|
="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1irek9pi]PS -- Mike Carp is OPSing at 982 for Seattle's AAA squad.
Not that there's a chance we'll need a fill-in first baseman or anything...[/quote:1irek9pi]
The Mets didn't really have room for both Evans and Carp, and Evans seemed at the time to be a slightly better bet (plus we're short on righthanded bats). But Putz and Green were both risky pickups.
(And I'm more worried that Jayson Vargas, now fully healthy, is turning into the player that Minaya thought he was getting when he dealt Henry Owens and Matt Lindstrom to get him.)
|
Fman99
May 14 2009 09:11 AM
|
|
JJ is quite good... at sucking ass! HIYO! Tip your wait staff folks, they're working hard tonight.
Seriously, he is either a) dinged and unable to bring the heat, or b) a malcontent who is pouting because he's now only the second coolest kid in class.
Well he should therefore a) figure himself out, medically, DL, rest, what have you, or b) drive himself headlong into a bridge abutment.
|
Benjamin Grimm
May 14 2009 09:18 AM
|
|
I sense that J.J. Putz won't be getting introduced to Fman's imaginary sister.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
May 14 2009 09:25 AM
|
|
="smg58":1l71a27b]="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1l71a27b]PS -- Mike Carp is OPSing at 982 for Seattle's AAA squad.
Not that there's a chance we'll need a fill-in first baseman or anything...[/quote:1l71a27b]
The Mets didn't really have room for both Evans and Carp, and Evans seemed at the time to be a slightly better bet (plus we're short on righthanded bats). But Putz and Green were both risky pickups.
(And I'm more worried that Jayson Vargas, now fully healthy, is turning into the player that Minaya thought he was getting when he dealt Henry Owens and Matt Lindstrom to get him.)[/quote:1l71a27b]
Yeah, I know. It's just that when you trade 5 guys for 2 short relief pitchers, essentially, the chances you'll look bad are pretty good. As one guy described it this trade was like Baseball Mogul where the "opposing GM" keeps turning down your trade while you keep on adding guys to it until he says yes.
I'd be interested to see what the CPF thought about the trade to begin with.
|
Benjamin Grimm
May 14 2009 09:31 AM
|
|
If I recall correctly, I was happy to get Putz, but regretting giving up Smith, since I felt that Putz would be a one-year Met and Smith looked like he could be a good bullpen part for several years.
Giving it more thought, I saw Green as the long-term replacement for Smith, and was a bit happier about the trade.
I don't think I much regretted the loss of Carp.
Last time I checked, Smith wasn't doing that great either, so even though this trade isn't working out so well so far, it doesn't seem like it will go down in history alongside the Nolan Ryan and Scott Kazmir trades.
|
Farmer Ted
May 14 2009 09:33 AM
|
|
We could still have Heilman for the 8th inning. Putz v Heilman. Edge Putz. Less angina.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
May 14 2009 09:34 AM
|
|
<a href="http://cranepoolforum.qwknetllc.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=10695&postdays=0&postorder=asc">"The TiTTS say yea, verily</a> Well of course they did.
|
Edgy DC
May 14 2009 09:40 AM
|
|
To give Putz his due (and all setup men, for that matter), the system of a designated savior in a bullpen, where you're either the man or no man, is a fucking head trip and it's as psychologicially counterporuductive as it is strategically counterproductive. The idea that a guy could get through the eight in dazzling fashion but still get pulled to start the ninth, because, damn it, that's the other guy's job, well, it toys with a man. It toys with him.
You figure, in a fair system, the number two guy would at least be able to sneak in and steal 1-3 saves a month.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
May 14 2009 09:45 AM
|
|
Isn't it funny though that we all knew the Mets would show zero creativity with the whole thing and only wanted to give the impression they had created a "lock-down" endgame, above all other strategies that might better optimize the guys they got.
Hell, they should have taken my advice and called Putz the "fireman" then maybe he'd get an erection when he was called on every now and then. But the fear of failure is baked in there too.
|
Edgy DC
May 14 2009 10:02 AM
|
|
The fear of failure can be offset when there's an occasional bauble for the guy who earns it. The eighth innng guy can almost only fail.
I mean, who knows --- or honestly cares --- who the all-time holds leader is?
|
metirish
May 14 2009 10:02 AM
|
|
SNY play into this too, several times I have heard the booth guys and Burkhardt talk about how " lock down tight" the pen is now....Burkhardt was on recently talking about how great the pen is and I thought I must be missing games or something.
Yes it's better than last year and I believe it has the best pen ERA but it's not as good as they might have you believe.
|
Edgy DC
May 14 2009 10:07 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 14 2009 10:16 AM
|
|
And top guys are being grossly over-used because they use one where two would suffice, four where two would suffice, and pull the starters between 100 and 110 pitches almost as a rule.
|
Benjamin Grimm
May 14 2009 10:12 AM
|
|
I agree. Let's get Jerry in here for an intervention.
|
Fman99
May 14 2009 10:29 AM
|
|
="Edgy DC":2o1v6d4w]And top guys are being grossly over-used because they use one where two would suffice, four where two would suffice, and pull the starters between 100 and 110 pitches almost as a rule.[/quote:2o1v6d4w]
How true.
Betcha didn't know that Stokes got four outs yesterday on all of NINE PITCHES. They should've left him in for another inning, he was cruising.
|
Edgy DC
May 14 2009 10:41 AM
|
|
I should have noted that in his grading.
|
smg58
May 14 2009 03:37 PM
|
|
Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.
|
Edgy DC
May 14 2009 06:35 PM
|
|
Every day, that "part" grows in my thinking.
2007, also.
|
Elster88
May 15 2009 11:53 PM
|
|
Ugh, the first casualty to pen overuse. Should they really overdo protecting Santana just to blow out the guys they got to protect his wins?
Maybe they should so he can go nine in September, but I'm worried that this Torre-style bullpen use will end up with all our guys getting Tommy John surgery.
|
Ashie62
May 16 2009 09:08 AM
|
|
J.J. is a Putz
|
Benjamin Grimm
May 16 2009 09:50 AM
|
|
It's funny because that's his name!
|
OlerudOwned
May 16 2009 10:06 AM
|
|
Sigh.
|
soupcan
May 17 2009 09:25 AM
|
|
="smg58":9h0j2e51]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:9h0j2e51]
But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did?
And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)?
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
May 17 2009 10:54 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 17 2009 12:51 PM
|
|
="soupcan":2k7waus1]="smg58":2k7waus1]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2k7waus1]
But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did?
And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)?[/quote:2k7waus1]
Yes, but does it follow that one must overwork the pen--largely, by overusing the alphas-- to get there? [That's like saying, "We'll need plenty of electric light to do this job," and always using the same 2 fixtures, without changing the bulbs.]
|
smg58
May 17 2009 11:11 AM
|
|
Soupcan's point is a fair one; you could certainly argue that the ultimate source of the problem in 2007 was that the starters couldn't get deep enough into the games. And reserving a roster spot all season for Aaron Sele (53 innings of 5.37 ERA work) didn't help.
Ideally, I wouldn't ask for more than 70 innings from any of our relievers, and not much more than 60 from Feliciano. Right now, most of the pen is on pace for close to 70 innings, Rodriguez is on pace for 80 (he's gone over 70 once since 2004), and Putz is on pace for 92. Putz absolutely needs a reduced load; he won't last the season otherwise. Frankie can probably handle it, but I wouldn't push it if I didn't have to. They need more innings from the last spot in the pen, whether it's Takahashi or somebody else. Stokes has worked as a starter, so he might be the best bet to take on more innings. (That has to be within reason, though -- in 2007 Jorge Sosa pitched 20 innings his first month in the pen, but he fell apart in September and hasn't recovered yet.)
|
Mendoza Line
May 17 2009 01:17 PM
|
|
Manuel's use of pitchers so far:
<table border="1"><tr><th>Pitcher</th><th>Innings to Date</th><th>Projection for Season</th><th>Career High</th><th>Expectation</th></tr><tr><td width="28%">Maine</td><td width="18%">40.33</td><td width="18%">181.49</td><td width="18%">191</td><td width="18%">190</td></td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Pelfrey</td><td width="18%">35</td><td width="18%">157.5</td><td width="18%">201</td><td width="18%">190</td></td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Santana</td><td width="18%">53</td><td width="18%">238.5</td><td width="18%">234</td><td width="18%">230</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Hernandez</td><td width="18%">38.67</td><td width="18%">174.02</td><td width="18%">255</td><td width="18%">150</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Perez</td><td width="18%">21.67</td><td width="18%">97.52</td><td width="18%">196</td><td width="18%">90</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Figueroa</td><td width="18%">6</td><td width="18%">27</td><td width="18%">93</td><td width="18%">50</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Redding</td><td width="18%">0</td><td width="18%">0</td><td width="18%">176</td><td width="18%">25</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Rodriguez</td><td width="18%">18.67</td><td width="18%">84.02</td><td width="18%">86</td><td width="18%">80</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Putz</td><td width="18%">21</td><td width="18%">94.5</td><td width="18%">78</td><td width="18%">65</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Parnell</td><td width="18%">17.33</td><td width="18%">77.99</td><td width="18%"> - </td><td width="18%">85</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Feliciano</td><td width="18%">15.67</td><td width="18%">70.52</td><td width="18%">64</td><td width="18%">70</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Green</td><td width="18%">15.33</td><td width="18%">68.99</td><td width="18%">79</td><td width="18%">50</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Stokes</td><td width="18%">16</td><td width="18%">72</td><td width="18%">62</td><td width="18%">70</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Takahashi</td><td width="18%">7</td><td width="18%">31.5</td><td width="18%"> - </td><td width="18%">80</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Others</td><td width="18%">17.67</td><td width="18%">79.52</td><td width="18%"> - </td><td width="18%">30</td></tr><tr><td width="28%">Total</td><td width="18%">323.33</td><td width="18%">1455</td><td width="18%"> - </td><td width="18%">1455</td></tr></table>
The projection for the season is simply the innings pitched multiplied by 9/2, as we're 2/9 through the season as of now. I didn't do anything to account for injuries/missed starts. The expectation is my expectation of how many innings we could reasonably expect to get out of each pitcher this season. The 1455 inning projection is roughly in line with the number of innings the Mets have played per season over the past few seasons.
This is going to be tight. I really don't want to see another 35 innings of Sean Green, and 48 more innings of an effective Takahashi is optimistic. And I'm counting on no major injuries to any key pitchers (except for Livan, who figures to miss a few starts).
It looks like Manuel is doing a decent job of managing the starters - Pelfrey's innings are low because he was injured at the start of the season. But, yeah, Putz is getting a little too much work right now if you believe this table. I wouldn't mind seeing Manuel throw a few more eighth-inning appearances Takahashi's way, just to see how he'd perform.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
May 17 2009 01:49 PM
|
|
What would be telling is a breakdown of games in which Putz has already appeared, and how many of them were in games the Mets were losing and/or comfortably ahead. Strike those, do the projection over, and I'd bet he'd be in normal range.
|
Edgy DC
May 17 2009 01:51 PM
|
|
No, I don't know that the Mets would have made it as far as they did hadn't they rode the bullpen as hard as they did. I know that they didn't make it to the playoffs either year and, and the end of them, several of their relievers were among the league leaders in appearances, even as their late-season breakdowns left them with statitistics that wouldn't suggest they should be pitched every day.
Regarding those projections, they're a little deceptive. Johan Santana may have never thrown over 234 innings, but I'd wager he's never gotten half through May with a 1.36 ERA before, suggesting he's pitching to significantly fewer batters per inning.
In short, usage isn't best measured in innings, but in pitches.
For relievers, appearances is also a key measure.
|
smg58
Jun 02 2009 07:37 AM
|
|
="smg58":2w5w8d0z]Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2w5w8d0z]
Even with recording no outs yesterday, Putz is on a 90-inning pace. Putz never broke 80 in his years with Seattle. And it couldn't be more obvious his arm is not 100% back. We have guys (Stokes for sure, probably Parnell and Takahashi too) who can take on more work. Manuel is not doing Putz or the team any favors sending him out this often.
|
Edgy DC
Jun 02 2009 08:14 AM
|
|
I kept going over last night in my head. For what it's worth, J.J. didn't walk his way into trouble, but got Baltimore chopped to death. (Keith, you really don't know what that means? Grab a book.)
Four seasons hop into my head --- the last two, 1985, and 1973. In the first three of these, the manager had a struggling righthanded reliever (last year, there were two), who was a big part of the team's plans going into the season. The manager in each case would find himself torn between the game at hand and the season at large. In order to win the game, you don't want to put it in the hands of a struggling pitcher. But in order to save the season, you want to redeem that struggling pitcher. So, rather than bury the guy, they downgrade him for one or two appearances before returning him to high-leverage situations.
But I think that can be stubborn adherence to The Plan. And you can miss that a new --- perhaps better --- plan is emerging right before you.
Davey Johnson in 1985 bounced Doug Sisk below Roger McDowell, but as the season wore on, McDowell was wearing down, and Sisk was still needed (and failing) in big situations. According to Bats, Frank Cashen had a deal on the table to move some prospects (it's never said which ones) to re-acquire Tom Seaver, which would have allowed him to move Rick Aguilera to the pen, where he had flourished in his few appearances and where he would eventually star. What's most bothersome to this day was that Johnson didn't want to move Aguilera because he didn't want to break with the plan, not only for 1985, but 1986, to which he was already looking ahead. The presence of Seaver would force him to rework his rotation, as if somebody (most likely Seaver) wouldn't get hurt and give Aguilera another chance at starting.
In 2007, Willie Randolph always trying to redeem Guillermo Mota. He'd downgrade him for a few games and then return him to the mix. Granted, there were no obvious alternatives, but it took a while to even give Joe Smith more trust. Last year, the redemption of Heilman and Sanchez was continually stillborn while other alternatives fell by the wayside.
The Mets have real alternatives here in Stokes and Parnell. I like working for redemption. The redemption of Tug McGraw (effected, it seems, by giving him two starts after all else had failed) was the story of 1973. But how about not returning Green and Putz to big moments until they show success after 10 appearances in the back of the pen, rather than two? And if some Eddie Kunz looks like he can move in there, give him a real crack at it.
Adapt, baby!
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jun 02 2009 08:28 AM
|
|
It's plainly obvious they are leaning way too heavily on Putz and I am convinced it is in the service of creating an illusion of a "lock-down pen" as overcompensation for 2008's failures. I'd give him Takahashi's role for a few weeks, slide Parnell and Stokes up a notch and score more fucking runs.
|
Edgy DC
Jun 02 2009 08:35 AM
|
|
Seems obvious, doesn't it?
Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night.
|
OlerudOwned
Jun 02 2009 01:26 PM
|
|
We could certainly benefit a lot from Sean Green turning things around. He's walking too many batters, his GB% is down 8 notches from last year, his FB% is up 10, and a nutty 16.7% of those fly balls are homers. Doesn't look like any physical problems, so hopefully he can work through it. Give him some innings at home, maybe. The flyballs can turn into outs instead of homers, and hopefully confidence would beget a return to form. Anything to lessen the load on Putz, because his arm is clearly not all there.
|
Fman99
Jun 02 2009 01:41 PM
|
|
="Edgy DC":6cnbj2zu]Seems obvious, doesn't it?
Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night.[/quote:6cnbj2zu]
Not only that, that save was the one punctuated by two tremendous plays on defense, on balls that were hit hard and turned into outs by Castillo/Wright and Ramon Martinez.
|
Benjamin Grimm
Jun 02 2009 01:49 PM
|
|
Yeah. I took the Schaefer point I'd normally give for a one-inning save and divided it among Wright, Castillo, and Martinez.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
