Daniel Murphy's usual walkup music is "Shipping Up to Boston" by the Dropkick Murphys, and Murphy showed in Game 5 that if the Mets allow him to ship out after the season as expected, they will be making a big mistake. Thanks to Murphy, the Mets are shipping up to the NLCS.
I picked the Dodgers to win the series because I could not see how the Mets could win two out of four starts from Clayton Kershaw and Zack Greinke. According to ESPN, the Dodgers were 19-0 going into last night when they scored at least two runs in a Greinke start. Last night, the Dodgers scored two runs. So how did they lose? Daniel Murphy and some Mets magic.
On the first play of the game, Curtis Granderson was called out at first base on a very close play. The Mets challenged the play and the call was overturned. Had the play not been challenged and overturned, Granderson would not have been able to score the first run on a double by, who else, Daniel Murphy.
Murphy's misadventures on the basepaths have become a running joke around the team (no pun intended). So it must be Mets magic that Murphy made the most heads-up baserunning play of the Mets season to enable the Mets to score their second run. With Murphy on first in the fourth inning, Lucas Duda walked. Murphy trotted to second as if nothing was amiss. But the shift had been on against Duda and Murphy saw that third base was not covered. So when Murphy reached second, he suddenly took off for third and made it easily. A really smart play by Murphy and a really dumb team miscue by the Dodgers. Because of Murphy's alertness, the Mets were able to score their second run on a sacrifice fly by Travis d'Arnaud.
The Dodgers missed their own chance for a clever play when right fielder Andre Ethier caught d'Arnaud's fly in foul territory. If Ethier had deliberately dropped it, Greinke might have been able to retire d'Arnaud for the second out without having a run score. With a great pitcher like Greinke, odds are he would have gotten d'Arnaud out anyway - Travis ended up hitting 3-for-19 in the series for a .158 batting average. As it stood, Michael Conforto followed d'Arnaud by hitting into a force play for the third out.
d'Arnaud also had a homer and four RBI in the series, and with Duda at first in addition to Murphy at third, dropping the ball could have backfired into a big inning. Also, the baseball gods were with the Mets last night, so maybe the Dodgers were doomed whatever they did. How else can you explain Murphy, not exactly Giancarlo Stanton, accounting for the Mets' third run with his third homer of the series, all off of either Greinke or Kershaw? Amazing!
The baseball gods were certainly looking over Terry Collins' shoulder when he left Jacob deGrom in through his difficult early innings, pinch-hit for deGrom in the seventh even though deGrom had finally settled into a groove and had thrown only 105 pitches, brought in Noah Syndergaard in the seventh even though he had warmed up four times, took out Syndergaard after only one inning even though Syndergard looked great, and turned to Jeurys Familia to get a six-out save for the first time in his career. Amazing!
If not for Murphy, this whole piece could have been about deGrom, who gave up four straight hits in the first inning and looked like he was on his way to another Met starter meltdown in a critical game. In another deciding game against the Dodgers, Game 7 of the NLCS in 1988, Ron Darling was knocked out in the second inning, giving up six runs (four earned) in one inning (he faced five batters in the second, retiring none of them). With Orel Hershiser on the mound, the game was over, and the Mets went on to lose, 6-0. Things looked similarly bleak early last night against Greinke.
In Game 6 against the Braves in the 1999 NLCS, with the Mets down 3 games to 2, Al Leiter did not retire a single batter, allowing five earned runs in 0 innings. The Mets came back to tie that game before they were eliminated in the eleventh inning when Kenny Rogers walked in the winning run.
Speaking of pitchers who won't be invited back to Met reunions, future Hall of Famer Tom Glavine closed out 2007 and his Met career by allowing seven earned runs in 1/3 inning as the Mets were eliminated on the final day of the regular season.
I dredge up these miserable memories only to emphasize how big-name veteran pitchers can fall apart in a critical game when deGrom, in his second season and first postseason appearance, was able to keep his team in the game. Darling, Leiter and Glavine all had World Series rings at the time of their meltdowns. They way deGrom battled last night, he could be on the way to his own World Series ring. We can only hope!
The Mets have only one day off before starting the NLCS against the Chicago Cubs, so I'm taking this day to continue celebrating before worrying about what comes next. Lets' Go Mets!
Showing posts with label Los Angeles Dodgers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Los Angeles Dodgers. Show all posts
Friday, October 16, 2015
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
NLDS Mets-Dodgers Game 4 wrapup: Crazy to consider putting in Jacob deGrom
It was bad enough seeing the Mets fail to put away the Dodgers in Game 4. But we also had to endure the sight of Jacob deGrom warming up in the fifth inning. Does the Mets' interest in protecting their prized young pitchers depend on how loudly their agents complain?
According to today's Daily News:
The Mets have said repeatedly that Harvey would not be allowed to pitch out of the bullpen because they fear the quick warmup would be a chance for him to re-injure his elbow.
Yet later in the very same article:
Jacob deGrom could be seen throwing in the bullpen in the fifth inning Tuesday night, leading many to believe he had a chance of entering the game in relief instead of Colon. Collins said that was, indeed, the case. The team told deGrom in the afternoon to wait to throw his scheduled bullpen session until later in case they "might need him.". .
In Game 1 last Saturday, deGrom threw a season-high 121 pitches. We've heard a lot in all the Harvey hullabaloo about how some pitches are more stressful than others. I think it's fair to say that opening the playoffs in a tight game against Clayton Kershaw made those 121 pitches the most stressful deGrom has throw in his career.
And if deGrom ended up using his regular between-starts throwing to actually pitch in Game 4, are we supposed to believe that those playoff game pitches would not be any more stressful than a regular bullpen session?
I understand it's the playoffs and all hands are on deck. But thanks to the Harvey rules, all hands are not fully on deck. And last night was not an elimination game for the Mets.
Game 5 is an elimination game, so if deGrom falters, bring Noah Syndergaard into the game if absolutely necessary. But if deGrom pitched last night and ended up being unavailable for Game 5, who would be there to back up Syndergaard if Noah had to start Game 5? We already know it won't be Harvey, but now it couldn't be deGrom, either. Bartolo Colon has been dependable out of the bullpen, but he's now pitched in three straight games. If Jon Niese has to come in to Game 5 early, Squawker Lisa might as well send me a golf emoji right then, because the Mets season will be over.
Fortunately, deGrom is able to start Game 5 on full rest without a potentially risky relief appearance. Beating Zack Greinke won't be easy, but but the same can be said of beating deGrom. One game. Winner take all. Let's go Mets!
According to today's Daily News:
The Mets have said repeatedly that Harvey would not be allowed to pitch out of the bullpen because they fear the quick warmup would be a chance for him to re-injure his elbow.
Yet later in the very same article:
Jacob deGrom could be seen throwing in the bullpen in the fifth inning Tuesday night, leading many to believe he had a chance of entering the game in relief instead of Colon. Collins said that was, indeed, the case. The team told deGrom in the afternoon to wait to throw his scheduled bullpen session until later in case they "might need him.". .
In Game 1 last Saturday, deGrom threw a season-high 121 pitches. We've heard a lot in all the Harvey hullabaloo about how some pitches are more stressful than others. I think it's fair to say that opening the playoffs in a tight game against Clayton Kershaw made those 121 pitches the most stressful deGrom has throw in his career.
And if deGrom ended up using his regular between-starts throwing to actually pitch in Game 4, are we supposed to believe that those playoff game pitches would not be any more stressful than a regular bullpen session?
I understand it's the playoffs and all hands are on deck. But thanks to the Harvey rules, all hands are not fully on deck. And last night was not an elimination game for the Mets.
Game 5 is an elimination game, so if deGrom falters, bring Noah Syndergaard into the game if absolutely necessary. But if deGrom pitched last night and ended up being unavailable for Game 5, who would be there to back up Syndergaard if Noah had to start Game 5? We already know it won't be Harvey, but now it couldn't be deGrom, either. Bartolo Colon has been dependable out of the bullpen, but he's now pitched in three straight games. If Jon Niese has to come in to Game 5 early, Squawker Lisa might as well send me a golf emoji right then, because the Mets season will be over.
Fortunately, deGrom is able to start Game 5 on full rest without a potentially risky relief appearance. Beating Zack Greinke won't be easy, but but the same can be said of beating deGrom. One game. Winner take all. Let's go Mets!
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
A Yankee fan's thoughts on the Mets-Dodgers series, and why Chase Utley is a monster and Don Mattingly a bad manager
 |
| I agree! |
Citi Field is a beautiful ballpark, and now it finally has a team worthy of it. The house was rocking last night, for sure! (I would have liked to have seen the pregame intros live -- and to have heard the boos Chase Utley received -- though. Here's a clip of the Utley boos.)
 | |
| These are pretty funny. My fave one is the Bababooey sign. (Photos courtesy of New York Daily News.) |
Anyhow, I watched most of the game, but it was on past my bedtime, So I went to bed before it was over. Was excited to see that ex-Yankee, and all-around good guy, Curtis Granderson got one of the game's big hits!
Speaking of a Yankee fan's perspective, John S., a fellow Yankee fan and longtime Squawkers reader, left an interesting comment on my Facebook page about the Chase Utley/Ruben Tejada contretemps, Don Mattingly's mismanagement, and Joe Torre's involvement:
"Don Mattingly wimped out. Instead of recognizing that the Dodgers were at a severe disadvantage not pitching one of their aces against the Mets ace, he should have started Utley defiantly, daring the Mets to start something. He may have still lost but the Dodgers would have been furious and united had Utley been drilled. Whereas Utley hits Harvey very well, Kendrick has done nothing at all over his career against the Dark Knight - so why play him? I suspect that Pope Joe made a deal with Donnie here - Utley can play pending appeal which won't be heard until next season (when he probably won't be a Dodger anyway) - just don't play him tonight. It fits very well with the same strategy of NOT bunting on a subpar Curt Schilling. Mattingly learned his lessons well............."
You know, I wish I had thought of this analysis! And yes, I do think Torre and Mattingly made some sort of gentleman's agreement here. (Also, if Utley retires after this year, they'll never have to deal with the appeal.)
But yeah, that bad-guy stance would have been the only thing for Donnie Baseball to do. I don't think very much of Mattingly as a manager, though. (I never wanted him to manage the Yankees.) So I'm not surprised.
And any chance I get to bash Joe Torre is one I will take!
NLDS Mets-Dodgers Game 3 wrapup: The Grandy Man Can
Amazin' Amazin' Amazin'! Ya Gotta Believe! Utley Sucks! Some inspirational slogans are more family-friendly than others, but the dirty Dodger unwittingly inspired the Mets and their fans in a pivotal Game 3 win over L.A. Not to mention Ruben Tejada doing his version of a Willis Reed entrance by hobbling onto the field with his leg cast and Met-themed cane.
The pitching-centered Mets scored 13 runs, a franchise record for a postseason game. Yoenis Cespedes and Travis d'Arnaud, both slumping at the end of the regular season, both homered. Both players also had three hits, three RBI and three runs scored, which had never been done by any Met in postseason play.
Curtis Granderson tied a Mets postseason record with 5 RBI, all off lefthanded pitchers. Granderson turned the game around with a three-run double off Brett Anderson in the second to put the Mets ahead, 4-3. In the seventh, he hit a two-run double off J.P. Howell for the Mets' final two runs.
Matt Harvey pitched well enough to win, but was not at his best. Still, it's hard to complain about anything after such a great game.
In Game 4, Clayton Kershaw vs. Steven Matz looks like a mismatch, but Kershaw is on three days rest and may not go more than six innings, so if the Mets can keep it close, their awakened bats can finish off the Dodgers once they have to go their bullpen. If not, Zack Greinke vs. Jacob deGrom in a deciding Game 5 now looks like a more even matchup than it did before the series.
But if the Mets do have to go back to L.A., we won't get to see fan signs such as "Utley ♥ ISIS." So let's put it in the books tonight!
The pitching-centered Mets scored 13 runs, a franchise record for a postseason game. Yoenis Cespedes and Travis d'Arnaud, both slumping at the end of the regular season, both homered. Both players also had three hits, three RBI and three runs scored, which had never been done by any Met in postseason play.
Curtis Granderson tied a Mets postseason record with 5 RBI, all off lefthanded pitchers. Granderson turned the game around with a three-run double off Brett Anderson in the second to put the Mets ahead, 4-3. In the seventh, he hit a two-run double off J.P. Howell for the Mets' final two runs.
Matt Harvey pitched well enough to win, but was not at his best. Still, it's hard to complain about anything after such a great game.
In Game 4, Clayton Kershaw vs. Steven Matz looks like a mismatch, but Kershaw is on three days rest and may not go more than six innings, so if the Mets can keep it close, their awakened bats can finish off the Dodgers once they have to go their bullpen. If not, Zack Greinke vs. Jacob deGrom in a deciding Game 5 now looks like a more even matchup than it did before the series.
But if the Mets do have to go back to L.A., we won't get to see fan signs such as "Utley ♥ ISIS." So let's put it in the books tonight!
Monday, October 12, 2015
NLDS Mets-Dodgers Game 2 wrapup/Game 3 preview: Chase the Disgrace
Chase Utley's rolling block that broke Ruben Tejada's leg has me thinking of Roger Clemens. Both players did something during a postseason Game 2 that should have gotten them ejected (Clemens threw part of a broken bat at Mike Piazza in Game 2 of the 2000 World Series). Both players' reckless play seriously injured a Met (Clemens beaned Piazza in July 2000). What remains to be seen is if the parallels between the Mets and the two dirty players continue in the aftermath of the respective incidents, or if this time the Mets show the other team they will not stand for dirty play.
The Mets did not respond to Clemens after he threw the broken bat piece at Piazza, and the Yankees went on to win that game and the Series. It took until June 2002 for the Mets to respond, and Shawn Estes throwing behind Clemens' back was a tepid response at best. Yes, Estes homered off Clemens in that game and the Mets went on to beat Clemens. But maybe it's not a coincidence that, after 2000, the Mets would fall out of contention until 2006.
When I heard that Utley had been suspended, I thought the situation had been largely resolved. Utley did something wrong and he and his team were being punished for it. It was still a good deal for the Dodgers - winning Game 2 with the help of a bad call and costing the Mets their starting shortstop at the small price of losing a backup infielder for a couple of games. Then Utley wanted to appeal, which is his right, and MLB said they could not do the appeal today, which is ridiculous. What, are they waiting for Roger Goodell to be available? If the suspension is upheld, but is not in effect until next season, that does not do the Mets any good now, not to mention that Utley could be retired by then. Dragging it out only exacerbates the situation.
As bad as this situation is, the umpires and MLB made it much worse. After reviewing the play, the umpires should have ruled that Utley interfered with Tejada and he and the batter were out. Or, if that's too bold for a postseason play, uphold the original out call. Instead, the umpires used tortured logic to rule Utley safe, giving the Dodgers an extra out and enabling them to rally for four two-out runs.
Joe Torre then made matters worse by fumbling through a postgame news conference, seeming unsure of the rules and constantly turning to an umpire representative for clarification. As happy as I was to hear Torre's ruling of a suspension the following day, I would be annoyed if I were a Dodger fan, since Torre's initial reaction left him open to charges of overreacting to angry New Yorkers. On Saturday night, Torre should have just released a statement saying that MLB was looking into it.
I don't want to see the Mets deliberately try to injure Utley. Utley and some misguided older players have tried to muddle the issue by saying that baseball must have room for hard-nosed play, and there I agree. I don't want to see runners barred from trying to break up a double play. But it's not too much to ask for a runner to be required to slide toward the base. Or to start your slide before you are on top of the bag.
I'm also not excited about the prospect of throwing at someone like Dodger shortstop Corey Seager, who had nothing to do with the initial play.
But I'm still angry about Utley's play and hope the Mets find some way to retaliate. And this brings us to Matt Harvey, whose recent actions have made him seem more like a 24-and-1 player than someone who puts his team first. The first priority is for Harvey to pitch the Mets to within one game of the NLCS. But I'm also hoping he finds a non-dirty way to retaliate for Utley's dirty play.
If Utley is in the starting lineup, well, I know what I would like to see. But I have to concede it should not be in the second inning or whenever Utley first comes up. I can just hear Scott Boras whispering in Harvey's ear: "Hit him right away and get yourself ejected - you'll win back the Met fans and local media and still manage to keep your innings count down!
The Mets did not respond to Clemens after he threw the broken bat piece at Piazza, and the Yankees went on to win that game and the Series. It took until June 2002 for the Mets to respond, and Shawn Estes throwing behind Clemens' back was a tepid response at best. Yes, Estes homered off Clemens in that game and the Mets went on to beat Clemens. But maybe it's not a coincidence that, after 2000, the Mets would fall out of contention until 2006.
When I heard that Utley had been suspended, I thought the situation had been largely resolved. Utley did something wrong and he and his team were being punished for it. It was still a good deal for the Dodgers - winning Game 2 with the help of a bad call and costing the Mets their starting shortstop at the small price of losing a backup infielder for a couple of games. Then Utley wanted to appeal, which is his right, and MLB said they could not do the appeal today, which is ridiculous. What, are they waiting for Roger Goodell to be available? If the suspension is upheld, but is not in effect until next season, that does not do the Mets any good now, not to mention that Utley could be retired by then. Dragging it out only exacerbates the situation.
As bad as this situation is, the umpires and MLB made it much worse. After reviewing the play, the umpires should have ruled that Utley interfered with Tejada and he and the batter were out. Or, if that's too bold for a postseason play, uphold the original out call. Instead, the umpires used tortured logic to rule Utley safe, giving the Dodgers an extra out and enabling them to rally for four two-out runs.
Joe Torre then made matters worse by fumbling through a postgame news conference, seeming unsure of the rules and constantly turning to an umpire representative for clarification. As happy as I was to hear Torre's ruling of a suspension the following day, I would be annoyed if I were a Dodger fan, since Torre's initial reaction left him open to charges of overreacting to angry New Yorkers. On Saturday night, Torre should have just released a statement saying that MLB was looking into it.
I don't want to see the Mets deliberately try to injure Utley. Utley and some misguided older players have tried to muddle the issue by saying that baseball must have room for hard-nosed play, and there I agree. I don't want to see runners barred from trying to break up a double play. But it's not too much to ask for a runner to be required to slide toward the base. Or to start your slide before you are on top of the bag.
I'm also not excited about the prospect of throwing at someone like Dodger shortstop Corey Seager, who had nothing to do with the initial play.
But I'm still angry about Utley's play and hope the Mets find some way to retaliate. And this brings us to Matt Harvey, whose recent actions have made him seem more like a 24-and-1 player than someone who puts his team first. The first priority is for Harvey to pitch the Mets to within one game of the NLCS. But I'm also hoping he finds a non-dirty way to retaliate for Utley's dirty play.
If Utley is in the starting lineup, well, I know what I would like to see. But I have to concede it should not be in the second inning or whenever Utley first comes up. I can just hear Scott Boras whispering in Harvey's ear: "Hit him right away and get yourself ejected - you'll win back the Met fans and local media and still manage to keep your innings count down!
Saturday, October 10, 2015
NLDS Mets-Dodgers Game 1: Dummy Baseball
Yesterday, I drew some flak from fellow Met fans for picking the Dodgers to win the series. I did so on the basis of L.A.'s seemingly unbeatable combination of Clayton Kershaw and Zack Greinke. I failed to consider two things: 1) Jacob deGrom might outpitch Kershaw, and 2) the Dodger manager is Don Mattingly.
Matt Harvey (Dark Knight) and Noah Syndergaard (Thor) have superhero nicknames. deGrom has a promotional garden gnome that was given out in a game that Squawker Lisa and I attended in May. But while deGrom has an unassuming public persona compared to Syndergaard and especially Harvey, he has quietly continued to blow away expectations - and on the biggest stages.
deGrom made his major-league debut during the 2014 Subway Series. Rafael Montero had made his major-league debut against the Yankees the night before. Montero was considered the main prospect at the time, while deGrom was pretty much a fill-in. deGrom pitched seven innings of one-run ball in his debut and ended up being NL Rookie of the Year.
When deGrom made the All-Star team this year, he struck out the side on ten pitches.
So when deGrom struck out six in the first two innings, it should have been no surprise. But 13 strikeouts and no runs? Only four other pitchers have ever done that in their postseason debut.
The box score will show that Kershaw was charged with three earned runs in yet another postseason loss. But Kershaw was blowing away the Mets for most of the game. In fact, it was the first postseason game ever in which both starters had at least 11 strikeouts. If not for the Daniel Murphy home run, it would have been a scoreless tie in the seventh when Kershaw walked the bases loaded, bringing David Wright to the plate with two outs and putting Mattingly on the spot.
It was deja vu all over again. In last year's NLDS Game 1, Kershaw was also great through six innings, before faltering in the seventh. Mattingly did not take him out until after the Cardinals had gotten six hits and five runs.
Mattingly may have been too slow with his hook last year, but he was too quick last night, pulling Kershaw for Pedro Baez, who gave up a two-run single to Wright that turned out to be the margin of victory.
Mattingly learned the wrong lesson from 2014. Maybe Kershaw was tiring, but he had not given up a bunch of hits. He had not given up any hits in the seventh, just walks. In fact, he had not given up a hit to a righthanded hitter all night. Sure, Wright might have gotten the same hit off of Kershaw, but it's more likely that the worst-case scenario would have been another walk, which would have been bad for the Dodgers but not as bad as a two-run single. And then nobody would argue with taking Kershaw out.
While Kershaw left after 113 pitches, Terry Collins let deGrom hit for himself in the seventh when he bunted and kept deGrom in for 121 pitches and seven innings. When Tyler Clippard stumbled in the eighth, it only showed how right Collins was to get seven innings out of the dominant deGrom.
Yes, Mattingly had a tough choice. But he's choosing between the best pitcher on the planet and Pedro Baez, who just happens to be the same pitcher Mattingly used to relieve Kershaw in last year's NLDS Game 1. And how did Baez do last year? He walked the first batter he faced, then gave up a home run to the second. The Dodgers lost the game by one run. So Mattingly goes to this guy in the same spot this year? Dummy Baseball.
*
There's been a lot of talk about how David Wright has waited nine long years to get back to the postseason, and he was certainly one of the heroes last night, but Daniel Murphy is in his eighth season as a Met and had never even been to the postseason until last night, when all he did in his debut was to homer off of Kershaw for the only run in the first six innings for either team.
If there's any doubt that the Mets have some magic going this season, the defensively-challenged Murphy was moved to first base as the Mets fortified their defense in the late innings and Murphy made a great play there in the ninth.
*
deGrom's unflappability and Murphy's intensity were not just a winning combination in Game 1, but in the postgame interviews as well, when deGrom pulled a prank on Murphy.
Matt Harvey (Dark Knight) and Noah Syndergaard (Thor) have superhero nicknames. deGrom has a promotional garden gnome that was given out in a game that Squawker Lisa and I attended in May. But while deGrom has an unassuming public persona compared to Syndergaard and especially Harvey, he has quietly continued to blow away expectations - and on the biggest stages.
deGrom made his major-league debut during the 2014 Subway Series. Rafael Montero had made his major-league debut against the Yankees the night before. Montero was considered the main prospect at the time, while deGrom was pretty much a fill-in. deGrom pitched seven innings of one-run ball in his debut and ended up being NL Rookie of the Year.
When deGrom made the All-Star team this year, he struck out the side on ten pitches.
So when deGrom struck out six in the first two innings, it should have been no surprise. But 13 strikeouts and no runs? Only four other pitchers have ever done that in their postseason debut.
The box score will show that Kershaw was charged with three earned runs in yet another postseason loss. But Kershaw was blowing away the Mets for most of the game. In fact, it was the first postseason game ever in which both starters had at least 11 strikeouts. If not for the Daniel Murphy home run, it would have been a scoreless tie in the seventh when Kershaw walked the bases loaded, bringing David Wright to the plate with two outs and putting Mattingly on the spot.
It was deja vu all over again. In last year's NLDS Game 1, Kershaw was also great through six innings, before faltering in the seventh. Mattingly did not take him out until after the Cardinals had gotten six hits and five runs.
Mattingly may have been too slow with his hook last year, but he was too quick last night, pulling Kershaw for Pedro Baez, who gave up a two-run single to Wright that turned out to be the margin of victory.
Mattingly learned the wrong lesson from 2014. Maybe Kershaw was tiring, but he had not given up a bunch of hits. He had not given up any hits in the seventh, just walks. In fact, he had not given up a hit to a righthanded hitter all night. Sure, Wright might have gotten the same hit off of Kershaw, but it's more likely that the worst-case scenario would have been another walk, which would have been bad for the Dodgers but not as bad as a two-run single. And then nobody would argue with taking Kershaw out.
While Kershaw left after 113 pitches, Terry Collins let deGrom hit for himself in the seventh when he bunted and kept deGrom in for 121 pitches and seven innings. When Tyler Clippard stumbled in the eighth, it only showed how right Collins was to get seven innings out of the dominant deGrom.
Yes, Mattingly had a tough choice. But he's choosing between the best pitcher on the planet and Pedro Baez, who just happens to be the same pitcher Mattingly used to relieve Kershaw in last year's NLDS Game 1. And how did Baez do last year? He walked the first batter he faced, then gave up a home run to the second. The Dodgers lost the game by one run. So Mattingly goes to this guy in the same spot this year? Dummy Baseball.
*
There's been a lot of talk about how David Wright has waited nine long years to get back to the postseason, and he was certainly one of the heroes last night, but Daniel Murphy is in his eighth season as a Met and had never even been to the postseason until last night, when all he did in his debut was to homer off of Kershaw for the only run in the first six innings for either team.
If there's any doubt that the Mets have some magic going this season, the defensively-challenged Murphy was moved to first base as the Mets fortified their defense in the late innings and Murphy made a great play there in the ninth.
*
deGrom's unflappability and Murphy's intensity were not just a winning combination in Game 1, but in the postgame interviews as well, when deGrom pulled a prank on Murphy.
Friday, October 9, 2015
Postseason finally here for Mets
It's been nine long years, but the Mets are finally back in the playoffs. I didn't expect it this season, but I also didn't expect how great the young starters would be, especially after Zack Wheeler went down for the year. But Jacob deGrom showed he was not a fluke, Matt Harvey did better than expected in his first season back from Tommy John surgery and Noah Syndergaard fanned 166 in 150 innings. The Mets have the pitching to take them to the World Series. Unfortunately, so do the Dodgers.
Clayton Kershaw and Zack Greinke can be beaten - the Mets won two of the four games this season in which they faced them. The final scores were 3-2 and 2-1 and the opposing pitchers were deGrom and Syndergaard, just like they will be in Games 1 and 2 of the NLDS (during the season, deGrom faced Greinke and Syndergaard faced Kershaw). All four starters pitched well and none figured in the decisions.
Kershaw has also lost his last four postseason starts with an ERA over 7. It would seem that he's too great a pitcher not to regain his form, but David Price was expected to reverse his latest postseason struggles yesterday against Texas and instead fell to 0-6 in the postseason.
It's been such a magical season for the Mets that even a late season no-hitter against them by Max Scherzer brought up memories of Bob Moose's late-season no-hitter against the Mets in 1969, just before they went on their postseason run to the world championship. The 1969 team had two star pitchers, Tom Seaver and Jerry Koosman, and a promising rookie, Gary Gentry. The 2015 Mets have deGrom, Harvey and Syndergaard. Both of these teams also could boast yet another promising young pitcher outside the top three. Granted, Steven Matz is not likely to be another Nolan Ryan, and the other starters have a way to go before we start comparing them to Seaver, but the current staff has the potential for a magical run.
What worries me is whether the same can be said for the hitters. After getting hit by a pitch on September 14, Yoenis Cespedes had no homers and two RBI in his last 16 games while his batting average dropped 22 points. When Cespedes is quiet, the Mets' rejuvenated offense is not so rejuvenated.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think Kershaw and Greinke will be too much for the Mets, so Dodgers in four. Squawker Lisa is also predicting the series will end in four.
No, my mistake, she's just yelling "Fore!" on the golf course.
Speaking of the Yankees, their late-season hitting woes ended up giving them little chance against Dallas Keuchel, which is exactly the scenario that worries me against Kershaw and Greinke. But if the Mets can manage a split in L.A. and Harvey shows in Game 3 that he's worth the aggravation, the Mets can keep the magic going. Let's go Mets!
Clayton Kershaw and Zack Greinke can be beaten - the Mets won two of the four games this season in which they faced them. The final scores were 3-2 and 2-1 and the opposing pitchers were deGrom and Syndergaard, just like they will be in Games 1 and 2 of the NLDS (during the season, deGrom faced Greinke and Syndergaard faced Kershaw). All four starters pitched well and none figured in the decisions.
Kershaw has also lost his last four postseason starts with an ERA over 7. It would seem that he's too great a pitcher not to regain his form, but David Price was expected to reverse his latest postseason struggles yesterday against Texas and instead fell to 0-6 in the postseason.
It's been such a magical season for the Mets that even a late season no-hitter against them by Max Scherzer brought up memories of Bob Moose's late-season no-hitter against the Mets in 1969, just before they went on their postseason run to the world championship. The 1969 team had two star pitchers, Tom Seaver and Jerry Koosman, and a promising rookie, Gary Gentry. The 2015 Mets have deGrom, Harvey and Syndergaard. Both of these teams also could boast yet another promising young pitcher outside the top three. Granted, Steven Matz is not likely to be another Nolan Ryan, and the other starters have a way to go before we start comparing them to Seaver, but the current staff has the potential for a magical run.
What worries me is whether the same can be said for the hitters. After getting hit by a pitch on September 14, Yoenis Cespedes had no homers and two RBI in his last 16 games while his batting average dropped 22 points. When Cespedes is quiet, the Mets' rejuvenated offense is not so rejuvenated.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think Kershaw and Greinke will be too much for the Mets, so Dodgers in four. Squawker Lisa is also predicting the series will end in four.
No, my mistake, she's just yelling "Fore!" on the golf course.
Speaking of the Yankees, their late-season hitting woes ended up giving them little chance against Dallas Keuchel, which is exactly the scenario that worries me against Kershaw and Greinke. But if the Mets can manage a split in L.A. and Harvey shows in Game 3 that he's worth the aggravation, the Mets can keep the magic going. Let's go Mets!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
T.J. Simers, Marcus Thames, and the State of Sports Journalism
I was one of the many bloggers outraged over the hit piece Los Angeles Times columnist T.J. Simers did on former Yankee Marcus Thames. He called the player a head case and a stiff, and said the following to him without introducing himself: "Are you that horrible on defense that teams don't think it's worth playing such a home run threat?" Then he continued to pummel Thames for not responding and eventually walking away from Simers without saying anything. Lots of people are upset with the way Simers treated one of the nicest people in the game, including Curtis Granderson and Peter Gammons.
Here's my article for The Faster Times on the issue, asking if Simers were the biggest bully in baseball. Sports journalist Jeff Pearlman agreed with me on Simers, and wrote about it in his blog. My article also got mentioned in SportsJournalists.com.
Sadly, there were a bunch of sports journalists on that thread who defended the guy, saying that's what he does all the time. As if being a complete jerk to the people you cover is okay. How, exactly, does it help your readers to learn more about their team when your entire shtick consists of using your press pass to bully players, then write negatively about how they react, no matter what they do?
Funny thing is that Simers has criticized bloggers for not being accountable, when he's gotten away with being a jerk for many years. In a 2007 interview with the Daily Bruin, he started his screed by complaining that "many sports fans are idiots," and said that that he didn't take any callers on his sports radio show because "I don’t want to deal with morons." He then claimed, "I’m all about putting sports in the proper perspective. The line is very simple, you’re a professional, this is your craft." Right, because calling Andruw Jones The Tubbo, as he has done repeatedly, just screams professionalism. Simers was then asked if he followed sports blogs. His response:
And where is Simers' vaunted accountability? Where is his apology? What he did with Thames is, sadly, his typical "poke somebody with a stick" shtick, but he's actually getting called on it for once, because Thames is a great guy who overcome a lot to get into the game. The player raised him and his four siblings, despite being paralyzed from the neck down when Thames was five, and Marcus joined the National Guard in high school to support his family.)
Anyhow, if the best response Simers' defenders have is that he's always done this, that's pretty weak. Just because somebody's gotten away with being a jerk for decades doesn't mean he should get away with it forever.
What do you think? Tell us about it!
Here's my article for The Faster Times on the issue, asking if Simers were the biggest bully in baseball. Sports journalist Jeff Pearlman agreed with me on Simers, and wrote about it in his blog. My article also got mentioned in SportsJournalists.com.
Sadly, there were a bunch of sports journalists on that thread who defended the guy, saying that's what he does all the time. As if being a complete jerk to the people you cover is okay. How, exactly, does it help your readers to learn more about their team when your entire shtick consists of using your press pass to bully players, then write negatively about how they react, no matter what they do?
Funny thing is that Simers has criticized bloggers for not being accountable, when he's gotten away with being a jerk for many years. In a 2007 interview with the Daily Bruin, he started his screed by complaining that "many sports fans are idiots," and said that that he didn't take any callers on his sports radio show because "I don’t want to deal with morons." He then claimed, "I’m all about putting sports in the proper perspective. The line is very simple, you’re a professional, this is your craft." Right, because calling Andruw Jones The Tubbo, as he has done repeatedly, just screams professionalism. Simers was then asked if he followed sports blogs. His response:
Are you kidding me? Why would I follow a sports blog? That’s some guy in his basement who has never interviewed an athlete. ... That person can’t offer me anything. You have got to go out in the field. ... Bloggers are never held accountable. I don’t trust them. Accountability is a big deal. When I call someone a name in the paper, I’m there the next day, and they can let me have it. I have to stand by what I wrote.Aside from using the tired cliche about the blogger in his basement (although I guess it's an upgrade, being his own basement, and not his mother's), it's rich that Simers complains about how "bloggers are never held accountable," when he's been getting away with treating people like garbage for decades now. He treats his own readers with the very same contempt he shows his subjects. And newspapers wonder why fans are moving away from reading their product!
And where is Simers' vaunted accountability? Where is his apology? What he did with Thames is, sadly, his typical "poke somebody with a stick" shtick, but he's actually getting called on it for once, because Thames is a great guy who overcome a lot to get into the game. The player raised him and his four siblings, despite being paralyzed from the neck down when Thames was five, and Marcus joined the National Guard in high school to support his family.)
Anyhow, if the best response Simers' defenders have is that he's always done this, that's pretty weak. Just because somebody's gotten away with being a jerk for decades doesn't mean he should get away with it forever.
What do you think? Tell us about it!
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Shocker! ESPN's Wallace Matthews actually writes something fair on A-Rod!
ESPN New York's Wally Matthews is a huge A-Rod hater. Time after time, he writes columns criticizing Alex Rodriguez on the most petty of issues, so it was a big surprise to see Matthews' name attached to a very good story entitled "A-Rod shows more class than Torre."
For all the talk about A-Rod snubbing Joe Torre, nobody on the Yankee beat seemed to notice that Torre didn't exactly fall over himself approaching Rodriguez, either. Until now. Matthews writes:
Matthews even sent a little criticism St. Joe's way in his column:
Like Michael Kay, I myself was hoping Rodriguez wouldn't bother talking to Torre at all. But in retrospect, I think what he did worked out fine. A-Rod did look like the bigger person.
As for Torre, I had to laugh when I read that he was ticked off at the Los Angeles Times for not completely writing the party line about him:
Landscape of baseball, eh? Get over yourself, Joe. Your score-settling hit piece will never be mistaken for "The Glory of Their Times II."
What do you think? Tell us about it!
For all the talk about A-Rod snubbing Joe Torre, nobody on the Yankee beat seemed to notice that Torre didn't exactly fall over himself approaching Rodriguez, either. Until now. Matthews writes:
All weekend, Torre talked about how he had no hard feelings toward Rodriguez, how he hoped that Rodriguez held none toward him and how he would "certainly go over and shake his hand.''Matthews was just griping this weekend about how A-Rod made this story about himself by not approaching Torre. But the real person who orchestrated this story in the media was Torre himself, by talking about it with reporters constantly. If shaking Joe's hand was so important to him, why didn't he make the first move?
Torre talked and talked and talked. But Rodriguez was the one who acted.
And whether you think it was staged or not -- Rodriguez was seen huddling with Yankees media relations director Jason Zillo up the right-field line before suddenly turning and bolting with his hand outstretched toward Torre -- the fact is, A-Rod made the first move.
Heck, A-Rod made the only move. And for that, he deserves some credit.
Matthews even sent a little criticism St. Joe's way in his column:
Considering the difference in age and maturity, and the fact that it was Torre who co-wrote the book which contained embarrassing passages about A-Rod, it certainly seemed to be Torre's place to approach Rodriguez, rather than vice versa.Good points, and that's what the media completely missed in this story - that Torre should have been the one to approach him, and not vice versa.
But Torre never did that. And his disclaimer -- "Well, he was busy'' -- to explain why he and A-Rod managed to not cross paths came off as disingenuous and even a little snarky.
Like Michael Kay, I myself was hoping Rodriguez wouldn't bother talking to Torre at all. But in retrospect, I think what he did worked out fine. A-Rod did look like the bigger person.
As for Torre, I had to laugh when I read that he was ticked off at the Los Angeles Times for not completely writing the party line about him:
Torre was upset with a story in the Sunday edition of The Times in which it was written that Rodriguez was described as "a head case" in "The Yankee Years."
Here are a couple of quotes from the book about Rodriguez that are directly attributed to Torre:
-- "When it comes to a key situation, he can't get himself to concern himself with getting the job done, instead of how it looks."
-- "For me success was still going to be about pitching. But seeing his personality concerned me because you could see his focus was on individual stuff."
Torre later explained that whatever he was quoted as saying in the book, he had already said to Rodriguez directly beforehand. The reason he became upset Sunday, he said, was that he was tired of how the book was portrayed as a hit piece on Rodriguez when it was about the landscape of baseball.
Landscape of baseball, eh? Get over yourself, Joe. Your score-settling hit piece will never be mistaken for "The Glory of Their Times II."
What do you think? Tell us about it!
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
There you go again, Joe Torre
Joe Torre is talking out of both sides of his mouth again - and I can prove it.
Monday, he played all dumb when asked about Ken Rosenthal's report that friends of the manager have told the reporter that Torre would not be back with the Dodgers next year unless the ownership's "penny-pinching circus" ends. Rosenthal suggested that Torre could be in demand as the manager for the Mets, Braves, or Cubs, as well as other teams.
Torre denied all, telling Ken Gurnick of MLB.com, "Obviously they're not friends of mine." Torre insisted, "I don't really allow those conversations out of my home. I haven't made up my mind and won't until closer to the end of the season."
Oh really? Joe doesn't know what he's going to do next year? Because that's not what he told Joel Sherman when his Dodgers were in town last month.
Sherman wrote in his New York Post about what he called Torre's "plight" with the "penny-pinching" (there's that phrase again!) Dodgers. In the piece, Sherman said Torre "told me that he knows right now what he wants to do, but was not going to announce it until later in the season." Busted!
That wasn't the only disingenuous comment Torre said in the MLB.com interview. As for the report that he might be managing elsewhere this year, he had this to say:
It's amazing how many gushing "poor Joe" stories have been written by the media this year, usually just around the time Joe comes to town to privately spin his tale of woe. Joel Sherman said that Torre "has too much invested in his image as an unflappable statesman of sports to publicly explain his disillusionment with the Dodger ownership embarrassment," but that the manager "is clearly annoyed that promises about payroll and the kinds of players the Dodgers would bring in have evaporated." Boo hoo!
Can you imagine the grief a player would get if he spent so much time obsessing during the season about where he's going to be next year? And last time I checked, Torre was getting $4 million this season to manage the Dodgers. Not talk about his Kentucky Derby horse, or feed stories to the media about his future. It sure doesn't look like he's earning his keep with the Dodgers, even if he is blaming it all on the McCourts.
But Torre is such a master manipulator of the press that not only does he never get called on this, but the media will continue to sing his praises. It's amazing how much Teflon Torre can still get away with.
Remember how he denied he was after Grady Little's Dodger job after he left the Yankees, until he took the job? Here's a recap from when he appeared on David Letterman in October 2007:
What a grade A phony Torre was - and is. Too bad the media is still too in the tank for Torre to notice.
What do you think? Tell us about it!
Monday, he played all dumb when asked about Ken Rosenthal's report that friends of the manager have told the reporter that Torre would not be back with the Dodgers next year unless the ownership's "penny-pinching circus" ends. Rosenthal suggested that Torre could be in demand as the manager for the Mets, Braves, or Cubs, as well as other teams.
Torre denied all, telling Ken Gurnick of MLB.com, "Obviously they're not friends of mine." Torre insisted, "I don't really allow those conversations out of my home. I haven't made up my mind and won't until closer to the end of the season."
Oh really? Joe doesn't know what he's going to do next year? Because that's not what he told Joel Sherman when his Dodgers were in town last month.
Sherman wrote in his New York Post about what he called Torre's "plight" with the "penny-pinching" (there's that phrase again!) Dodgers. In the piece, Sherman said Torre "told me that he knows right now what he wants to do, but was not going to announce it until later in the season." Busted!
That wasn't the only disingenuous comment Torre said in the MLB.com interview. As for the report that he might be managing elsewhere this year, he had this to say:
"Must be the same friends," he said. "I refuse to say absolutely, but I have to say it's very, very remote that ever happens. I certainly don't anticipate, at age 70, searching around for another managing job."Weasel words alert! Of course he doesn't "anticipate" searching for another job. He figures that some sucker (err, I mean owner) will want his great managerial skills for their team, and come looking for him! (Squawker Jon, don't say I didn't warn you if you end up with him with the Mets!)
It's amazing how many gushing "poor Joe" stories have been written by the media this year, usually just around the time Joe comes to town to privately spin his tale of woe. Joel Sherman said that Torre "has too much invested in his image as an unflappable statesman of sports to publicly explain his disillusionment with the Dodger ownership embarrassment," but that the manager "is clearly annoyed that promises about payroll and the kinds of players the Dodgers would bring in have evaporated." Boo hoo!
Can you imagine the grief a player would get if he spent so much time obsessing during the season about where he's going to be next year? And last time I checked, Torre was getting $4 million this season to manage the Dodgers. Not talk about his Kentucky Derby horse, or feed stories to the media about his future. It sure doesn't look like he's earning his keep with the Dodgers, even if he is blaming it all on the McCourts.
But Torre is such a master manipulator of the press that not only does he never get called on this, but the media will continue to sing his praises. It's amazing how much Teflon Torre can still get away with.
Remember how he denied he was after Grady Little's Dodger job after he left the Yankees, until he took the job? Here's a recap from when he appeared on David Letterman in October 2007:
"Maybe Dodgers, maybe Angels?" Letterman asked.
"Well, the Dodgers have a contract, I mean, a manager," Torre replied. "The Angels have a very good manager [Mike Scioscia]."
Torre went on to say: "That's a bad question to ask. I know what's been rumored. The local paper today is talking about going to LA. There has been a time or two that something that has been in the newspaper hasn't been true."
What a grade A phony Torre was - and is. Too bad the media is still too in the tank for Torre to notice.
What do you think? Tell us about it!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Joe Torre compares George Steinbrenner to his abusive father
Joe Torre may be telling the media how happy he is that the Yankees won the World Series, but he bashed George Steinbrenner - again - in the Los Angeles Times, comparing The Boss to Torre's abusive father.
I thought he went way too far with this. Check out my Faster Times piece on it. While Torre has done admirable work with his Safe at Home foundation to prevent domestic violence, he should know better than to trivialize the issue with such a comparison.
What do you think? Leave us a comment!
I thought he went way too far with this. Check out my Faster Times piece on it. While Torre has done admirable work with his Safe at Home foundation to prevent domestic violence, he should know better than to trivialize the issue with such a comparison.
What do you think? Leave us a comment!
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Baseball's playoff races heat up
Did you know that the Yankees only have to play .500 ball for the rest of the year to win 100 games? And that the Dodgers have been playing .500 ball since the All-Star Break? Those are some of the facts I mentioned in my Faster Times piece, Who’s Hot - And Who’s Not - In Baseball’s Pennant Races.
Please check it out and tell me what you think!
In other news, we got mentioned in Big League Stew for my David Wright/Great Gazoo comparison. Heh.
Please check it out and tell me what you think!
In other news, we got mentioned in Big League Stew for my David Wright/Great Gazoo comparison. Heh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)