Rants
There’s an old saying, “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” After losing to the Mets 9-3 yesterday, the sound you heard was glass breaking, or whining you decide.
Let’s rewind before the series. Daniel Murphy was the hottest hitter on the planet. When asked about how to pitch to him, here’s how Dave Eiland, the Royals pitching coach, responded, “He stands very close to the plate. I’ll leave it at that.” In Game 1, Murphy was pounded inside including this pitch from Edison Volquez:
Since Game 1, the Royals have continued pounding Murphy inside. It’s baseball.
Now coming into the World Series, Alcides Escobar was the American League version of Daniel Murphy. He was coming off an ALCS where he hit .478/.481./.652. The Royals leadoff hitter swung at the first pitch of every game. According to the official scorer, he lead off Game 1 of the World Series with an inside the park homerun.
Both he and the Royals have been comfortable at the plate. In Game 2, the Royals were very comfortable at the plate winning 7-1. To combat this, Noah Syndergaard said he would “have a few tricks up [his] sleeve” to deal with the free swinging Escobar and the Royals. Here was Syndergaard’s first pitch:
Here’s the still of where the ball was when it passed by Escobar:
Escobar would strike out in the at bat. He would strike out twice. The Royals lost 9-3. After a loss like that, any team would be upset. The Royals were no exception. However, I was startled by the reason. They thought Syndergaard was head hunting.
Escobar accused Syndergaard of throwing at his head. The whole team felt that Syndergaard was head hunting. For his part Syndergaard said it was the plan to go high and tight first pitch and then to drop a curveball. He would strike out out Escobar on the first pitch. When Syndergaard was informed of the Royals objections, his response was perfect:
"If they have a problem with me throwing inside, than they can meet me 60 feet, 6 inches away." Noah Syndergaard @Mets #WorldSeries
— Linda Cohn (@lindacohn) October 31, 2015
Now, I will never, ever defend head hunting. Personally, I have called out the Mets for bush league tactics. Syndergaard responsibly threw inside yesterday. It was above Escobar’s head and the ball never entered the batter’s box. Syndergaard was just keeping a red hot Escobar uncomfortable.
If Kansas City has a problem with that maybe they shouldn’t have thrown at Murphy like they inferred they would do. Until they stop throwing in high and tight on Murphy, they can be quiet.
By now, you’ve heard that Lenny Dykstra used private eyes to gather information on umpires for his benefit:
Do I think Dykstra is capable of this? Absolutely. However, he’s capable of it. I still don’t believe him.
Now, we need to pinpoint the veracity of his claim, we need to figure out when it supposedly happened. He wasn’t definitive when, but he knew the net result was the walks. The key to his statement was the year after he did this, he lead the league in walks. Looking at this, his statement proves out.
In 1992, he only had 40 walks. The next year his walks soared astronomically. He went from those 40 walks to 129 walks. It’s also true there was money at stake because Dykstra was arbitration eligible. This is where the story falls apart.
In 1992, Dykstra made $2,316,667. The typical percentage paid to an agent is 5%. That reduces his income to $2,200,834. Union dues were $3,660. It’s negligible, but it reduces the income to $2,197,173. Now, there’s the tax issue. The tax rate in 1992 was 31%. There are deductions and the like which would reduce the effective tax rate. However, he also has state and city taxes to pay. Pennsylvania had a flat rate of 2.95%. To be conservative, let’s assume Dykstra paid 25% in taxes.
Dykstra’s disposable income would then be $1,647,880. This doesn’t even include living expenses. Are we to believe Dykstra spent roughly one-third of his disposable income on blackmailing umpires. I can’t. There’s a bigger reason beyond the financial feasibility.
It doesn’t make sense. Let’s say Dykstra did as he said. Wouldn’t the catcher use the same information to get strike calls for his pitcher. Was there a spike in catcher walk rates I don’t know about? Of course not. Let’s call it for what it is. He had a career year.
Besides that, his walk rate declined. It was 0.80 in 1993 and 1994. The next year? It was 0.65. Did the umpires start ignoring him? No. He had two good years. Why? We it just so happens he started using steroids. His slugging percentage went from .402 to .482. He went from 6 to 19 homers. He went from 18 to 44 doubles. Pitchers will be more careful and more likely to walk you.
However, that’s not the main reason I don’t believe him. The main reason I don’t believe him is he’s a fraud. Literally. He lead everyone to believe he was a money genius. He was just cheating the system just like he did with the steroids. He’s lied and concealed. It’s the behavior that makes you think he could’ve spied on umpires. Ultimately, however, it seems more like the typical braggadocio he’s had his entire life.
It sure made a good story, but that’s all it is. A story.
Everyone had their own take on Chase Utley‘s “slide” injuring Ruben Tejada and the subsequent suspension. Of all these people only Clayton Kershaw would play the you ever played card. His full quote:
I feel like MLB got, you know, a little bullied into suspending him. I’ve seen slides a lot worse. And then, you know, the main thing I want to say is we all feel bad for what happened to Ruben. You know, that’s a terrible thing. You know, you never want to see that happen. It’s devastating. You never want to see a guy get hurt. You know, with that said, there’s a lot of people that have a lot of different opinions about it that probably shouldn’t because they’re not middle infielders and they have no idea what they’re talking about. [emphasis mine]
So, if we go by Kershaw’s standard that only middle infielders can offer an opinion, why is he talking? He says he’s seen worse. When? Every example you could present was before his time.
This play wasn’t as bad and it lead to a brawl:
Here’s the main example:
The Hal McRae slide was arguably worse. However, I didn’t see the Yankees accept it as a hard nosed play. They lost it and rightfully so. So to act like a bad slide is part of the game is nonsense.
Regardless, this play should stand on its own merits. Kershaw effectively asked us to dismiss his opinion since he’s not a middle infielder. I guess since I was a catcher, I can’t offer an opinion. With that said, here’s the opinions of some middle infielders:
When your back leg lands pass the bag, it's dirty.
— Alex (@ac13alex) October 11, 2015
Billy Ripken really nailed it on the Utley "slide" http://t.co/sVMgdB5ZrY
— Anthony Krafnick (@TJ_Krafnick) October 12, 2015
that was a really weak attempt at a slide by utley????
— Jose Reyes (@lamelaza_7) October 11, 2015
Utley has always been a dirty player…
— Howard Johnson (@20Hojo) October 11, 2015
So you know what Clayton, the middle infielders say it was dirty. I’ll take your advice and listen to what they have to say about it. Maybe you should do the same, you know, since you never played there.
If you’ve been on Twitter, Instagram, or another social media site I’m not yet aware of because I’m getting old, chances are you’ve seen Daniel Murphy‘s takeout slide against Chase Utley:
Here’s the thing. If you want to tell me it’s a dirty play because Murphy can’t touch second, fine. However, you must concede two points: (1) Murphy slid; and (2) Utley could’ve avoided contact by sidestepping or jumping. With that in mind, let’s look at Utley’s slide again:
To avoid any confusion, here’s a still of the point of impact:
Is this the same slide as Murphy’s? Could Ruben Tejada protect himself? Of course not. Even if Tejada didn’t spin, with the way Utley slid/tackled Tejada, Utley’s arms are at Tejada’s hips. His face is buried in Tejada’s abdomen. This is not a baseball play. Stop kidding yourself.
Another point, people have picked the ONE questionable slide in Murphy’s career. Utley is a guy with a reputation for being dirty:
https://twitter.com/RosenbergMerc/status/653073357152251906
So tell me this, how are these two plays or players comparable? If you’re answer is anything other than they’re not, your a Dodger fan, hate the Mets, or both.
There have been many comments made about Chase Utley‘s “slide.” Depending on your intellect (or fandom), Utley was either hard nosed (no) or dirty (yes). The competing narrative is Ruben Tejada put himself in position to get hurt:
https://twitter.com/brettanderson35/status/653387476694867968
"I know a lot of people are coming down on Chase Utley. I know it looks dirty…. I thought Tejada put himself in harm's way by spinning."
— Harold Reynolds Says (@HReynoldsQuotes) October 12, 2015
(Yes, I know that’s not Reynold’s Twitter account. The person publishes his quotes).
You know what I don’t hear? I don’t hear what Noah Syndergaard was saying:
Much respect for my man Tejada in sacrificing his body for THIS TEAM! #LGM!!!!
— Noah Syndergaard (@Noahsyndergaard) October 11, 2015
Tejada knew who was coming. He knows how dirty Utley plays. He was anticipating the slide by using a spin move to get away from the bag. He knew that by doing this he was leaving himself vulnerable. He did it anyway because he was trying to get the double play to preserve the lead in a playoff game.
What he did took guts. What Utley did was callow. Let’s change the narrative to reflect what Tejada was willing to do to help his team win, instead of the other way around.
I think Mets fans everywhere correctly questioned why this play wasn’t the neighborhood play:
Now, we know the neighborhood play isn’t reviewable. However, this play was reviewed because the umpires on the field determined it wasn’t the neighborhood play. My question is why can’t the replay officials review the play and determine that the neighborhood play should’ve applied?
Keep in mind we have replay because umpires blow calls. The replay system is in place because we can’t trust the umpires’ judgment. However, in this specific instance we’re going to trust their judgment even though they got everything about the play wrong.
Look at the play again. Utley “put a body on Tejada to break up the double play.” When the collision took place, Tejada’s arm was in a throwing position. If the slide/tackle was made to prevent the double play, and this slide/tackle prevented the throw. How is this not the neighborhood play? If upon the collision, Tejada throws the ball in any direction, do the umpires then rule there’s a neighborhood play?
Furthermore, why couldn’t the replay officials rule it was interference? We all know Utley wasn’t trying to slide there. We know the fiction we create regarding sliding and breaking up double plays, but this was: (1) not a slide; (2) started the tackle after the out call was made; and (3) not even an attempt to touch second until he was well past the bag.
I understand the arguments in both directions regarding replay. However, if the replay officials cannot review every aspect of the play, what’s the point of replay? In essence, replay officials have their hands tied by an umpiring crews bad decision. If the replay system is in place to correct bad umpiring, why are we relying on their poor judgment calls when reviewing a play?
The whole system doesn’t made sense. The umpires on the field made a series of bad calls. The replay rules prevented the replay officials from correcting the call in the fashion it should have been. This rule needs to be fixed now.
For all my issues with Terry Collins, he’s shown himself to be a great presence in the clubhouse. He certainly showed himself to be that today with Matt Harvey missing the workout:
Here’s TC’s version of the Harvey Episode: pic.twitter.com/69xkGdDhhg
— Marc Carig (@MarcCarig) October 6, 2015
He tried to quash it. He tried to put an end to the story. As he said, “Its over. Done. End of story. Still pitching Game 3.” He said it wasn’t a big deal. That’s how a leader handles it.
Let’s see how David Wright handles his issues with Harvey. Let’s first visit the innings limit drama. On the day of the press conference, here’s how Wright treated Harvey:
Yup, Wright snubbed him for all to see exacerbating the story. After the snub was reported everywhere, Wright needed to change course, and he did:
David Wright had "a four-inning conversation" with Harvey yesterday in the dugout, per Collins. Mets consider the clubhouse aspect resolved.
— Anthony DiComo (@AnthonyDiComo) September 7, 2015
That’s right. He had a four inning conversation in the dugout for all to see so everyone can praise him and forget his snub. The Mets then started winning, and Harvey announced he would pitch in the playoffs. All was forgotten until Harvey screwed up today. Wright’s response?
“I’m concerned with the guys who are here.” Are you kidding me? He could’ve squashed it. He could’ve said a million other things. He’s turning this into a Jeter/A-Rod type of situation. Instead, he gave the impression there’s a clubhouse problem. Collins is then answering questions about Harvey’s perception:
TC likes to say “perception is reality.” Here’s what he said about Harvey in that regard: pic.twitter.com/uBvk3U8vx9
— Marc Carig (@MarcCarig) October 6, 2015
Yes, this story is all Harvey’s fault. However, where was the Captain, the team leader, to step in and put an end to all of it? He was adding fuel to the fire while making sure everyone was at their assigned lunch seats.
Did that moment help Noah Syndergaard? Probably. However, I’m not sure how it helped the rookie to have that story leaked in Spring Training. All that happened there was Wright got to look like the Captain, and Thor got smacked down by everyone.
I don’t mean to beat up on Wright. He’s been a great Met, and I commend him for fighting to come back this year. However, that makes him a great player and a winner. It doesn’t make him a team leader, whether or not he is the Captain.
As we all know now, Matt Harvey missed today’s mandatory workout:
https://twitter.com/jareddiamond/status/651452048827879424
Look, I understand bridge and tunnel traffic. We’ve all been there. However, it’s easy to pick up a phone. By not picking up the phone and calling, it became a story. I know he eventually reached out, but clearly, he didn’t do it in time.
He was the only player who missed the workout. I heard Mike Francesca say this is uncharacteristic for Harvey, but that doesn’t matter. He created a story with his lack of responsibility. He irritated everyone with his lack of professionalism:
Matt Harvey missed workout. Says he hit tunnel traffic. pic.twitter.com/RsoFvU4Tig
— Marc Carig (@MarcCarig) October 6, 2015
This is now a distraction. The one thing a team does not need is a distraction. The team does not need a locker room problem. Certainly, the team needs to keep everything in house rather than take veiled shots at each other.
Seriously, I get why David Wright was upset, but he’s the captain. His thinly veiled shot of only caring about who is there is unbecoming. He only served to give the story more legs than quash it. His response should’ve been, “I don’t know why he missed the workout today, but I hope Matt is alright.”
Also, I know the last press conference was a disaster, but the least Harvey could have done was be a man and face the reporters. Don’t just offer up a statement. However, if reports are correct, he apologized to his teammates. I assume it was a genuine apology, and I hope the team accepted it.
The best thing for this team right now is to get away to Los Angeles for a few days. It’s another reason why not having homefield is a benefit. They can clear their heads and get ready for Game 1 Friday night. If Jacob deGrom goes out there and wins Game One, the story is dead.
If Harvey dominates in Game Three, we may never hear about this again.
The Mets have not had the best history when it comes to handling injuries:
https://twitter.com/jareddiamond/status/648960775751639040
They’ve been really bad when it comes to diagnosing and treating back injuries. The Mets recently botched the diagnosis and treatment of Lucas Duda‘s back problems. Now, they’re doing it with Steven Matz on the eve of the NLDS.
Originally, it was classified as a problem with Matz’s side. This was a problem in and of itself with his prior injury. However, everyone was rest assured that Matz would start on Thursday instead of Wednesday. Then, it was discovered it wasn’t a side injury; it was a back injury. And oh yeah, his Thursday start was going to be skipped. He’s not going to pitch on Friday either.
In fact, he’s not going to start for the rest of the regular season. Collins is going to try to find five innings on Saturday or Sunday; two games that may never get played due to rain. There’s been no explanation why today is not a possibility. I’m starting to wonder what the excuse will be on Saturday and/or Sunday when Mstz doesn’t pitch.
I can’t trust that he’ll be available for the playoffs in the rotation or the bullpen. No one should.
I’ve been one of the few who defended Matt Harvey. One of the reasons was because he was doing what he needed to do to pitch in the playoffs and not ruin his career.
The backlash was insane. People were calling for the Mets to cut him. Some wanted him traded for cents on the dollar. Most said they could never forgive him. There were discussions on what Harvey needed to do to gain back the fans trust. By the way, this just wasn’t fans, it was also the media. It seems it was also his teammates, which I just don’t understand.
Last Sunday against the Yankees he was dominant for five innings before getting lifted. When the bullpen blew it, the fans went after Harvey. These same people were awful quiet yesterday. They cheered and praised Harvey for pitching into the sixth.
I’m just happy he proved me right. Harvey considered the clincher to be an important game, and he went deep into the game. Terry Collins wanted to take him out after six, but Harvey said no. He needed the extra inning to get ready for the playoffs. Harvey showed he’s going to do what he needs to get ready for the playoffs.
Matt Harvey doesn’t owe us an apology. He did what he said he was going to do. If anything, he deserves the apology.