Master Index of Archived Threads


Manny Being Uncanny

Edgy DC Sep 03 2011 08:43 PM

Until a few weeks ago, you'd figure that, if the Mets were looking internally for their top reliever for next year, it was looking like Parnell was a 70% bet and Beato maybe a 30%. But the string of success that Acosta is on has to get him into the picture, no? I'd make him number one reliever tomorrow. If the team was in a playoff race, they probably would, and maybe would have already.

Ceetar Sep 03 2011 08:54 PM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

Edgy DC wrote: Until a few weeks ago, you'd figure that, if the Mets were looking internally for their top reliever for next year, it was looking like Parnell was a 70% bet and Beato maybe a 30%. But the string of success that Acosta is on has to get him into the picture, no? I'd make him number one reliever tomorrow. If the team was in a playoff race, they probably would, and maybe would have already. I doubt it. Not saying he doesn't maybe deserve it off the last two months, but I think that goes more towards erasing his bad first two months and earns him a job in the pen. I doubt Parnell (or whoever it ends up being) will be anointed closer before mid-march anyway. It's certainly possible Acosta can force his way into the picture, but my money's still on Parnell.

Frayed Knot Sep 03 2011 08:57 PM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

I know relievers always want their roles if not strictly defined then at least as close to it as possible -- but I'm all for mixing things up and just using Acosta as the closer until he hits the skids and then go with someone else. What's it going to do, screw up Beato & Parnell to where they can't throw strikes and get guys out? ... they're already there!! Hopefully this regime is more open to the idea. It certainly didn't take too many bad outing from Izzy to move him aside although that one was probably more age related than anything else as he was going to be out of that role soon anyway. And if you're of the mindset that taking away Parnell's newly minted closer badge for a short span is going to break him to the point where he'll never be trustworthy there again (something I don't believe) then that probably indicates that he's too emotionally fragile for the spot to begin with.

Edgy DC Sep 03 2011 09:14 PM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

Not saying he doesn't maybe deserve it off the last two months, but I think that goes more towards erasing his bad first two months and earns him a job in the pen. I know you don't like him, but he's done more than get to even.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 03 2011 09:42 PM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

They're both under team control. They both have similar issues. Parnell's just a couple of years younger. Acosta's doing much, much better right now. So, yeah, why not?

metirish Sep 03 2011 10:40 PM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

Parnell throws 100mph plus so he has to be the closer

seawolf17 Sep 04 2011 03:06 AM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

metirish wrote: Parnell throws 100mph plus so he has to be the closer Yeah, that's it, but I still for the life of me just don't understand why no team has been successful using a committee. If two big lefties are coming up in the ninth, then maybe your LOOGY is the guy you want, not your Closer. Meh.

Ceetar Sep 04 2011 06:32 AM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: They're both under team control. They both have similar issues. Parnell's just a couple of years younger. Acosta's doing much, much better right now. So, yeah, why not? because much much better is pretty subjective. prior to last night Parnell had 3 hits, 2 walks, and 1 run (a worthless home run) in his last 7 appearances. Assuming the Mets are married to the idea of one closer, I'd tend to learn towards the guy with the better K rate in Parnell and work on getting him to walk less people, which is part of the reason Acosta's doing better now. Sure, gotta keep Acosta around. he's earned a job. And sure, if he proves himself through the next month, and looks good in Spring Training you can consider him for the closer. I just don't think it's going to happen.

Rockin' Doc Sep 04 2011 06:44 AM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

seawolf17 wrote: Yeah, that's it, but I still for the life of me just don't understand why no team has been successful using a committee. If two big lefties are coming up in the ninth, then maybe your LOOGY is the guy you want, not your Closer. Meh. They would have to throw out "the book" and think, but baseball is a very by the book sport, unfortunately. I think there are times when the game is truly on the line in either 7th or 8th inning when your best reliever (closer) should be used.

smg58 Sep 04 2011 07:43 AM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

I can understand why Parnell's getting the extended look in the closer role right now, but a lot can and will happen between now and next April. The Mets need to add three quality arms to the pen, at least, and the right guy might make a discussion between Parnell and Acosta moot. I don't understand the logic of going with the high-K guy if somebody else is demonstrably better. That being said, I don't think Acosta has earned the right to be called "demonstrably better" than Parnell just yet, even though he's generally been better lately.

Frayed Knot Sep 04 2011 07:49 AM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

metirish wrote: Parnell throws 100mph plus so he has to be the closer I don't even think it's that specifically - hell, Acosta's getting it up there at 97 or so - it's more like the desire to establish one person as THE designated closer and Parnell's the younger/home-grown option. Again, it's that strict 'roles' thing. seawolf17 wrote: ... for the life of me just don't understand why no team has been successful using a committee. Because they never really try it, and if they do they're not only too quick to abandon it at the first sign of failure but also too willing to assign any failure to the structure itself. The BoSox sort of tried this a bunch of years back (maybe 2003?) but it bombed and the media shit-storm that followed was enough to probably prevent anyone from trying it again. The reason it failed is that their relief pitching sucked that year but the blame was laid at the feet of the brain-trust who concocted things. IOW (according to conventional wisdom) it didn't fail because the guys in the pen had bad years, it was that the set-up with its lack of defined roles caused all the relievers to have bad years. So they then went out and signed Keith Foulke to a four-year deal and he had a great year and they broke 'the curse' and everyone was happy. That Foulke went on to get injured and waste their money for the remaining three years of the deal gets over-looked a bit, but then Papelbon came along and they won again in '07 so it must logically follow that having a closer makes you win the World Series. The stupid thing here is that whatever they do it's only for a short span anyway and with no post-season hopes on the line. Even going back to the Rodriguez trade it's still just a whopping half-season to experiment. But instead of using a combination of Izzy & Parnell after KRod was booted out (based on whoever was fresher, or matched up better, or looked better in the pen that night) they felt the need to go strictly with Izzy (on account of him having done it before) and only abandoned that after several bad outings in a row and even then it's with the added excuse of knowing that he's not the future anyway. Then it was on to strictly Parnell so as to 'establish' him in the role so there are fewer winter-time questions going into next year. Not that any of that is what caused last night's loss. Acosta & Beato had already been used (and Acosta PH'd for) and so Parnell was the logical go-to guy there - he just didn't get it done (plus we got into too big a hole, gave up 3 HRs, and didn't hit their relief pitching when we had the chance, etc.). The problem is that with Acosta hot and Parnell not I'm sure they'll still be reluctant to switch the roles even for one game simply based on the questions it'll stir -- "Is Manny now the permanent closer?" ... "Does this mean you think Bobby can't handle the job?" ... "How will it affect his psyche?" ... "Will you be looking for an established closer on the open market this winter?" ... yyybbb.

MFS62 Sep 04 2011 09:18 AM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

And if Manny does well, Terry can answer those questions with something like: "Well, Bobby didn't seem to learn very much from the coaches and other experienced relievers we had here. So maybe he'll learn something from watching Acosta actually save some games." Later

HahnSolo Sep 04 2011 09:25 AM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

Interesting about the media in all this...when LaRussa pretty much redefined bullpen usage back in the late 80s or so, the media howled about how he was changing the game, making it too long, etc. Basically that it was bad for the game. But now, those same media guys are the ones who insist on assigning bullpen roles, and if a team even dares to go out of the box (as the Red Sox did), they get eviscerated. ("why use Acosta there...Parnell is your CLOSER!?" Incidentally, I'm getting Heath Bell vibes from Parnell. He'll be a lights out closer in four years for somebody else.

Edgy DC Sep 04 2011 11:10 AM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

Frayed Knot wrote: Acosta & Beato had already been used (and Acosta PH'd for) and so Parnell was the logical go-to guy there - he just didn't get it done (plus we got into too big a hole, gave up 3 HRs, and didn't hit their relief pitching when we had the chance, etc.). This is where I break from your utterly clear thinking. Acosta and Beato hadn't been used. Acosta was being used and they stopped using him despite impressive success. There was a time --- and it was a good time --- when a three-inning stint by a relieiver wasn't so unthinkable. Send him out there and see if he still has enough gas. His arm is already loose, and maybe he ends the inning in five pitches. Maybe he scuffles and you have to go to Parnell anyway. Maybe not. Three-inning stints certainly aren't the ideal model, but pulling a guy who is performing well is just so illogical, it frustrates me to no end. That's how Orosco became closer --- they'd bring him in in the seventh, and when the ninth inning came around, he had given them no reason to lift him, so he stuck around. They'd keep Neil Allen in reserve if he faltered, but he tended not to falter, and then they dealt Allen, kept Sisk in reserve instead, and they had a devastating pen, working hot hands, stretching guys who were ptiching well, and setting up advantageous matchups. The basic principle is that only so many pitchers are going to have it on any given evening. Use only the pitchers you must, stick with the ones who are working, and when they falter, go with the ones who have been succeeding.

Rockin' Doc Sep 06 2011 09:28 PM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

Edgy going old school with the bullpen and I like it.

Edgy DC Sep 07 2011 09:00 PM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

Thanks for making me proud, son.

metsguyinmichigan Sep 07 2011 09:36 PM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

Acosta has been doing well -- since he threw me the game ball in Detroit! I'm taking credit.

Ashie62 Sep 07 2011 10:05 PM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

I'd think Parnell would have it down by now, next!!

Edgy DC Sep 09 2011 08:06 PM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

This thread really implicates me.

Frayed Knot Sep 09 2011 08:10 PM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

So are Howie & Wayne making fun of Benitez tonight? ... just curious.

Ceetar Sep 09 2011 09:22 PM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

Edgy DC wrote: This thread really implicates me. Well, even the best blow more than 1 out of 10. Acosta was kinda due.

Edgy DC Sep 10 2011 11:29 AM Re: Manny Being Uncanny

No, it wasn't really that bad an inning. But the walk was a bad bad move. Dennis Eckersley got in the Hall of Fame with two tools --- keeping it down and staying away from the walk like the plague. Does he have a son?