Skip to content

Harold Reynolds takes on Matt Harvey’s lack of a win on Tuesday night on “MLB Now”

May 9, 2013, 3:00 PM EDT

Matt Harvey didn’t get the win on Tuesday. Shameful, really. I mean, yes, it was nice to see nine nearly-perfect innings, but no win, meh. Just lacking tWtW.

The folks at “MLB Now” used one of my tweets to ask Harold Reynolds about that yesterday.  And his ability to disconnect himself from his past statements about pitcher wins meaning everything and whatever it is he’s saying here is quite impressive. That’s why Harold makes the big bucks.

Speaking of big bucks, I hope they pay Brian Kenny a gabillion dollars a year for this. I truly do.

  1. singingfriar - May 9, 2013 at 3:10 PM

    That this is even up for debate on MLB’s flagship network shows just how poor a job they did with the implementation of MLBN. Instead of creating a true alternative to ESPN and Baseball Tonight, MLB tried to out ex-jock it with their analysts and commentary. MLBN is a missed opportunity.

    • evanwins - May 9, 2013 at 4:01 PM

      I have to admit that Baseball Tonight is far superior and way more interesting then any of the MLBN’s shows and it really shouldn’t be that way. The MLB Now show is pretty goof though.

      When it comes down to MLB Tonight or Baseball Tonight I take Baseball Tonight every time. I’m curious what other baseball fans think.

      • jdd428 - May 9, 2013 at 4:56 PM

        You’re crazy. I watch MLB Tonight regularly and hardly ever turn on Baseball Tonight anymore. I think MLB Tonight is vastly better.

        This sport is an afterthought at ESPN and hockey gets even worse treatment. That network does nothing but self-promote anymore. I pretty much never watch it unless they’re showing a live event I want to watch.

        I stick with MLBN most of the time and switch NBCSN (Dan Patrick) or to the other league-owned nets (mainly NHLN and NFLN; I hate the NBA) whenever I am interested in those sports.

        And the MLBN personalities – particularly Mitch Williams – are knowledgeable and entertaining. The only thing I don’t like is IT – Rose and Millar are annoying.

      • kyzslew77 - May 9, 2013 at 5:07 PM

        MLB Tonight >>>>>>> Baseball Tonight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Being punched in the face > Sportscenter

      • mgdsquiggy17 - May 9, 2013 at 5:15 PM

        “That network does nothing but self-promote anymore.”

        How is that different then any other channel out there? They all just self promote. Hell the whole idea of MLB network is for that.

      • stlouis1baseball - May 9, 2013 at 5:31 PM

        I used to watch Baseball Tonight faithfully. Every single night…it was Baseball Tonight.
        Then…they created the MLBN and MLB Tonight. As a result, I last watched Baseball Tonight a little over one year ago. And I only did it then because it sort of felt like I was hooking back up with an old girlfriend. Once we hooked back up…I remembered why I left her to begin with.

      • caeser12 - May 9, 2013 at 5:40 PM

        BS, er, ESPN- “We don’t do sports anymore, because we don’t have to.”

        Haven’t watched ESPN in 3 years, and my sports experience has never been better.

      • Chip Caray's Eyebrows - May 9, 2013 at 6:07 PM

        This baseball fan thinks you’re out of your damn mind. With all due respect, of course.

      • bigmeechy74 - May 9, 2013 at 11:29 PM

        I like Tim Kurkijan and Buster Olney and Ravech. But I’m not a fan of the rest of them. But I have to admit I’m instantly biased just because ESPN in general is awful . All the “debate” shows they air are unwatchable and Around the Horn is literally the worst show on tv.

      • gloccamorra - May 10, 2013 at 12:14 AM

        I don’t watch any of them. They’re on at East Coast prime time when West Coast games are just getting started. Since I’m on the West Coast I watch the games and by the time they’re over, the shows are tape delay and the talking heads are in bed. Players on the West Coast practically have to break somebody’s collarbone to get any press.

    • fanofevilempire - May 9, 2013 at 7:14 PM

      Craig is a trouble maker……..
      winning………………………

  2. fletchgriz - May 9, 2013 at 3:11 PM

    That is classic! Harold just can’t admit he’s wrong..Kenny’s ground & pound attack was superb. Now we need to see Hawk defend himself. Well played, Calcaterra.

    • billyboots - May 9, 2013 at 4:41 PM

      We’ve already seen Hawk defend himself against Kenny, and Kenny blew it.

      http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/26/hawk-harrelson-took-on-brian-kenny-on-mlb-network/

  3. kardshark1 - May 9, 2013 at 3:12 PM

    It’s like watching the great kid athlete in Little League make fun of the disabled kid. This is not entertainment to me, as I find myself just hoping Harold says something that would at least remotely pass as semi-intelligent – yet he never does. I don’t blame Brian Kenny, he’s just doing his job. I blame the people watching that think embarrassing a man on television is entertainment. Would people watch Lindsey Lohan debate foreign policy with Hilary Clinton?… Actually, they probably would, so never mind.

    • hasbeen5 - May 9, 2013 at 3:31 PM

      Lindsay’s not a mean girl, she’d probably go easy on Hillary.

  4. dondada10 - May 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM

    I’d say you thoroughly baited the shit out of the MLB Network. Kudos, Craig.

    • Francisco (FC) - May 9, 2013 at 3:35 PM

      That’s why they call him the Master.

      • ptfu - May 9, 2013 at 6:33 PM

        I see what you did there.

    • vanmorrissey - May 9, 2013 at 3:58 PM

      Luv it, luv it, luv it! Kenney is just a rock star and Reynolds is a nice guy trying to play the foil. Tell Hawk H the same thing, the will to win is with every single player who steps on that field. Harvey’s a stud, plain and simple. Wins=truly overrated.

  5. Ben - May 9, 2013 at 3:15 PM

    I think it’s pretty clear. If a pitcher gets a win he was good, no matter how many hits, runs, walks, etc he gave up (ie even if he was bad). If the pitcher was good, but didn’t get the win, he was also good, unless he gets the loss, in which case he’s bad. (Unless he’s Jack Morris, in which case MOUSTACHE FTW [even if he lost]). If the other pitcher was good, he was also good and deserves respect. What about him? Why are you not talking about the other guy who was also good? What do you have to hide? He didn’t lose, which makes him good. CHEWBACCA IS A WOOKIE!

    • paperlions - May 9, 2013 at 3:47 PM

      This FTW!

    • jdd428 - May 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM

      What if the White Sox had managed to scratch across an unearned run? Take Harvey’s line as exactly the same but assume two or three errors saddled him with one run and no earned runs – he would have taken the loss. So would that mean his performance was less than stellar?

      Furthermore, assume for example on the same night Pitcher A for some other team went five innings and allowed six earned runs on 10 hits with five walks and two strikeouts. But his own team scored eight before he left the game and held on. Pitcher A gets the win.

      So in this case Pitcher A would have had a better night than Harvey because he won and Harvey lost.

      NOW DO YOU SEE WHY PITCHER W-L IS STUPID?!?!

      • sophiethegreatdane - May 9, 2013 at 6:23 PM

        I think your sarcasm detector may need tweaking.

      • Ben - May 9, 2013 at 6:52 PM

        No. I don’t see it. Guys who get wins are good, except when they lose and pitch well. Then they are losers, but still good. Sometimes. If a guy wins who does not pitch well wins, then he is good. If he gave up fewer runs than his team scored, he wins, even if it’s a lot of runs. That makes him good. We call this “pitching to the stache” or, sometimes (when the ladies aren’t around, amirite? HEY-OOH!!! High five!!!), “staching to the score.” It’s the way Cy Young would want it.

    • jtorrey13 - May 9, 2013 at 5:34 PM

      Excuse me Ben, sir, uh it’s not Wookie, it’s Wookiee.

      http://mikeschur.tumblr.com/

      Carry on. Wins are a bad stat. Harold can be a goof. Jedi Knights are awesome. Etc. Etc.

      • Ben - May 9, 2013 at 5:50 PM

        dammit. i concede the point. but the REST STILL STANDS.

  6. baseballicious - May 9, 2013 at 3:16 PM

    Craig, Can I have your autograph? :-)

    But Yes! You were so on the money….the first thing Harold said was “the pitcher didn’t get a hit either.”

  7. manute - May 9, 2013 at 3:18 PM

    Yes, judging a pitcher by wins is stupid.

    Also stupid: using the result of one game to try to prove a point.

    I get that they have to dumb things down for TV, but good God this is all just so terrible.

    • jwbiii - May 9, 2013 at 4:32 PM

      But that’s kind of the point. This season, over 2,400 pitcher wins will be distributed. It is very likely that none of those pitchers who will receive wins will pitch as well as Matt Harvey did in that game.

  8. Ralph - May 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM

    At some point this season Brian Kenny’s head will explode. I just hope I’m watching when it happens.

  9. pepelestat - May 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM

    This is a tv show. Television shows are for entertainment. There has to be some sort of conflict. Just like espn throws out there, they say you argue point A and the other guy argues against it. Do people actually believe what Harold Reynolds is saying he himself believes to be true. Anyone with a half a brain and some common sense know that a pitcher Win is not the be all end all.

    • fletchgriz - May 9, 2013 at 3:29 PM

      You obviously missed the back-story to all of this.

      • pepelestat - May 9, 2013 at 3:32 PM

        Nah I caught all the Hawk stuff. I think this is more of an entertainment thing rather than HR really believes this point. This feels like that show cold pizza or pti where they spew hot air and controversial comments.

  10. worldseriestiger - May 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM

    I Like Brian Kenny and worry for his safety, I fear that one day, on his way to the studio he is just going to veer off a cliff instead of trying to continue to prove to Harold and Hawk and whoever else, that the stats used in the 1880’s aren’t still 100% relevant today.

  11. ezthinking - May 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM

    Brian Kenny is a total douche bag. His endless crap riding down those that don’t agree with him is played out. He turns MLB Network into ESPN First Take which is hands down the worst show, let alone sport’s show on TV.

    We lots a couple minutes of highlights with this horseshit ‘debate’ last night. Shame on you Craig for perpetuating this shit.

    • fletchgriz - May 9, 2013 at 3:33 PM

      Nothing wrong with making Harold be accountable for his own nonsense comments from a couple weeks back. Brian Kenny should be commissioner.

      • Francisco (FC) - May 9, 2013 at 3:37 PM

        No, no, no. I’d rather keep Brian where he is, fighting the good fight.

    • painted8 - May 9, 2013 at 4:25 PM

      Yes, Brian should allow Reynolds to proclaim that the Earth is flat without challenging that misguided notion.

  12. rbj1 - May 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

    So is Harold saying David Price (19 w) and CC Sabathia (21 w) were robbed in the 2010 Cy Young voting by Felix Hernandez (13 w) ?

  13. ayblincoln - May 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

    I just love Kristina Akra. It just isn’t the same without her on the nats broadcasts.

  14. evanwins - May 9, 2013 at 4:08 PM

    Harold Reynolds can’t seem to differentiate a “pitcher win” and a “team win”. He continues to relate a win to only the pitcher and refuses to take into consideration anything else. He keeps saying “the win, I want the win” but, oddly, he seems to think only the pitcher can supply that.

  15. painted8 - May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM

    That’s brutal. lol Harold Reynolds IS Nathan Thurm.

  16. pdowdy83 - May 9, 2013 at 6:36 PM

    Harold Reynold’s tWtW is off the charts. Dude just can’t admit when he is incorrect because he refuses to lose an argument.

  17. Walk - May 9, 2013 at 7:49 PM

    You missed a good one about two weeks back. I think it was barry larkin talking and he stated that Detroit would have to find a way to win without scoring runs. That confirmed what I and others have long suspected, the espn anchors and analysts much be watching some other game and just cut and paste in team names. Perhaps that was from a night where they were watching synchronized swimming.

    • largebill - May 10, 2013 at 8:58 AM

      In defense of Larkin, believe he was saying a team that is struggling offensively will have to win with pitching and defense. You can’t win 11 – 8 every night. He was not implying a team could win despite being shut out. Consider the Indians recent hot stretch. Sure, they are scoring a lot of runs most nights, but they also won a 1-0 game a few days ago.

      Separately, I think Wins and Losses are a great stat. In fact it is such a good stat that we should use it to determine divisional winners at the end of the season.

      • Walk - May 10, 2013 at 1:56 PM

        I know that was the implication but I seriously had one of those did he just say that moments.

  18. Dan Camponovo - May 9, 2013 at 8:07 PM

    “In the all-star game do you want to see a guy who’s 4-3 with a 1.95 ERA or someone who’s 12-1?” Dear lord, give me the 1.95 ERA in the all-star game. Especially if it’s Matt Harvey, he’d strike out the side.

  19. yahmule - May 29, 2013 at 1:15 PM

    And to the larger point, how about the goddamn Mets score some runs for the guy?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

The Jon Lester-Yoenis Cespedes trade is a win-win
Top 10 MLB Player Searches