IGT 5/19/16: WAS@NYM -- Throwback Thursday

[G-Fafif]

Remember when Matt Harvey vs. Stephen Strasburg represented ace overload? We already had the ultimate showdown of 2016 on Tuesday in Syndergaard vs. Scherzer, but once upon a time, in April of 2013, Harvey Day was eclipsing Strasmas as the occasion of choice in the NL East and we all knew who was better.

Anyway, those old guys go at it tonight and, in a limited context, we'll hopefully party like it's fourteen years after 1999.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Washington at NY Mets
When: 7:10 PM ET, Thursday, May 19, 2016
Where: Citi Field, New York City, New York
SportsDirect Inc.

The Washington Nationals and New York Mets kicked off their three-game set with a stirring pitching matchup and will wrap it up with another marquee duel on the mound. Nationals right-hander Stephen Strasburg takes an unblemished record into Thursday's rubber match of the series against Matt Harvey and the host Mets.

Strasburg, making his second appearance since signing a seven-year, $175 million extension, is 6-0 overall and a perfect 4-0 with a 1.67 ERA in four road starts. Washington coasted to a 7-1 victory Wednesday to snap a three-game losing streak in which in had managed a total of two runs. Harvey is still struggling to develop any consistency and will attempt to bounce back from his worst start of the season for New York, which has dropped five of its last six. Harvey has owned Nationals slugger Bryce Harper, holding the reigning National League MVP hitless in 20 career at-bats.

TV: 7:10 p.m. ET, MASN (Washington), SNY (New York)

PITCHING MATCHUP: Nationals RH Stephen Strasburg (6-0, 2.95 ERA) vs. Mets RH Matt Harvey (3-5, 4.93)

Strasburg remained undefeated with six innings of three-run ball against Miami on Saturday while posting his seventh consecutive start with at least seven strikeouts. Strasburg has not been as sharp in his last two turns, surrendering a total of three homers and walking six batters, but Washington has provided him with at least five runs in seven straight outings. Strasburg is 4-3 with a 2.78 ERA against New York, which is batting .211 against him.

After stringing together four consecutive decent starts, Harvey was rocked for five runs on a season-high 11 hits over 5 2/3 innings in a 5-2 loss at Colorado on Friday. He won his previous turn by striking out 10 and giving up two runs on four hits over six innings at San Diego on May 8. Ryan Zimmerman and Jayson Werth are a combined 8-for-36 against Harvey, who is 3-3 with a 1.77 ERA and .197 batting average against in 10 starts versus the Nationals.

WALK-OFFS:
1. Nationals 3B Anthony Rendon is 10-for-28 over the past eight games.
2. Mets LHP Steven Matz said he is ready to make his start Friday after throwing a bullpen session on Wednesday.
3. Werth stretched his hitting streak to four games by reaching base five times to match a career high.

[Guest Mets Willets Point]

Har-vey's Bet-ter!

[Guest d'Kong76]

Expecting big things from The Harvster tonight. Big. Huge. Expect Harvey!

[Frayed Knot]

Mets Willets Point wrote: Har-vey's Bet-ter!

No-ot Curr-ent-ly

(OK, so the scansion needs a bit of work)

[Lefty Specialist]

If Harvey coughs up a hairball tonight there could be adverse fan reaction, methinks.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Granderson, RF
Wright, 3B
Conforto, LF
Cespedes, CF
Duda, 1B
Walker, 2B
Cabrera, SS
Plawecki, C
Harvey, P

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Predicting a spectacular return from 3 days of bench-jockeying for Doodoo.

The Ultimate Man versus the Ultimate Meatball.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Revere CF
Werth LF
Harper RF
Murphy 2B
Zimmerman 1B
Rendon 3B
Ramos C
Espinosa SS
Stra$burg P

[batmagadanleadoff]

Here's another way that Harvey and Strasburg are linked (or contrasted). The Nats shut down Strasburg per a strict innings pitched/workload limit in his comeback from surgery season. The Nats said they would've stuck to that plan even if the Nats went to the WS. By contrast --- well, you know what by contrast means.

By contrast, Harvey found himself in the middle of a poorly handled controversy over his workload in his (2015) comeback season. If you ask me, the difference is in the owners. The Wilpons couldn't give a flying fuck about Harvey's long term health because they probably have no intention of giving Harvey that next big contract. The Wilpons probably loath Harvey anyways because they pretty much hate any player who doesn't fall in line like a slave. And Harvey, with his outsized personality, well you could figure that one out. So if eff n jeff couldn't care less about Harvey's long term health, they might as well ride him out and wear him out -- their only goals re Harvey being short term, like last year's playoff run -- which might've given the franchise new financial life.

Meanwhile, some people are starting to whisper or imply things or call into question Harvey's health already.

[Edgy MD]

No, the Mets limited Harvey's workload all season. They just did it piecemeal throughout the year, rather than shut him down at a pre-set limit.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: No, the Mets limited Harvey's workload all season. They just did it piecemeal throughout the year, rather than shut him down at a pre-set limit.

They didn't limit Harvey like Strasburg was limited. Harvey's load or limit was re-calibrated or adjusted once it became apparent that the Mets were post-season bound.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: No, the Mets limited Harvey's workload all season. They just did it piecemeal throughout the year, rather than shut him down at a pre-set limit. They didn't limit Harvey like Strasburg was limited. Harvey's load or limit was re-calibrated or adjusted once it became apparent that the Mets were post-season bound.

Otherwise, that big Boras/Harvey/Alderson blowout would never have happened.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm not whispering. Harvey's fat!

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: No, the Mets limited Harvey's workload all season. They just did it piecemeal throughout the year, rather than shut him down at a pre-set limit. They didn't limit Harvey like Strasburg was limited. Harvey's load or limit was re-calibrated or adjusted once it became apparent that the Mets were post-season bound. Otherwise, that big Boras/Harvey/Alderson blowout would never have happened.

You could think what you want, but in my mind, the Wilpons are exploiting the shit out of Harvey, and might have already jeopardized his future for an immediate payday.

TBD

[batmagadanleadoff]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm not whispering. Harvey's fat!

That, too.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: You could think what you want, but in my mind, the Wilpons are exploiting the shit out of Harvey, and might have already jeopardized his future for an immediate payday. TBD

I don't really believe this. I mean, I believe that Harvey's antics and his agent bother them, and that they are extremely unlikely to sign him again, but it's only fair to consider how they specifically resisted bringing him back 5 minutes after the surgery like Hovvey demanded. They don't intend to injure the guy.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: No, the Mets limited Harvey's workload all season. They just did it piecemeal throughout the year, rather than shut him down at a pre-set limit. They didn't limit Harvey like Strasburg was limited. Harvey's load or limit was re-calibrated or adjusted once it became apparent that the Mets were post-season bound.

Yes, I made it abundantly clear that it was different. You left out any information suggesting anything at all was done for Harvey. That just isn't true.

The main difference was that the Mets decided all bets were off for the post-season, and the Nats decided otherwise. That's a value judgment, but I certainly supported the Mets decision. And I don't loathe any player that doesn't fall in line like a slave.

[batmagadanleadoff]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: You could think what you want, but in my mind, the Wilpons are exploiting the shit out of Harvey, and might have already jeopardized his future for an immediate payday. TBD I don't really believe this. I mean, I believe that Harvey's antics and his agent bother them, and that they are extremely unlikely to sign him again, but it's only fair to consider how they specifically resisted bringing him back 5 minutes after the surgery like Hovvey demanded. They don't intend to injure the guy.

I don't think they intend to injure the guy either. That's insanity. But if given the choice of taking a 15 or 20% chance of compromising Harvey's chances of one day signing a nine figure contract so that the Mets might make an extra $40M or $80M in the post-season, I think I know how the Mets are thinking. Especially these Mets.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: No, the Mets limited Harvey's workload all season. They just did it piecemeal throughout the year, rather than shut him down at a pre-set limit. They didn't limit Harvey like Strasburg was limited. Harvey's load or limit was re-calibrated or adjusted once it became apparent that the Mets were post-season bound. Otherwise, that big Boras/Harvey/Alderson blowout would never have happened. You could think what you want, but in my mind, the Wilpons are exploiting the shit out of Harvey, and might have already jeopardized his future for an immediate payday. TBD

This is weird and totally meta. Are you arguing with yourself here?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: No, the Mets limited Harvey's workload all season. They just did it piecemeal throughout the year, rather than shut him down at a pre-set limit. They didn't limit Harvey like Strasburg was limited. Harvey's load or limit was re-calibrated or adjusted once it became apparent that the Mets were post-season bound. Yes, I made it abundantly clear that it was different. You left out any information suggesting anything at all was done for Harvey. That just isn't true. The main difference was that the Mets decided all bets were off for the post-season, and the Nats decided otherwise. That's a value judgment, but I certainly supported the Mets decision. And I don't loathe any player that doesn't fall in line like a slave.

It's very commendable that the Mets monitored Harvey's workload for much of last season, but there's a line of thinking out there that if you extend a pitcher situated as Harvey was for an extra month or so of pitching, you might be undermining or nullifying all of the earlier coddling.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't think they intend to injure the guy either. That's insanity. But if given the choice of taking a 15 or 20% chance of compromising Harvey's chances of one day signing a nine figure contract so that the Mets might make an extra $40M or $80M in the post-season, I think I know how the Mets are thinking. Especially these Mets.

I hope so. That's what I'd want them to do. I don't think it's a 15-20% chance either, I think it's very close to the number of extra pitches he throws. So if instead of 3300 pitches he throws 3630, he's roughly 10% more likely to get injured.

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's very commendable that the Mets monitored Harvey's workload for much of last season, but there's a line of thinking out there that if you extend a pitcher situated as Harvey was for an extra month or so of pitching, you might be undermining or nullifying all of the earlier coddling.

Although the Mets also had Harvey wait for a longer period before returning to pitching post-surgery than the Nats did with Strasburg.
Strasburg had his surgery earlier in the year than Harvey but also was allowed to return in September for 5 starts whereas it was the following April until MH threw a pitch in anger that counted.

Add up the post-TJ innings and SS threw 24 + 159 after approx 12 months off in an Sept thru August span while MH tossed 189 + 26 (32 more) during an April thru Oct time-span after sitting nearly 20 months

Edited May 19, 2016 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

Yeah, I know. But let's not over complicate this discussion with nit-picky minutiae that distorts the conversation more than anything else. I'm simply saying that I think the Mets'll compromise Harvey's long-term future for short-term gain. Like last year's end of the year handling of Harvey for a post-season run so that the Mets - a team in financial ruin - might make dozens of millions of dollars.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, relax. With your facts and whatnot. It's just a thread.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, relax. With your facts and whatnot. It's just a thread.

What does that mean?

[Frayed Knot]

Sounds like extra rest on one end is "a line of thinking" while on the other it becomes "distorting nit-picky minutiae"

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, relax. With your facts and whatnot. It's just a thread. What does that mean?

I guess it means I disagree with you deriding obvious information that runs contrary to your thesis as nitpicking.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: Sounds like extra rest on one end is "a line of thinking" while on the other it becomes "distorting nit-picky minutiae"

No. The Nats had a plan for Strasburg that was not going to be altered by the team's post-season aspirations. Not so, the Mets. The Mets might've treated Harvey with kid gloves at first, but it's easy to coddle Harvey when the Mets are putting up an offense that is of historical ineptitude and it seems that that Mets are still a year or two away from contention.

But when the Mets suddenly transformed themselves in mid-season, their initial plans for Harvey went out the window. They no longer followed "that plan". And again, when you have him pitching intense playoff innings in October, well there is a credible line of medical thought that that new workload is capable of nullifying all of the earlier handling or coddling of Harvey. And the Mets were aware of that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, relax. With your facts and whatnot. It's just a thread. What does that mean? I guess it means I disagree with you deriding obvious information that runs contrary to your thesis as nitpicking.

It's not contrary. When the Mets dedided to extend Harvey to the end of the post-season, it might've nullified whatever they did earlier. Because that initial plan included shutting down Harvey at some point. And without the shut-down, the initial plan might've been compromised.

It's like eliminating entire sections of a cake recipe. The cake ain't gonna come out like the recipe sez it should if you only do the first six out of nine instructions. And you shouldn't be bragging about getting the first six steps right if you left out the last three.

Which is what you're doing.