Master Index of Archived Threads


Jae Weong Seo got screwed by the Mets

Nymr83 Mar 24 2006 07:23 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 25 2006 09:42 AM

Amen to that. the way Seo has been treated the last few years has annoyed the hell out of me while guys like Ishii got infinite do-overs on bad starts. edit- if you're going to create threads with my posts i'm going to give them better titles.

Edgy DC Mar 24 2006 09:51 PM

Seo got 21 starts on a 4.90 ERA in 2004. Ishii got 16 starts on a 5.14 ERA in 2005. This is the second base thread.

Elster88 Mar 24 2006 09:55 PM

Stop with the facts Edgy. Don't you know that after Seo's outstanding half-season last year that he's a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame?

Edgy DC Mar 24 2006 10:04 PM

Well, I don't think he's making that argument. But neither do I think Seo was mistreated or not given plenty of good opportunities. Or that Ishii got infinite do-overs. Personally, I wish the trade hadn't happened.

Nymr83 Mar 24 2006 11:56 PM

Seo was mistreated in 2003, he was mistreated in 2004 when he didn't get the job out of spring training despite his 2003 performance, he was mistreated in 2005 when he was sent down, despite pitching well, to accomodate ishii who everyone knew sucked (this wasnt revisionist history, everyone but the manager knew this guy stunk and said it at the time.) finally, rather than randolph saying "Seo is in the rotation" after the 2005 season he was non-commital to a guy who was great for him and then the Mets went and traded him, so yeah he was DEFINETALY mistreated.

Edgy DC Mar 25 2006 12:55 AM

Which ignores the contrdictory numbers posted above. ]Seo was mistreated in 2003,... The how of which you gloss over. ]...he was mistreated in 2004 when he didn't get the job out of spring training despite his 2003 performance..., I was surprised too. And then he turned around and pitched poorly most of the season. ]...he was mistreated in 2005 when he was sent down, despite pitching well, to accomodate ishii who everyone knew sucked (this wasnt revisionist history, everyone but the manager knew this guy stunk and said it at the time.) On the other hand, Ishii pitched just as well as him the previous year. ]finally, rather than randolph saying "Seo is in the rotation" after the 2005 season he was non-commital to a guy who was great for him and then the Mets went and traded him, so yeah he was DEFINETALY mistreated. Well, I would have liked him, too. I'm not sure how whatever Randolph didn't say is mistreatment, but if you want to get exercised over a sin of omission, I guess you will.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 25 2006 01:28 AM

How possible do ya think it was that the Mets believed in Bannister more than we might have known when they made the decision to swap out Seo? I'd have said "longshot" as recently as a month ago but consider what you read about both guys is fairly similar: "Not overpowering, good overall arsenal, knows how to pitch, consistent success in the minors." If you're looking at all the options and dividing them by broad descriptions, you probably throw Bannister and Seo in the same bucket. OTOH, perhaps Bannister proves to be the pitching version of Jon Nunnally. I dunno.

Rotblatt Mar 25 2006 09:15 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: If you're looking at all the options and dividing them by broad descriptions, you probably throw Bannister and Seo in the same bucket. . Really? Even though Seo has nearly 400 MLB innings under his belt, during which time he's put up an ERA+ of 110? While Banniser has 0 innings? As for Ishii, his pre-2005 MLB career goes as follows: 89 ERA+ (154 IP) 104 ERA+ (147 IP) 88 ERA+ (172 IP) Seo's pre-2005 career: 111 ERA+ (188.3 IP) 87 ERA+ (117.7 IP) Seo had a better 2004 than Ishii did. He had already had more success over a full season, through more innings, than Ishii had. Now, Ishii had a brilliant 2005 Spring Training campaign, and Seo got knocked around but it was TWELVE and NINE innings, respectively. Listen, I don't blame the Mets for trading for Ishii, but if they were smart, they would have viewed him as a placeholder until something better came along. Then TWO something betters came along in Heilman & Seo, and we stuck with Ishii anyway. Retarded.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 25 2006 09:34 AM

Ishii's the poster boy for "Mets would rather wreck a season than admit they goofed."

Edgy DC Mar 25 2006 09:48 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 26 2006 02:06 AM

]Listen, I don't blame the Mets for trading for Ishii, but if they were smart, they would have viewed him as a placeholder until something better came along. Then TWO something betters came along in Heilman & Seo, and we stuck with Ishii anyway. I'm OK with that. But he went 16 starts, not infinite do-overs. And when Seo and Heilman were first getting their shot at the begining of the season, headhunters were furious because they had "proven" that they suck the previous year. A few fine showings and the bloodthirsty want Ishii instead, and Seo and Heilman are suddenly the victims, and not the victimizers. And recall, take away the one-hitter, Heilman wasn't very good in the rotation. Seo had two good starts in three early in the year and I'd've liked to see him stay. I have little doubt that had he stuck around and pitched poorly, the Mets would've been attacked for making a long-term decision based a on a few starts, committing to a guy who proved he sucked the previous year. Jae Seo: I wish they went for him over Ishii, but don't think he was mistreated going back to 2003.

Frayed Knot Mar 25 2006 09:49 AM

If you're looking at all the options and dividing them by broad descriptions ... as in; "Not overpowering, good overall arsenal, knows how to pitch, consistent success in the minors." Nobody's saying that their track records have been the same to date; the timing and paths they took to get there have been completely different. Look, this doesn't have to be reduced to "mistreatment". Seo, by many accounts, was stubborn and tough to work with at times. He absolutely pitched his way out of a rotation spot he was virtually handed a few years back due to a lousy Spring (wouldn't it have been worse to give him one anyway simply because you "promised"?) and managed to frustrate both Peterson and his predecesor - although RP reportedly came to like him towards the end of last year. Did they stick w/Ishii too long last season? Yeah, but Seo also put that AAA time to good use and came back a better pitcher. At worst we're talking about a handful (maybe 5) of "missed" starts here. I think they just made a judgement that maybe we've seen the best of him and they were "selling high" while they had a fallback choice cut from similar cloth (those broad descriptions again) that could maybe do the same. In the meantime they plugged a bullpen hole. As usual, time will tell if they made the right call.

Edgy DC Mar 25 2006 10:10 AM

Hey, how about that? This thread got retitled.

MFS62 Mar 25 2006 10:20 AM

It became specific about Seo, and took away the race card. Good choice. Oops, I may have been thinking about the Keppinger thread. Later

Rotblatt Mar 25 2006 10:43 AM

Edgy DC wrote: And when Heilman were first getting their shot at the begining of the season, headhunters were furious because they had "proven" that they suck the previous year. A few fine showings and the bloodthirsty want Ishii and Seo and Heilman are suddenly the victims, and not the victimizers. Who here was "furious" that we were using Heilman as a spot starter? And why would it even be relevant if anyone had been? ]And recall, take away the one-hitter, Heilman wasn't very good in the rotation. Well, he was inconsistent, but in all, he had 2 very good starts (1 run or less over 7+), 1 average start (3 runs over 6) and 2 very bad starts (5 or more runs over 4+ IP), for a cumulative ERA of 4.65. Ishii's ERA at the same time was 4.82, and he had 1 very good start, and 2 very bad starts, using the same criteria as above. ]Seo had two good starts in three early in the year and I'd've liked to see him stay. I have little doubt that had he stuck around and pitched poorly, the Mets would've been attacked for making a long-term decision based a on a few starts, committing to a guy who proved he sucked the previous year. What possible bearing does this hypothetical scenario of yours have on whether or not Seo was misused by management last year?

Rotblatt Mar 25 2006 10:55 AM

="Frayed Knot"]Seo, by many accounts, was stubborn and tough to work with at times. He absolutely pitched his way out of a rotation spot he was virtually handed a few years back due to a lousy Spring (wouldn't it have been worse to give him one anyway simply because you "promised"?) and managed to frustrate both Peterson and his predecesor - although RP reportedly came to like him towards the end of last year. Leaving aside he-said, she-said stuff that we have no way of verifying, Seo "pitched his way out of a rotation spot" in NINE meaningless innings. Doesn't that sound awfully silly after he pitched almost 200 well-above-average innings the previous year? ]Did they stick w/Ishii too long last season? Yeah, but Seo also put that AAA time to good use and came back a better pitcher. Seo was doing just fine before getting sent to AAA--2.00 ERA in 3 starts. That's 18 innings. If 9 is enough to cost someone a rotation spot, shouldn't 18 be enough to win one, especially when the competition has given up over twice as many runs (4.82 ERA by Ishii in 3 starts, 18.2 IP)? And the anecdotal stuff is close to meaningless. All we really know is that Seo was inarguably effective before and after his AAA stint. ]At worst we're talking about a handful (maybe 5) of "missed" starts here. Uh, not even close. May 4 to August 6. That's at least 10 starts. ]As usual, time will tell if they made the right call. How will time help us tell if we misused Seo in 2005?

Edgy DC Mar 25 2006 10:57 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 26 2006 02:08 AM

]Who here was "furious" that we were using Heilman as a spot starter? And why would it even be relevant if anyone had been? I don't know. I looked for the quote. It was something along the lines of "Why are they starting Heilman when he's proven he sucks. I think it was Nymr, but I don't have it handy. ]Well, he was inconsistent, but in all, he had 2 very good starts (1 run or less over 7+), 1 average start (3 runs over 6) and 2 very bad starts (5 or more runs over 4+ IP), for a cumulative ERA of 4.65. So take away the one-hitter, Heilman wasn't very good in the rotation. ]What possible bearing does this hypothetical scenario of yours have on whether or not Seo was misused by management last year? Because some people, and a lot of Met fans, will bitch no matter what, and whatever goes wrong will tell you they knew better going in; when they didn't. We all came around to Seo at different times, unless we have evidence of our statements, let's not clamor to say who was first in coming around, or make up crap about the Mets mistreating him going back to 2003

Bret Sabermetric Mar 25 2006 11:01 AM

Rotblatt wrote: How will time help us tell if we misused Seo in 2005? Well, the way this usually works is, you let a few years or months elapse, and then if Seo's performance supports your argument (he flames out or pitches badly in MLB) you point out how he wasn't any good anyway, so it was okay to use him as poorly as you did in 2005. And if he pitches great for LA, you point out "Who knows if he would have done that here, and who cares anyway? Are you really going to keep returning like a dog to his vomit? Get a life awready." (Sorry about the "vomit", KC. Sometimes a Biblical quotation just pops into my head.)

Bret Sabermetric Mar 25 2006 11:09 AM

Edgy DC wrote: So take away the one-hitter, Heilman wasn't very good in the rotation. And take away [url=http://www.ultimatemets.com/profile.php?PlayerCode=0490]Bobby Jones'[/url] one-hitter and he had a losing postseason record and a 7.00 ERA. What a freakin' loser he was. Why the Mets ever started him in the post-season is beyond me.

Nymr83 Mar 25 2006 11:16 AM

]He absolutely pitched his way out of a rotation spot he was virtually handed a few years back due to a lousy Spring Any team that decides a rotation spot based on 9 spring innings rather than 100+ innings the year before is just STUPID. Seo should have been gauranteed a spot in 2004 after what he did in 2003, having him "audition" in the spring was a moronic decision. ]Hey, how about that? This thread got retitled. someone decided to turn my post in the other thread into it's own thread (and it wasnt me) so i changed the title to what i would have made it had i started the thread, because it looks like i did start the thread when i really didnt.

Frayed Knot Mar 25 2006 12:21 PM

If you're going to subscribe to the notion that it's OK to give guys jobs based on March performance - which goes on all the time around here - then it would have to be legit to take them away as well. Plus, it's not like Seo pitched particularly well that season either while he was in the minors or later after he was put back into the rotation. Look, I'm not arguing against JWS or for the trade but can we stop pretending that he's got some uninterrupted record of stellar performance here. And, yes, frustrating your pitching coaches is going to have an affect on one's job status. And the point about the "missed" starts was an estimate of how many he might have pitched had they pulled the plug on Ishii earlier. Ishii, remember, was brought in due to injuries to Trax & Benson (another example of why rooting for injuries usually backfires) not specifically so as to bypass Seo.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 25 2006 02:31 PM

Rotblatt wrote: ="Johnny Dickshot"]If you're looking at all the options and dividing them by broad descriptions, you probably throw Bannister and Seo in the same bucket. . Really? Even though Seo has nearly 400 MLB innings under his belt, during which time he's put up an ERA+ of 110? While Banniser has 0 innings? ... No need for the snooty response nor to refute an argument I wasn't making. I asked a question -- a better one than this thread is devoted to answering by the way.

Rotblatt Mar 25 2006 02:44 PM

]So take away the one-hitter, Heilman wasn't very good in the rotation. Sure, and if you also take away the top 40% of Pedro's 2005 innings, we can surmise that Pedro wasn't very good in the rotation either. ]Because some people, and a lot of Met fans, will bitch no matter what, and whatever goes wrong will tell you they knew better going in; when they didn't. Yeah, that's true, but it doesn't really interest me. The question I'm interested in is whether or not the Mets underutilized Seo, and if so, how badly. The mistreatment of Seo is secondary in importance to me. I mean, underutilizing Seo was also bad for him, but more importantly, it was bad for our 2005 season AND for Seo's offseason trade value. I guess a follow up question is, have we learned our lesson? It's probably too soon to tell, but if Bannister gets sent down and dominates, and one of our boys (I'm looking at you, Zambrano) starts to suck, I guess we'll find out . . . ]We all came around to Seo at different times, unless we have evidence of our statements, let's not clamor to say who was first in coming around, or make up crap about the Mets mistreating him going back to 2003 I'm not sure how Seo got mistreated in 2003 either. He did well in spring training (3.60 ERA, 0.93 WHIP, 4 K/BB in 15 IP), then made 31 MLB starts. Sounds like a fair shot to me. I do agree that we were unfair to Seo in 2004 by not giving him a spot in the rotation after a fine 2003. He only got 4 starts in AAA that year, but was dominant--22.1 IP, 2.82 ERA, 1.34 WHIP, 8.07 K/9, 2.5 K/BB. I'm not sure how much of a difference it made in our bottom line, though, given that he was consistently below average in most of his 21 starts that year. He probably would've been better than Erickson, Baldwin, Yates or Heilman 2004, but that's not saying a lot . . . FYI, I'm pretty sure most of us did, in fact, believe in 2005 that sending Seo down & putting Heilman in the pen after their good starts were bad ideas--or at the very least, questionable ones. If you're able to locate the Tides 2005 thread (I can't find it), I'm pretty sure there was a lot of me saying, "Seo with another amazing start. Did I mention he should be pitching for us instead of Ishii?" and peeps generally agreeing.

Rotblatt Mar 25 2006 03:17 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: No need for the snooty response nor to refute an argument I wasn't making. I asked a question -- a better one than this thread is devoted to answering by the way. You're right--I read your quote out of context and responded to it in kind. Sorry about that! I was clearly skimming instead of actually, you know, reading. Bannister is a pretty good case to consider. I'm not sure what the take-away from the Seo/Ishii issue is, though, since we don't really know the motivations behind the moves (or lack of moves). Did they keep Seo down because he was difficult to work with? Because they thought he couldn't keep it up in the bigs? Because they thought Ishii was about to turn a corner? Because they traded for Ishii and were afraid of bad PR? Regardless of the motivation, they made a mistake with Seo last year, and I really hope they don't make it again. If one of our starters struggles while Bannister is lights-out, I want to see Bannister given a shot post-haste. I think the problem is maybe inflexibility. Once they made a decision last year, they stuck with it past all reason, and I desperately want them to be willing to shake stuff up this year. No sacred cows, either. If Beltran is struggling, let's say so and do something about it. Ditto with Zambrano, LoDuca, Pedro, whomever. I dunno. One of the best moments of 2005 was the emergence of Jake, and it was a total fluke brought on by Petey shaking stuff up and forcing Willie (or whomever) to be a little flexible. So what if he was supposed to be sent back down on such and such a day? He was hitting the snot out of the ball and our first basemen sucked. So I guess my take-away from Seo/Ishii 2005 is, take risks and don't be afraid of the fallout.

Edgy DC Mar 25 2006 08:41 PM

]Sure, and if you also take away the top 40% of Pedro's 2005 innings, we can surmise that Pedro wasn't very good in the rotation either. No doubt. But don't take anything away and you stil have a 4.71 ERA as a starter, and, given his past record as a starter, it's hard to argue now that it was glaringly obvious then that he was the answer to the rotation. It still isn't, though I'm rooting for him to get every chance in the rotation now. ]Yeah, that's true, but it doesn't really interest me. The question I'm interested in is whether or not the Mets underutilized Seo, and if so, how badly. The mistreatment of Seo is secondary in importance to me. I appreciate that, but that's the issue that started the thread. ]I mean, underutilizing Seo was also bad for him, but more importantly, it was bad for our 2005 season AND for Seo's offseason trade value. Well, it was almost certainly bad for the 2005 Mets, but it can be argued that they used him just enough to enhance his trade value, and that to have used him more may have over-exposed him and revealed him to be the lesser pitcher he really is. That's not my argument, but we'll have returns on the trade coming in soon enough, with Seo appearing to be a shoe-in for the Dodger rotation. ]I guess a follow up question is, have we learned our lesson? It's probably too soon to tell, but if Bannister gets sent down and dominates, and one of our boys (I'm looking at you, Zambrano) starts to suck, I guess we'll find out . . . Good point. ]I'm not sure how Seo got mistreated in 2003 either. Well that's the notion I'm objecting to. And the 2004 "mistreatment" --- passing him over in favor of Scott Erickson (middle name: "Freakin'") --- was over before the start of game two.