Matt Harvey and the Mets' Mediocrity in His Starts

Until last night, the Mets hadn't won a regular season game started by Matt Harvey since last season's division clincher.  (Photo by Ed Leyro/Studious Metsimus)

Matt Harvey earned his first regular season victory in last night's 6-3 win over the Atlanta Braves.  But more importantly, the Mets earned their first win in a Matt Harvey start since last year's division clincher.  Harvey had made four regular season appearances since the team won the N.L. East crown on September 26.  Those four contests included his un-Harvey-like three-game start to this season and the next-to-last regular season game of 2015 - a game in which the Mets were no-hit by Max Scherzer.

All told, Harvey has made 69 starts in his Mets career and the team has lost more than half of them, going 34-35 in the Dark Knight's appearances.  There are many reasons for the Mets' mediocrity in starts made by the pitcher many deemed to be the future of the franchise.

Harvey's bullpen has failed to protect his leads.  Like Johan Santana in 2008, who had seven leads blown by the team's bullpen, turning a potential 23-win, Cy Young campaign into a 16-win, third place finish in the balloting for top pitcher in the National League, Harvey has been occasionally victimized by his relief corps as well.  It all began in his final start in 2012, when Harvey pitched seven innings of one-hit ball against the Phillies, leaving the game with a 2-1 lead, only to see Josh Edgin surrender a two-run homer to Ryan Howard with two outs in the ninth.  The Mets lost that game, 3-2.

In 2013, the Mets won each of Harvey's first five starts, but then went 8-13 in his next 21 starts before his season was cut short in August due to the injury that caused him to undergo Tommy John surgery.  In three of those 13 losses, the Mets were leading the game when Harvey was removed by Terry Collins, only to see the bullpen become BFFs with opposing hitters, giving up Harvey's leads in eventual Mets losses.

Upon returning from Tommy John surgery in 2015, Harvey finally had some success helping the Mets earn victories, but the team still lost a dozen times in Harvey's 29 starts.  Once again, New York dropped three games in which Harvey left them with a lead to protect.  Add it all up and the Mets have lost seven games when Harvey was removed with the lead - or the same number of times the Mets' bullpen blew leads for Johan Santana in 2008 alone.  Had the bullpen been more successful for Harvey and the Mets in those seven instances, the team's 34-35 record in Harvey's starts could have been a more impressive 41-28.

But don't just blame the bullpen for the team's mediocrity in Harvey's starts.  In fact, the team has saved Harvey from a number of losses several times during his career as well.

On April 24, 2013, Harvey allowed three runs to the Dodgers in six innings.  When he left the game, the Mets trailed Los Angeles, 3-1.  New York tied the game in the ninth, then won it in the tenth on Jordany Valdespin's walk-off grand slam.  A month later, Harvey was all set to pick up a hard-luck loss when he pitched eight masterful innings against the Yankees but left the game with his team down, 1-0.  The Mets rallied for two runs in the ninth, marking the only time in Mariano Rivera's career that he came into a save situation and earned the loss without retiring a batter.

Fast forward two years later during the Mets' run to the N.L. East title in 2015.  On September 8, Harvey pitched an awful game in Washington, allowing seven runs to the Nats before he was removed with one out in the sixth and his team trailing by six.  Then Wilmer Flores happened (RBI single).  Then Curtis Granderson happened (bases-loaded walk).  Then Yoenis Cespedes joined the party (three-run bases-clearing double).  Then Lucas Duda remained patient (game-tying bases-loaded walk).  Finally, an inning later, Kirk Nieuwenhuis hit his final homer as a Met, taking Jonathan Papelbon deep for what became the winning run in the Mets' 8-7 victory.

There were also a game in 2015 where Harvey was actually helped out by his bullpen to help the Mets earn a victory.  On July 31, Harvey was removed from a 1-1 game against the Nationals with two runners on base.  But Tyler Clippard won a 13-pitch battle against Jayson Werth, striking out the hirsute slugger to preserve the tie.  Had Werth driven in a run or two against Clippard, those runs would have been charged to Harvey and the game might never have gone to extra innings.  But because Clippard and the rest of the bullpen (and eventually Wilmer Flores in the 12th inning) did their jobs, Harvey escaped with a no-decision and the Mets escaped with a much-needed win.

So that's four wins where Harvey could very well have been saddled with a loss, but the Mets stormed back to victory.  That 34-35 overall record by the team could have been a more disturbing 30-39 had those rallies not ensued.

It's true that Harvey has been more effective than not.  His 2.66 ERA and 1.03 WHIP in his career says that's the case.  It's also true that the Mets' bats have had a tendency to hit the snooze button more than they've hit baseballs in too many of Harvey's starts.  Harvey has allowed two runs or fewer in 45 of his 69 starts, or 65.2% of the time.  In those starts, the Mets are just 27-18, for a .600 winning percentage.  That might seem okay until you look at how the Mets have fared when Jacob deGrom has allowed two runs or fewer.  DeGrom has held opponents to two runs or fewer in 36 of his 53 starts, or 67.9% of the time, which is not much higher than Harvey's percentage.  However, New York has a phenomenal 29-7 record when deGrom holds opponents to no more than two tallies.  That's good for an .806 winning percentage, which is far higher than Harvey's mark in similar outings.

To summarize, Matt Harvey has been a victim of everything that can contribute to his team's mediocre record in his starts.  He's been a victim of an occasionally shoddy bullpen.  He's also had his teammates take several days off at the plate when he's been on the mound.  But on the flip side, both the bullpen and the offense have also bailed Harvey out a few times.

Sometimes, it's better to be lucky than good.  In Matt Harvey's case, he's been very good throughout his career, but he also hasn't had the best of luck.  Put it all together and you have a four-year career that has produced just 34 victories by his team in his 69 starts.  It's a trend that's been going on for far too long and needs to change very soon if Harvey is ever going to be the type of pitcher everyone expects him to be.  His win against Atlanta last night needs to be the stepping stone for bigger and better things in the future.

A Lesson In Mediocrity: The New York Mets Over The Years

It's a slow news day on the Mets front, so I decided to see if I could find something of interest to write about. I didn't want it to be boring, but I couldn't think of anything exciting to write about either. Basically, I was left with writing something mediocre. And that's when it hit me like an off-kilter slider by Jesse Orosco (47-47 as a Met) or a wayward fastball by Oliver Perez (29-29 as a Met).

This year's Mets team, especially since the All-Star Break, has been hovering at or around the break-even point. A .500 team is usually the definition of mediocrity. So are the 2011 Mets the most mediocre team in Mets history?

Don't worry, Mr. Met. Every team wins some and loses some. Of course, the Mets are experts at both.

The Mets were so bad in their first few seasons that they didn't reach the .500 mark for the first time until their fifth season. Compare that to the Arizona Diamondbacks, who won the World Series in only their fourth season of existence. And it's not like the Mets reached the .500 mark late in the season. They reached .500 exactly twice in 1966, when they were 1-1 and 2-2. (Their first above-.500 mark came after three games, when they were 2-1.)

The following year, the Mets once again reached the .500 mark exactly twice, registering a 1-1 record after the first two games of 1967 and a 4-4 mark after eight games.

The Mets showed "progress" in 1968, the first year of Gil Hodges' much-too-short tenure as Mets manager, reaching the .500 mark three times. Unfortunately, all three times occurred within the first six games of the season, when the Mets were 1-1, 2-2 and 3-3.

That all changed in 1969.

In that miraculous season, the Mets continued their early season .500 trend, going 1-1 and 2-2. They also went above .500 for only the second time in team history, when they were 2-1 after three games. But this time, they decided that mediocrity in April wasn't good enough. On May 21, the Mets reached the .500 mark for the first time after the sixth game of the season, when they improved to 18-18. They reached .500 again ten games later (23-23), then went above .500 to stay on June 3, remaining above the break-even point all the way to the World Series championship.

Unfortunately, the Mets returned to a life of mediocrity in the 1970s, never more so than the early part of the 1970 season, when the Mets reached the .500 mark 13 times in the first 28 games. In fact, the Mets were a .500 team after every even-numbered game of the first 28 contests except after Game 20. (They were 11-9 after 20 games, but were 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, all the way up to 13-13 and 14-14.) Overall, the Mets reached the .500 mark on 20 separate occasions in 1970.

That trend continued throughout the disco decade, as the Mets reached .500 seven times in 1971, twice in 1972, six times in their pennant-winning 1973 season, twice in 1974, seven times in 1975 and 15 times in 1976. Then came the Dark Ages (no, not the continued growth of disco).

From 1977-1983, the Mets reached the .500 mark a total of 28 times, with a high of eight during the strike-shortened 1981 season. (Note: The Mets were .500 on three separate occasions during the first half of the '81 season. When they returned from the strike, it was decided by Major League Baseball that each team would play a split season, meaning that every team would begin at 0-0 once play resumed. During the second half of the '81 season, the Mets reached the .500 mark five more times, giving them a total of eight for the entire season.) Other than 1981, no Mets team over a full season reached .500 more than five times during those post-Midnight Massacre campaigns.

Not including the wacky 1981 split season, the only time the Mets climbed their way up to .500 after the All-Star Break was in 1980, when the magic came back at 42-42 and 43-43. However, the team lost their next game on both occasions when they made it to .500.

From 1984-1990, the Mets finished with winning records every year, not stopping for long at the .500 mark in any of those campaigns. Over those seven seasons, the Mets were a .500 team on 29 occasions, and were never at or below .500 after June 13 in any of those seasons. (They were 30-30 on June 13, 1989 and 28-28 after the first game of a doubleheader on June 13, 1990.) Also, the Mets were above .500 throughout the entire 1985 season, which marked the first time since 1965 that they never had a .500 record after any game and the first time ever that they had a winning record after every game.

The next six seasons (1991-1996) were lean years for the Mets, as they finished below .500 every year. In 1991, the Mets resembled the 1985 team, staying above .500 for most of the season. That changed on August 15, when the team dropped to .500 (57-57) for the first time all year. That would be the only time the Mets were at .500 all season, as they lost their next game to drop to 57-58 and never climbed back to the break-even mark.

That trend continued in 1992 (six times at .500, reaching the mark for the final time at 48-48), 1993 (five times at .500, but not after they were 8-8), 1994 (11 times at .500, all in the first 52 games), 1995 (only reached .500 once, at 2-2) and 1996 (reached .500 twice, but only at 1-1 and 2-2).

In 1997, the Mets experienced another renaissance. After hitting the .500 mark for the second time on May 16, the Mets didn't drop below .500 again until 1999. They were at .500 on three occasions during the 1998 season but always won the following game. The 1999 Mets were exactly a .500 team on four occasions, while the 2000 Mets were at .500 on six occasions on the way to their fourth National League pennant. The 2001 squad spent most of the season below .500 before finishing barely above the mark, stopping at .500 three times along the way.

The 2002 Mets tied the 1970 team by being at .500 on 20 separate occasions. Unfortunately, the 20th time they hit .500 was during their season-changing 12-game losing streak in August. The following year, the Mets reached .500 four times in their first eight games, but dropped below .500 after their ninth game and did not return to the break-even point again in 2003. For the first half of the 2004 season, the Mets flirted with .500 many times, hitting the mark 16 times, before an 11-game losing streak late in the season ended all chances of reaching it for a 17th time.

In 2005, the Mets brought in manager Willie Randolph to guide the New Mets of Carlos Beltran and Pedro Martinez. That team reached new non-heights and non-depths in mediocrity, breaking the 35-year-old franchise record for most times at .500, achieving that so-so feat before the All-Star Break. When the Mets won their final game before the Midsummer Classic to improve to 44-44, it marked the 21st time they found themselves at exactly .500. At year's end, the Mets found themselves one exit north of mediocrity, four games over .500 at 83-79, but not before hitting the mark 27 times during the regular season.

The 2006 Mets were 1-1 after two games. After improving to 2-1 the next day, the Mets didn't see the .500 mark again until the second game of the 2008 season, when once again, the Mets stood at 1-1. The 2007 team become the second squad in franchise history to have a winning record after every game, tying the mark set by the 1985 Mets. The 2008 team spent so much time around .500 (14 times) that ownership felt Jerry Manuel would do a better job than Willie Randolph. Of course, Manuel didn't do as well in 2009 and 2010. The 2009 team spent most of the season below .500 (hitting the .500 mark seven times), while the 2010 model was the second-most mediocre Mets team of all-time, reaching .500 on 23 separate occasions.

That brings us to the 2011 Mets.

The Mets lost the final game of their four-game series to the Padres today, dropping them to 58-59. Entering the game, the Mets' record stood at 58-58. It was the 17th time this year the Mets found themselves at .500. Only four other Mets teams have been at the .500 mark more times during the regular season than the 2011 team (1970, 2002, 2005 and 2010).

This year's Mets stand a good chance to break the 2005 team's record for mediocrity in a single season (27 times at .500). Despite the Mets' recent ability to excel in mediocrity, no Mets team has ever finished at exactly .500 (81-81). The 1975 and 2001 Mets came closest to accomplishing the feat, with both teams finishing their respective seasons with identical 82-80 records. Only the 1975 team went into the final game with a chance to finish at exactly .500. (They entered the season finale with an 81-80 record, but won their final game to avoid the .500 mark.)

Some teams underachieved on their way to mediocrity (see the 2001 Mets), while others rode their mediocrity all the way to the World Series ("Ya Gotta Believe" that I'm talking about the 1973 Mets). The 2011 Mets are somewhere between those teams (which I guess makes them the most mediocre of the mediocre teams), with role players playing above their heads filling in for the injury-plagued starters, while other players have performed below expectations (Jason Bay, Angel Pagan and Mike Pelfrey, to name a few).

For 50 seasons, the Mets have experienced extended periods of success, while also going through various periods of disappointment. The 2011 Mets don't really fall into either category. With 11 more games at the .500 mark, they will officially become the most mediocre Mets team of all-time. But if you've seen this team day in and day out this season, you probably knew that already.