the best thing for the team i.e. the TEAM - last I heard baseball is a team sport. We are not talking golf here. So Harvey - in the interest of personal glory and presumably record setting - gives the manager a hard time and insists on staying in. First of all, he is not in charge and second of all since when is the world series about him. Well, no-backbone manager - I forgot his name - gives in and leaves him as the pitcher. Again, why do we have closers in the first place. Long story short, the opponents get ahead - the game goes into extra innings and the Mets lose. Recall, they were winning in the 7th.
So here's my question
1. How come no one anywhere says anything about how inappropriate it is for a team member (Harvey) to put his own personal interests ahead of the general team interest. Literally, I could find no one who took that position. Who gives two f__ks about his personal glory. Isn't this suppose to be about the team winning the world series?
2. How come there are no reprocussions for the manager who obviously gives into a child. Is that not why we have parents for children and also why we have managers for teams - heck what do I know. Everything, I read was supportive of the manager and states that what he did was "understandable" What!!!!! What is wrong with "Listen, Jack, I am running this show and when I tell you that I am putting in another pitcher, you go back to the dugout and keep quiet." Why is no one but me critical of his weak management style.
So I am wonderig, is baseball one of those arenas where we do not say anything blunt i.e. call it like it is. Is this some politically correct sport where everyone is very polite and does not bring up these sort of topics? Could be for all I know. I am not a sports person. I do know that nobody is saying the obvious. I read all the sports articles and no one said anything similar to what I put forth. To me it is blantantly obvious as to what happened. Why does no one else see it?
I'm sorry this whole thread is garbage. Harvey did nothing wrong there. He's a competitor and he wanted to finish what he started and probably believed he was the best man to finish the job. Almost any pitcher worth a darn would do the same thing. In fact a lot do. Remeber Mussina literally yelling at Torre to stay in the dugout. They compete. It isn't the players job to do make personnell or in game decisions on who plays and when they play. This is all on the manager and even then I don't think you can blame him. It was an impossible decision. He goes to the closer and he blows it and everyone asks why he didn't let Harvey finish. But at the end of the day its up to the manager to tell Harvey to sit down I'm going with Familia.
|
|
|
"It was an impossible decision." What!!! How is it impossible? Why do we have closers? If we don't need them, then why not get rid of them? I will maintain that they serve a valid function and their function is to maintain a winning position. Nevermind the closer, ANY fresh pitcher has a statisitically higher chance of performing - preventing runs - than someone who has pitched 6 innings. We aren't talking rocket science here. People get tired over time. Pitchers esp get tired because they put so much effort into what they are doing. Yes, I can understand Harvey's emotions. But the wellbeing of the team supercedes the needs of the individual - ANY individual - including Harvey. Anyone can relate to how Harvey feels BUT the manager is suppose to rule with his head not with his heart. That is what he is paid to do. Speaking of closers, Mariano was(is) solid gold. I love that totally non-plussed demeanor. He just thew one after another super fastball and literally nothing phased that man. A truly "Zen" player who does not let emotions get in the way. Maybe he should have been managing the series in question. I guarantee he would have put a closure in at the critical 7th. I doubt he would have given in to whining.
|
|
|
Am I allowed to ask a question about the Mets as it pertains to the last World Series on this forum. The question specifically pertains to how self-serving Harvey put his own personal interests ahead of team interests. I don't want to be out of line if one is not allowed to discuss any other baseball team on this particular forum. Please advise.
You're posting in the wrong forum ... this is not the Mets forum ... but during the off-season the moderators don't make a big deal of it.
|
|
|
"It was an impossible decision."
What!!! How is it impossible? Why do we have closers? If we don't need them, then why not get rid of them? I will maintain that they serve a valid function and their function is to maintain a winning position. Nevermind the closer, ANY fresh pitcher has a statisitically higher chance of performing - preventing runs - than someone who has pitched 6 innings. We aren't talking rocket science here. People get tired over time. Pitchers esp get tired because they put so much effort into what they are doing.
Yes, I can understand Harvey's emotions. But the wellbeing of the team supercedes the needs of the individual - ANY individual - including Harvey. Anyone can relate to how Harvey feels BUT the manager is suppose to rule with his head not with his heart. That is what he is paid to do.
Speaking of closers, Mariano was(is) solid gold. I love that totally non-plussed demeanor. He just thew one after another super fastball and literally nothing phased that man. A truly "Zen" player who does not let emotions get in the way. Maybe he should have been managing the series in question. I guarantee he would have put a closure in at the critical 7th. I doubt he would have given in to whining.
Ok lets take a deep breath here. Why are you so angry. First of all if you are going to state something as statistical fact, you better provide the stats to back it up. I am not going to say there aren't stats out there that discuss when one pitcher is better to be used than another. But its extremely variable. I think we can agree the following statements are true: Not all relief pitchers or bull pens are created equal. Not every team has an Andrew Miller or Betances, let alone a Chapman as well. Not all Starting pitchers are created equal. There are big differences from Aces and #5 starters. I think you'd agree there is a big difference between Matt Harvey and Nate Eovaldi, right? This idea that a "fresh" reliever is always better than your starter starting in the 6th inning is pure ignorance. A good starting pitcher, especially an Ace is almost always better than middle relievers and some times better than your closer. So knowing that, lets talk about this specific moment and game. You conveniently ignore the fact that Familia had already had two blown saves in his three appearances in this series. Harvey, retired the last 6 batters he faced there is no way you can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Familia is the better option here. There was a legit question. SOmetimes your ace is a better choice than your closer.
|
|
|
Hard to believe but I will take your word for it. It is obvious that you know more than I do about such things. One thing I do know with certainty is that the not so subtle altercation between the manager and Harvey blew Harvey's center thus would set him up for failure. Same with the closer walking into that situation after Harvey blew the next inning. Everyone's game was going to be off at that point. I think when making management decisions, you have to go with the odds unless there is a good reason to vary. Once the argument occurred and all parties got upset, the performance was going to suffer. My feeling is that if Harvey had just sat down quietly and let the closure take over, the results would have been different. I do agree with the person who cited that the fans were chanting for Harvey to come in and such threw yet more gasoline on the fire. It was a bad situation on all fronts but Harvey and his ego made it worse. I guess they were saving Goldilocks (can't remember his name but it began with an S) for the next game or else he was needing to recoup from the previous one. I thought his pitching was rather impressive. The whole thing sort of makes you appreciate Mariano. When he would go in, I don't think there was ever much question about the outcome. This sort of thing simply did not happen with him. Moreover, one could have had a full blown battle right in front of him and he would haved stayed cool as a cucumber. He was unflappable. I LOVED the rocking chair they gave him. I honestly believe the closer did not perform well that evening because of all the emotionality associated with that whole scenario. Had he just went in without all the ancillary fuss, he likely would have nailed it. Here is a question - because I honestly don't know the game all that well. If the starting pitcher needs to be replaced late in the game - as was the case here - can they (or should I say, do they ever) - bring in anyone other than the closer. More specifically, what I was wondering about that night is the following. In that particular scenario - the one which actually occurred - if they were not sure of how the closer was going to perform, could they have brought in Goldilocks in to replace Harvey? Edit - I just looked up the Mets pitchers on Google. Apparently the pitcher I am referring as Goldilocks is Syndergaard. I just read where he dead lifts 512 lbs and squat lifts 455 lbs. Yikes!.... Unbelievable and yet he is still agile enough to pitch. I don't really understand how the whole trading system works but could the Yankees ever get him? Surely it would be much better for him to be a Yankee.
|
|
|
Yanks should trade Miller to the Mets any one of their 5 young starters.
Qwik?
|
|
|
How does trading work? Does team A say to team B, I will give you Person X and Person Y for your Person Z? Can they, instead, outright buy Person Z? Do the players have anything to say about being traded? Do their negotiated salaries go with them?
|
