Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


No Runs and Bad Defence

metirish
May 12 2009 07:39 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 12 2009 08:57 AM

Ben Shpigel lays into the Mets here .

] Braves Snap Mets’ Seven-Game Winning Streak Imagine how perfect it could have been for the Mets: Derek Lowe pitching behind Johan Santana every fifth day, forming one of the best starting tandems in the league. It almost happened, too, at least until Lowe opted for more money, greater job security and, as he saw Monday night, a less penetrable infield. Johan Santana arguing after hitting the Braves’ Casey Kotchman with a pitch in the sixth inning. Santana extended his streak without allowing an earned run to 19 1/3 innings. There is little chance Lowe regrets his decision, not after seeing how shabbily the Mets treat their ace. Santana pitched superbly, again. The Mets could not score behind him, again. Their defense played poorly behind him, again. The only different aspect was the result, an 8-3 trouncing by the Atlanta Braves at Citi Field that ended the Mets’ winning streak at seven. Santana has a 0.78 earned run average — the lowest in franchise history by a pitcher through his first seven starts — yet the Mets are 4-3 when he pitches. Wondering how? The Mets have scored 11 runs while he is pitching (15 total) and have made 7 of their 22 errors during his starts. Two of those errors came Monday night, leading to five unearned runs. Four of the runs scored in the seventh inning, and all came after Santana left with one out. Pedro Feliciano allowed a pair of two-out two-run singles to let a once-alluring pitching duel deteriorate into a rout. “When you put a team behind Santana we always first think defense,” Manager Jerry Manuel said. “We don’t think, Let’s match offense. We think, Give him the best chance defensively and we can scratch out a run. Obviously that hasn’t happened so far.” Why the Mets (17-14) save their worst baseball for Santana, their best pitcher, is a question that, so far, they cannot answer. It is not as if he snubbed anyone in his pregame handshake routine or changed the music on the clubhouse stereo or anything. It is coincidence, nothing more. He said he was not frustrated, remarking that the Mets are still in first place in the division. But it still stings. Each of his losses has come after giving up two unearned runs. “As far as I know, I think it’s the first time in my career that I’m losing a couple games without even getting an earned run,” said Santana, who has not allowed more than two runs since Aug. 27, 2008, a string of 13 starts. “I don’t think that ever happened before. It’s part of the game. With baseball, you never know.” Perhaps not. But Santana, after watching an error from the inexperienced left fielder Daniel Murphy cause his first loss, April 12 at Florida, no doubt expects more from David Wright and Jose Reyes. In a 31-pitch first inning in which all three hits touched a Mets infielder, Wright waited too long on the third one, a slow roller by Matt Diaz, and bounced his throw to first baseman Fernando Tatis. The ball hit off his glove, and Yunel Escobar scored the first unearned run. “It’s not because of lack of effort or lack of focus,” Wright said. “We want it badly. I can’t express how disappointed I am with me.” Pitching without what he called good stuff, Santana still lasted into the seventh, when Kelly Johnson poked his 108th and final pitch into center field for a one-out single. Manuel called on Bobby Parnell, who allowed a single to Escobar, then retired Martin Prado. Feliciano came in to face Brian McCann, whose slow grounder up the middle caromed off the heel of Reyes’s glove, loading the bases and extending the inning. Diaz and Casey Kotchman followed with two-run singles, and the Braves led, 5-1, which was more than enough for Lowe (5-1), who allowed two runs in six and two-thirds innings. Around Queens, Lowe is known as the guy the Mets did not sign instead of Oliver Perez. Without the financial flexibility last off-season to pursue starters like C. C. Sabathia or A. J. Burnett, the Mets focused on the next tier, which included Lowe and Perez. Lowe appealed to the Mets because of his durability, his consistency and, with the team unsure how Citi Field would play, his standing as one of baseball’s premier ground-ball specialists. As much as the Mets wanted Lowe, their top target, they were adamant not to overpay for him or bid against themselves. They offered him a three-year, $36 million contract, which Lowe rejected. Smarting from signing Billy Wagner and Pedro Martinez to four-year deals, the Mets refused to add another season. The Braves, emboldened after John Smoltz bolted for the Red Sox, trumped the Mets’ bid by giving Lowe four years and $60 million, pushing the Mets’ interest toward Perez. Perez had a dismal spring training and an even worse April, and was pulled from the rotation. He is now on the disabled list, rehabilitating his right knee in Port St. Lucie, Fla. Lowe, meanwhile, has 5 of the Braves’ 16 victories and is presumably happier than if he had to deal with the shoddy defense and minimal support that Santana receives. Santana had the lowest E.R.A. in the majors last season, but a horrific bullpen cost him seven victories and, most likely, a Cy Young Award. More damaging, though, could be the effect on the team. The Mets have missed out on a playoff berth by one victory in each of the last two seasons, and they can only hope they will not regret winning a greater share of Santana’s starts so far. “There will probably come a point,” Manuel said, “where you’ll think, Wow, we missed a lot of opportunities with Johan.”

Edgy DC
May 12 2009 07:47 AM

For not a single moment last night, did I wish the Mets had signed Derek Lowe.

smg58
May 12 2009 07:50 AM

Well hey, just because the Mets have won seven of their last eight doesn't mean they can't get ripped into.

I'm still going with the theory that the lack of support for Johan is just a bizarre fluke that will correct itself eventually.

metirish
May 12 2009 07:50 AM

And certainly not at that money . I had forgotten how much the braves gave him. Not scoring runs for Santana gets mentioned a lot but what about the defence , does that also suffer when Johan toes the rubber. I would have thought it would not have with the way Santana pitches , it's not like he's slow out there.

smg58
May 12 2009 07:56 AM

I wouldn't have overpaid for Lowe either, but I also wouldn't have offered Ollie more than two years and $15M. The only way Minaya gets off the hook for Lowe is if Ollie pitches comparably.

MFS62
May 12 2009 07:56 AM

In the year Bob Gibson posted a 1.12 ERA he lost 9 games.
When a reporter asked him howcum he lost so many games, Gibson replied "My team got shut out in 6 of them".

Stuff happens, even to the great ones.
Later

Frayed Knot
May 12 2009 08:49 AM

1) Those claiming to [u:qxslajic]know[/u:qxslajic] that Lowe would have been a good sign need to be sure to tell us all about how they are calling this one in their favor approx 1/20th of the way through a deal that takes the pitcher until just before birthday #40 while, at the same time, I'm sure were all over the Glavine deal being a mistake despite coming at a similar age & money only with 1 fewer year guaranteed and a better career up to that point.
And the first one to answer that this is different because Lowe is better able to handle NYC gets bopped on the nose. Yes, that includes you Mr. Francesa.

2) as for infield defense (or defence as Irish or Duan would put it)
- I'll take Wright over Chipper and Castillo/Cora over Johnson/whoever
- SS is probably a toss-up although I'll be kind and give Escobar a slight edge
- only a big gap between Kotchman and Delgado is a clear winner for Atlanta

So if the writer wants to pat Lowe on the back for choosing the better gloves behind him while slapping the Mets upside the head for opting for the wrong pitcher, I just want to make sure he revisits the issue from time to time.

Edgy DC
May 12 2009 08:55 AM

If defense is what cost us the win last night, I can live with that. Those errors won't define us every night.

The pitching changes are another story.

metsmarathon
May 12 2009 09:09 AM

well, as others have said, i don't think it would've been smart to overpay as much for lowe as the braves did, nor do i think it was smart to pay ollie as much as we did.

unfortunately, the other starting pitching options that were out there were all pretty darned bad, and outside the top three of sabathia, burnett, and lowe, i don't think there's anybody who would be appreciably (or predictably) helping the team. but we'd prolly be better off with one of them instead of with a potentially useless and grossly overpaid ollie...

Nymr83
May 12 2009 09:14 AM

]) Those claiming to know that Lowe would have been a good sign need to be sure to tell us all about how they are calling this one in their favor approx 1/20th of the way through a deal that takes the pitcher until just before birthday #40 while, at the same time, I'm sure were all over the Glavine deal being a mistake despite coming at a similar age & money only with 1 fewer year guaranteed and a better career up to that point.


they were pretty damn similiar. the lowe deal pretty much IS the glavine deal, or at least as close as you can get in making these types of comparisons, so anyone who says "the mets should have signed lowe" also has to agree with the statement "i am happy with how the glavine deal turned out and would like to have that again"
i could go either way on that. i liked lowe better than the crappy alternative ("ball 4" Perez), but didnt really LIKE him.

Edgy DC
May 12 2009 09:21 AM

Well, I don't know if you have to agree with the Glavine deal as it turned out. You just have to agree that it was the right deal to have made.

Some deals are good risks but still turn out bad. Griffey for instance.

Some deals are bad risks, but still turn out good. I guess.

Smart deals can turn out bad, just like good pitches can be hit. It's just that they should pay off more often than not.

Willets Point
May 12 2009 09:24 AM

Of course the best deal not made was when the Mets didn't trade Glavine for Lowe back in 2005.

SteveJRogers
May 12 2009 09:29 AM

="Frayed Knot":165r0yzz]1) Those claiming to [u:165r0yzz]know[/u:165r0yzz] that Lowe would have been a good sign need to be sure to tell us all about how they are calling this one in their favor approx 1/20th of the way through a deal that takes the pitcher until just before birthday #40 while, at the same time, I'm sure were all over the Glavine deal being a mistake despite coming at a similar age & money only with 1 fewer year guaranteed and a better career up to that point.[/quote:165r0yzz]

There is also a difference in the quailty of the team at the point of the Glavine signing and last winter.

A Lowe/Glavine of 2003 is good for a team that has some semblance of a direction. The Mets in 2003 didn't know WHAT the hell they were doing. Vaughn, Alomar, Cedeno, Burnitz? The team that Glavine came on board was a complete and utter disaster of a roster, and not a team that had any sort of postseason aspirations.

This team could use a veteran alongside Santana in the rotation, rather than Johan, a young question mark in Pelfrey, a can he stay healthy question mark in Maine, a mental case in Perez and "Proven Crap" as the fifth starter.

You'd really have to be crazy not to think that Santana/Lowe/Maine/Pelfrey/Proven Crap wouldn't be a better alternative now, or even back in the winter.

Edgy DC
May 12 2009 09:39 AM

I think it's a little too much to ask of a team to judge a deal as "good, if we had a sense of direction."

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
May 12 2009 10:58 AM

="metsmarathon"]well, as others have said, i don't think it would've been smart to overpay as much for lowe as the braves did, nor do i think it was smart to pay ollie as much as we did. unfortunately, the other starting pitching options that were out there were all pretty darned bad, and outside the top three of sabathia, burnett, and lowe, i don't think there's anybody who would be appreciably (or predictably) helping the team. but we'd prolly be better off with one of them instead of with a potentially useless and grossly overpaid ollie...


Really, when you're talking about any multiyear pitcher signing, it's not a matter of choosing the best option, but rather the least-bad.

Framing it that way, what's the least-worse option: overpaying for something that's been consistently good and figures to age decently well, or paying a substantial amount-- if a significantly lesser one-- for just one fewer year of commitment, for a product that not only may, but is likely to explode on you?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
May 12 2009 11:11 AM

="Willets Point":1siq3mhh]Of course the best deal not made was when the Mets didn't trade Glavine for Lowe back in 2005.[/quote:1siq3mhh]

Flerg? Whazzit?

Willets Point
May 12 2009 12:05 PM

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":13s8slea]
="Willets Point":13s8slea]Of course the best deal not made was when the Mets didn't trade Glavine for Lowe back in 2005.[/quote:13s8slea] Flerg? Whazzit?[/quote:13s8slea]

Referencing an argument that was beaten like a dead horse at the tim on this forum, for comic effect. Probably not all that funny even to people who get the reference.

Frayed Knot
May 12 2009 12:15 PM

You pot-stirrer you!!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
May 12 2009 12:23 PM

="Edgy DC"]For not a single moment last night, did I wish the Mets had signed Derek Lowe.


I don't like the doofy bastard, but I respectfully disagree.

(And thanks for enlightening a newb, WP. I'm never entirely sure whether I'm missing an inside joke, or just noticing a memory hole.)