Terence Moore had an issue with the idea of a six-man rotation a few years ago. He did not like the idea that the Atlanta Braves may use a six-man rotation for a limited period of time. Now it's Joel Sherman who is furious and confused as to why in the hell the Mets would dare use a six-man rotation until late August. Why does it matter? The Mets are thinking outside the realm of conventional thinking because they choose to do so. What's the issue with this? I can't figure out why the idea of a six-man rotation is so offensive to Joel Sherman that he believes the mere suggestion should not be proposed. The Mets want to give their pitchers extra rest. I can't figure out what is so wrong with a different type of thinking about how many starting pitchers the Mets will choose to use. In baseball, any new idea is immediately met with resistance from sportswriters and I can't figure out why. So many sportswriters cling so tightly to how things were always done.
The Mets insist the six-man rotation is about more than protecting Matt Harvey.
Why does it matter what the reasoning is? The Mets have six pitchers they think are starter-worthy and want to use all of them for the time being. Why is it a huge deal to use a six-man rotation in order to give a pitcher an extra day of rest? It's just a strategy the Mets are employing, not the idea which will end baseball forever. I'm always miffed at why new ideas or an idea that is old, but different, seems to always meet resistance.
They also want to throttle back on 42-year-old Bartolo Colon, recognize
that neither Jacob deGrom nor Noah Syndergaard has ever pitched a full
major league season, and even prep for having Steve Matz step into a
forum in which his innings can be better regulated.
HOW DARE THEY! HOW DARE THE METS HAVE A LONG-TERM PLAN FOR THEIR PITCHERS AND TAKE MEASURES TO EXECUTE THIS PLAN AS THEY SEE FIT! THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO DO SOMETHING AND THAT IS THE WAY JOEL SHERMAN WANTS IT DONE!
I get it. Still, this is mostly about Harvey.
Which is why I don’t completely get it.
You don't have to get it. The Mets want to rest their young arms and not overextend Bartolo Colon's arm. Whether you think this is babying the pitchers or not, it's their plan. It's not the end of the world and if it doesn't work then they will change the plan. It's not the Mets plan for Harvey that Sherman has an issue with though, it's that the plan is a six-man rotation. The Mets are daring to try something different and that is not all right. It goes against what Joel Sherman thinks a team should do in order to keep young pitchers healthy. Also, this six-man rotation isn't simply being used for the benefit of Matt Harvey. It's for the benefit of all the Mets young starting pitchers.
Harvey is a client of Scott Boras, who is renowned for taking his best
clients to free agency to seek peak market value. Remember, the Tigers
offered Max Scherzer $144 million before last season, the Boras client
rejected it and got $210 million from the Nationals. Harvey is due to be
a free agent after the 2018 season. The Mets have a financially
conservative general manager and ownership. The chances Harvey is
pitching for the Mets in 2019 is what? Five percent?
The chances are actually 6.7%.
So the Mets should be building their rotational plans around the fact they believe they will lose Matt Harvey to free agency after the 2018 season, as opposed to building their rotational plans around helping the team win games between now and then? This doesn't make sense to me.
That being the case, shouldn’t the Mets be maximizing Harvey now?
Notice “maximizing,” not “abusing.”
Except the Mets are consciously keeping Harvey under 100 pitches as much as possible. Harvey is coming off major elbow surgery too. So when Harvey throws 110 pitches in three straight starts and blows his elbow out again, take a guess at who will be the one writing a column about how the Mets are "abusing" Matt Harvey and he thought the purpose of the six-man staff was to protect Harvey and not injure him? Joel Sherman, that's who. He'll be the one writing this column.
No one is suggesting Harvey throw 125 pitches regularly or be pushed
extra innings within games. But I would want more starts, not fewer from
Harvey for the next 3 ¹/₂ years.
I'm sure the Mets want more starts too. Here's the thing though...the idea of a six-man staff usually works itself out. One pitcher starts performing terribly or another pitcher gets injured. So it's not bad to aim for a six-man rotation, while knowing eventually the rotation will go back to a traditional five-man rotation out of necessity. If the Mets did use a six-man staff until August then that's not that many fewer starts for Harvey on the season. They have not indicated they plan on using a six-man staff for the next 3.5 years, just until late August. Let's simmer down a bit and gain some perspective. Maybe the Mets will go past that August date they want to "at least" go to with a six-man rotation, but again, starting pitchers are hard to find and usually a rotation goes back to five men due to injuries or ineffectiveness.
Both Terry Collins and Mets assistant GM John Ricco made the case this
is a way of making sure you get those starts between now and the end of
the 2018 campaign, by limiting Harvey’s innings and giving him five
days’ rest regularly.
I am not wearing a hat, but I will eat my hat if the Mets regularly use a six-man rotation from now until the end of the 2018 season. I am betting the vast majority of the time, if he stays healthy, Harvey will make 30+ starts during a season from now until 2018. It's hard enough to find five quality starters, which is why it's no big deal that the Mets want to use six quality starters. It's a nice goal to aim for, but not reasonable to expect over a three year period.
Nevertheless, the baseball industry is still not at peace if workload is the be-all and end-all in causing arm injuries
And of course when writing "the baseball industry" Joel Sherman is referring to himself as not being at peace if workload is the end-all in causing arm injuries. He clearly feels this way and is just passing it off as the entire industry agreeing with him to make himself feel like he's in much better company than he possibly really is.
The Mets did not seem to be abusing Harvey before he needed Tommy John
surgery, the same for Zack Wheeler. The reality is most pitchers —
particularly power pitchers — will break.
Okay, so knowing this would it make sense for the Mets to aim for a six-man rotation, where they have six guys capable of starting a baseball game, while fully knowing they won't be able to use this six-man rotation over a full season? The Mets would have six guys ready and used to starting games, as opposed to having a guy coming out of the bullpen who gets long relief work only, then has to step in as a starter.
There is no magic formula to keep that from occurring
Other than robots replacing humans on each MLB team to where the game of baseball is played by computers instead of real, live players. At that point, only a hard drive crash or other technological issue would stop power pitchers from breaking. This is obviously what Sabermetericians like Andrew Friedman are hoping for in the future.
Stars such as Harvey are assets and do you begin to devalue your asset by
going from a five-man rotation to six? Why not a seven-man rotation? You can’t put the pitchers in Bubble Wrap.
At least Joel Sherman isn't reacting so negatively to the idea of a six-man rotation that he is suggesting absurd ideas like a seven-man rotation. You can actually put the pitchers in Bubble Wrap. They just can't pitch on the mound that way or else Fredi Gonzalez will tell on them for using a foreign substance, since obviously the popping of the bubbles would cause so much glee for the batter that he couldn't focus on hitting the baseball.
You use them, you do it with the best practices for keeping them healthy and you hope for the best.
But see, that's what the Mets are doing. They are trying to keep their pitchers healthy by aiming to have a six-man rotation. The problem is that Joel Sherman, who is not a doctor or specialist of any kind in the medical field, thinks that using a six-man rotation is not the best way to keep young pitchers healthy. He may be right, he may be wrong. But his suggestion that a team use "best practices" to keep a pitcher healthy, as if this isn't what the Mets believe they are doing, is incorrect.
“There is a big picture in this and that is even if we don’t have him
[after free agency,] we want to make sure we have him the next three
years,” Collins said. “And right now we think the best thing for Matt is
to have the extra day.”
But again, reality will eventually probably creep in. The Mets won't trot a shitty starter out there every sixth day for the sake of a six-man rotation. I really doubt they would do that. So Harvey will most likely pitch for the majority of his Mets career as part of a five-man rotation. It's so hard to find five quality starters, much less six quality starters, I can't imagine the six-man rotation lasting for 3.5 years like Joel Sherman seems to believe it will.
Collins recently referred to Harvey enduring “a dead arm” phase and the
stats show that after 100 pitches, Harvey morphs from Cy Young to Curt
Young.
So maybe keeping Harvey under 100 pitches in a game is a good thing? OF COURSE NOT! Joel Sherman thinks this is another example of the Mets babying their pitchers. Fuck stats. What do they mean anyway?
But it also should be noted that in his 45-start career, Harvey has faced
just 58 batters after 100 pitches. Translation: The Mets already have
been babying him.
Babying him = Seeing his effectiveness greatly wanes after 100 pitches and removing him from the game so the Mets have a better chance of winning said game.
Pitching coach Dan Warthen said he envisioned staying with a six-man
rotation until at least mid-August. The Mets believe they will be in
contention and that the conservative approach now will keep their
starters strong for a six-week dash to the finish line — and perhaps
into October.
It's funny how Sherman writes "at least" mid-August when Dan Warthen indicated in other articles that mid-August was when the six-man rotation would most likely stop. A little bit of semantics here, but to prove his point Sherman seems to have added "at least" when other news outlets report the six-man rotation would be "through" mid-August, "until" mid-August, and "until" the middle of August. Other news outlets have a sense of finality in August regarding the six-man rotation, while presumably in order to help prove the point he wants to prove, Joel Sherman uses a term with less finality when describing how long the six-man rotation would last.
Warthen conceded none of the starters was enthused about this process
and Collins told Harvey he is on an innings limit this year and the
alternative to accepting the six-man rotation was to sit out September,
go on the DL a time or two or be pulled constantly after five innings.
I'm guessing that Collins dressed it up better than this when talking to Matt Harvey.
But, again, are we positive 180 innings is going to keep Harvey
healthier than 200 or 210? It is well-intentioned guesswork, but
guesswork nevertheless.
Yes, it is guesswork, but what isn't guesswork is that Matt Harvey is coming off elbow surgery and he becomes less effective after 100 pitches, thereby giving the Mets two reasons not to see if he stays healthier at 180 innings than 200 or 210 innings. I don't believe in babying pitchers, but I also don't pretend to know the best way to prevent Tommy John surgery.
The same as in limiting Syndergaard, whose effort Wednesday made you
want to see more — not less — of him. He was facing the woeful Phillies
in a matinee after a night game.
Still, his 7¹/₃ shutout innings were impressive against any opponent,
any time. He cranked two-seam fastballs he only refined last week that
were scary — topping out at 100.7 mph (according to Brooks on Baseball
data) and averaging 97.7.
Well of course Mets fans want to see more of Syndergaard. I wanted to see Craig Kimbrel throw every single night, but that doesn't mean his having 110 appearances in a season was a smart move.
The Mets want to keep Syndergaard, Harvey, deGrom, eventually Matz and Wheeler healthy for the short and long term. I get it.
You say you get it, but then you claim to know the best way to keep these young pitchers healthy for the short and long term. It just so happens that way (in Joel Sherman's opinion) isn't to use a six-man rotation, which is an idea that is new and obviously won't work simply because new things are scary. Because a five-man rotation helped to keep Wheeler and Harvey so healthy and all.
And I respect their forward thinking in trying the six-man rotation.
The Braves tried a six-man rotation a few years ago (much to Terence Moore's chagrin) and it lasted two times through before an injury caused them to go to a five-man rotation again. I can completely see this happening again, which is why the Mets trying a six-man rotation isn't a reason for gnashing of teeth and questioning the sanity of the Mets' front office.
But at full health, Gee should be used as a safety net, not an equal to the Mets’ best starters.
A safety net? Like a long reliever or a guy who can step into the rotation if an injury should occur? I don't get how it matters. If a pitcher gets injured, then the idea of the six-man rotation is kaput anyway. If anything, this six-man rotation negatively affects the bullpen and bench depth the Mets have as much as it affects their starting rotation. But I don't get why Sherman's next beef is with Gee being considered equal to the Mets' best starters. Gee projects as a pretty good fifth starter. Why can't he be a good fifth or sixth starter rather than relegated to the bullpen?
That is why this doesn’t make sixth sense to me.
What a horrible way to end the column. The point is that Dillon Gee should be treated as an equal to the Mets' best starters because the Mets' best starters haven't proven they can pitch 180 innings in a season on a consistent basis, partially due to their young age. This six-man rotation is going to be a short-term thing. Something always goes wrong with a starter that moves the six-man rotation back to a five-man rotation. Don't be afraid of new ideas and hide behind the illusion there is a certain way to prevent arm injuries to young pitchers.
Showing posts with label matt harvey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label matt harvey. Show all posts
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Thursday, September 18, 2014
6 comments Mike Lupica Encourages Matt Harvey to Come Sit on His Lap, For There Is a Lecture He Must Hear
The picture accompanying this article by Mike Lupica has a Photoshopped picture of Matt Harvey with a pacifier in his mouth. That about sums up the journalistic integrity of this column. I can see Lupica being irate at the fact there was no Photoshopped picture of Matt Harvey accompanying his article, so he runs around the newsroom---I'm just kidding, Mike Lupica believes himself to be above his co-workers so he would never lower himself to the level of being present in the newsroom---I can imagine Lupica writing an angry email about how his article is about to be posted in 20 MINUTES and there is NO PICTURE OF MATT HARVEY WITH THE ARTICLE? THIS ISN'T HOW JOURNALISM SHOULD BE DONE ON A DEADLINE! So Lupica gets his picture and writes about how Matt Harvey should trust the doctors and stop trying to work his way back to play for the Mets this year. Even though Derek Jeter would be canonized for doing the same thing, it's bad when someone the New York media doesn't like tries to work his way back from injury sooner than he should.
This isn't the first time the New York media has picked nits with Matt Harvey. Bob Klapisch interviewed Ron Darling about how Matt Harvey should not tempt the ladies with his sexiness. Of course Ron Darling was on the cover of a magazine showing off his sexiness when he played for the Mets, but that's not at all hypocrisy.
Anthony Rieber was angry that Matt Harvey flipped off the camera with his middle finger prior to his Tommy John surgery.
It's like the New York media takes non-stories around Matt Harvey and desperately tries to turn them into stories. Never one to miss out, Mike Lupica has joined the chorus of New York media members who nit-pick Matt Harvey. I imagine Lupica is sitting on the edge of his seat while he writes this column, disappointed he has no one to interrupt in order to help get his point across.
I know you are saying, Ben, what on Earth could Matt Harvey have done? Well, he is trying to use aggressive rehab to come back and pitch for the Mets this season. Quite frankly, that's unacceptable. Matt Harvey should not be risking his future to help the Mets this season, even though there seems to be nothing wrong with trying to come back and help the team.
One of these days, Matt Harvey needs to remember — and that probably means before he hurts his arm again — that his job is to be a star young baseball pitcher, not some sort of needy celebrity who acts as if he gets the bends when he is out of the spotlight for very long.
This isn't the first time the New York media has picked nits with Matt Harvey. Bob Klapisch interviewed Ron Darling about how Matt Harvey should not tempt the ladies with his sexiness. Of course Ron Darling was on the cover of a magazine showing off his sexiness when he played for the Mets, but that's not at all hypocrisy.
Anthony Rieber was angry that Matt Harvey flipped off the camera with his middle finger prior to his Tommy John surgery.
It's like the New York media takes non-stories around Matt Harvey and desperately tries to turn them into stories. Never one to miss out, Mike Lupica has joined the chorus of New York media members who nit-pick Matt Harvey. I imagine Lupica is sitting on the edge of his seat while he writes this column, disappointed he has no one to interrupt in order to help get his point across.
I know you are saying, Ben, what on Earth could Matt Harvey have done? Well, he is trying to use aggressive rehab to come back and pitch for the Mets this season. Quite frankly, that's unacceptable. Matt Harvey should not be risking his future to help the Mets this season, even though there seems to be nothing wrong with trying to come back and help the team.
One of these days, Matt Harvey needs to remember — and that probably means before he hurts his arm again — that his job is to be a star young baseball pitcher, not some sort of needy celebrity who acts as if he gets the bends when he is out of the spotlight for very long.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
2 comments Anthony Rieber Helps Prove My Theory That Sportswriters Are Often Desperate For Something To Write About
I believe that sportswriters in this 24/7 news cycle tend to run out of things to write about. There is only so much to write about or only so many original takes that can be made on a certain sports-related topic. So when some news (or non-news) event breaks these sportswriters are desperate to immediately write about it. It's the same principle that causes ESPN/CNN/Fox News to beat the same topics into the ground. They have 24 hours of air time to fill and so the same topic of discussion or debate will end up getting beaten into the ground by 3-4 different anchors or analysts. It's one of the drawbacks of the 24 hour news cycle. This is how Bob Klapisch gets an entire column out of Matt Harvey posing nude for ESPN Magazine. This is also how a sportswriter like Anthony Rieber manages to get an entire column out of Matt Harvey taking a picture with his middle finger extended. It's a great chance to get a "Matt Harvey has to grow up" column out of the way, and frankly, Rieber has to write something for today and there's nothing else interesting to write about.
This middle-finger salute to Tommy John surgery isn't something a a great baseball player should be doing. It's a clear sign Harvey should grow up that he takes a picture of him making an obscene gesture while in the hospital, the same obscene gesture I'm guessing Anthony Rieber has made himself at some point in his life. But hey, that doesn't matter. What does matter is it's a great day for a narrative and someone has to write the "Harvey giving the middle finger means something more than just him giving the middle finger" column, right? It may as well be him.
Remember that time Derek Jeter posted something offensive on Twitter and then decided to take down his account after the Yankees asked him to delete the post?
Ah yes, Rieber reveals his intentions by immediately comparing Harvey to Derek Jeter. All bets are off, he wins. Derek Jeter is a saint, Matt Harvey is not.
Remember that time Twitter was around when Derek Jeter was 25 years old and he had Tommy John surgery? Oh, you don't?
No? How about that time David Wright did it?
MATT HARVEY WILL NEVER BE ONE OF THE NEW YORK BASEBALL SAINTS! EVER!
Remember that time Matt Harvey went out and got drunk on the town and pictures were all over the Internet of him doing this when he was around 25 years old? Wait no, that was David Wright who did that.
Of course it's not illegal to get drunk in public, while obscene gestures are a violation of the Rieber Act of 2014 which specifically punishes those professional athletes in the New York area for making obscene gestures, rude comments or attempting to not be Derek Jeter with an article stating this athlete "needs to grow up." Later, when that athlete redeems himself a follow-up article can be written following this "grow up" narrative stating the athlete has indeed grown up.
That's the whole point about Tuesday's silly Matt Harvey/Twitter photo situation. Not that Harvey posted a photo in which he is giving the middle finger is all that shocking. Twitter has seen much, much worse.
It's not that Matt Harvey is giving the middle finger to the camera, it's that his giving the middle finger adds to the list of innocuous things he's done which all add up to create a narrative that Harvey should grow up. Put separately, these incidents don't mean much, but when slapped together into a trend it looks like Matt Harvey has some real growing up to do. Take all the stupid things you did over a 2 year span in your early 20's and then combine them together...I bet it wouldn't make you look so good.
The problem is that it seems to keep being Harvey who is involved in these little dustups.
I would love a reminder in this column about the dustups that Harvey has gotten involved in, but I'm sure they are so obvious and so egregious that Rieber need not list them right now. Rieber get to these dustups that are really not important at all, but important enough to merit an attitude change in Harvey, a little later. But for right now, Rieber is going to stick to making a big deal out of nothing concerning this picture of Harvey giving the camera a middle finger.
Not Jeter, whom Harvey said he wants to emulate. Not Wright, who is as positive a role model as New York sports has ever had.
Pictures being taken of Wright drunk and pictures of Harvey giving the middle finger to a camera are pretty much the same thing. Both pictures were taken when both players were similar ages. There's no point in acting like Wright is perfect and Harvey is a huge immature asshole.
In case you missed the details: Harvey commemorated the six-month anniversary of his Tommy John surgery Tuesday not with flowers or a card, but by posting a photo on his verified Twitter account (@MattHarvey33).
It's a verified Twitter account! Not a fake Twitter account! No one snuck into Matt Harvey's room and forced him to make an obscene gesture at gun point. He made this gesture all on his own with total disregard for the fact giving the middle finger is never okay. Harvey may as well have been beating one of the children in the cancer ward with a baseball bat, because that's what he was doing to his public image by daring to show himself making an obscene gesture. I bet Matt Harvey curses too. Derek Jeter and David Wright would never curse. In fact, Anthony Rieber knew when the Mets drafted Harvey he would never be another Derek Jeter or David Wright because Harvey's first name doesn't begin with a "D" and have five letters in it with each consonant followed by a vowel.
A smiling Harvey is giving the middle finger while waiting in his hospital bed for the surgery. He wrote, "I can't believe it's been 6 months already. #tommyjohn''
Harvey was violating the Rieber Act of 2014 while smiling. He's flaunting his disobedience for everyone to see. While one could see Harvey giving the middle finger as a sign that he is saying, "Screw Tommy John surgery, I'm coming back healthy and ready to make a difference for the Mets team," Anthony Rieber is shocked and horrified that a professional athlete would extend his middle finger in the air for a camera to catch a picture of. Rieber also probably is afraid that Matt Harvey curses at times, as well as engages in premarital sex. Oh my heavens, what a display of heathenism.
What will "the kids" think as they see this picture of Harvey giving the middle finger to Tommy John surgery? Doesn't Harvey have the decency to think about the children as these same children scroll through the Internet unattended by their parents?
The Mets were not pleased. Public-relations executive Jay Horwitz -- an avid, if bizarre, user of Twitter himself -- asked Harvey to delete the photo.
Anthony Rieber bets Matt Harvey gave Jay Horwitz the middle finger when this request was made.
Horwitz said. "I never asked him to delete his account.'' But that's what Harvey did.
What was Harvey covering up? Were there pictures of him drinking beer or sitting too close to the television on his Twitter account and these pictures just had not been found yet? Please tell me there wasn't a picture of Harvey blatantly ignoring the 30-minute rule and swimming immediately after he had eaten lunch and that Harvey wasn't bragging about it on his Twitter account. My heart can't stand all of this anarchy.
And a debate on whether it was a big deal or not broke out.
Is it a big deal? Of course not.
Of course it's not a big deal! Anthony Rieber is just building an entire column around it and using this middle finger picture as part of the narrative that Matt Harvey needs to grow up. It's totally not a big deal though, except for the part where Anthony Rieber makes it a big deal.
None of the many minor public-relations missteps Harvey has made since becoming one of the biggest sports stars in New York is by itself all that important.
But if you combine them all together into a string of incidents caused by Harvey's lack of maturity then a brilliant narrative has been drawn and now multiple articles can be written about how Harvey needs to grow up. Again, take some incidents from 2 years of your life when you were 25 years old and see if those incidents couldn't be strung along to show that you need to do some growing up. I bet they could be.
It wasn't a big deal when he was "embarrassed'' after saying he wants to be like Jeter when it came to dating.
No, it's not a big deal. New York is the media capital of the world and young guys are going to say stupid things. Saying he wants to be like Jeter when it comes to dating isn't a bad thing. For all of Rieber's teeth-gnashing that Harvey IS DEFINITELY NOT Derek Jeter, the fact Harvey wants to emulate Jeter would seem to be a good thing, no? Apparently not. Apparently trying to be like Derek Jeter when it comes to dating is a bad thing, but Rieber thinks Harvey should be more like Derek Jeter and not try to be like Derek Jeter.
That he apologized after relentlessly plugging a wireless product instead of answering questions about his elbow on a national radio show.
And of course not answering questions about his elbow on a national radio show is a moral failing which shows a lack of maturity. Naturally.
That he sparred with the Mets about where he was going to do his rehab.
Because the fact the Mets and Harvey have a differing view on where Harvey should do his rehab, this isn't simply a disagreement but a failing caused by a lack of maturity on Harvey's part. It's more mature just to do whatever the Mets tell him to do.
That he seems to seek out celebrity with the same abandon he faced down hitters before his injury.
And we all know New York can't stand athletes like Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, and Joe Namath who chase celebrity. That's why none of those athletes who played in New York are considered legends by the media, they never quite grew up.
Taken all together, though? It's just too much.
But they are all separate incidents. In fact, they are all separate incidents that mean nothing when taken together as a whole, other than to serve as another good example of how the New York media likes to blow up small issues into overwhelming problems out of boredom. These four innocuous incidents mean nothing unless carefully woven together into a narrative that Harvey needs to grow up.
The perception of the 25-year-old Harvey is probably what caused Mets manager Terry Collins to joke with him Tuesday, "Did you [expletive] up again?''
Harvey laughed.
Harvey is violating the moral fabric of society by raising his middle finger at a camera and all he can do is laugh about it.
Then he sat in the dugout and answered questions for nearly 12 minutes. About half were about his rehab. The other half were about his Twitter photo, which he said was taken by his mother (!).
Obviously Matt Harvey's mom needs to grow up as well. It's no shock that Harvey has grown up to be such a careless, immature asshole if his mother is going to reinforce his behavior by taking a picture of him while he raises his middle finger at the camera. Oh lord, what have Anthony Rieber's eyes seen? If only there was a way to avoid following Matt Harvey on Twitter to avoid seeing his moral fiber decay before our very eyes.
Remember: If Harvey didn't post the photo in the first place, there would have been no dugout news conference. He would have passed through the day virtually unnoticed.
Remember: You just wrote that this wasn't a big deal, yet you now make a big deal out of this picture.
"I'm not going to apologize for being myself and having a good laugh at a funny little picture,'' he said. "But I've had enough with Twitter and not being able to show your personal side . . . It wasn't me trying to bring bad press to the New York Mets or anything like that. It was my account, and I felt like it was a funny picture. Obviously, it was taken the wrong way, so I took it down.''
Yeah but Matt, don't you remember the time you said you wanted to be like Derek Jeter when it comes to dating? Derek Jeter wouldn't want to be like Derek Jeter when it comes to his dating life. Try to mimic Derek Jeter more often and be less like Derek Jeter when it comes to dating and more like Derek Jeter as it pertains to how he lives his life.
Harvey also said, "It's my personal account . . . I didn't think there was anything officially wrong with it.''
Sorry, but there was.
Anthony Rieber from earlier in this column:
Is it a big deal? Of course not.
So there was something wrong with it, but it's not a big deal. It's not a big deal, but it is a big deal? He can't have it both ways. Anthony Rieber can try to have it both ways, but it only reinforces what a big deal he is making out of a simple gesture made in a picture.
Harvey represents the Mets and Major League Baseball. His social media postings need to be G-rated. PG, maybe. Just like many employees in many industries, what you share on social media reflects on your employer, too.
I can understand that what Harvey says/does on Twitter reflects on the Mets. I don't think Harvey giving the middle finger to a camera reflects badly on the Mets. If someone is on Twitter and gets offended by seeing a middle finger then that person is the one who needs to grow up and probably not be on Twitter. There's much worse shit on Twitter than an athlete giving the middle finger directed towards a major surgery he is about to undergo.
So now Harvey's not on Twitter. As of game time Tuesday night, he appeared to still be on the photo-sharing site Instagram at @MattHarvey33.
And so was the middle-finger photo, by the way.
Oh no! Matt Harvey didn't remove this "not a big deal" picture from Instagram? There is something officially wrong with this picture. Pictures like the one of Harvey giving the camera the middle finger will forever ruin the reputation of MLB players as upstanding citizens who don't drink, don't smoke, don't curse, and certainly don't give the middle finger to a camera? What would Matt Harvey's mother say?...after she took the picture of course.
Don't you like how this picture that wasn't "a big deal" and the other dustups that Harvey has had, all of which aren't "a big deal" either, become "a big deal" when it's time to start a narrative that Matt Harvey needs to grow up. Harvey better watch out or else he will become the East Coast Yasiel Puig. Just wait until ESPN tries to figure out how Harvey was brought into the country. I'm sure the method used to sneak Harvey out of his mom's private parts at birth will horrify Bill Plaschke.
My favorite part about this article was how it delved into a discussion about 1st Amendment rights beginning with this comment:
This middle-finger salute to Tommy John surgery isn't something a a great baseball player should be doing. It's a clear sign Harvey should grow up that he takes a picture of him making an obscene gesture while in the hospital, the same obscene gesture I'm guessing Anthony Rieber has made himself at some point in his life. But hey, that doesn't matter. What does matter is it's a great day for a narrative and someone has to write the "Harvey giving the middle finger means something more than just him giving the middle finger" column, right? It may as well be him.
Remember that time Derek Jeter posted something offensive on Twitter and then decided to take down his account after the Yankees asked him to delete the post?
Ah yes, Rieber reveals his intentions by immediately comparing Harvey to Derek Jeter. All bets are off, he wins. Derek Jeter is a saint, Matt Harvey is not.
Remember that time Twitter was around when Derek Jeter was 25 years old and he had Tommy John surgery? Oh, you don't?
No? How about that time David Wright did it?
MATT HARVEY WILL NEVER BE ONE OF THE NEW YORK BASEBALL SAINTS! EVER!
Remember that time Matt Harvey went out and got drunk on the town and pictures were all over the Internet of him doing this when he was around 25 years old? Wait no, that was David Wright who did that.
Of course it's not illegal to get drunk in public, while obscene gestures are a violation of the Rieber Act of 2014 which specifically punishes those professional athletes in the New York area for making obscene gestures, rude comments or attempting to not be Derek Jeter with an article stating this athlete "needs to grow up." Later, when that athlete redeems himself a follow-up article can be written following this "grow up" narrative stating the athlete has indeed grown up.
That's the whole point about Tuesday's silly Matt Harvey/Twitter photo situation. Not that Harvey posted a photo in which he is giving the middle finger is all that shocking. Twitter has seen much, much worse.
It's not that Matt Harvey is giving the middle finger to the camera, it's that his giving the middle finger adds to the list of innocuous things he's done which all add up to create a narrative that Harvey should grow up. Put separately, these incidents don't mean much, but when slapped together into a trend it looks like Matt Harvey has some real growing up to do. Take all the stupid things you did over a 2 year span in your early 20's and then combine them together...I bet it wouldn't make you look so good.
The problem is that it seems to keep being Harvey who is involved in these little dustups.
I would love a reminder in this column about the dustups that Harvey has gotten involved in, but I'm sure they are so obvious and so egregious that Rieber need not list them right now. Rieber get to these dustups that are really not important at all, but important enough to merit an attitude change in Harvey, a little later. But for right now, Rieber is going to stick to making a big deal out of nothing concerning this picture of Harvey giving the camera a middle finger.
Not Jeter, whom Harvey said he wants to emulate. Not Wright, who is as positive a role model as New York sports has ever had.
Pictures being taken of Wright drunk and pictures of Harvey giving the middle finger to a camera are pretty much the same thing. Both pictures were taken when both players were similar ages. There's no point in acting like Wright is perfect and Harvey is a huge immature asshole.
In case you missed the details: Harvey commemorated the six-month anniversary of his Tommy John surgery Tuesday not with flowers or a card, but by posting a photo on his verified Twitter account (@MattHarvey33).
It's a verified Twitter account! Not a fake Twitter account! No one snuck into Matt Harvey's room and forced him to make an obscene gesture at gun point. He made this gesture all on his own with total disregard for the fact giving the middle finger is never okay. Harvey may as well have been beating one of the children in the cancer ward with a baseball bat, because that's what he was doing to his public image by daring to show himself making an obscene gesture. I bet Matt Harvey curses too. Derek Jeter and David Wright would never curse. In fact, Anthony Rieber knew when the Mets drafted Harvey he would never be another Derek Jeter or David Wright because Harvey's first name doesn't begin with a "D" and have five letters in it with each consonant followed by a vowel.
A smiling Harvey is giving the middle finger while waiting in his hospital bed for the surgery. He wrote, "I can't believe it's been 6 months already. #tommyjohn''
Harvey was violating the Rieber Act of 2014 while smiling. He's flaunting his disobedience for everyone to see. While one could see Harvey giving the middle finger as a sign that he is saying, "Screw Tommy John surgery, I'm coming back healthy and ready to make a difference for the Mets team," Anthony Rieber is shocked and horrified that a professional athlete would extend his middle finger in the air for a camera to catch a picture of. Rieber also probably is afraid that Matt Harvey curses at times, as well as engages in premarital sex. Oh my heavens, what a display of heathenism.
What will "the kids" think as they see this picture of Harvey giving the middle finger to Tommy John surgery? Doesn't Harvey have the decency to think about the children as these same children scroll through the Internet unattended by their parents?
The Mets were not pleased. Public-relations executive Jay Horwitz -- an avid, if bizarre, user of Twitter himself -- asked Harvey to delete the photo.
Anthony Rieber bets Matt Harvey gave Jay Horwitz the middle finger when this request was made.
Horwitz said. "I never asked him to delete his account.'' But that's what Harvey did.
What was Harvey covering up? Were there pictures of him drinking beer or sitting too close to the television on his Twitter account and these pictures just had not been found yet? Please tell me there wasn't a picture of Harvey blatantly ignoring the 30-minute rule and swimming immediately after he had eaten lunch and that Harvey wasn't bragging about it on his Twitter account. My heart can't stand all of this anarchy.
And a debate on whether it was a big deal or not broke out.
Is it a big deal? Of course not.
Of course it's not a big deal! Anthony Rieber is just building an entire column around it and using this middle finger picture as part of the narrative that Matt Harvey needs to grow up. It's totally not a big deal though, except for the part where Anthony Rieber makes it a big deal.
None of the many minor public-relations missteps Harvey has made since becoming one of the biggest sports stars in New York is by itself all that important.
But if you combine them all together into a string of incidents caused by Harvey's lack of maturity then a brilliant narrative has been drawn and now multiple articles can be written about how Harvey needs to grow up. Again, take some incidents from 2 years of your life when you were 25 years old and see if those incidents couldn't be strung along to show that you need to do some growing up. I bet they could be.
It wasn't a big deal when he was "embarrassed'' after saying he wants to be like Jeter when it came to dating.
No, it's not a big deal. New York is the media capital of the world and young guys are going to say stupid things. Saying he wants to be like Jeter when it comes to dating isn't a bad thing. For all of Rieber's teeth-gnashing that Harvey IS DEFINITELY NOT Derek Jeter, the fact Harvey wants to emulate Jeter would seem to be a good thing, no? Apparently not. Apparently trying to be like Derek Jeter when it comes to dating is a bad thing, but Rieber thinks Harvey should be more like Derek Jeter and not try to be like Derek Jeter.
That he apologized after relentlessly plugging a wireless product instead of answering questions about his elbow on a national radio show.
And of course not answering questions about his elbow on a national radio show is a moral failing which shows a lack of maturity. Naturally.
That he sparred with the Mets about where he was going to do his rehab.
Because the fact the Mets and Harvey have a differing view on where Harvey should do his rehab, this isn't simply a disagreement but a failing caused by a lack of maturity on Harvey's part. It's more mature just to do whatever the Mets tell him to do.
That he seems to seek out celebrity with the same abandon he faced down hitters before his injury.
And we all know New York can't stand athletes like Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, and Joe Namath who chase celebrity. That's why none of those athletes who played in New York are considered legends by the media, they never quite grew up.
Taken all together, though? It's just too much.
But they are all separate incidents. In fact, they are all separate incidents that mean nothing when taken together as a whole, other than to serve as another good example of how the New York media likes to blow up small issues into overwhelming problems out of boredom. These four innocuous incidents mean nothing unless carefully woven together into a narrative that Harvey needs to grow up.
The perception of the 25-year-old Harvey is probably what caused Mets manager Terry Collins to joke with him Tuesday, "Did you [expletive] up again?''
Harvey laughed.
Harvey is violating the moral fabric of society by raising his middle finger at a camera and all he can do is laugh about it.
Then he sat in the dugout and answered questions for nearly 12 minutes. About half were about his rehab. The other half were about his Twitter photo, which he said was taken by his mother (!).
Obviously Matt Harvey's mom needs to grow up as well. It's no shock that Harvey has grown up to be such a careless, immature asshole if his mother is going to reinforce his behavior by taking a picture of him while he raises his middle finger at the camera. Oh lord, what have Anthony Rieber's eyes seen? If only there was a way to avoid following Matt Harvey on Twitter to avoid seeing his moral fiber decay before our very eyes.
Remember: If Harvey didn't post the photo in the first place, there would have been no dugout news conference. He would have passed through the day virtually unnoticed.
Remember: You just wrote that this wasn't a big deal, yet you now make a big deal out of this picture.
"I'm not going to apologize for being myself and having a good laugh at a funny little picture,'' he said. "But I've had enough with Twitter and not being able to show your personal side . . . It wasn't me trying to bring bad press to the New York Mets or anything like that. It was my account, and I felt like it was a funny picture. Obviously, it was taken the wrong way, so I took it down.''
Yeah but Matt, don't you remember the time you said you wanted to be like Derek Jeter when it comes to dating? Derek Jeter wouldn't want to be like Derek Jeter when it comes to his dating life. Try to mimic Derek Jeter more often and be less like Derek Jeter when it comes to dating and more like Derek Jeter as it pertains to how he lives his life.
Harvey also said, "It's my personal account . . . I didn't think there was anything officially wrong with it.''
Sorry, but there was.
Anthony Rieber from earlier in this column:
Is it a big deal? Of course not.
So there was something wrong with it, but it's not a big deal. It's not a big deal, but it is a big deal? He can't have it both ways. Anthony Rieber can try to have it both ways, but it only reinforces what a big deal he is making out of a simple gesture made in a picture.
Harvey represents the Mets and Major League Baseball. His social media postings need to be G-rated. PG, maybe. Just like many employees in many industries, what you share on social media reflects on your employer, too.
I can understand that what Harvey says/does on Twitter reflects on the Mets. I don't think Harvey giving the middle finger to a camera reflects badly on the Mets. If someone is on Twitter and gets offended by seeing a middle finger then that person is the one who needs to grow up and probably not be on Twitter. There's much worse shit on Twitter than an athlete giving the middle finger directed towards a major surgery he is about to undergo.
So now Harvey's not on Twitter. As of game time Tuesday night, he appeared to still be on the photo-sharing site Instagram at @MattHarvey33.
And so was the middle-finger photo, by the way.
Oh no! Matt Harvey didn't remove this "not a big deal" picture from Instagram? There is something officially wrong with this picture. Pictures like the one of Harvey giving the camera the middle finger will forever ruin the reputation of MLB players as upstanding citizens who don't drink, don't smoke, don't curse, and certainly don't give the middle finger to a camera? What would Matt Harvey's mother say?...after she took the picture of course.
Don't you like how this picture that wasn't "a big deal" and the other dustups that Harvey has had, all of which aren't "a big deal" either, become "a big deal" when it's time to start a narrative that Matt Harvey needs to grow up. Harvey better watch out or else he will become the East Coast Yasiel Puig. Just wait until ESPN tries to figure out how Harvey was brought into the country. I'm sure the method used to sneak Harvey out of his mom's private parts at birth will horrify Bill Plaschke.
My favorite part about this article was how it delved into a discussion about 1st Amendment rights beginning with this comment:
Monday, September 9, 2013
0 comments Terence Moore, M.D. Discovers How to Prevent Major Elbow and Arm Injuries to Pitchers; Dr. James Andrews Shakes His Fist Violently at this Cruel Fate
I don't understand why MLB teams insist on hiring their own team doctors and trainers to monitor or diagnose players' injuries. It would be much more simple if each Major League Baseball just hired Terence Moore to be the doctor for every team in MLB. After all, he must have a medical license since he fancies himself a doctor. Terence must also be the greatest sports doctor in the world since he has knowledge on how to prevent major arm and elbow injuries to a pitcher. It turns out Terence Moore knows what no other doctors know, which is how to avoid injuries to a pitcher's elbow and arm, which prevents Tommy John surgery and a pitcher from having to sit out a full year. "How do we do this?" every MLB team asks in unison. Easy! Just pitch these pitchers as often and as much as possible. See, the human body responds to stress by preventing injury according to Dr. Terence Moore. His proof is that a few pitchers that are outliers managed to stay healthy during their career despite pitching a ton of innings. Well, as he is prone to do, Terence actually uses two pitchers who suffered major arm injuries as examples of pitchers who pitched a lot of innings and stayed healthy. Terence loves to submarine his own point.
The subtitle of this column is "Increase in arm ailments may be due to increase in clubs' cautiousness."
If Terence Moore were in a private practice rather than dispensing medical advice for free through MLB.com I'm sure he would also tell us the key to avoiding a heart attack is to eat as many fatty, greasy foods as possible. After all, your heart can't get strong until you make it work really hard to stay beating.
Pitchers need to throw more. That's the problem, and that's also the answer when it comes to this epidemic of starters and relievers completing a cycle these days.
This is an opinion, not a scientific fact. Don't present it any other way. Pitchers don't necessarily need to throw more and Terence has no proof this is "the answer" to ensuring pitchers don't get injured. Back in 2011 Atlanta Braves fans made 10,000 "Dr. James Andrews will see you next year" jokes about Eric O'Flaherty, Jonny Venters, and Craig Kimbrel due to the amount that Fredi Gonzalez used them. Guess what? Two of those three pitchers will be having major elbow surgery. I don't claim to be a doctor like Terence does, so I'm not entirely sure why O'Flaherty and Venters had major arm surgery. If I had to guess, it would be because of the amount they were used over the past couple of seasons.
Now you say, "but Ben that is anecdotal evidence that doesn't really prove anything" and you would be right. Unfortunately, Terence is using the same anecdotal evidence to support his position and he gets paid to write stuff like this.
First, they have impressive outings. Then they encounter aches and pains out of nowhere. After that, they sprint to the disabled list before a trip to a surgeon's operating table.
Here's the latest: Matt Harvey.
Throwing a baseball is very taxing on a pitcher's arm and it isn't a natural motion. Pitchers in 2013 throw the ball faster and harder than pitchers threw the ball 60 years ago. Let's not forget this. Medicine has advanced to where now we know exactly what is wrong with a pitcher as opposed to 50 years ago when a guy just inexplicably lost his velocity it was just chalked up to a pitcher just losing velocity. I don't see a bunch of people running around saying the key to curing cancer is to breathe in as many coal fumes as possible while sitting on a nuclear reactor. I don't think the cure for arm injuries is to further tax a pitcher's arm. 100 years ago people would mysteriously get sick and die. In 2013 we can diagnose why these people have gotten sick due to medical advancements. This means what once was called "taking ill and dying" or some other generic term that doesn't explain what the real cause is (much like "dead arm" was used to explain why a pitcher lost velocity) can now be diagnosed by doctors.
Basically, Terence is using outliers to prove his point and ignoring the fact doctors couldn't attribute a pitcher's "dead arm" to any certain cause 50-60 years ago to further his claim that the more a pitcher pitches the less chance he has of sustaining an elbow or arm injury. He's using the fact there was less knowledge about arm and elbow injuries 60 years ago as a way of indicating pitchers 60 years ago didn't hurt their arms. It's just not true.
He also has a splendid 2.27 ERA to complement a 9-5 record. Not only that, his throwing mechanics are as fundamentally sound as they come at 24 years old.
Which is why Mets general manager Sandy Alderson and others associated with the franchise and beyond say they are shocked by it all.
They can shocked all they want, but again, throwing a baseball at 95 miles per hour 60 times a day is an unnatural motion for the human body.
But he sought to spin things toward the positive this week by telling reporters that he was "optimistic" he could avoid surgery through a vigorous rehabilitation routine.
What's Dr. Terence Moore's suggestion for this vigorous rehabilitation routine? Throwing a baseball as hard and as often as possible every day of the week. That elbow will right heal itself up!
I'm not shocked, and you shouldn't be either. From now until the unforeseeable future, the only time you should respond with raised eyebrows after reading a health report on a Major League pitcher is when it says that pitcher won't need surgery.
Let's not be dramatic about it. Pitchers today throw their pitches faster than ever, so that causes more stress on a pitcher's elbow, which could explain the supposed increase in pitchers who need surgery.
This is an epidemic, all right. Consider the Braves, owners of baseball's best record. They also are continuing their decades-long run as a prolific franchise for pitching. They are second in baseball in team ERA at 3.22 to the Pirates' 3.19, but get this: Within the last five years, the Braves have witnessed seven of their pitchers undergo Tommy John surgery, and that's just at the Major League level.
And why have the Braves had so many arm injuries? They baby their pitchers. This didn't happen when the Braves had John Smoltz on the roster---wait, nevermind.
As for those other Braves pitchers with significant arm-related pain, well, they were like Harvey. Young. Vibrant.
They didn't die. They just had arm surgery. If Terence is looking for an exact explanation on why some pitchers have major arm surgery and other pitchers do not, then he isn't going to find one. I guess that's why he makes up the solution that today's pitchers (unlike "back in the day") are coddled too much.
It's got to be that throwing (or the lack thereof) thing, not only for the Braves, but for everybody, because pitchers used to throw forever. I'm talking about in the Major Leagues, in the Minor Leagues, in Little Leagues and in sandlot leagues.
And pitchers that used to throw forever also got injured, but they weren't diagnosed with an elbow injury or weren't told they required Tommy John surgery because doctors couldn't diagnose the problem. So it was attributed to a pitcher just losing velocity or some other mysterious cause.
And let's get that ridiculous example out of the way in Walter Johnson. After he made his Major League debut in 1903, he pitched 200 innings or more 18 times in 21 years. He even went nine straight seasons throwing 300 innings or more. Two-hundred innings once was the standard for starting pitchers during a given season. Now, not so much.
It's a ridiculous example because Terence is using an outlier to prove his point. Nine straight seasons of 300 innings or more is ridiculous. Having done some research into Johnson, his fastball was once measured at 91 miles per hour which is a speed that most pitchers couldn't get to back in his day. Pitchers today routinely throw that fast. So while it is fun to remember the good old days and notice that starting pitchers used to throw 300 innings in a season, the real question to ask is how fast were these pitchers throwing, because that can tell us how much stress was placed on the pitcher's arm.
Again, throwing a pitch is not a natural motion for the human body and the faster a pitcher throws a pitch the more stress is placed on the pitcher's arm. The more stress placed on a pitcher's arm, the more likely his body won't be able to endure the stress on the pitcher's arm, which causes arm or elbow injuries to occur. So I don't think the comparison to Walter Johnson is a great one because he is an outlier in an era where pitchers rarely threw the ball as hard as pitchers do 100 years later.
So basically Dr. Terence Moore is full of shit that throwing more is the answer to preventing a pitcher from being injured.
Different times, you say -- you know, regarding that iron man era of Johnson, Cy Young and the rest? How about Tom Seaver, who spent his only year in the Minor Leagues in 1966 at 21 throwing 210 innings? That would cause today's pitching coaches to faint. Later, Seaver threw more than 200 innings per season in 16 of his 20 years in the Major Leagues.
Tom Seaver is one pitcher over the last 100+ years of baseball. He, like Walter Johnson, is an outlier. He isn't the rule as Terence so desperately wants to make him, he is the exception to the rule.
Not the stuff of Seaver. Or of Bob Gibson (12 seasons of 200 or more innings, including two of more than 300). Or of Sandy Koufax (who finished three of his last four seasons throwing 300 innings or more).
Oh, you mean the same Sandy Koufax who retired prematurely because he had an arthritic condition in his throwing arm? I'm sure Terence thinks this was caused by Koufax's lack of throwing enough innings the year before (he only threw 323 innings) and the fact Koufax ended up with an arthritic arm had NOTHING to do with the amount of innings he threw. Nothing to see here, move along.
Still not current enough for you? The Braves' Big Three of Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz spent the overwhelming majority of their time during a given season hurling baseballs from a pitcher's mound, either in games or between starts. In addition to combining as a trio to throw more than 200 innings season after season,
Fine, I'll play this game with Terence. Of these three pitchers two of them didn't throw the baseball very hard, while one of them threw a hard fastball and a hard curveball, along with a split finger pitch. Two of these pitchers never had a major arm surgery, while one of these pitchers had shoulder surgery, Tommy John surgery, and various other arm injuries through his career.
Guess what? It was the guy who threw the ball hard, had a hard curveball, and a split finger pitch that ended up with the arm injuries, while the two pitchers who didn't throw the baseball hard stayed relatively injury-free. So Terence again uses a bad example in John Smoltz (the guy who threw hard) when discussing a pitcher who didn't suffer arm injuries, because while Moore holds Smoltz up as a guy who made it through his career by throwing a lot, Smoltz also had arm problems including Tommy John surgery. Smoltz threw his career high in innings during the 1996 and 1997 seasons (and was first in the majors in innings thrown both years) and when did he start having arm problems? That would be the 1998 season. I'm sure it is just a coincidence. It's just embarrassing for MLB.com that Terence writes for them. He does very little research and just has really half-assed explanations for the topics he is discussing.
Leo Mazzone was their legendary pitching coach, and he learned his philosophy of having members of his staff pitch, pitch and pitch some more from Johnny Sain,
Mazzone had a regiment where pitchers throw long-toss in between starts to warm up and strengthen their arm. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't work. I just don't think it is a coincidence the softer throwing of the Braves Big Three starters didn't have major arm injuries while the harder throwing pitcher did. Of course I'm not a doctor like Terence Moore so I'm not going to claim my opinion is fact.
"I look back, and I'm trying to figure out the Tommy John surgeries we've had, and I only can come up with Kerry Ligtenberg, and then we had Smoltzie over a period of time [since he fluctuated between starting and relieving], which you can understand that one,"
This is a lie. Smoltz's arm injuries started when he was a full-time starter and the Tommy John surgery is what necessitated his move to the bullpen. So his arm injuries occurred while he was a starter and not because he went back and forth from the rotation to the bullpen. Besides, under Dr. Terence Moore's theory of throwing the baseball for as many innings as possible wouldn't putting Smoltz back in the rotation help prevent an arm injury because he is throwing more innings?
Instead, during the eight years since Mazzone left the Braves, baseball has become strikingly more protective of pitchers. Among other things, managers yank starters and relievers at the slightest sign of trouble, partly due to the emphasis on bullpen specialists, but mostly due to a heavy dependence on pitch counts.
More velocity on pitches is harder on a pitcher's arm. That's how it works. Pitchers who throw harder seem to be more susceptible to arm and elbow injuries. Matt Harvey threw hard, Stephen Strasburg threw hard, Kerry Wood threw hard, and Mark Prior threw hard. It's not a proven theory by any means, but it's natural to believe the harder a pitcher throws the more stress on the arm which could result in an injury.
Once a pitcher reaches a certain number of pitches during a game or even a season, he's history, just like Stephen Strasburg last autumn.
That's a completely different issue. Strasburg hasn't gotten re-injured because of a pitch count. Rightly or wrongly, he has been held back because of his previous arm injury. Given the fact Strasburg has already had Tommy John surgery it is smart to hold him back a bit. Maybe it's not. All I know is sportswriters bitched that Strasburg got held back last year and now they are bitching the Mets didn't pay attention to the signs that Matt Harvey was injured. Everytime a pitcher's arm is sore it doesn't mean he has something wrong with him.
I mean, how are these pitch counts working overall these days when it comes to keeping guys in the lineup?
Ask Harvey.
I mean, how does it make sense that the answer to pitchers avoiding arm surgeries lie in having the pitcher throw more innings?
Ask a doctor, Terence. It's managing stress on the arm, not putting enough stress on the arm to make the arm super-strong that is the key to preventing arm injuries.
The subtitle of this column is "Increase in arm ailments may be due to increase in clubs' cautiousness."
If Terence Moore were in a private practice rather than dispensing medical advice for free through MLB.com I'm sure he would also tell us the key to avoiding a heart attack is to eat as many fatty, greasy foods as possible. After all, your heart can't get strong until you make it work really hard to stay beating.
Pitchers need to throw more. That's the problem, and that's also the answer when it comes to this epidemic of starters and relievers completing a cycle these days.
This is an opinion, not a scientific fact. Don't present it any other way. Pitchers don't necessarily need to throw more and Terence has no proof this is "the answer" to ensuring pitchers don't get injured. Back in 2011 Atlanta Braves fans made 10,000 "Dr. James Andrews will see you next year" jokes about Eric O'Flaherty, Jonny Venters, and Craig Kimbrel due to the amount that Fredi Gonzalez used them. Guess what? Two of those three pitchers will be having major elbow surgery. I don't claim to be a doctor like Terence does, so I'm not entirely sure why O'Flaherty and Venters had major arm surgery. If I had to guess, it would be because of the amount they were used over the past couple of seasons.
Now you say, "but Ben that is anecdotal evidence that doesn't really prove anything" and you would be right. Unfortunately, Terence is using the same anecdotal evidence to support his position and he gets paid to write stuff like this.
First, they have impressive outings. Then they encounter aches and pains out of nowhere. After that, they sprint to the disabled list before a trip to a surgeon's operating table.
Here's the latest: Matt Harvey.
Throwing a baseball is very taxing on a pitcher's arm and it isn't a natural motion. Pitchers in 2013 throw the ball faster and harder than pitchers threw the ball 60 years ago. Let's not forget this. Medicine has advanced to where now we know exactly what is wrong with a pitcher as opposed to 50 years ago when a guy just inexplicably lost his velocity it was just chalked up to a pitcher just losing velocity. I don't see a bunch of people running around saying the key to curing cancer is to breathe in as many coal fumes as possible while sitting on a nuclear reactor. I don't think the cure for arm injuries is to further tax a pitcher's arm. 100 years ago people would mysteriously get sick and die. In 2013 we can diagnose why these people have gotten sick due to medical advancements. This means what once was called "taking ill and dying" or some other generic term that doesn't explain what the real cause is (much like "dead arm" was used to explain why a pitcher lost velocity) can now be diagnosed by doctors.
Basically, Terence is using outliers to prove his point and ignoring the fact doctors couldn't attribute a pitcher's "dead arm" to any certain cause 50-60 years ago to further his claim that the more a pitcher pitches the less chance he has of sustaining an elbow or arm injury. He's using the fact there was less knowledge about arm and elbow injuries 60 years ago as a way of indicating pitchers 60 years ago didn't hurt their arms. It's just not true.
He also has a splendid 2.27 ERA to complement a 9-5 record. Not only that, his throwing mechanics are as fundamentally sound as they come at 24 years old.
Which is why Mets general manager Sandy Alderson and others associated with the franchise and beyond say they are shocked by it all.
They can shocked all they want, but again, throwing a baseball at 95 miles per hour 60 times a day is an unnatural motion for the human body.
But he sought to spin things toward the positive this week by telling reporters that he was "optimistic" he could avoid surgery through a vigorous rehabilitation routine.
What's Dr. Terence Moore's suggestion for this vigorous rehabilitation routine? Throwing a baseball as hard and as often as possible every day of the week. That elbow will right heal itself up!
I'm not shocked, and you shouldn't be either. From now until the unforeseeable future, the only time you should respond with raised eyebrows after reading a health report on a Major League pitcher is when it says that pitcher won't need surgery.
Let's not be dramatic about it. Pitchers today throw their pitches faster than ever, so that causes more stress on a pitcher's elbow, which could explain the supposed increase in pitchers who need surgery.
This is an epidemic, all right. Consider the Braves, owners of baseball's best record. They also are continuing their decades-long run as a prolific franchise for pitching. They are second in baseball in team ERA at 3.22 to the Pirates' 3.19, but get this: Within the last five years, the Braves have witnessed seven of their pitchers undergo Tommy John surgery, and that's just at the Major League level.
And why have the Braves had so many arm injuries? They baby their pitchers. This didn't happen when the Braves had John Smoltz on the roster---wait, nevermind.
As for those other Braves pitchers with significant arm-related pain, well, they were like Harvey. Young. Vibrant.
They didn't die. They just had arm surgery. If Terence is looking for an exact explanation on why some pitchers have major arm surgery and other pitchers do not, then he isn't going to find one. I guess that's why he makes up the solution that today's pitchers (unlike "back in the day") are coddled too much.
It's got to be that throwing (or the lack thereof) thing, not only for the Braves, but for everybody, because pitchers used to throw forever. I'm talking about in the Major Leagues, in the Minor Leagues, in Little Leagues and in sandlot leagues.
And pitchers that used to throw forever also got injured, but they weren't diagnosed with an elbow injury or weren't told they required Tommy John surgery because doctors couldn't diagnose the problem. So it was attributed to a pitcher just losing velocity or some other mysterious cause.
And let's get that ridiculous example out of the way in Walter Johnson. After he made his Major League debut in 1903, he pitched 200 innings or more 18 times in 21 years. He even went nine straight seasons throwing 300 innings or more. Two-hundred innings once was the standard for starting pitchers during a given season. Now, not so much.
It's a ridiculous example because Terence is using an outlier to prove his point. Nine straight seasons of 300 innings or more is ridiculous. Having done some research into Johnson, his fastball was once measured at 91 miles per hour which is a speed that most pitchers couldn't get to back in his day. Pitchers today routinely throw that fast. So while it is fun to remember the good old days and notice that starting pitchers used to throw 300 innings in a season, the real question to ask is how fast were these pitchers throwing, because that can tell us how much stress was placed on the pitcher's arm.
Again, throwing a pitch is not a natural motion for the human body and the faster a pitcher throws a pitch the more stress is placed on the pitcher's arm. The more stress placed on a pitcher's arm, the more likely his body won't be able to endure the stress on the pitcher's arm, which causes arm or elbow injuries to occur. So I don't think the comparison to Walter Johnson is a great one because he is an outlier in an era where pitchers rarely threw the ball as hard as pitchers do 100 years later.
So basically Dr. Terence Moore is full of shit that throwing more is the answer to preventing a pitcher from being injured.
Different times, you say -- you know, regarding that iron man era of Johnson, Cy Young and the rest? How about Tom Seaver, who spent his only year in the Minor Leagues in 1966 at 21 throwing 210 innings? That would cause today's pitching coaches to faint. Later, Seaver threw more than 200 innings per season in 16 of his 20 years in the Major Leagues.
Tom Seaver is one pitcher over the last 100+ years of baseball. He, like Walter Johnson, is an outlier. He isn't the rule as Terence so desperately wants to make him, he is the exception to the rule.
Not the stuff of Seaver. Or of Bob Gibson (12 seasons of 200 or more innings, including two of more than 300). Or of Sandy Koufax (who finished three of his last four seasons throwing 300 innings or more).
Oh, you mean the same Sandy Koufax who retired prematurely because he had an arthritic condition in his throwing arm? I'm sure Terence thinks this was caused by Koufax's lack of throwing enough innings the year before (he only threw 323 innings) and the fact Koufax ended up with an arthritic arm had NOTHING to do with the amount of innings he threw. Nothing to see here, move along.
Still not current enough for you? The Braves' Big Three of Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz spent the overwhelming majority of their time during a given season hurling baseballs from a pitcher's mound, either in games or between starts. In addition to combining as a trio to throw more than 200 innings season after season,
Fine, I'll play this game with Terence. Of these three pitchers two of them didn't throw the baseball very hard, while one of them threw a hard fastball and a hard curveball, along with a split finger pitch. Two of these pitchers never had a major arm surgery, while one of these pitchers had shoulder surgery, Tommy John surgery, and various other arm injuries through his career.
Guess what? It was the guy who threw the ball hard, had a hard curveball, and a split finger pitch that ended up with the arm injuries, while the two pitchers who didn't throw the baseball hard stayed relatively injury-free. So Terence again uses a bad example in John Smoltz (the guy who threw hard) when discussing a pitcher who didn't suffer arm injuries, because while Moore holds Smoltz up as a guy who made it through his career by throwing a lot, Smoltz also had arm problems including Tommy John surgery. Smoltz threw his career high in innings during the 1996 and 1997 seasons (and was first in the majors in innings thrown both years) and when did he start having arm problems? That would be the 1998 season. I'm sure it is just a coincidence. It's just embarrassing for MLB.com that Terence writes for them. He does very little research and just has really half-assed explanations for the topics he is discussing.
Leo Mazzone was their legendary pitching coach, and he learned his philosophy of having members of his staff pitch, pitch and pitch some more from Johnny Sain,
Mazzone had a regiment where pitchers throw long-toss in between starts to warm up and strengthen their arm. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't work. I just don't think it is a coincidence the softer throwing of the Braves Big Three starters didn't have major arm injuries while the harder throwing pitcher did. Of course I'm not a doctor like Terence Moore so I'm not going to claim my opinion is fact.
"I look back, and I'm trying to figure out the Tommy John surgeries we've had, and I only can come up with Kerry Ligtenberg, and then we had Smoltzie over a period of time [since he fluctuated between starting and relieving], which you can understand that one,"
This is a lie. Smoltz's arm injuries started when he was a full-time starter and the Tommy John surgery is what necessitated his move to the bullpen. So his arm injuries occurred while he was a starter and not because he went back and forth from the rotation to the bullpen. Besides, under Dr. Terence Moore's theory of throwing the baseball for as many innings as possible wouldn't putting Smoltz back in the rotation help prevent an arm injury because he is throwing more innings?
Instead, during the eight years since Mazzone left the Braves, baseball has become strikingly more protective of pitchers. Among other things, managers yank starters and relievers at the slightest sign of trouble, partly due to the emphasis on bullpen specialists, but mostly due to a heavy dependence on pitch counts.
More velocity on pitches is harder on a pitcher's arm. That's how it works. Pitchers who throw harder seem to be more susceptible to arm and elbow injuries. Matt Harvey threw hard, Stephen Strasburg threw hard, Kerry Wood threw hard, and Mark Prior threw hard. It's not a proven theory by any means, but it's natural to believe the harder a pitcher throws the more stress on the arm which could result in an injury.
Once a pitcher reaches a certain number of pitches during a game or even a season, he's history, just like Stephen Strasburg last autumn.
That's a completely different issue. Strasburg hasn't gotten re-injured because of a pitch count. Rightly or wrongly, he has been held back because of his previous arm injury. Given the fact Strasburg has already had Tommy John surgery it is smart to hold him back a bit. Maybe it's not. All I know is sportswriters bitched that Strasburg got held back last year and now they are bitching the Mets didn't pay attention to the signs that Matt Harvey was injured. Everytime a pitcher's arm is sore it doesn't mean he has something wrong with him.
I mean, how are these pitch counts working overall these days when it comes to keeping guys in the lineup?
Ask Harvey.
I mean, how does it make sense that the answer to pitchers avoiding arm surgeries lie in having the pitcher throw more innings?
Ask a doctor, Terence. It's managing stress on the arm, not putting enough stress on the arm to make the arm super-strong that is the key to preventing arm injuries.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
2 comments Bob Klapisch Doesn't See a Need for Matt Harvey to Tempt the Ladies with His Sexuality
Some baseball writers enjoy tackling hard-hitting important issues
surrounding baseball and then other baseball writers like to make a story out
of nothing. Bob Klapisch seems to be (at least today) in the latter group. He
thinks Matt Harvey posing nude in ESPN's Body Issue, which I will not be
providing links for these pictures, wasn't a good decision. After all, what
Hall of Fame pitcher would ever dare to pose in his underwear?
Simply put, great pitchers just don't do
that. Klapisch even asks Ron Darling who agrees that posing nude or paying
attention to celebrity outside of baseball is something that should be avoided at
all costs. Of course in Darling's GQ article there were comments critical
of Davey Johnson, and Matt Harvey simply took pictures without bashing his
manager, but Ron Darling warns others about trying to gain the type of
celebrity he chased. It can affect your pitching and being naked is wrong!
My copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude.
And because we know the best way to find out what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude is to look at pictures of Harvey posing nude. He's so expressive!
I tried to use this reasoning for why I was looking at a Playboy when I was 11 years old, but for some reason my friend's mom didn't buy my reasoning.
"No, I'm not trying to look at naked women Mrs. Thompson! I just want to find out what attracted her to posing nude in the magazine and figured the best way to figure this out would be to stare at her naked body."
Oh, the layouts were creative and tastefully done: no argument about the graphics.
Well, thank God. I know I was concerned the graphics wouldn't be tasteful.
Harvey? He was photographed in his windup —his arm forming a perfect “L.” In the second shot, Harvey is holding a room-service tray over his privates as he peers out of an expensive-looking hotel room. Clever enough.
These naked pictures of Matt Harvey have Bob Klapisch's approval. Combined this with the very tasteful graphics and I think Bob is starting to see what attracted Harvey to posing for these pictures.
Still, I’m told the Mets were aghast to learn of Harvey’s participation in this project; they had nothing to do with it.
The Mets didn't encourage Harvey to pose naked in a magazine and he made an adult decision by himself? You don't say?
It was the pitcher’s marketing people and agent Scott Boras who convinced Harvey that modeling –modeling his body, that is –would somehow help his career.
And look, an article is being written about Harvey modeling in ESPN's Body Issue. Harvey gets noticed like he wants. I can't believe Scott Boras is encouraging young men to get naked and pose for pictures. He's worse than a Hollywood producer sleeping with the women talent in order to convince them they will get a role in his next film. One more reason Scott Boras is evil. He convinces his clients to model and take pictures in their underwear for his perverse pleasure. He convinces a vulnerable A-Rod to pose kissing himself in the mirror, now he has Matt Harvey posing naked for ESPN, and who can forget that time Boras convinced Derek Lowe and Barry Zito doing a video of "2 Guys, 1 Cup" would be good for their career? Clearly, Scott Boras is a pervert.
He’s also been blessed with a keen self-awareness, which means he knew exactly what he was getting into with ESPN, not to mention a follow-up photo fashion shoot with the New York Post.
Turns out Harvey’s talent and brains are matched by his ego and vanity.
Yeah, I know. It's so vain to be on the cover of magazines and newspapers. Don't you like how Matt Harvey is only a rookie and the New York media is already finding ways to tear him down?
Let’s be honest, it takes a good deal of narcissism to step out of your clothes and stand in front of a camera. Your message becomes clear: Look at me.
This is possibly true. Bob Klapisch is around 56 years old and he just now realized that athletes have an ego and can be narcissistic? Harvey is a rookie and whether he posed naked one time or not has nothing to do with how well he pitches. Posing in ESPN's Body Issue does give the media something to criticize Harvey for, which is probably his biggest issue, as opposed to his modeling affecting his ability to pitch.
If Harvey wants to prove he’s enlightened and open-minded, there are a million other ways to express that without putting a bull’s-eye on his back.
Does Colin Kaepernick have a bull's-eye on his back now? Do any of the other athletes in ESPN's Body Issue have bull's-eyes on their back now? I would bet you Bob Klapisch can't name three male athletes who posed in the 2011 and 2012 ESPN Body Issue. The only bull's-eye on Harvey's back is the one Bob Klapisch is trying to put there.
No one knows this better than Ron Darling, who calls games from the SNY booth, but remembers what it was like to be the Yale-educated pretty boy of the ’80s-era teams.
Darling appeared on the cover of GQ in August 1986, and although he was fully clothed, he still made history as the magazine’s first prominently featured Asian.
So because Ron Darling was on the cover of GQ and regrets it, every other professional athlete who appears on the cover of a magazine or does any modeling (even in a sports magazine) is going to eventually regret it? Everyone is the same and every athlete has the same experiences and what happened in 1986 is completely relevant to what may happen in 2013?
Looking back, Darling regrets the “lust” he had for GQ’s celebrity, because, “Inside, the article [that accompanied the cover shot] was critical of Davey [Johnson]. You end up selling yourself to the devil,” Darling said. “I was embarrassed.”
Matt Harvey had no quotes in the article that was critical of anyone. There were two pictures of Harvey in the ESPN magazine. Ron Darling should not project his experiences on others. Simply because Darling had a lust for celebrity and was critical of Davey Johnson in a GQ article doesn't mean this will be an experience Matt Harvey will share. Harvey took two naked pictures in a sports magazine along with other athletes in various sports and his photos in the New York Post were just douche-like, not anything that involves him selling his soul to the devil.
When Darling says, “You have to keep your mind on the prize,” it’s a gentle warning that outsiders will be looking at Harvey differently from now on,
I am an outsider and didn't even know Harvey took the pictures in the Post nor had I seen the pictures in ESPN's Body Issue. All I know is he played college baseball at UNC-Chapel Hill, so he must be a douchebag at heart.
“The toughest part is the clubhouse, the simple minds you have to wade through,” Darling said. “There’s going to be criticism that comes out of nowhere, [from] teammates that are small-minded and don’t get it.”
Matt Harvey is an adult and he will handle the criticism or comments from his teammates. It's also very important to note that Harvey's modeling hasn't affected his pitching as of yet ("OR HAS IT?" says Bob Klapisch) and plenty of other athletes have posed half-clothed including The Jeter.
Yet, Harvey was less than dominant in a 121-pitch performance against the Giants on Monday because, as it turns out, he has a blister on his right index finger. It’s more of a nuisance than a problem, but the Mets might skip Harvey’s start Saturday and keep him out of the All-Star Game.
It didn't happen. Harvey pitched in the All-Star Game and the blister caused by modeling didn't affect his pitching. Miraculously Harvey wasn't so distracted by his burgeoning modeling career that he completely forgot to show up for the All-Star Game. He showed up and started the game, all while managing to keep his massive ego and narcissism in check. It's almost like Bob Klapisch is creating stories where there isn't one (adds the tag to this post).
That’s smart thinking, but had it not been for the blister, the whispering campaign might’ve already begun. That’s the surcharge for Harvey’s desire for the spotlight –the second-guessers who’ll be asking hard questions about his priorities.
Bob Klapisch is writing a column asking hard questions about Matt Harvey's priorities. In this column Klapisch is writing he states that there will be second-guessers who'll be asking hard questions about Matt Harvey's priorities. See how this works? In the column on Harvey's priorities Klapisch is warning second-guessers will write exactly what he is writing in the column. It's all circular. It's like if I wrote an article on how Jake Locker might be a closeted homosexual because he drives a Dodge Neon and then in the article I state that some people are going to accuse Locker of being a homosexual for driving a Dodge Neon. I would be the person I am warning Locker about.
Remember how A-Rod allowed himself to be photographed shirtless by the New York Post in Central Park? Kissing himself in the mirror for Details magazine? Bad decisions, all.
It's all about A-Rod. It always is and it always will be. "Don't be A-Rod." That's the lesson. Remember that time Derek Jeter posed shirtless with other MLB shortstops? Whatever happened to that Jeter guy? It ruined his career didn't it?
(My favorite pose is that of Rey Ordonez. He's trying to give his best "sexy eyes" to the camera and it looks like he has to take a huge shit and would appreciate it if the cameraman would stop taking pictures so he can run to the bathroom)
There’s plenty of room for expressionism, but at age 24, Harvey probably could use some help picking his spots.
I'd love to know from Bob Klapisch which "spot" is best for Matt Harvey to do some modeling in. My guess would be "never and at no time."
“If I was playing today, I would be aware of Instagram and Twitter. I would make sure I had someone in charge of things that are in the public eye,” Darling said.
Oh sure, of course you would Ron. Darling was taken and "lusted" for fame and celebrity in 1986, but in an era where it is much easier to get your picture and thoughts out into the world Ron would have been MORE careful about what he put in the public. I completely don't believe this at all. Logic would indicate if Ron Darling wanted celebrity in 1986 at the age of 26 he would still want celebrity in 2013 if he was 26 years old. Let's not take part in some revisionist history here. Darling would most likely have acted the same way if he played baseball in 2013, except he would have had an Instagram and Twitter account and probably would not have minded appearing in the ESPN Body Issue.
Sure, knowing what he knows now Darling may have wanted to do things differently, but I'm betting if Darling were a 26 year old playing for the Mets he wouldn't have been as "in charge of things" as he wants us to believe he would be. It's nice to pretend otherwise though.
Drill down another level and the question becomes one of legacy. Who does Harvey want to be —a star pitcher or a celebrity?
He can actually be both. He can be a star pitcher who has appeared in the ESPN Body Issue and New York Post doing some modeling, and unlike Ron Darling, he managed not to criticize his manager.
Does he want the back page or Page Six? Is he a great guy or just a guy with a great body?
Does it really matter if it doesn't impact how he pitches? I'm not sure one appearance modeling in a sports magazine means Matt Harvey's priorities aren't where they should be.
My copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude.
And because we know the best way to find out what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude is to look at pictures of Harvey posing nude. He's so expressive!
I tried to use this reasoning for why I was looking at a Playboy when I was 11 years old, but for some reason my friend's mom didn't buy my reasoning.
"No, I'm not trying to look at naked women Mrs. Thompson! I just want to find out what attracted her to posing nude in the magazine and figured the best way to figure this out would be to stare at her naked body."
Oh, the layouts were creative and tastefully done: no argument about the graphics.
Well, thank God. I know I was concerned the graphics wouldn't be tasteful.
Harvey? He was photographed in his windup —his arm forming a perfect “L.” In the second shot, Harvey is holding a room-service tray over his privates as he peers out of an expensive-looking hotel room. Clever enough.
These naked pictures of Matt Harvey have Bob Klapisch's approval. Combined this with the very tasteful graphics and I think Bob is starting to see what attracted Harvey to posing for these pictures.
Still, I’m told the Mets were aghast to learn of Harvey’s participation in this project; they had nothing to do with it.
The Mets didn't encourage Harvey to pose naked in a magazine and he made an adult decision by himself? You don't say?
It was the pitcher’s marketing people and agent Scott Boras who convinced Harvey that modeling –modeling his body, that is –would somehow help his career.
And look, an article is being written about Harvey modeling in ESPN's Body Issue. Harvey gets noticed like he wants. I can't believe Scott Boras is encouraging young men to get naked and pose for pictures. He's worse than a Hollywood producer sleeping with the women talent in order to convince them they will get a role in his next film. One more reason Scott Boras is evil. He convinces his clients to model and take pictures in their underwear for his perverse pleasure. He convinces a vulnerable A-Rod to pose kissing himself in the mirror, now he has Matt Harvey posing naked for ESPN, and who can forget that time Boras convinced Derek Lowe and Barry Zito doing a video of "2 Guys, 1 Cup" would be good for their career? Clearly, Scott Boras is a pervert.
He’s also been blessed with a keen self-awareness, which means he knew exactly what he was getting into with ESPN, not to mention a follow-up photo fashion shoot with the New York Post.
Turns out Harvey’s talent and brains are matched by his ego and vanity.
Yeah, I know. It's so vain to be on the cover of magazines and newspapers. Don't you like how Matt Harvey is only a rookie and the New York media is already finding ways to tear him down?
Let’s be honest, it takes a good deal of narcissism to step out of your clothes and stand in front of a camera. Your message becomes clear: Look at me.
This is possibly true. Bob Klapisch is around 56 years old and he just now realized that athletes have an ego and can be narcissistic? Harvey is a rookie and whether he posed naked one time or not has nothing to do with how well he pitches. Posing in ESPN's Body Issue does give the media something to criticize Harvey for, which is probably his biggest issue, as opposed to his modeling affecting his ability to pitch.
If Harvey wants to prove he’s enlightened and open-minded, there are a million other ways to express that without putting a bull’s-eye on his back.
Does Colin Kaepernick have a bull's-eye on his back now? Do any of the other athletes in ESPN's Body Issue have bull's-eyes on their back now? I would bet you Bob Klapisch can't name three male athletes who posed in the 2011 and 2012 ESPN Body Issue. The only bull's-eye on Harvey's back is the one Bob Klapisch is trying to put there.
No one knows this better than Ron Darling, who calls games from the SNY booth, but remembers what it was like to be the Yale-educated pretty boy of the ’80s-era teams.
Darling appeared on the cover of GQ in August 1986, and although he was fully clothed, he still made history as the magazine’s first prominently featured Asian.
So because Ron Darling was on the cover of GQ and regrets it, every other professional athlete who appears on the cover of a magazine or does any modeling (even in a sports magazine) is going to eventually regret it? Everyone is the same and every athlete has the same experiences and what happened in 1986 is completely relevant to what may happen in 2013?
Looking back, Darling regrets the “lust” he had for GQ’s celebrity, because, “Inside, the article [that accompanied the cover shot] was critical of Davey [Johnson]. You end up selling yourself to the devil,” Darling said. “I was embarrassed.”
Matt Harvey had no quotes in the article that was critical of anyone. There were two pictures of Harvey in the ESPN magazine. Ron Darling should not project his experiences on others. Simply because Darling had a lust for celebrity and was critical of Davey Johnson in a GQ article doesn't mean this will be an experience Matt Harvey will share. Harvey took two naked pictures in a sports magazine along with other athletes in various sports and his photos in the New York Post were just douche-like, not anything that involves him selling his soul to the devil.
When Darling says, “You have to keep your mind on the prize,” it’s a gentle warning that outsiders will be looking at Harvey differently from now on,
I am an outsider and didn't even know Harvey took the pictures in the Post nor had I seen the pictures in ESPN's Body Issue. All I know is he played college baseball at UNC-Chapel Hill, so he must be a douchebag at heart.
“The toughest part is the clubhouse, the simple minds you have to wade through,” Darling said. “There’s going to be criticism that comes out of nowhere, [from] teammates that are small-minded and don’t get it.”
Matt Harvey is an adult and he will handle the criticism or comments from his teammates. It's also very important to note that Harvey's modeling hasn't affected his pitching as of yet ("OR HAS IT?" says Bob Klapisch) and plenty of other athletes have posed half-clothed including The Jeter.
Yet, Harvey was less than dominant in a 121-pitch performance against the Giants on Monday because, as it turns out, he has a blister on his right index finger. It’s more of a nuisance than a problem, but the Mets might skip Harvey’s start Saturday and keep him out of the All-Star Game.
It didn't happen. Harvey pitched in the All-Star Game and the blister caused by modeling didn't affect his pitching. Miraculously Harvey wasn't so distracted by his burgeoning modeling career that he completely forgot to show up for the All-Star Game. He showed up and started the game, all while managing to keep his massive ego and narcissism in check. It's almost like Bob Klapisch is creating stories where there isn't one (adds the tag to this post).
That’s smart thinking, but had it not been for the blister, the whispering campaign might’ve already begun. That’s the surcharge for Harvey’s desire for the spotlight –the second-guessers who’ll be asking hard questions about his priorities.
Bob Klapisch is writing a column asking hard questions about Matt Harvey's priorities. In this column Klapisch is writing he states that there will be second-guessers who'll be asking hard questions about Matt Harvey's priorities. See how this works? In the column on Harvey's priorities Klapisch is warning second-guessers will write exactly what he is writing in the column. It's all circular. It's like if I wrote an article on how Jake Locker might be a closeted homosexual because he drives a Dodge Neon and then in the article I state that some people are going to accuse Locker of being a homosexual for driving a Dodge Neon. I would be the person I am warning Locker about.
Remember how A-Rod allowed himself to be photographed shirtless by the New York Post in Central Park? Kissing himself in the mirror for Details magazine? Bad decisions, all.
It's all about A-Rod. It always is and it always will be. "Don't be A-Rod." That's the lesson. Remember that time Derek Jeter posed shirtless with other MLB shortstops? Whatever happened to that Jeter guy? It ruined his career didn't it?
(My favorite pose is that of Rey Ordonez. He's trying to give his best "sexy eyes" to the camera and it looks like he has to take a huge shit and would appreciate it if the cameraman would stop taking pictures so he can run to the bathroom)
There’s plenty of room for expressionism, but at age 24, Harvey probably could use some help picking his spots.
I'd love to know from Bob Klapisch which "spot" is best for Matt Harvey to do some modeling in. My guess would be "never and at no time."
“If I was playing today, I would be aware of Instagram and Twitter. I would make sure I had someone in charge of things that are in the public eye,” Darling said.
Oh sure, of course you would Ron. Darling was taken and "lusted" for fame and celebrity in 1986, but in an era where it is much easier to get your picture and thoughts out into the world Ron would have been MORE careful about what he put in the public. I completely don't believe this at all. Logic would indicate if Ron Darling wanted celebrity in 1986 at the age of 26 he would still want celebrity in 2013 if he was 26 years old. Let's not take part in some revisionist history here. Darling would most likely have acted the same way if he played baseball in 2013, except he would have had an Instagram and Twitter account and probably would not have minded appearing in the ESPN Body Issue.
Sure, knowing what he knows now Darling may have wanted to do things differently, but I'm betting if Darling were a 26 year old playing for the Mets he wouldn't have been as "in charge of things" as he wants us to believe he would be. It's nice to pretend otherwise though.
Drill down another level and the question becomes one of legacy. Who does Harvey want to be —a star pitcher or a celebrity?
He can actually be both. He can be a star pitcher who has appeared in the ESPN Body Issue and New York Post doing some modeling, and unlike Ron Darling, he managed not to criticize his manager.
Does he want the back page or Page Six? Is he a great guy or just a guy with a great body?
Does it really matter if it doesn't impact how he pitches? I'm not sure one appearance modeling in a sports magazine means Matt Harvey's priorities aren't where they should be.
My
copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was
curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to
know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude. - See more
at:
http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Posing_nude_wasnt_Matt_Harveys_best_decision.html?page=all#sthash.XzvxMOKZ.dpuf
My
copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was
curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to
know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude. - See more
at:
http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Posing_nude_wasnt_Matt_Harveys_best_decision.html?page=all#sthash.XzvxMOKZ.dpuf
My
copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was
curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to
know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude. - See more
at:
http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Posing_nude_wasnt_Matt_Harveys_best_decision.html?page=all#sthash.XzvxMOKZ.dpuf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)