Last Update: 12/31/2014 23:59 ET
|Date On||Date Off||Transaction||Days||Games||Side||Body Part||Injury||Severity||Surgery Date||Reaggravation|
2019 Preseason Forecast
Last Update: 1/27/2017 12:35 ET
|2019-07-09 12:00:00 (link to chat)||Isan Diaz: has he made meaningful improvements this year or is it just ball magic? Both Alzolay and Harold Reynolds sung his praises at the Futures Game.
(Slippery Pete from The barge)
|Nah, it's pretty good now. He was one of the last cuts for the Midseason 50. (Jeffrey Paternostro)|
|2016-06-09 19:00:00 (link to chat)||Can you explain why Harold Reynolds is part of this MLB Draft coverage? What is he adding?|
(Timmy from Chicago)
|I love this question. Can't tell you for sure, but every great broadcast needs some comic relief - intentional or not. -WH (Live Draft Chat)|
|2014-07-01 13:00:00 (link to chat)||Would Mark Appel still be in your personal top 50 prospects?|
(Travis from CA)
|Yes; I was present for his best start of the season in Lake Elsinore and I wrote a relatively positive report on him. Unfortunately, his velocity dipped considerably the start after (like 10 mph) and he never really regained what I saw in that one start. He's back now and I'm anxious to get a look at him. The stuff is much better than the number indicate when he's on... but he's going to have to start putting up the number eventually. After all, Harold Reynolds said he could start in Houston after getting drafted last year. (Chris Rodriguez)|
|2013-09-23 13:00:00 (link to chat)||How do you feel the #stopthebunt & #killthewin movement lead by Bryan Kenny of MLB.TV damages the interests of sabermetrics or baseball research?|
(Billy from CA)
|They're two different questions for me. I'm all for #killthewin. The win for a pitcher is a terrible statistic and should not be used to evaluate pitchers at all. It adds no value to other statistics already out there and if it were introduced today as is, it would be laughed off as idiotic.
The bunt is different. The bunt is a sound play sometimes. It is overused but there are times to bunt and so I think mockery of the bunt has gone a little over the top. I used to do it all the time and have slowed down as I've thought about it more.
As for their damage to the movement, I really don't think there's much. Sure it's over the top and a little silly. I don't know Mr. Kenny, but I think both he and Harold Reynolds are playing characters a little bit like the two talking heads on your shoulders shouting opposite views. I don't think there's anybody who would have taken to sabermetrics who doesn't because of his loud approach. The bunt just has to be put in a little better context. (Zachary Levine)
|2013-09-04 13:00:00 (link to chat)||It could be worse. I could be Harold Reynolds or Mitch Williams.|
(Brian Kenny from MLB Network)
|You are them. You just live in a different household. (Jason Parks)|
|2012-09-26 13:00:00 (link to chat)||Outside of Orel and Larkin, most sports analysts on baseball related programs are desk jockeys or mediocre players(who may have all-star nods to careers, but barely much above that) or failures as former GMs. Why should fans believe the likes of hacks like John Kruk or Harold Reynolds, both ramble on without much proof or research to back up their claims/points? That's like listening to Jim Bowden, John Hart and Steve Phillips when it comes to the inner workings of a front office. If I wanted a "How to" on what not to do, I'd listen to them.|
(jlarsen from chicago)
|Kruk is as painful to listen to as he is to watch, but I've kinda come around on Reynolds. There's a lot of bluster and bullshit, of course, but he'll occasionally say something interesting.
Ultimately, they don't make these shows for you or for me; they make them for the "average baseball fan"/ESPN viewer. That person probably uses counting stats like AVG and RBI to gauge player value and probably does get something out of what those guys say.
The solution isn't to try and fix Baseball Tonight; it's to find venues for people who discuss the sport in ways that resonate with you, like the various BP podcasts. (Ian Miller)
|2011-04-14 13:00:00 (link to chat)||Why does the MLB Network have so many idiotic former players around, though? Harold Reynolds and Mitch Williams belong in the same bucket - although I have to admit that at least Williams is hilarious while being stupid. Do they just think that the averge fan is that stupid too?|
(timber from KC)
|You know, I enjoy watching the MLB Network. It was a little hard for me last night to listen to the Costas/Verducci/Rosenthal takes on the Bonds case, but all-in-all I enjoy it. They don't think the average fan is stupid--they think the average fan wants to know what former players have to say about the game, with the assumption that the opinions of former players are the most valid. For many things, they are. Reynolds is going to do a much better job of telling you how to lay down a bunt or how to round third base than I will, f'rinstance. He's also better positioned to talk about things like clubhouse chemistry and performing in a clutch situation. Just don't expect them to be able to articulate the underlying reasons why teams win games (e.g., avoiding outs) or why some players are more valuable than others, and you can get along with MLB Network just fine. Would I rather they also had a constant sabermetric voice on the air? Sure. But I'm not holding my breath. (Ken Funck)|
|2010-12-02 13:00:00 (link to chat)||I must say, the MLB Network is improving fast, it was refreshing to see the fellow co-hosts deride Harold Reynolds for choosing CC as Cy Young for, "knowing how to win", suggesting that King Felix couldve done more to get more W's. I still pine for a Baseball Prospectus program of some wort, whether it be weekly segments or larger, itd be a great, comprehensive way to approach baseball from all levels of knowledge|
(Keith7971 from Naugatuck)
|Of course I'd love to hear more stathead-slanted analysis over there, but I think they do a great job anyway. One example I have of the sort of thing I take as "progress" is when Reynolds was interviewing Andre Dawson after his induction. One of the first things Reynolds said, IIRC, was something like "of course, some people look at your low on-base percentage and say that's a big negative, but your job was to drive in runs, not get on base, right?" Which, of course, begs the question of how so many outfielders in The Hall managed to both get on base AND drive in runs, but that's not the point. The point is, Reynolds felt it necessary to at least address the issue. That's progress, right?
BTW, that's not to pick on Reynolds, who I enjoy despite some of the things he says, and Dawson, who I think belongs despite the low OBP. (Ken Funck)
|2010-06-07 18:30:00 (link to chat)||Is Harold Reynolds an idiot?|
(DavidLADodgers from Sonoma State, CA)
|I actually like Harold. Say hi to Mom for me! (Kevin Goldstein)|
|2010-01-19 15:30:00 (link to chat)||Regarding the steroid issue: I really don't know or think steroids had much, if any, of an effect. And you're right to point how that there are examples throughout history of athletes seeking competitive advantage through drugs and other means. But what I find frustrating about the discussion (and I'm not saying you do this) but is the tendency for people on your side of the discussion to belittle people for being angry and upset with steroid users. Their decision was an ethical failure. It's not as if McGwire didn't think he was doing something shady and wrong when he did them. He did it in secret. He didn't come out until years later. In using, he helped contribute to the culture that compelled people to do these potentially dangerous drugs. Just because Babe Ruth ate horse balls for testosterone and tons of players did greenies back in the days, doesn't exactly excuse McGwire and Co's crappy decision-making. |
(Ted from New York)
|I don't feel that I'm belittling anyone. You know, I had this reader over at the PB say something like that the other day, that I was "huffy" in a response to a reader. When I said I wasn't, another reader quoted something I wrote back to me and said, "Read that and say it's not huffy." Well, it doesn't. In my head it sounds the way I wrote it, which was in my usual tone. My job is to craft things well enough that you can't read more into it than I intended, but it is also true that the reader brings a great deal to the table, and you want to perceive me as angry or self-centered or thin and handsome, well...
Anyway, I agree with you completely in my essay on this for Commentary, I said the same thing, that their sin was one of omission, as the lie about what they were doing was bigger than the impact of the thing itself. I don't excuse that at all. What frustrates me (gets me "huffy," if you will) is the failure by the mainstream media to consider this point, to assume that they know what the effects were, and for someone like Harold Reynolds on the MLB network to say that even if he was just doing it for medical reasons it was still a competitive advantage. Which is bull. At that point you're just drawing lines between different colored pills. In the PB I talked about Thalidomide, which was good, then evil, and now, when used properly, is good again. This ground shifts all the time, and there's no acknowledgment of that. (Steven Goldman)
|2010-01-06 13:00:00 (link to chat)||What's your best guess for where Joe lands?|
(stewbies from Rochester)
|I have absolutely no information towards this possibility, but I'd love to see him sitting between Peter Gammons and Harold Reynolds on the MLB Network. (Jay Jaffe)|
|2009-04-16 13:00:00 (link to chat)||You know....., Bob Costas and Harold Reynolds, they seem like nice enough guys. But... Heck..... I am switching over to Michael Kay et al.|
(Goo Goo the cat from Still watching the game....and listening to Costas)
|You're right, but I'm still a bit upset about Harold Reynolds fighting PECOTA/statistics while using other statistics as his weapon. (Marc Normandin)|
|2008-10-06 14:00:00 (link to chat)||Mention was made of the TBS broadcast, but how about the announcers? I've been yelling at the TV approximately 500% less than when Joe Morgan or any FOX announcer is on. Harold Reynolds focuses on the running game too much but he also has good points to make. Your thoughts?|
(Mike K from Athens, GA)
|I like Reynolds a bunch. Not 100% of the time--he's had some howlers--but he's very good when focusing on game action. It's when they do analysis of players or teams or the game that they can be frustrating. But mechanics? Give me Reynolds and Hershiser and that's a pretty good start. (Joe Sheehan)|
|2010-07-13 16:30:00||All-Star Game||Harold Reynolds just referred to the "nice start" than Ryan Bruan's brother is off to in the minor leagues. Steve Braun is hitting .115/.182/.148 in 27 games. (Kevin Goldstein)|
|2009-06-09 14:30:00||2009 Draft Coverage||Brewers take Eric Arnett at 26. Absolutely solid pick for the Brewers. He's Harold Reynolds #2 pitcher on video, for whatever that's worth. If he had a longer track record, he could have gone higher and this is a solid selection. (Kevin Goldstein)|
|2009-06-09 14:30:00||2009 Draft Coverage||Expected derisive comments about the amount of computers in the Oakland draft room. Harold Reynolds has a 70 restraint tool. (Kiley McDaniel)|
|2008-10-10 13:30:00||Friday LCS||"Throw day" or not, Kershaw's very unlikely to get the Game 4 start which should put it in Maddux's hands.|
And why is Harold Reynolds not in the booth? I really like Harold. (Will Carroll)
|2008-10-02 11:00:00||Thursday Playoff Games||You can hate on Harold Reynolds all you'd like, but he just described perfectly why Navarro's bloop double fell in, talking about the different between eyeing the ball and running to a spot. It was good analysis, and should be pointed out, because three White Sox players ran to a spot there, and then Wise called people off and couldn't find it. (Kevin Goldstein)|
|2008-09-30 16:30:00||Twins/White Sox Play-In Game||"cdoyle31 (Phoenix, AZ): Is it my imagination, or did Harold Reynolds really just suggest that Joe Nathan is the best American-born closing option?"|
No, and he's correct. (Joe Sheehan)