Master Index of Archived Threads
To reach the impossible height. . .
| Mex17 Apr 26 2018 12:07 AM |
|
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".
|
| DocTee Apr 26 2018 12:17 AM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
During his heyday I recall a WATP thread where virtually none of the posters here said they would deal Harvey straight up for the Marlins' Giancarlo Stanton.
|
| d'Kong76 Apr 26 2018 12:18 AM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
Ceetar declaring him the best ever would be good enough for me! Do'h, I'm gonna get hit with a sneaker...
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 26 2018 12:51 AM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
Four Cy Youngs? Lead the team to two world championships? Pose for a yearbook cover with eight baseballs arranged in the shape of the number 8? 
|
| SteveJRogers Apr 26 2018 01:09 AM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
Considering Seaver and some guy named Spahn are neck and neck for greatest pitcher to ever throw an MLB game pitch for the Mets, the heights of the second or third tier HOF guys (Pedro, Ryan, Glavine) seems more of a probable attainment.
|
| SteveJRogers Apr 26 2018 01:19 AM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
FWIW, Doc’s career trajectory was ruined just as much by arm injuries as his personal demon issues had.
|
| Edgy MD Apr 26 2018 04:14 AM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
Nah, I was wide open to it: http://archives.thecranepool.net/23600/f1_t23693.shtml
|
| Ceetar Apr 26 2018 01:29 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
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?
|
| Centerfield Apr 26 2018 02:37 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
A home grown Hall of Famer. Wins multiple championships and spends the majority of his career with the Mets. Goes in to the Hall undisputed as a Met.
|
| Ceetar Apr 26 2018 02:45 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
Well, Tom Seaver, you know..
|
| SteveJRogers Apr 26 2018 03:58 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
Also helps if his career totals wound up on the Probably should add Pedro on there/Spahn/Seaver level of iconic pitcherz
|
| Edgy MD Apr 26 2018 04:11 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
One thing that would help is if somebody reversed this trend of the best pitchers pitching fewer and fewer innings.
|
| 41Forever Apr 26 2018 04:19 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
||
|
Are you saying Tom Seaver was a jerk like Harvey?
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 26 2018 04:24 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
He wasn't. But there's certainly evidence that he was a different kind of jerk than Harvey is.
|
| LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 26 2018 04:28 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
||
|
Oh, I was WIDE open to it. Imagine if we'd offered Harvey and Rosario for Bogaerts and, say, a young arm like Rodriguez?
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 26 2018 04:34 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
In hindsight, the winter after the 2015 season would have been the perfect time to trade Harvey.
|
| G-Fafif Apr 26 2018 04:39 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 26 2018 05:10 PM |
|
|
There's more transparency let alone immediacy today than there was when Seaver pitched and for quite a while thereafter. For the most part, we could only glean and gauge from stories in the next day's paper what these guys were like (putting aside the player who is never forgiven for dickishly not signing a ball or something). In Worst Team, as an aside, Klapisch and Harper called out the Mets from the late '80s who were the worst to deal with. It was a revelation in 1993 to learn that Jesse Orosco was an a-hole in 1986 (must be said I noticed nobody seemed more genuinely friendly meeting with reporters from the old days at the 2016 reunion than Jesse). Certainly some guys' "moodiness" transcended day-to-day norms and prehistoric communications -- and occasionally a columnist would let loose -- but the bit where several reporters report several hours before the game that somebody doesn't want to talk and implies he was a jerk about it, and everybody who cares about the team is aware of it instantly, and it's talked to the high heavens in advance of first pitch...that didn't exist in Seaver's day, in Orosco's day, in Bonilla's day, not fully until this decade. Thus, Seaver (when he played) wasn't a jerk. He was laser-focused on his next start.
|
| seawolf17 Apr 26 2018 04:42 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
David Wright, if he hadn't gotten hurt, would have probably been there by now. In what would have been 13 full seasons, he would have passed 2,000 hits and would be close to 300 homers.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 26 2018 04:43 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
It's true that a lot of players get a bad reputation based on the way they treat reporters (I think Eddie Murray was an example of that) but that's something I care nothing about. The rap on Seaver is that, while he does seem to appreciate the fans when he's on the field and they're in the stands, he's less appreciative of them when he's in a position to interact with them face-to-face.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 26 2018 04:45 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
Yes, but that's still a long way from Seaver territory. I'm very conservative when it comes to retiring uniform numbers, but I do think that David's 5 should be the next one retired. Even though Cooperstown isn't going to happen for him.
|
| G-Fafif Apr 26 2018 04:50 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
I've often wondered what it would take to supplant Tom Terrific as No. 1 among all Mets. I don't think there'll ever be another starting pitcher who does what he did for as long as he did. Only Doc was on his level for a couple of years, and then a little less so every year until injuries and everything else took an irreversible toll. You also have to consider the narrative value of Seaver as the franchise's first true professional, first true star, best player on the most unlikely world champion ever. Instead of flaming out after bursting on the scene, he got better and for the most part stayed great right up to June 15, 1977 (with his truncated returns in 1983 and 1987 not detracting one iota from his legend).
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 26 2018 04:56 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
I think right now Conforto has the best chance to be that guy, but so much has to go right that the odds have to be against him, as they would for any player at this early stage in his career.
|
| cooby Apr 26 2018 04:59 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
|
| G-Fafif Apr 26 2018 05:00 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
Wright would have had to have racked up a couple of MVPs or at least been the no-doubt perennial All-Star starting third baseman and capture imaginations outside the Metsie confines to gain parity with Seaver (plus maybe win a World Series, though that can't fairly be put on a single player, no matter how great). Wright's hypothetically uninterrupted career would likely be considered very, very good, maybe excellent, the kind for whom pleas to appreciate his accomplishments would be written every January when he barely stayed on the Hall of Fame ballot. Seaver's career was and is universally acknowledged as one of the best ever. That's what an everyday player would have to put on the board to be half of "Seaver and [blank]," if not "[blank], then Seaver." 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.
|
| Ceetar Apr 26 2018 05:51 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
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...
|
| batmagadanleadoff Apr 26 2018 06:03 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
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.
|
| Ceetar Apr 26 2018 06:17 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
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.
|
| seawolf17 Apr 26 2018 06:18 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
I'll cede my perspective on this is skewed because Seaver was before my time, but if David Wright had kept up his 2013 pace through the end of his contract -- and at only 30, that wasn't unfathomable -- then yes, he was on pace to be the Best Met Ever. (2014 was a slight step down, and then obviously everything fell apart.) Just using his 2013 numbers -- even in only 112 games -- if he had done exactly that as an average for the next seven seasons, he finishes 2020 with almost 2,500 hits, almost 350 home runs. Let's say he played an average of 130 games from 2014-2020 at that same 2013 pace. (That's 503 AB, 154 hits a year.) Then he finishes with 369 homers, which puts him even with Todd Helton and Ralph Kiner, and 81st all time in hits. I'm just spitballing here, obviously, but yes, there was a point where he was on pace to be an all-time great, and yes, surpassing Seaver in my mind.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 26 2018 06:22 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
I would say that 2,500 hits and 350 homers is not even close to Tom Seaver territory.
|
| seawolf17 Apr 26 2018 06:24 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
Career to career, no, of course not. But Met career to Met career, yes. To me, anyway, although I honestly can see both sides of the argument.
|
| batmagadanleadoff Apr 26 2018 06:29 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
Yeah. This is it. I would think that the batting equivalent would be something like 600 HR' s and a couple of MVPs. At least. Not to mention the psychic value of being the key player on a team transforming itself from baseball's most spectacular losers to WS champs. There are Hall of Famers, ferchrissakes, who don't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with Seaver. He was a once in a generation talent.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 26 2018 06:38 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
Yeah, someone more like what Mike Schmidt was to the Phillies.
|
| batmagadanleadoff Apr 26 2018 06:41 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
Before the trade, Seaver was a Met for 10 full seasons and about half of another. And he was a top flight elite pitcher in every one of those seasons but '74. And even in his sciatic plagued '74 season with the mere mortal 11-11 WL record, he led the league in K/BB ratio. Even his split '77 Mets half season was among baseball's best. His combined '77 season was the NL's second best, only behind Candelaria's, but better than the undeserving Cy Young award winning Steve Carlton's, who led the league in wins while pitching for a playoff team, abbout 85% of the recipe for a Cy Young award back then.
|
| G-Fafif Apr 26 2018 06:46 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
A changing of the guard, utterly unofficial as it would be, would be fascinating to feel unfold. If Mike Trout were having his career in a Mets uniform (and leading the Mets farther than he's led the Angels), I could imagine the non-existent Seaver statue looking over its shoulder a little.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 26 2018 06:51 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
Maybe that's why there's no Seaver statue. The Mets are waiting for someone who really deserves one!
|
| G-Fafif Apr 26 2018 06:53 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
I was trying to think of when fanbases "just knew". Schmidt had a fairly low bar to clear for a franchise whose success had been sporadic, to put it kindly. Mathewson and Ott were a high bar, but Mays leapt over them. Had Pujols stayed in St. Louis, maybe he could have been the Man. Clemente is Clemente, yet Wagner is still Wagner. Chipper never seriously chipped away at Bad Henry. Brooks and Palmer gave way to Ripken. Nobody could ever touch Teddy Ballgame in Boston, unless you value world championships over everything else, in which case Big Papi would be unrivaled.
|
| G-Fafif Apr 26 2018 06:54 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
"Seriously, Dad, we're just gonna have to take it down and put up a new one if we get another great player." "Good point, son. Probably best not to bother with the statue or the player."
|
| seawolf17 Apr 26 2018 06:54 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
Pujols as a Cardinal/Seaver as a Met is an interesting parallel, actually.
|
| batmagadanleadoff Apr 26 2018 06:57 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
I'm never too sure about this: What's more impressive- once in a lifetime or once in a generation? What's longer - a lifetime or a generation?
|
| G-Fafif Apr 26 2018 07:09 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
Hopefully a lifetime. Longer, I mean. People still kvell about the time they saw Willie Mays or Sandy Koufax. If you can be a touchstone, you've got it going on. Is there that sort of gee-whizzitude to having seen Alex Rodriguez or Clayton Kershaw?
|
| Nymr83 Apr 26 2018 07:13 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
As long as you saw Alex on the diamond and not in the booth...
|
| Ceetar Apr 26 2018 07:23 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
he's almost as good in the booth. But yes, Alex less so than Bonds maybe. Particularly because of the Yankee taint.
|
| LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 26 2018 09:12 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 26 2018 09:47 PM |
||
|
Nope. And-- SACRILEGE ALERT-- if Willie and Sandy played these days, and were every bit as good as they were in our timeline, THEY wouldn't either. That there isn't that same sort of biblical awe around Kershaw as there was/is around Koufax has little to do with talent, and everything to do with the changed world/culture. Was there that awe around Pedro at HIS prime, which was actually slightly better than Koufax's?
|
| MFS62 Apr 26 2018 09:21 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
I thought this was a thread about Freddie Patek.
|
| G-Fafif Apr 26 2018 11:00 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
|
I'd say, on a pro-rated scale, yes. Maybe not to the extent that people are telling total strangers about seeing him pitch decades later (which has been my experience whenever I get to talking with anybody who saw Koufax), but Pedro at his Fenway peak was a phenomenon in Boston and revered or at least acknowledged as something special nationwide, the caveat being the nation was less invested in the national pastime by then. Before him and after Koufax, Ryan, despite rarely posting the kind of record those guys did, had that kind of mystique that transcended merely being appreciated as a terrific pitcher by baseball fans and baseball people. In one of the many, many, many, many stories that has been written about baseball not being what it used to be, this one from the early '90s, it was fretted that research showed the most popular baseball player in America was a guy in his mid-40s on the verge of retirement. Koufax's legacy perversely benefits from the nature of the length of his career, the going out on as top as one could and not by choice. We got the last of Pedro's prime and then the fadeout. He could still stir Shea given the right circumstances, but when he was giving up five earned runs for every nine innings pitched, it was tough to tell him apart from Brian Lawrence or Brandon Knight. All the immediacy and access of our current era probably doesn't help when it comes to pedestals.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 26 2018 11:23 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
Well, I hate to say it, but there's Jeter...
|
| Fman99 Apr 26 2018 11:36 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
||
|
I never saw his taint.
|
| MFS62 Apr 27 2018 01:29 AM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
A-Rod was the best shortstop to ever play on a New York Team.
|
| batmagadanleadoff Apr 27 2018 04:08 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 27 2018 04:27 PM |
|
|
I revisited Seaver's '74 season after writing this post above. Mets fan of that era recognize that season as sticking out like a sore thumb -- or hip -- during Seaver's prime years, especially given his pedestrian 11-11 WL record. Seaver himself was famously disappointed after that year's campaign, plagued by hip and back pain throughout. Seaver's 1974 was sandwiched by Cy Young award winning seasons in the years just before and after. When I think of Mets pitching and 1974, the first thing that comes to mind is Matlack's brilliant Cy Young caliber season -- he led the NL in pitcher WAR comfortably . Matlack's '74 was one of the best pitching seasons turned in by a Met starter ever. When people talk about the brilliant Met pitching of that era and how they needed to throw shutouts to get a win, Matlack, in 1974, might be the poster boy for that rule. In fact, he led the league in shutouts that year with nine -- yet still finished with a 13-15 losing record. -- nine out of his 13 wins were shutouts! But back to Seaver, his '74 season was all-star caliber by just about every single measure, except W-L record. He was 4th in pitcher WAR; 8th in WHIP; 7th in H/9 inn. Seaver led the league in K/9 inn. and K/BB ratio. He struck out over 200 batters, was third in shutouts and finished among the top 10 in several esoteric BBRef rate stats that, no doubt, didn't exist in '74. Seaver, in '74 was more than all star caliber. He deserved to be on the fringes of Cy Young consideration, but wouldn't have picked up any Cy votes no matter how sophisticated the voters were because they only voted for the top three and Seaver, though undoubtedly a top flight pitcher in '74, wasn't one of the top three. Koosman also finished in the top 10 in pitcher WAR in the NL in '74, the third Mets pitcher to do so. Had the Mets held onto ERA champ and top 10 finisher in pitcher WAR Buzz Capra, and had Capra pitched as well for the Mets as he did for the Braves that season, the Mets would have had one of the most dominant starting staffs in post WWII baseball history. What was it about those '74 Mets that Seaver and Matlack could pitch so brilliantly yet finish with such mediocre WL records? Did they have eight Rey Ordonez's in their lineup?
|
| metsmarathon Apr 27 2018 04:23 PM Re: To reach the impossible height. . . |
|
i think that to truly surpass seaver, a player would need to at least come close to matching seaver in terms of peak metly value instead of eclipsing him on career longevity.
|