Master Index of Archived Threads


Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Kong76 Jun 13 2013 01:12 PM

His lack of run support is driving me fucking crazy!!

metirish Jun 13 2013 01:14 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Imagine how he feels??? I wonder if he secretly wished he were on a different team.

Zvon Jun 13 2013 01:18 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

metirish wrote: Imagine how he feels??? I wonder if he secretly wished he were on a different team. I have, and it's very disconcerting. I have asked before...Seaver must have gone through something similar in 67 & 68, no?

Edgy MD Jun 13 2013 01:23 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Seaver didn't get run in far more Met years than he did, thus driving (in part) the wedge between him and the Mets.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 13 2013 01:26 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Matt Harvey should STFU and start hitting. What's he going to do next, write a book and climb a fucking mountain.

Frayed Knot Jun 13 2013 01:32 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

ficticious subject = DMPJFL

Zvon Jun 13 2013 01:33 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Edgy MD wrote: Seaver didn't get run in far more Met years than he did, thus driving (in part) the wedge between him and the Mets. Quite an assumption. That is an assumption, right? I'm interested in no decisions. I'll take a trip to the database.

Frayed Knot Jun 13 2013 01:35 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Start by checking out 1976

Zvon Jun 13 2013 01:37 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Seaver had 69 starts over 67-68 and got a decision in 57 of those games. He pitched 18 complete games during that period.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 13 2013 01:40 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

No-decisions have become more common as starting pitcher innings have decreased.

Zvon Jun 13 2013 01:42 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Frayed Knot wrote: Start by checking out 1976 I'm sorry guys. I was thinking in terms of Seaver pitching on a Met team that was trying to build around him when he first came up. But to say that the Mets built a championship team for '69 is stretching it. Easy in retrospect, but they were in no way predicted to do what they did.

Zvon Jun 13 2013 01:43 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: No-decisions have become more common as starting pitcher innings have decreased. Yes, and the 18 complete games is telling.

metirish Jun 13 2013 01:48 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

18 complete games, wow.I wonder how many complete games there are combined now days in the NL?

Frayed Knot Jun 13 2013 01:49 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

NL 2012 = 59

metirish Jun 13 2013 01:51 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Thanks FK, 59 was probably a months worth back then(maybe 2 months).

Frayed Knot Jun 13 2013 01:58 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

metirish wrote: Thanks FK, 59 was probably a months worth back then(maybe 2 months). In 1968 (one of the years Zvon discussed) there were 471 CGs in the NL and that was with fewer teams and therefore fewer total games played as compared to now, although you do have to remember that year was the most pitching dominated season since the dead-ball era (pre-1920).

Frayed Knot Jun 13 2013 02:04 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Looking at some of the stats for that season (1968) one that pops out at me is that the Giants used just 12 pitchers during the whole year -- some teams carry more than that at one time now -- and most teams used only one or two more than that (Mets = 14) with no team employing more than 19

Zvon Jun 13 2013 02:32 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Wow. How the game has changed. I thought with the crack down on roids and such that it could go back to being the ol' ball game but todays athlete is a different breed, or so I am led to believe. I do think the pendulum has to swing back further still. It has to be a fans thought these days, that fear that Matt does not want to be on a team that's okay with just getting by through patchwork. I'd like to think that Harvey is just focused on whats right in front of him but that thought might be in there somewhere. If run support becomes an issue over a few seasons in front of us...

Benjamin Grimm Jun 13 2013 02:46 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Matt has nowhere to go until after the 2018 season. The state of the 2013 Mets won't influence his decision.

Zvon Jun 13 2013 03:08 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Matt has nowhere to go until after the 2018 season. The state of the 2013 Mets won't influence his decision. I know. We are all excited about Harvey and getting a little ahead of ourselves. I think we are more worried about how things add up over that time.

Ashie62 Jun 13 2013 05:07 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

How about Matt Harvey and Ike for Mike Trout and Pujols..

Edgy MD Jun 13 2013 06:33 PM Re: Harvey Demands Trade (ficticious subject)

I think anybody hoping for that would do best to trade themselves to the Angels fan base. Pujols' contract is untouchable generally. To a team digging itself out of debt and desperate to find a way to break even on the year, it's probably unfathomable.