Ceetar

roughly every fly ball late in that game featured an outfielder getting a bad jump on it.

d'Kong76 wrote: They're gonna need to pick it up regardless of who you don't like pitching. I like Vargas enough, he's not just very good and has a long history that suggests he's not going to be very good. He could be okay though. and that's fine too, but at this juncture I'd still kinda rather take my chances with the guys with upside. well if Matz and Wheeler became as good as deGrom and Syndergaard, or even next tier, maybe they don't need to pick it up quite as much? They should though, because because Frazier and Cabrera can't carry everyone. Conforto's doing okay and Nimmo, Lagares and Flores are doing good in limited time, but the rest of those guys really need to step it up.

I have more faith in Matz or Wheeler or Gsellman figuring it out than Vargas, who isn't particularly good. Mets lineup is gonna have to pick it up a little bit if we're gonna start relying on a league average type guy like Vargas.

Nymr83 wrote: As long as you saw Alex on the diamond and not in the booth... he's almost as good in the booth. But yes, Alex less so than Bonds maybe. Particularly because of the Yankee taint.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Are you saying that as of around 2015, Wright was on pace to surpass Seaver as greatest Met? Because I don't think Wright was ever anywhere near Seaver's legend. Ever. Wright has 52.2 fWAR. Seaver had 68. Even factoring in a normal decline, let's say 4 a season he missed out on. so like 64? and he'd easily tick above the next few years. And if just one of those was much better? if he had one more MVP caliber season in him? he'd be there. He'd also probably be a Hall of Famer.

G-Fafif wrote: I agree Wright was en route to undisputed best position player in Mets history, and may still hold that honor as is. Throw in the entire career as a Met and how much he took the Captain role to heart, the only way No. 5 isn't retired for him is if Mets ownership clings to some dopey "only Hall of Famers who go in as Mets" rule. I think it depends if we're differentiating between 'best Met' and 'best player' Wright, without the Stenosis, almost definitely surpasses Seaver in strict baseball value to the team. Whether that includes 'championship' or 'intangible' value...

Centerfield wrote: Would help if he wasn't a dick. Well, Tom Seaver, you know..

Mex17 wrote: All this drama with Harvey has me thinking back to 2013 when I actually thought that this guy had a chance to be the "next Seaver". We all know that is not going to happen, but let's throw out the hypothetical anyway just for fun. . . What would have to occur for some unnamed and perhaps not yet even born future Met to eventually surpass Seaver as the undisputed best player in the history of the franchise? Let your imaginations run wild. . . undisputed? roughly everyone older than 45 or so would have to be dead, so first at least 60 years have to pass. You'd need a career Met, give or take a few years, to accumulate the volume. Like, if David Wright didn't have stenosis he's probably there. (not undisputed though) You're going to need a peak though, and pitchers just don't for generally very good reasons pitch with the volume you'd need to reach Seaver's '71 season. (Or Gooden's '85) But '13 Harvey and '16 Thor were roughly as good as Seaver that year, just for 2/3rds the innings. so like, if Thor kept doing that over say a 12 year Mets career? It's not impossible. He'd still lack that shear volume based year though, unless maybe he did something like bumgarner did in the playoffs where he pitches a ton and they win it all?

The flip side of this is Harvey is well within his rights to not talk to the media if he doesn't want to and if the worst you get is a curse after you've literally asked him a half dozen times for a quote and ignored his request not to talk about it, well, big fucking deal. I mean, is it really that wrong for him to want to process the transition on his own without having to define it to reporters first? But you guys know I have little tolerance for the media game. Harvey's a douche, but we've known that. This changes nothing, means nothing, and is just filler content anyway. Sure, he could be nicer to the media. he could be a 'better person' or whatever, but his interactions with the media is literally 0% of what i need or want from him. Doubly so for the media countering with "oh, let's bug Nido about Harvey's appearance and then blame Harvey for us bugging Nido about Harvey". fuck off, that's making the news not reporting the news.

Definitely seems like he was too far off with it last year, and that tracks, with the walks, but otherwise this year doesn't seem that bad? a smidge high? download (4).png[/attachment:3od76hoi]

download (3).png[/attachment:36aor477]

helps to break it out by pitch maybe. Though the slider doesn't look hugely different. download (2).png[/attachment:2zedy5bp] download (1).png[/attachment:2zedy5bp] download.png[/attachment:2zedy5bp]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Harvey 2015 v. 2018. EDIT: I agree disappearing velocity surely plays a part in his diminished effectiveness. BUT, it also looks like he's not hitting his spots as often in 2018. 2015: [attachment=1]harvey-2015.png[/attachment] 2018: [attachment=0]harvey-2018.png[/attachment] At first glance you'd kinda like the 2018 heat map right? seems like he's painting corners a little more?

Edgy MD wrote: Walk rates are meaningless. Got it. no, clearly not. also his walk rate is the same as 2015 so I'm not sure how that means he's not hitting his spots this year? You're asserting he's throwing strikes. that's different than hitting his spots. I could probably throw strikes. They'd get clobbered even more than Harvey's. Harvey's release points are also slightly different. There's really no evidence I can find that he's ever been 'crafty'. Is it something he can learn? I don't know. Like, look at this ridiculousness. Look how similar these two pitches are until the last freaking second. Harvey does not do this. [tweet] [/tweet]

I've repeatedly cited stats, throughout this thread and others, this year and last, where he has in fact NOT been doing things differently than in 2013 or 2015. So yes, if you're going to just come out and contradict me, you need to cite _something_ meaningful to support it. Walk rate is not that. And so far is BB% this year is right up there with 2013 and 2015. Everything point to batters making more and harder contact. And it's not because he's not hitting his spots

you don't need his intention, you can just look at scatter plots, movement, etc. It's all in the graphs and the data. There doesn't seem to be any indication he's throwing to different spots, or being more erratic, than in 2013 or 2015. I'm far from an expert though, so if you're seeing something i'm not, that's what I'm asking for. The best I could find was maybe he's leaving his changeup up in the zone more. Show me where he's missing spots he's was hitting in 2015. Show me something that suggests it wasn't just the velocity.

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: In 2013, Matt Harvey walked 1.6 per nine innings, when the league averaged 3.0. That was good for 5th place among ERA title qualifiers. In 2015, Matt Harvey walked 1.8 per nine innings, when the league averaged 2.9. That was good for 7th place among ERA title qualifiers. Big deal. Please don't ask for any more facts. please stop providing ones that don't answer the question.

Edgy MD wrote: In 2013, Matt Harvey walked 1.6 per nine innings, when the league averaged 3.0. That was good for 5th place among ERA title qualifiers. In 2015, Matt Harvey walked 1.8 per nine innings, when the league averaged 2.9. That was good for 7th place among ERA title qualifiers. Big deal. That doesn't mean the pitches hit the spot. He was striking guys out then ,getting ahead in counts, throwing strikes. those same strikes get smacked now. Even the ones out of the zone. His pitches, slower, get hit. He wasn't getting guys out by nipping corners, he was blowing them away. Centerfield wrote: If he already is focusing on control and movement and this is the best he can do, well then I guess he's fucked. the movement honestly isn't much different. It doesn't really seem like he's throwing the ball any differently, to any different spots. Batters just are swinging less, and making much better contact when they do. theoretically he COULD learned something about placement and mixing up pitches, hell Darling has even questioned choices on the air, but he hasn't actually shown any ability to do it. Bartolo changes speed with his fastball and can mix up his spots. Harvey has little deception, he throws the slider to one spot, the fastball to another spot, and relies on classic change of speed stuff that happens in your brain to get him by, with plus-plus velocity. the velocity is gone and batters are simply waiting until they guess right from a limited subset, and crushing it.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Yeah. A coupl'a things: Harvey's control was once impeccable. He could nick the edge of a dime with 100 MPH stuff. So of course he's used to spotting pitches. Whether he still can is another story. citation needed.

of course, he's never spotted his pitches. Can he learn? I hope so. But it might just be one of those elite skills that he just doesn't have.

I enjoy the hour later. the 7:10 starts meld into bedtime routine stuff. Central time means I'm usually at least closer to huddling under the blanket waiting for Ceetarette to fall asleep watching on the stream. If I'm not playing Zelda anyway.

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: it's a three game series in a game that has a large luck component. So you think the luckier team will win this series? Interesting departure from your usual projections based on everything but luck. I just think you like to be contrary with me, which is fine, I can be annoying sometimes. I was just countering your ridiculous pessimism. The Mets are in first place and the Phillies and Braves aren't actually great teams. I'm not sure the Cardinals are either. I think the Mets have more chips on the table but that doesn't mean the ball won't fall on 00 and we won't have it covered.

Centerfield wrote: What does all of this mean? Not much. LGM! The Mets were roughly projected to finish 9 games behind the Nats to start the season. 20 games or so isn't enough to really change how 'good' or 'bad' a team is, but the Mets have enough games in hand now that even if those projections are accurate from this point forward, the Mets and Nats are now neck and neck. The Mets "make the playoffs" percentage is up to 55%. Winning is good.

d'Kong76 wrote: I just have to say that I'm not terribly kahnfident that the Mets leave St Louis still in first place. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they lose 2 of 3 nor is a sweep out of the question. Feel free to throw rotten tomatoes at me Friday morning if I'm wrong. of course not, it's a three game series in a game that has a large luck component. It could be the 1962 Mets playing the 2016 Cubs and a "sweep is not out of the question" would apply to both. The Mets are a good team, Jay Bruce aside, they could easily sweep them too.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: During his peak, Harvey's command was super. And he was throwing 99, I00 MPH to boot. was his command super? I'm not entirely sure of that.