Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are your favorite Mets memories?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Shea Knight View Post
    I conflated the term already, but talking about it here, I'd draw a distinction between "celebrity" and "star"...you really don't need talent to become the former, but you definitely need it to become and sustain yourself as the latter. There are plenty of no-talent reality TV "celebrities," but even though they're young, no one would doubt Eddie Redmayne and Jennifer Lawrence are stars, both Oscar-winners with multiple nominees now. (Granted, I'm a bit undercut by the fact I've never seen a Lawrence film, but apparently America has, lol.) And then, as good as they are, they have a ton of work to do to measure up to the likes of a Vivien Leigh or Elizabeth Taylor or Marlon Brando, and so on...Meryl Streep and her tons of nominations, lol.

    I'd say Harvey's more than a celebrity, that he's earned the "rising star" status but not that of "THE star" in terms of merit. 65 starts and 4 playoff games in, he's definitely not a fluke or just lucky. He finished 4th in the Cy Young voting (which I guess is our Best Actor/Actress Oscar stand-in) and might've finished better if he hadn't gotten injured...hard to say he'd have won, it's hard to ever take an NL pitcher today over Kershaw for the Cy Young, but that's still Top 5, that'd be enough for a "nomination" in this analogy. It's better than deGrom has finished there (7th.) As a side note, it'll be interesting if the Big Three all have the kind of big years we hope them to have if they'll split the vote between one another; Greinke did win last year, but Kershaw finished 3rd and probably took some 1st place votes there.

    In terms of being "the next one," if Harvey leaves after the 8th or the Mets win that game, his case would've been strengthened, he'd have done what "THE guy" is supposed to do--win when it's a must-win and do so in commanding, dramatic fashion. Sandy Koufax in 1965 going the distance in Game 7 to win 2-0 after missing the start of the series for Yom Kippur--THAT'S showing you're "THE star," that's being the forever A-listed Marlon Brando of baseball, as it were. Harvey did that for 8, and didn't for two batters. For me, he lost most of that particular chance to prove himself "THE star" of the staff. I don't think less of him for the almost-but-not-quite status there, but it does mean I'd agree he's not that...YET. I think he's closer than you (I'm tempted to say he's a couple batters closer--Familia saves Game 1 and 5 and he's 4-0 in the playoffs with with a WS masterpiece in a must-win game to his name, but that's baseball, the line's that thin between "masterpiece" and simply "almost") and because everyone says the 2nd year after TJS is usually better I'm inclined to think he's about ready to GET there, but he's not there...YET.
    Rising star...not yet risen. 100% agree.

    Las years WS has nothing to do with my opinion. IF he shuts the Royals down in the 9th...I still post what I post. One game...two games...an inning don't make or break a player to me. Too many things can happen to very good players on one play that defines them. Idiots define players by one play. For instance....Bill Buckner is known for his error in game 6 in 1986. Well only idiots don't realize what an excellent player Buckner was. On the flip side idiots put Bill Mazeroski in the HOF....he is in there for one swing of his bat. Again idiots are in a position to make too many decisions.

    Now I will switch the word idiots for the word fans (can also be easily swapped for sports writers/media)...too bad that too many time these words are both usable in the same situation. "Fans" have taken Harveys potential and multiplied it by how many Batman masks they own and have anointed him well before he deserved it.

    Harvey may become a star on the field and hope he does for several reasons. I have a feeling though with Harvey the better he pitches the more we will see him on Page 6.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shea Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    I think everyone sees the potential of Matt Harvey, but its potential, and this potential has not been seen yet on consistent basis. Until then its just potential. For instance I don't think Harvey or deGrom are going to get near the upside of Noah - yet I don't think Noah should have nor does he deserve to be put on the pedestal that Harvey was put on at the same point Noah is at.

    Right now Harvey has 65 MLB starts - has missed a season because of surgery, and has a record of 25-18. Yes he has a great ERA of 2.53, and gets a K an inning, but in true desperation the Met fans have anointed Harvey as "the next one". Maybe he is, but he probably isn't.

    This is just me personally, and I know its the way things are now, but I don't like seeing anyone crowned king well before they have done anything, and Harvey has been that here for a while now.

    Maybe because you don't live in NY and see Harvey on page 6 of papers (I don't either as I don't read the rags), but I hear about it. My point is he became a celebrity well before celebrity was earned. I don't blame him 100% he was given the crown at a young age and he took it. He took well before he earned it or ready for it but he took it.

    Not a doubt in my mind he should have been traded because there is this smoke around him called potential and people will pay for it. They will pay a lot for it. He will eventually be traded without a doubt. I hope he gets 25 wins this year...the Mets win the WS, and then they can get a kings ransom for him.
    I conflated the term already, but talking about it here, I'd draw a distinction between "celebrity" and "star"...you really don't need talent to become the former, but you definitely need it to become and sustain yourself as the latter. There are plenty of no-talent reality TV "celebrities," but even though they're young, no one would doubt Eddie Redmayne and Jennifer Lawrence are stars, both Oscar-winners with multiple nominees now. (Granted, I'm a bit undercut by the fact I've never seen a Lawrence film, but apparently America has, lol.) And then, as good as they are, they have a ton of work to do to measure up to the likes of a Vivien Leigh or Elizabeth Taylor or Marlon Brando, and so on...Meryl Streep and her tons of nominations, lol.

    I'd say Harvey's more than a celebrity, that he's earned the "rising star" status but not that of "THE star" in terms of merit. 65 starts and 4 playoff games in, he's definitely not a fluke or just lucky. He finished 4th in the Cy Young voting (which I guess is our Best Actor/Actress Oscar stand-in) and might've finished better if he hadn't gotten injured...hard to say he'd have won, it's hard to ever take an NL pitcher today over Kershaw for the Cy Young, but that's still Top 5, that'd be enough for a "nomination" in this analogy. It's better than deGrom has finished there (7th.) As a side note, it'll be interesting if the Big Three all have the kind of big years we hope them to have if they'll split the vote between one another; Greinke did win last year, but Kershaw finished 3rd and probably took some 1st place votes there.

    In terms of being "the next one," if Harvey leaves after the 8th or the Mets win that game, his case would've been strengthened, he'd have done what "THE guy" is supposed to do--win when it's a must-win and do so in commanding, dramatic fashion. Sandy Koufax in 1965 going the distance in Game 7 to win 2-0 after missing the start of the series for Yom Kippur--THAT'S showing you're "THE star," that's being the forever A-listed Marlon Brando of baseball, as it were. Harvey did that for 8, and didn't for two batters. For me, he lost most of that particular chance to prove himself "THE star" of the staff. I don't think less of him for the almost-but-not-quite status there, but it does mean I'd agree he's not that...YET. I think he's closer than you (I'm tempted to say he's a couple batters closer--Familia saves Game 1 and 5 and he's 4-0 in the playoffs with with a WS masterpiece in a must-win game to his name, but that's baseball, the line's that thin between "masterpiece" and simply "almost") and because everyone says the 2nd year after TJS is usually better I'm inclined to think he's about ready to GET there, but he's not there...YET.

    Leave a comment:


  • ol' aches and pains
    replied
    I've only been a Mets fan for five years, so I'll have to say last season - all of it. Bartolo Colon starting the season walking one man (on opening day) in 42 innings, Bartolo Colon's at-bats, Stephen Matz driving in four runs in his MLB debut, the Mets going from Eric Campbell and John Mayberry Jr. in the middle of the order to an offensive powerhouse almost overnight, Wilmer Flores crying on the field, then hitting a walk-off home run a couple days later, the starting pitching all year, Daniel Murphy in the playoffs. What a ride!

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Shea Knight View Post
    It is the way things are now, and I haven't even done Halloween for 10 years or so, so I'm not for dressing up or anything either. I think it's silly, but admittedly an enjoyable kind of silly as not as I'm not demanded to participate. (That said, costume-loving friends of mine would probably ask what the difference is between dressing up in a costume for a player and wearing a player's jersey, both forms of associating oneself with a team/player? I'd say the jersey's more directly related, so I'm not taking their side, but it is a devil's advocate point, I'd say.)

    "Now for some reason fans need to play tribute to someone else's nickname."

    I think that's silly as well, and goes back to that issue of "relatability" from that article--people today love living vicariously through other characters, and I suppose people have always done that, but with things like dressing up like that at games or spending forever as another identity in online video games or what have you, maybe people are more voyeuristic now? (Which IS one way to distinguish between the likes of the Packers' Cheese Heads and the Harvey Dark Knight Brigade--the former shows a silly kind of allegiance to a team, they didn't suddenly stop wearing them when Aaron Rodgers took over for Brett Favre, whereas the masks and hammers are obviously Harvey/Syndergaard specific.)

    "he problem I have with Harvey is that in general he gets a lot of hoopla and I haven't actually seen why yet."

    It's partly because he's a good young pitcher, partly because he's reasonably charismatic and good at marketing himself, and partly because he was the first one to debut. If deGrom had come first and not Harvey, the 2013 hoopla would've been over him. Dickey was good but older, and Santana showed flashes and had the no-hitter but was never what the Mets had hoped he might be due to health reasons...and then even the 2006 team had good pitchers but not young, homegrown or long-standing ones...

    So between the losing, the fact Harvey's starts were pretty much the only exciting parts of 2013, and his being both the first of this young group to come up and the first star quality Mets pitcher (agree with that or not) to even potentially come up in over a decade.

    "I also see a guy eating the hoopla up before he earned it."

    I'd ask what kind of hoopla he gets you don't think's earned? If they were saying "best pitcher in a generation" or "best pitcher in baseball" or "future Hall of Famer" I'd agree...as it is, he's one of the best young pitchers in baseball, I think that's a fair amount of earned hoopla. Harvey/deGrom/Syndergaard would rank on just about anyone's list of the Top 10 Young Arms in Baseball. About the biggest on-field hoopla for Harvey I think I've seen was that "Harvey's Better" chant...and I'd take any of our Top 3 over Strasburg, narrowly, and I'd be happy with any of that quartet, but I'd still take our guys first.
    I think everyone sees the potential of Matt Harvey, but its potential, and this potential has not been seen yet on consistent basis. Until then its just potential. For instance I don't think Harvey or deGrom are going to get near the upside of Noah - yet I don't think Noah should have nor does he deserve to be put on the pedestal that Harvey was put on at the same point Noah is at.

    Right now Harvey has 65 MLB starts - has missed a season because of surgery, and has a record of 25-18. Yes he has a great ERA of 2.53, and gets a K an inning, but in true desperation the Met fans have anointed Harvey as "the next one". Maybe he is, but he probably isn't.

    This is just me personally, and I know its the way things are now, but I don't like seeing anyone crowned king well before they have done anything, and Harvey has been that here for a while now.

    Maybe because you don't live in NY and see Harvey on page 6 of papers (I don't either as I don't read the rags), but I hear about it. My point is he became a celebrity well before celebrity was earned. I don't blame him 100% he was given the crown at a young age and he took it. He took well before he earned it or ready for it but he took it.

    Not a doubt in my mind he should have been traded because there is this smoke around him called potential and people will pay for it. They will pay a lot for it. He will eventually be traded without a doubt. I hope he gets 25 wins this year...the Mets win the WS, and then they can get a kings ransom for him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Shea Knight View Post
    Yes--whatever Pauly posts and responds to, 2/3 of te time I'm of the opposite position...3/4 if it has to do with trading starting pitching.
    LOL - now that's funny.

    The one thing we agree on is that we both want the team to do well. We just have different versions of how to get that done on some issues and how the fans should react to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shea Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    First of all I didn't blame anyone for nicknames, or innings limits etc. Its just the way it is now, but now that you mentioned it when people called Dwight.."Doc"...fans didn't come to Shea in scrubs like the were preparing for surgery. Now with the Dark Knight - its like a convention of Batman wannabes. Hank Aaron was the Hammer.....Maddux was Mad Dog.....McGriff was Crime Dog....Mattingly was the Hitman.... Did people go to Atlanta dressed up like aisle 3 in Home Depot, did they come dressed like Cujo when Maddux was pitching? I don't recall see anyone dressed up like a 1940's mobster during Mattingly at bats. Nope....nicknames given to other people.

    Fans didn't play dress up on the way to the game. If a player had a nickname it was his. Now for some reason fans need to play tribute to someone else's nickname. Its absurd. Its not only here the fans in Anaheim where the "Trout Heads". We have absurdity on both coasts.

    "Don't take me out of the game"............... Have you ever seen a more publicized - don't take me out of the game? Why? Two reasons 1) it was in 2015 and nothing stays unseen, and 2) its Matt Harvey. Who then for charged out to the mound like the game was his...........then two batters later not so much.

    I don't blame Harvey for not being Gooden....no Met pitcher ever has ever had the impact of Gooden in my opinion, and again yes that includes Tom Seaver. The problem I have with Harvey is that in general he gets a lot of hoopla and I haven't actually seen why yet. I see flashes of a guy that could be great but I haven't seen greatness yet. I just see a lot of smoke around him. I also see a guy eating the hoopla up before he earned it. A very slippery slope indeed. Better not slip........oh wait too late.

    The problem is the fans need something else besides the beauty of the actual game itself. They need to feel like they are part of the action somehow. As I type it just keeps getting sadder in my mind for the all Batmen, Thors, and guys with long haired wigs that show up at Citi.
    It is the way things are now, and I haven't even done Halloween for 10 years or so, so I'm not for dressing up or anything either. I think it's silly, but admittedly an enjoyable kind of silly as not as I'm not demanded to participate. (That said, costume-loving friends of mine would probably ask what the difference is between dressing up in a costume for a player and wearing a player's jersey, both forms of associating oneself with a team/player? I'd say the jersey's more directly related, so I'm not taking their side, but it is a devil's advocate point, I'd say.)

    "Now for some reason fans need to play tribute to someone else's nickname."

    I think that's silly as well, and goes back to that issue of "relatability" from that article--people today love living vicariously through other characters, and I suppose people have always done that, but with things like dressing up like that at games or spending forever as another identity in online video games or what have you, maybe people are more voyeuristic now? (Which IS one way to distinguish between the likes of the Packers' Cheese Heads and the Harvey Dark Knight Brigade--the former shows a silly kind of allegiance to a team, they didn't suddenly stop wearing them when Aaron Rodgers took over for Brett Favre, whereas the masks and hammers are obviously Harvey/Syndergaard specific.)

    "he problem I have with Harvey is that in general he gets a lot of hoopla and I haven't actually seen why yet."

    It's partly because he's a good young pitcher, partly because he's reasonably charismatic and good at marketing himself, and partly because he was the first one to debut. If deGrom had come first and not Harvey, the 2013 hoopla would've been over him. Dickey was good but older, and Santana showed flashes and had the no-hitter but was never what the Mets had hoped he might be due to health reasons...and then even the 2006 team had good pitchers but not young, homegrown or long-standing ones...

    So between the losing, the fact Harvey's starts were pretty much the only exciting parts of 2013, and his being both the first of this young group to come up and the first star quality Mets pitcher (agree with that or not) to even potentially come up in over a decade.

    "I also see a guy eating the hoopla up before he earned it."

    I'd ask what kind of hoopla he gets you don't think's earned? If they were saying "best pitcher in a generation" or "best pitcher in baseball" or "future Hall of Famer" I'd agree...as it is, he's one of the best young pitchers in baseball, I think that's a fair amount of earned hoopla. Harvey/deGrom/Syndergaard would rank on just about anyone's list of the Top 10 Young Arms in Baseball. About the biggest on-field hoopla for Harvey I think I've seen was that "Harvey's Better" chant...and I'd take any of our Top 3 over Strasburg, narrowly, and I'd be happy with any of that quartet, but I'd still take our guys first.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shea Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    Is there a tl;dr version of your posts
    Yes--whatever Pauly posts and responds to, 2/3 of the time I'm of the opposite position...3/4 if it has to do with trading starting pitching.
    Last edited by Shea Knight; 03-12-2016, 07:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by [insert name] View Post
    People dressing up to baseball games have been like that at Shea/Citi forever. What's wrong with people wanting to have fun at the game?
    Well nothing at all. To each his own. Whatever makes your boat float. Me...personally I find it absurd to see "adults" sitting in the seats with Batman masks on, Thor costumes...etc.

    If playing dress up enhances your experience at the game then have at it. I rather actually enjoy the actual players and not try to be part of the act.
    Last edited by Paulypal; 03-11-2016, 06:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • [insert name]
    replied
    People dressing up to baseball games have been like that at Shea/Citi forever. What's wrong with people wanting to have fun at the game?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mongoose
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    First of all I didn't blame anyone for nicknames, or innings limits etc. Its just the way it is now, but now that you mentioned it when people called Dwight.."Doc"...fans didn't come to Shea in scrubs like the were preparing for surgery. Now with the Dark Knight - its like a convention of Batman wannabes. Hank Aaron was the Hammer.....Maddux was Mad Dog.....McGriff was Crime Dog....Mattingly was the Hitman.... Did people go to Atlanta dressed up like aisle 3 in Home Depot, did they come dressed like Cujo when Maddux was pitching? I don't recall see anyone dressed up like a 1940's mobster during Mattingly at bats. Nope....nicknames given to other people.

    Fans didn't play dress up on the way to the game. If a player had a nickname it was his. Now for some reason fans need to play tribute to someone else's nickname. Its absurd. Its not only here the fans in Anaheim where the "Trout Heads". We have absurdity on both coasts.

    "Don't take me out of the game"............... Have you ever seen a more publicized - don't take me out of the game? Why? Two reasons 1) it was in 2015 and nothing stays unseen, and 2) its Matt Harvey. Who then for charged out to the mound like the game was his...........then two batters later not so much.

    I don't blame Harvey for not being Gooden....no Met pitcher ever has ever had the impact of Gooden in my opinion, and again yes that includes Tom Seaver. The problem I have with Harvey is that in general he gets a lot of hoopla and I haven't actually seen why yet. I see flashes of a guy that could be great but I haven't seen greatness yet. I just see a lot of smoke around him. I also see a guy eating the hoopla up before he earned it. A very slippery slope indeed. Better not slip........oh wait too late.

    The problem is the fans need something else besides the beauty of the actual game itself. They need to feel like they are part of the action somehow. As I type it just keeps getting sadder in my mind for the all Batmen, Thors, and guys with long haired wigs that show up at Citi.
    Seaver was very important because he was the embodiment of the change to a winning culture, more important to his team as a leader. Gooden, though, was the best pitcher in history at the age of 19. The press was enormous on a national scale.

    His last pitch of the game was a curveball the froze the batter. It was a check swing. The ball hit his bat and Jose Oquendo got to it with great speed; almost caught it on the fly. (I'm very sorry the Mets lost him for nothing.) After the final out Knight was first to congratulate Gooden. A bit later I think you can lip read him apologizing to Gooden. Knight would redeem himself, of course. He was a fine player, great clubhouse presence and good ally in a riot.

    We all thought there were plenty more no-hitters to come. Hard to describe that moment in time. The Mets pivoted in 1983. A flow of great talent came gushing in. The team was so deep David Cone started the Jimmy Fund game in 1987 and Randy Myers relieved him - in other words they weren't even considered relevant.

    In a way feeling confident in a great future is more fun than actually experiencing it. Part of the joy of 1986 was the belief being a Mets fan would be like that for the foreseeable future. Nowadays people are already talking about trading off young talent and salary dumping market rate talent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowtipper
    replied
    Originally posted by Shea Knight View Post
    I DO agree Harvey probably won't match Doc Gooden's One Man Show status...NOW. Gooden didn't miss significant time, let alone a whole season, in those 5 amazing years from '84 to '88 for which he's most remembered, so he had time to build from his '84 season and keep growing his persona on the field as "the guy." Harvey had his (LESSER) version of 1984 via 2013, got hurt, came back, and now he's not so much Elvis as one of the Beatles, if you will. (That I infinitely prefer the music of the latter to the former is insignificant--YouTube Elvis' cover of "Hey Jude," that's one of the worst covers of one talent to another I've ever heard--but still.) With respect to Ron Darling and the other members of that 80s Mets staff, Gooden's the one everyone remembers most by far, and Harvey can now never have that on talent alone...which, to be clear, is fine. Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz weren't as fancy or full of flair as either Gooden or this Mets' staff, but they're still ALL well-deserved Hall of Famers and formed one of the best staffs of all-time...as Mets fans know only too well.

    Still, in terms of personal presence, it's not Harvey's fault that he wasn't able to become a Gooden--unless anyone really thinks he'd have had a horrible 2014, without the UCL tear and anywhere near his 2013 or 2015 performance, Harvey might well have been "the guy" even amidst the others. Or not. We'll never know.

    "No funny nicknames, no stupid comic book masks, no innings limits, my agent said, no bats (winged), no hammers, no long hair, dont take me out of this game nonsense.........just f'n gas and one of the best curveballs ever."

    Taking those one at a time:

    Nicknames: This one I'll never understand...baseball has a long a storied love of nicknames..."DOC" had a nickname...literally the most famous baseball player to ever live--and, in all likelihood, that will ever live, at least so far as we can see now--is known by his nickname wherever baseball is played, and anyone calling that nonsense and demanding he be called "George Herman" instead would itself be, well, nonsense. Is Harvey Babe Ruth? Has literally anyone SINCE Babe Ruth been Babe Ruth, transforming the game was played, making their last name an adjective unto itself, and STILL arguably being overlooked for what he did as a pitcher before becoming a full-time hitter?

    It's one thing if you give yourself a nickname (he's Kobe, and this is LA, so you can't say much about it here, but I've never liked Kobe's coining "the Black Mamba" for himself, like he sat around thinking what he'd like to go by, and at that declaring this his nickname more than a decade after he STARTED playing) but if other people give it to you...eh?

    In a rare instance of agreeing with Bryce "Where's My Ring" Harper, baseball COULD embrace personalities a little more, especially if it wants to continue marketing itself towards younger viewers. Does it need to turn into a total Millennial freak show...make Vines of every at bat, players taking selfies on the base paths, replacing managerial signals with meme-speak, what else...oh, having players Tinder one another and make that the All-Star voting...I feel I should clarify I hate each and every one of those things. BUT baseball doesn't have to be so stodgy as to be anti-nickname or personality, either. I get it, "act like you've been there," and for some people, that works fantastically--but there IS room, competitively, for both styles.

    And really, with all the talk about bat flips and gestures and whatever Yasiel Puig will do this season, nicknames are the least obtrusive of those, seemingly, so as long as an athlete not named Muhammad Ali isn't declaring himself "The King of the World" or something, what's the harm in letting writers and fans craft personas for the athletes, especially when that's as old as the very award Harvey would like to win someday--the "Cy" Young?

    Comic Book Masks/Hammers: Unless Harvey wears one on the mound... Out of curiosity, is this an anti-player-promotion thing, or wearing costumes for a team, period? The latter's pretty well-worn...the Cheeseheads at Lambeau...the Black Hole Crazies in both LA and Oakland for the Raiders...the Dawg Pound for the Cleveland Browns (unarguably the most consistent part of that franchise since it's revival...which, granted, says more about just how pitiful the Browns have been than anything else, but still, wearing costumes to support a team, like nicknames, is a pretty common thing, and doesn't directly impact the game on the field.)

    Innings Limits: Not Harvey's idea or fault, by all accounts, that really was a freak occurrence...and for as much as I hate how strictly pitchers are regulated and treated now, 1. I still wonder if the controversy from that didn't subconsciously fuel Harvey to want to go the distance in Game 5 and put that whole incident behind him, and 2. Of ALL pitchers, maybe Gooden, who worked that arm incredibly hard for someone so young, could've used an innings limit those first couple seasons? 1985, probably his best year, 24 wins, with a 1.53 ERA and 276.2 innings--ALL league-leading numbers. And that's great for 1985, but pitching almost 500 MLB innings before being legally old enough to drink?

    Again, not a fan of innings limits or pitch counts or any of that, especially given how much I prefer pitchers especially to be the more dramatic, diva-esque figures on the team and have fantastically-sustained outings the way opera singers can sustain notes for incredible periods of time...

    But aside from the fact he's forever the soundtrack to White Supremacists, there's a reason young opera singers today are cautioned against doing Wagner early in their careers--the notes are SO strenuous that it can (and has) lead to promising starlets ruining their voices prematurely.

    My Agent Said: As long as free agency exists (which will be forevermore) that'll be something players say. It sucks as a fan, but it is their livelihood, after all.

    No Bats (Winged): Extending my defense of nicknames/personalities here...unless the Batman logo somehow results in Harvey getting sick from lead paint or something, why not? Yeah, it's a gimmick, but frankly a batter or DH batting for the pitcher's a quirky gimmicky spot in the lineup, if you ask me.

    No Long Hair: ...I think you lost this one by the 1970s...?

    "Don't Take Me Out of This Game" Nonsense: In a general sense, players haven't wanted to come out of games as long as players and managers have existed. In the Harvey-specific instance, again, I wonder how much grief he got over that innings limit fueled his wanting to go the distance and put that to bed once and for all, you WANT your ace to want to give it their all, and it's the manager's call. Terry's a big boy, he could've pulled Harvey if he really wanted to...no one in that stadium wanted him out after the 8th, ESPECIALLY after the meltdown in Games 1 and 4. I still can't blame Terry or Harvey for his STARTING the 9th inning in that context--when your starter's pitching like that, when your bullpen's failed you twice, and when the crowd's like that, it's a fair decision to give him a one-guy-gets-on leash.

    "just f'n gas and one of the best curveballs ever"

    There's a good New Yorker from 2014 I read the other day entitled "The Scourge of “Relatability” and how that's affecting the way people approach literature in relation to the rise of people demanding "relatability" in their characters, that they be immediately relatable to them instead of, you know, putting in the actual work of reading a book and finding something in it on your own and not having a personal self-affirming double handed to you in book form.

    That said, the article opens with a radio personality having said that King Lear sucked because he found the character and play (you guessed it) un-relatable to his own personal experience. Besides the fact that there are high school and college kids all over who would LOVE to be able to use that half-cocked excuse and get away with it (and that Shakespeare in general's tended to relate to audiences well enough for, well, over 400 years now, while being read and performed daily in literally every major living language at this point)...

    That said, as Shakespeare himself knew all too well, to succeed even back in HIS rookie year of 1587 B.C. (that is, Before Colon ) you had to do something set yourself apart and get patrons. Adapting the phrase from baseball to literature, "Just f'n verse and some of the best iambic pentameter ever" wouldn't have been enough.

    Should Harvey concern himself with being a one-man PR machine with whom people can relate as cheaply as Bella Swann or cartoonish WWE wrestler? No (despite the fact I get the feeling some here might view him that way already.) But I wouldn't have him look a gift horse in the mouth, either...

    Catering and feeling forced to relate to others? No. But if people give you a name and simply do relate to that and whatever personality you already have? I'd argue that's far more organic, and while it may not be the pure Doc Gooden prowess of that era, it could be its own thing in this time period...as long as he pitches as well as he did through 8 innings and we can feel confident enough to hand it off for the 9th, by all means--"just win, baby."

    Which serves as a coda to that--"just win baby's" practically a battle cry of the "act like you've been there before" crowd...but the man who coined that phrase, Al Davis--what was he if not a character, and a notorious, one of a kind one at that?
    Is there a tl;dr version of your posts

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Shea Knight View Post
    I DO agree Harvey probably won't match Doc Gooden's One Man Show status...NOW. Gooden didn't miss significant time, let alone a whole season, in those 5 amazing years from '84 to '88 for which he's most remembered, so he had time to build from his '84 season and keep growing his persona on the field as "the guy." Harvey had his (LESSER) version of 1984 via 2013, got hurt, came back, and now he's not so much Elvis as one of the Beatles, if you will. (That I infinitely prefer the music of the latter to the former is insignificant--YouTube Elvis' cover of "Hey Jude," that's one of the worst covers of one talent to another I've ever heard--but still.) With respect to Ron Darling and the other members of that 80s Mets staff, Gooden's the one everyone remembers most by far, and Harvey can now never have that on talent alone...which, to be clear, is fine. Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz weren't as fancy or full of flair as either Gooden or this Mets' staff, but they're still ALL well-deserved Hall of Famers and formed one of the best staffs of all-time...as Mets fans know only too well.

    Still, in terms of personal presence, it's not Harvey's fault that he wasn't able to become a Gooden--unless anyone really thinks he'd have had a horrible 2014, without the UCL tear and anywhere near his 2013 or 2015 performance, Harvey might well have been "the guy" even amidst the others. Or not. We'll never know.

    "No funny nicknames, no stupid comic book masks, no innings limits, my agent said, no bats (winged), no hammers, no long hair, dont take me out of this game nonsense.........just f'n gas and one of the best curveballs ever."

    Taking those one at a time:

    Nicknames: This one I'll never understand...baseball has a long a storied love of nicknames..."DOC" had a nickname...literally the most famous baseball player to ever live--and, in all likelihood, that will ever live, at least so far as we can see now--is known by his nickname wherever baseball is played, and anyone calling that nonsense and demanding he be called "George Herman" instead would itself be, well, nonsense. Is Harvey Babe Ruth? Has literally anyone SINCE Babe Ruth been Babe Ruth, transforming the game was played, making their last name an adjective unto itself, and STILL arguably being overlooked for what he did as a pitcher before becoming a full-time hitter?

    It's one thing if you give yourself a nickname (he's Kobe, and this is LA, so you can't say much about it here, but I've never liked Kobe's coining "the Black Mamba" for himself, like he sat around thinking what he'd like to go by, and at that declaring this his nickname more than a decade after he STARTED playing) but if other people give it to you...eh?

    In a rare instance of agreeing with Bryce "Where's My Ring" Harper, baseball COULD embrace personalities a little more, especially if it wants to continue marketing itself towards younger viewers. Does it need to turn into a total Millennial freak show...make Vines of every at bat, players taking selfies on the base paths, replacing managerial signals with meme-speak, what else...oh, having players Tinder one another and make that the All-Star voting...I feel I should clarify I hate each and every one of those things. BUT baseball doesn't have to be so stodgy as to be anti-nickname or personality, either. I get it, "act like you've been there," and for some people, that works fantastically--but there IS room, competitively, for both styles.

    And really, with all the talk about bat flips and gestures and whatever Yasiel Puig will do this season, nicknames are the least obtrusive of those, seemingly, so as long as an athlete not named Muhammad Ali isn't declaring himself "The King of the World" or something, what's the harm in letting writers and fans craft personas for the athletes, especially when that's as old as the very award Harvey would like to win someday--the "Cy" Young?

    Comic Book Masks/Hammers: Unless Harvey wears one on the mound... Out of curiosity, is this an anti-player-promotion thing, or wearing costumes for a team, period? The latter's pretty well-worn...the Cheeseheads at Lambeau...the Black Hole Crazies in both LA and Oakland for the Raiders...the Dawg Pound for the Cleveland Browns (unarguably the most consistent part of that franchise since it's revival...which, granted, says more about just how pitiful the Browns have been than anything else, but still, wearing costumes to support a team, like nicknames, is a pretty common thing, and doesn't directly impact the game on the field.)

    Innings Limits: Not Harvey's idea or fault, by all accounts, that really was a freak occurrence...and for as much as I hate how strictly pitchers are regulated and treated now, 1. I still wonder if the controversy from that didn't subconsciously fuel Harvey to want to go the distance in Game 5 and put that whole incident behind him, and 2. Of ALL pitchers, maybe Gooden, who worked that arm incredibly hard for someone so young, could've used an innings limit those first couple seasons? 1985, probably his best year, 24 wins, with a 1.53 ERA and 276.2 innings--ALL league-leading numbers. And that's great for 1985, but pitching almost 500 MLB innings before being legally old enough to drink?

    Again, not a fan of innings limits or pitch counts or any of that, especially given how much I prefer pitchers especially to be the more dramatic, diva-esque figures on the team and have fantastically-sustained outings the way opera singers can sustain notes for incredible periods of time...

    But aside from the fact he's forever the soundtrack to White Supremacists, there's a reason young opera singers today are cautioned against doing Wagner early in their careers--the notes are SO strenuous that it can (and has) lead to promising starlets ruining their voices prematurely.

    My Agent Said: As long as free agency exists (which will be forevermore) that'll be something players say. It sucks as a fan, but it is their livelihood, after all.

    No Bats (Winged): Extending my defense of nicknames/personalities here...unless the Batman logo somehow results in Harvey getting sick from lead paint or something, why not? Yeah, it's a gimmick, but frankly a batter or DH batting for the pitcher's a quirky gimmicky spot in the lineup, if you ask me.

    No Long Hair: ...I think you lost this one by the 1970s...?

    "Don't Take Me Out of This Game" Nonsense: In a general sense, players haven't wanted to come out of games as long as players and managers have existed. In the Harvey-specific instance, again, I wonder how much grief he got over that innings limit fueled his wanting to go the distance and put that to bed once and for all, you WANT your ace to want to give it their all, and it's the manager's call. Terry's a big boy, he could've pulled Harvey if he really wanted to...no one in that stadium wanted him out after the 8th, ESPECIALLY after the meltdown in Games 1 and 4. I still can't blame Terry or Harvey for his STARTING the 9th inning in that context--when your starter's pitching like that, when your bullpen's failed you twice, and when the crowd's like that, it's a fair decision to give him a one-guy-gets-on leash.

    "just f'n gas and one of the best curveballs ever"

    There's a good New Yorker from 2014 I read the other day entitled "The Scourge of “Relatability” and how that's affecting the way people approach literature in relation to the rise of people demanding "relatability" in their characters, that they be immediately relatable to them instead of, you know, putting in the actual work of reading a book and finding something in it on your own and not having a personal self-affirming double handed to you in book form.

    That said, the article opens with a radio personality having said that King Lear sucked because he found the character and play (you guessed it) un-relatable to his own personal experience. Besides the fact that there are high school and college kids all over who would LOVE to be able to use that half-cocked excuse and get away with it (and that Shakespeare in general's tended to relate to audiences well enough for, well, over 400 years now, while being read and performed daily in literally every major living language at this point)...

    That said, as Shakespeare himself knew all too well, to succeed even back in HIS rookie year of 1587 B.C. (that is, Before Colon ) you had to do something set yourself apart and get patrons. Adapting the phrase from baseball to literature, "Just f'n verse and some of the best iambic pentameter ever" wouldn't have been enough.

    Should Harvey concern himself with being a one-man PR machine with whom people can relate as cheaply as Bella Swann or cartoonish WWE wrestler? No (despite the fact I get the feeling some here might view him that way already.) But I wouldn't have him look a gift horse in the mouth, either...

    Catering and feeling forced to relate to others? No. But if people give you a name and simply do relate to that and whatever personality you already have? I'd argue that's far more organic, and while it may not be the pure Doc Gooden prowess of that era, it could be its own thing in this time period...as long as he pitches as well as he did through 8 innings and we can feel confident enough to hand it off for the 9th, by all means--"just win, baby."

    Which serves as a coda to that--"just win baby's" practically a battle cry of the "act like you've been there before" crowd...but the man who coined that phrase, Al Davis--what was he if not a character, and a notorious, one of a kind one at that?
    First of all I didn't blame anyone for nicknames, or innings limits etc. Its just the way it is now, but now that you mentioned it when people called Dwight.."Doc"...fans didn't come to Shea in scrubs like the were preparing for surgery. Now with the Dark Knight - its like a convention of Batman wannabes. Hank Aaron was the Hammer.....Maddux was Mad Dog.....McGriff was Crime Dog....Mattingly was the Hitman.... Did people go to Atlanta dressed up like aisle 3 in Home Depot, did they come dressed like Cujo when Maddux was pitching? I don't recall see anyone dressed up like a 1940's mobster during Mattingly at bats. Nope....nicknames given to other people.

    Fans didn't play dress up on the way to the game. If a player had a nickname it was his. Now for some reason fans need to play tribute to someone else's nickname. Its absurd. Its not only here the fans in Anaheim where the "Trout Heads". We have absurdity on both coasts.

    "Don't take me out of the game"............... Have you ever seen a more publicized - don't take me out of the game? Why? Two reasons 1) it was in 2015 and nothing stays unseen, and 2) its Matt Harvey. Who then for charged out to the mound like the game was his...........then two batters later not so much.

    I don't blame Harvey for not being Gooden....no Met pitcher ever has ever had the impact of Gooden in my opinion, and again yes that includes Tom Seaver. The problem I have with Harvey is that in general he gets a lot of hoopla and I haven't actually seen why yet. I see flashes of a guy that could be great but I haven't seen greatness yet. I just see a lot of smoke around him. I also see a guy eating the hoopla up before he earned it. A very slippery slope indeed. Better not slip........oh wait too late.

    The problem is the fans need something else besides the beauty of the actual game itself. They need to feel like they are part of the action somehow. As I type it just keeps getting sadder in my mind for the all Batmen, Thors, and guys with long haired wigs that show up at Citi.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shea Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    I agree 100%. In fact personally I consider this the Mets one and only no-hitter. In the top of the 5th Keith Moreland hit a two hopper to Ray Knight. Knight couldn't get the ball out of his glove and he had to eat it. They gave Moreland a hit when clearly if the ball was fielded and thrown normally they get Moreland. Moreland was a catcher and was exactly a speedster. If that play happened in the 8th inning I think they call may have been different.

    Anyway....Any younger Met fans that watch Harvey, or any of the Met young studs....I hate to sound like the old guy, but you haven't seen anything. Dwight Gooden lit Shea Stadium up like no other pitcher/player in their history and yes that includes Tom Seaver. Seaver had the better career but Gooden games became an event. No funny nicknames, no stupid comic book masks, no innings limits, my agent said, no bats (winged), no hammers, no long hair, dont take me out of this game nonsense.........just f'n gas and one of the best curveballs ever.

    That was a fun time in Met history and in my opinion by far the best. 1984-1990 was untouched by an other period in their history. They only won one WS but they were entertaining to watch.

    Watching this makes me realize how gimmicky it has become.
    I DO agree Harvey probably won't match Doc Gooden's One Man Show status...NOW. Gooden didn't miss significant time, let alone a whole season, in those 5 amazing years from '84 to '88 for which he's most remembered, so he had time to build from his '84 season and keep growing his persona on the field as "the guy." Harvey had his (LESSER) version of 1984 via 2013, got hurt, came back, and now he's not so much Elvis as one of the Beatles, if you will. (That I infinitely prefer the music of the latter to the former is insignificant--YouTube Elvis' cover of "Hey Jude," that's one of the worst covers of one talent to another I've ever heard--but still.) With respect to Ron Darling and the other members of that 80s Mets staff, Gooden's the one everyone remembers most by far, and Harvey can now never have that on talent alone...which, to be clear, is fine. Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz weren't as fancy or full of flair as either Gooden or this Mets' staff, but they're still ALL well-deserved Hall of Famers and formed one of the best staffs of all-time...as Mets fans know only too well.

    Still, in terms of personal presence, it's not Harvey's fault that he wasn't able to become a Gooden--unless anyone really thinks he'd have had a horrible 2014, without the UCL tear and anywhere near his 2013 or 2015 performance, Harvey might well have been "the guy" even amidst the others. Or not. We'll never know.

    "No funny nicknames, no stupid comic book masks, no innings limits, my agent said, no bats (winged), no hammers, no long hair, dont take me out of this game nonsense.........just f'n gas and one of the best curveballs ever."

    Taking those one at a time:

    Nicknames: This one I'll never understand...baseball has a long a storied love of nicknames..."DOC" had a nickname...literally the most famous baseball player to ever live--and, in all likelihood, that will ever live, at least so far as we can see now--is known by his nickname wherever baseball is played, and anyone calling that nonsense and demanding he be called "George Herman" instead would itself be, well, nonsense. Is Harvey Babe Ruth? Has literally anyone SINCE Babe Ruth been Babe Ruth, transforming the game was played, making their last name an adjective unto itself, and STILL arguably being overlooked for what he did as a pitcher before becoming a full-time hitter?

    It's one thing if you give yourself a nickname (he's Kobe, and this is LA, so you can't say much about it here, but I've never liked Kobe's coining "the Black Mamba" for himself, like he sat around thinking what he'd like to go by, and at that declaring this his nickname more than a decade after he STARTED playing) but if other people give it to you...eh?

    In a rare instance of agreeing with Bryce "Where's My Ring" Harper, baseball COULD embrace personalities a little more, especially if it wants to continue marketing itself towards younger viewers. Does it need to turn into a total Millennial freak show...make Vines of every at bat, players taking selfies on the base paths, replacing managerial signals with meme-speak, what else...oh, having players Tinder one another and make that the All-Star voting...I feel I should clarify I hate each and every one of those things. BUT baseball doesn't have to be so stodgy as to be anti-nickname or personality, either. I get it, "act like you've been there," and for some people, that works fantastically--but there IS room, competitively, for both styles.

    And really, with all the talk about bat flips and gestures and whatever Yasiel Puig will do this season, nicknames are the least obtrusive of those, seemingly, so as long as an athlete not named Muhammad Ali isn't declaring himself "The King of the World" or something, what's the harm in letting writers and fans craft personas for the athletes, especially when that's as old as the very award Harvey would like to win someday--the "Cy" Young?

    Comic Book Masks/Hammers: Unless Harvey wears one on the mound... Out of curiosity, is this an anti-player-promotion thing, or wearing costumes for a team, period? The latter's pretty well-worn...the Cheeseheads at Lambeau...the Black Hole Crazies in both LA and Oakland for the Raiders...the Dawg Pound for the Cleveland Browns (unarguably the most consistent part of that franchise since it's revival...which, granted, says more about just how pitiful the Browns have been than anything else, but still, wearing costumes to support a team, like nicknames, is a pretty common thing, and doesn't directly impact the game on the field.)

    Innings Limits: Not Harvey's idea or fault, by all accounts, that really was a freak occurrence...and for as much as I hate how strictly pitchers are regulated and treated now, 1. I still wonder if the controversy from that didn't subconsciously fuel Harvey to want to go the distance in Game 5 and put that whole incident behind him, and 2. Of ALL pitchers, maybe Gooden, who worked that arm incredibly hard for someone so young, could've used an innings limit those first couple seasons? 1985, probably his best year, 24 wins, with a 1.53 ERA and 276.2 innings--ALL league-leading numbers. And that's great for 1985, but pitching almost 500 MLB innings before being legally old enough to drink?

    Again, not a fan of innings limits or pitch counts or any of that, especially given how much I prefer pitchers especially to be the more dramatic, diva-esque figures on the team and have fantastically-sustained outings the way opera singers can sustain notes for incredible periods of time...

    But aside from the fact he's forever the soundtrack to White Supremacists, there's a reason young opera singers today are cautioned against doing Wagner early in their careers--the notes are SO strenuous that it can (and has) lead to promising starlets ruining their voices prematurely.

    My Agent Said: As long as free agency exists (which will be forevermore) that'll be something players say. It sucks as a fan, but it is their livelihood, after all.

    No Bats (Winged): Extending my defense of nicknames/personalities here...unless the Batman logo somehow results in Harvey getting sick from lead paint or something, why not? Yeah, it's a gimmick, but frankly a batter or DH batting for the pitcher's a quirky gimmicky spot in the lineup, if you ask me.

    No Long Hair: ...I think you lost this one by the 1970s...?

    "Don't Take Me Out of This Game" Nonsense: In a general sense, players haven't wanted to come out of games as long as players and managers have existed. In the Harvey-specific instance, again, I wonder how much grief he got over that innings limit fueled his wanting to go the distance and put that to bed once and for all, you WANT your ace to want to give it their all, and it's the manager's call. Terry's a big boy, he could've pulled Harvey if he really wanted to...no one in that stadium wanted him out after the 8th, ESPECIALLY after the meltdown in Games 1 and 4. I still can't blame Terry or Harvey for his STARTING the 9th inning in that context--when your starter's pitching like that, when your bullpen's failed you twice, and when the crowd's like that, it's a fair decision to give him a one-guy-gets-on leash.

    "just f'n gas and one of the best curveballs ever"

    There's a good New Yorker from 2014 I read the other day entitled "The Scourge of “Relatability” and how that's affecting the way people approach literature in relation to the rise of people demanding "relatability" in their characters, that they be immediately relatable to them instead of, you know, putting in the actual work of reading a book and finding something in it on your own and not having a personal self-affirming double handed to you in book form.

    That said, the article opens with a radio personality having said that King Lear sucked because he found the character and play (you guessed it) un-relatable to his own personal experience. Besides the fact that there are high school and college kids all over who would LOVE to be able to use that half-cocked excuse and get away with it (and that Shakespeare in general's tended to relate to audiences well enough for, well, over 400 years now, while being read and performed daily in literally every major living language at this point)...

    That said, as Shakespeare himself knew all too well, to succeed even back in HIS rookie year of 1587 B.C. (that is, Before Colon ) you had to do something set yourself apart and get patrons. Adapting the phrase from baseball to literature, "Just f'n verse and some of the best iambic pentameter ever" wouldn't have been enough.

    Should Harvey concern himself with being a one-man PR machine with whom people can relate as cheaply as Bella Swann or cartoonish WWE wrestler? No (despite the fact I get the feeling some here might view him that way already.) But I wouldn't have him look a gift horse in the mouth, either...

    Catering and feeling forced to relate to others? No. But if people give you a name and simply do relate to that and whatever personality you already have? I'd argue that's far more organic, and while it may not be the pure Doc Gooden prowess of that era, it could be its own thing in this time period...as long as he pitches as well as he did through 8 innings and we can feel confident enough to hand it off for the 9th, by all means--"just win, baby."

    Which serves as a coda to that--"just win baby's" practically a battle cry of the "act like you've been there before" crowd...but the man who coined that phrase, Al Davis--what was he if not a character, and a notorious, one of a kind one at that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowtipper
    replied
    Remember when Matt Harvey said, "no, no, I can finish this game?" LOL, good times.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Mongoose View Post
    I thought the 99 team was more fun than the 00 though they didn't make it as far.

    Hard to explain the kind of impact Gooden had as a 19 year old. The hype (and talent) Harvey has is small by comparison. The mid 83 through 86 teams were like nothing else I've seen in terms of depth of talent and fan involvement. I loved all those players.

    If you look at Gooden you'll notice his fastball was his strikeout pitch here, though he'd get swinging strikes with fastball or curve. By 1985 Stottlemyre had him pitching to contact and he no longer got many swinging strikes on his fastball; his curveball became his strikeout pitch. By 1986 hitters had begun sitting on the fastball and strikeouts were down again.

    This footage reminds you of how hard he was to hit. Back then hitters didn't strike out nearly as much as today. He's either blowing them away with his fastball or making them flinch with the curve. The best stuff ever.
    Again I agree 100%. I thought the 1999 team was so much better. I look at the 2000 team and have no clue had they played in the WS. Their OF was pitiful.

    Unless you were around to see Gooden at 19-20 you dont understand the impact he had on the organization, the fans, and the city. Harvey as you mentioned isn't a blip on Goodens radar.

    For me personally in my previous post I extended the period to 1990 because Strawberry came into prominence.

    Gooden was impossible to hit - his fastball just stayed up longer - it stayed above the hitters hands. Then the curve..just amazing.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X