Post Mortem

[dgwphotography]

I felt keeping Harvey in even after the walk was the right move. I said this at the time that Warthen should have come out after the walk to settle Harvey down, because he just looked too hopped up.

[TransMonk]

Defense and bullpen...weaknesses that KC exploited.

Lots to be proud of if you're a Mets fan, though. It should be an offseason full of hope.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I was okay with Harvey taking the mound in the ninth. I assumed the deal was, okay Matt, go get them, but as soon as there's a baserunner we're going to Familia.

I was surprised that Harvey stayed in to pitch to Hosmer.

[Ceetar]

There was a lot that went wrong all around, but to me the real factor is that the Royals starting pitching stepped up and overperformed, and the Mets didn't have anyone raise their game to match. There are dozens of things you could nitpick with, but it's impossible to say that _that_ would've done it, or that even just one of them would've.

Bottom line is the Royals played better over 5 games than the Mets. They got the breaks, make the plays, threw the pitches, and made the errors and mistakes in less critical moments.

[Frayed Knot]

I alluded to this in one of the IGTs and now I've just gone back and checked the box scores.

There were ten different times over the five games where the Royals hit grounders/bouncers to NYM infielders in potential DP situations [runner on 1st, 1st & 2nd, or 1st & 3rd <2 outs]
In those plays, not only did the Mets turn a GiDP in just two of them but only two others even resulted in a force out meaning it wound up with the effect of moving the runner(s) up a base, some of which helped set up runs. In all, a potential of 20 outs via 10 grounders in DP situations resulted in a total of 10 outs.
So was this a case of good Royals, bad Mets, or just bad luck?
Probably some of each.

1) Good Royals -- A majority of those grounders were towards the RF side of the diamond where DPs are usually tougher to turn -- including four where Duda had no play but to take the unassisted out at 1st resulting in one or more runners moving up a base. It's a smallish sample but it does imply some sort of intent on the part of KC hitters (and the bat skill to pull it off) to hit behind runners and get the side benefit of the unofficial sacrifice even if the ball doesn't find a hole.

2) Bad Mets -- Three of these plays went to Murphy and we all know he wound up completely botching two of them (in the other he actually made a smart tag-and-throw DP). And there was one other to Duda where the attempted 3-6-3 wasn't completed because he and Syndergaard got in each other's way although that one was going to be a tough turn even if played well.

3) Bad Luck -- Even if you grant the KC batters points for smartly hitting behind runners, most of what came off their bats in those instances were simply hit too shitty to allow a DP to even contemplated. Slow choppers, spinning side-winders, and topped squibs have to be seen more as shit luck than intentional strategy.

[Centerfield]

I imagine in a couple of days I will be able to say something somewhat intelligent about the series, the season, etc.

But for now, I am way too fucking pissed off to be taken seriously. I will be ranting and raving. Calling for Terry's head. Cursing a lot.

If I were you guys, I'd just ignore me for a couple of days until I get it out of my system.

[Lefty Specialist]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I was okay with Harvey taking the mound in the ninth. I assumed the deal was, okay Matt, go get them, but as soon as there's a baserunner we're going to Familia. I was surprised that Harvey stayed in to pitch to Hosmer.

That's the way I felt. You're out there with a short leash, and after the walk you're done.

But they still didn't execute when they had to, and that's not on Terry. A good throw from Duda and you're back to KC for game 6.

Oh well, woulda, coulda, shoulda.

[nymr83]

Lefty Specialist wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I was okay with Harvey taking the mound in the ninth. I assumed the deal was, okay Matt, go get them, but as soon as there's a baserunner we're going to Familia. I was surprised that Harvey stayed in to pitch to Hosmer. That's the way I felt. You're out there with a short leash, and after the walk you're done.

I was suprised as well, and not just because it was a baserunner but a WALK. I feel like a walk screams "take the guy out" in close & late situatioms far more than a base hit does.

[Edgy MD]

We're OK with not walking Perez to set up the double play with Gordon, right?

[Guest Mets Willets Point]

Edgy MD wrote: Whether it's in the official narrative (and I suspect it's going to be) or just in the narrative in Terry's head, is that Terry twice backed down before the hubris of one of his athletes, and the team paid badly. That's gonna be tough to live with. If pride doesn't always come before a fall, it certainly did last night.

I think those were both no-win calls since if he'd pulled Cespedes or Harvey there would still be a ton of criticism.

[Edgy MD]

No doubt. It's certainly no win if he goes the other way and things still go south.

The problem to me is that he seemingly went against his own sensibilities, right or wrong, and deferred to the wishes of the player assuring him he was up to the task. No leader wants to allow himself to do that. And no leader wants to do that and have it backfire.

As it is, Terry seemingly still kicks himself for letting Santana finish the no-hitter.

[Guest Mets Willets Point]

I chose to admire the players for wanting to stay in the game and making their case. Especially in this time and age when there are Mets fans who have referred to those very same players as "soft."

[Centerfield]

This is one of those points where I probably can't be trusted to speak rationally, but I thought this was badly mismanaged by Terry. Starting with Friday night:

1. Game 3: No way do you pitch Familia in that game. The philosophy of "Let's get his confidence back" should be out the window in Game 3 of the World Series. If you have a finite number of bullets in Familia's arm, it is foolish to use them there. You also give the opposition more looks at your closer. Bad bad all around.

2. Game 4: No way do you pull Bartolo after 1 batter. He dominated the Royals in Game 1 until Wright's error. You let him be the bridge to Familia. And Familia would be better rested not having pitched in Game 3.

3. Game 5: Pull Harvey after the walk. Come on man. Leadoff walk? Bad bad sign.

I still can't believe we lost games 4 and 5. Fuck it all. It's coming back again.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree 100 per cent with all three points. And that's what I was thinking as the events unfolded, not just with hindsight.

While I rationally know that the next guy would likely be just as frustrating, I hope Terry doesn't come back. Nice guy, and I'm happy he got to manage in the postseason, but I hope they meet with him and he decides to retire as a National League Champion. (He can have a last hurrah at the All-Star Game next summer.)

And if he doesn't want to do that, they can fire him.

[bmfc1]

Brian Kenny is a smart guy and a Mets fan. He says that Terry made the wrong decision:
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/156258966/matt-harvey-9th-inning-game-5-world-series

[Frayed Knot]

Kenny is also an advocate of essentially doing away with the traditional model of starting pitchers entirely and patching yourself through a game via shorter spurts from several hurlers.
That fact doesn't negate his argument but you do have to realize where he's coming from and that if Harvey had blown up in the 8th inning he could probably make a case that Terry would have been better pulling at the end of 7.

What he's saying here is that fatigue/too many pitches makes even your best pitcher no longer your best pitcher so that a replacement is likely to be better going forward. The counter to that is that you'd be taking out a guy who you KNOW is good that night (and right up to that moment) in exchange for one who you hope will be good that night.
With either method you're almost certain to run up against diminished returns at some point and I'm not sure that Kenny's odds based on what is usually small sample stuff, such as stats on pitches after #100, are all that better than the odds that one or more of the replacements not having it that night.

[Edgy MD]

When faced with either one move (pulling Harvey) or the other (riding Harvey), it seems most of us see the middle ground as the most viable: of riding Harvey until the leadoff batter gets on, and then pulling him. Sometimes it's better to be wise than smart.

(I'm looking at you, Brian Kenney. Indefensible? Go back to your tanning salon.)

And I'll repeat that it was foolish for the over-pumped Harvey to run out to the mound. Stay calm and stay in your zone, man.

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I agree 100 per cent with all three points. And that's what I was thinking as the events unfolded, not just with hindsight. While I rationally know that the next guy would likely be just as frustrating, I hope Terry doesn't come back. Nice guy, and I'm happy he got to manage in the postseason, but I hope they meet with him and he decides to retire as a National League Champion. (He can have a last hurrah at the All-Star Game next summer.) And if he doesn't want to do that, they can fire him.

Couple this with his failure to get out and argue the hell out of that Utley play in Game 2, and his decision to pull Noah in Game 5 after just 1 inning.

The Game 5 move worked out, but I disagree vehemently with the move nonetheless.

These are all judgment calls, I realize, but if that is Terry's judgment, it gives me very little confidence going into next October, should they be lucky enough to get there.

[Edgy MD]

FWIW, there's no need to be firing anybody. Terry's contract expires at the end of this season. He has a 2016 option, but letting him go is as easy as willing it.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Edgy MD wrote: FWIW, there's no need to be firing anybody. Terry's contract expires at the end of this season. He has a 2016 option, but letting him go is as easy as willing it.

That's true. But it will be spun as a firing anyway.

[Guest cooby classic]

When faced with either one move (pulling Harvey) or the other (riding Harvey), it seems most of us see the middle ground as the most viable: of riding Harvey until the leadoff batter gets on, and then pulling him. Sometimes it's better to be wise than smart. (I'm looking at you, Brian Kenney. Indefensible? Go back to your tanning salon.) And I'll repeat that it was foolish for the over-pumped Harvey to run out to the mound. Stay calm and stay in your zone, man.

Maybe, but it sure looked cool

[Guest Mets Willets Point]

If it were a complete game shutout, that would already be legendary. But now it's there for finger pointing.

[Edgy MD]

I certainly noted it at the time.