Master Index of Archived Threads


Take a chance on Thor?

Yes: A reunion might be nice even if he is not what he once was.

11 votes

No: Nothing good could happen from that.

11 votes

Marshmallowmilkshake Aug 28 2023 02:50 PM

The Guardians have designated Syndergaard for assignment. Would you favor taking a chance through the end of the season? Would he struggle more than Carrasco?

Johnny Lunchbucket Aug 28 2023 02:54 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I'd make him the new closer

metirish Aug 28 2023 02:55 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

To what end though? Team is going nowhere.

Edgy MD Aug 28 2023 02:57 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

It's all about whether he comes with or without the salary obligations. OK, it's not all about that, because Cohen is Cohen, but that's a participating factor. I like the closer idea. I mean, it's an awesome turn in the narrative. I have little notion as to whether he could hack it.

Marshmallowmilkshake Aug 28 2023 03:03 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

=metirish post_id=136151 time=1693256156 user_id=72] To what end though? Team is going nowhere.

This is true. But there is going nowhere, and falling into the abyss. If Cookie can't get past the third inning, and we're using six innings of bullpen, then that just makes them progressively worse in the days that follow. Or, they just keep swapping out fresh arms from Syracuse every other day. If he works out, he might be a depth piece for next year.



Intrigued by the closer idea!

Edgy MD Aug 28 2023 03:41 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

It's baseball. It's all going nowhere. It's not about the destination but the stories we glean and tell along the way. If Syndergaard returns, he can crash at Mr. Met's pad for the rest of the season.

whippoorwill Aug 28 2023 04:03 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

=metirish post_id=136151 time=1693256156 user_id=72] To what end though? Team is going nowhere.

Exactly. I'd like to take that chance on a sure bet on a sure season.

kcmets Aug 28 2023 04:07 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

C:> Couldn't hurt, but who's to say he'd come. It would funny if they claimed him and he said 'I ain't going back to New York' and retired.

Frayed Knot Aug 28 2023 05:16 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Normally you could say that he'd be a September call-up, but call-ups are now limited to two these days (28 man roster cap) and one you figure to be Lucchesi and the other likely a bat(y?).

smg58 Aug 28 2023 05:42 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I'd give him a shot. I don't see how an advanced look at a fifth starter option for next year would hurt.

roger_that Aug 29 2023 02:57 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

What's the point? Put a few extra fannies in seats this September? Remind us of when we had a pitching staff? Demonstrate how the mighty have fallen? Show how desperate we are for pitching? Highlight our barren (of pitching) minor league system? Thank him for services rendered? What's the friggen point?

Lefty Specialist Aug 29 2023 04:56 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I was in the 'What's the point?' camp, but..... the Mets at this juncture are just trying to get through the season. Carrasco hasn't just been awful, he's been awful while giving them no length. If Thor can give them a few good starts, if Hefner can see something he's doing wrong and give him a tweak, why not? And yeah, maybe he's just a one-inning guy at max effort these days. But it'd be interesting to find out. As seen last night, this bullpen is toxic. Anything to limit its use and/or get a fresh arm with ML experience would be helpful, if only for my agita.

Frayed Knot Aug 29 2023 05:19 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

2023 ERA Carrasco = 6.80 Syndergaard = 6.40

Benjamin Grimm Aug 29 2023 06:21 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

See? It would be an improvement!

Edgy MD Aug 29 2023 06:30 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

If your season's gone And the curtain's nearly drawn Don't you shut the door Take a chance on Thor If you just pick up the dough He can take the mound If you're in last place! Oh no! Gotta gain some ground! If you miss the show When his pretty locks would flow Give him his encore Take a chance on Thor If you squint your squintiest He's the same old guy If he fails a urine test Don't you turn and cry Take a chance on Thor! (All it costs would be money ...) Take a chance on Thor!

MFS62 Aug 29 2023 07:29 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I was thinking a parody of "Taking A Chance on Love", but I couldn't get the rhyming to work. Later

Bob Alpacadaca Aug 29 2023 11:32 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I just don't know how you can keep sending Cookie out there to get crushed and deplete the bullpen that already is a disaster. If the answer is inserting Joey Lucchesi, I'm OK with that, too.

ashie62 Aug 29 2023 11:34 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Doesn't look like Noah has anything left so he would fit in well here I didn't like that nastiness that was brought about his rent/lease issue Mets might want to reach down and sign him Make sure Mr Met gets rent security before he moves in

Edgy MD Aug 29 2023 12:25 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I disagree that the bullpen is a disaster. I don't think it's depleted either. I just think managers in 2023 just over-over-control the usage of their relievers. So a guy who is kept from a game is described as unavailable, as if he's observably spent, when in fact he's just under an explicit constraint. Look at the 2022 bullpen. Thee top three pitchers — Diaz, Ottavino, and Lugo — all finished with between 62 and 65 2/3 innings. That seems like a pretty tight distribution — suspiciously so — but maybe it's an accident. But then you look at Diaz, May, and Familia in 2021. The Mets had a different manager, but all three finished with 59 1/3 to 62 2/3 innings. Two, in fact, finished with 62 2/3 exactly. Only Miguel Castro reached the magic 63-inning ceiling, but the Mets had neither a long-term contract nor development time invested in him, so he could be dealt with (slightly) more loosely. The announcers are going to tell you that this guy can be relied on to go for multiple days in a row, or that guy is special because he can be used for multiple innings. I'm saying not to believe that too much. Organizations — the Mets organization anyhow — are treating most all of thier relievers by a universal standard. X number of warmups, Y number of appearances, and Z number of innings on a season. Sometimes, I think, good scientific investigation leads to bad science at the application point.

Cowtipper Aug 29 2023 01:07 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I'd rather them throw some of their Triple-A guys at the wall than bring Thor back. Thor might be nice for this year, those Triple-A guys might be nice for a few years down the line.

ashie62 Aug 29 2023 01:13 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Give Butto some starts

Benjamin Grimm Aug 29 2023 01:22 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Throwing guys against a wall will likely lead to season-ending injuries.

Bob Alpacadaca Aug 29 2023 01:46 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Edgy MD wrote: I disagree that the bullpen is a disaster. I don't think it's depleted either. I just think managers in 2023 just over-over-control the usage of their relievers. So a guy who is kept from a game is described as unavailable, as if he's observably spent, when in fact he's just under an explicit constraint. Look at the 2022 bullpen. Thee top three pitchers — Diaz, Ottavino, and Lugo — all finished with between 62 and 65 2/3 innings. That seems like a pretty tight distribution — suspiciously so — but maybe it's an accident. But then you look at Diaz, May, and Familia in 2021. The Mets had a different manager, but all three finished with 59 1/3 to 62 2/3 innings. Two, in fact, finished with 62 2/3 exactly. Only Miguel Castro reached the magic 63-inning ceiling, but the Mets had neither a long-term contract nor development time invested in him, so he could be dealt with (slightly) more loosely. The announcers are going to tell you that this guy can be relied on to go for multiple days in a row, or that guy is special because he can be used for multiple innings. I'm saying not to believe that too much. Organizations — the Mets organization anyhow — are treating most all of thier relievers by a universal standard. X number of warmups, Y number of appearances, and Z number of innings on a season. Sometimes, I think, good scientific investigation leads to bad science at the application point. These are good points. By depleting the bullpen, I meant that you'd be using them for six innings on those days, leaving fewer available for the next day.

Edgy MD Aug 29 2023 01:59 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I think plenty should be available for the next day, without adhering to these hard and fast rules they seem to be adhering to regarding pacing relievers deployments across the season.

MFS62 Aug 29 2023 02:16 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Edgy MD wrote: I think plenty should be available for the next day, without adhering to these hard and fast rules they seem to be adhering to regarding pacing relievers deployments across the season. The three most used relievers are currently around 50 G and 50 IP each, so they're on track for the numbers you mentioned above. But do they really track warmups/ not used numbers? I hadn't seen those anywhere. Later

roger_that Aug 29 2023 02:23 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

There's a book-length study to be done (I'd buy a copy) of pitchers' injuries and pitcher use over the past six or seven decades. Sometimes I think cutting back on innings, consecutive days' use, starts, multi-inning relief appearances, etc. is the biggest scam in MLB history. I mean, with all the care now taken, pitchers still get injured, right? Mets' pitchers in particular, but I'm sure every team has its horror stories. Yet we have gotten absurdly careful in avoiding all types of "over-use" injuries. Can you imagine, for example, what would happen to contemporary pitchers if they were subject to the standards that applied to 1950s eight-man pitching staffs? Every team would have every pitcher (except for Warren Spahn) on the IL all season long.

Johnny Lunchbucket Aug 29 2023 02:31 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

They didn't throw 98 mph fastballs and 90+ mph sliders in the 1950s.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 29 2023 02:35 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

The three most used relievers are currently around 50 G and 50 IP each, so they're on track for the numbers you mentioned above. But do they really track warmups/ not used numbers? I hadn't seen those anywhere. They're not "official stats" but they're probably tracked internally by the coaching staff.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 29 2023 02:56 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: They didn't throw 98 mph fastballs and 90+ mph sliders in the 1950s. Thank you. Its a different ballgame. Like totally. And its not just the velocity, but that pitcher's go all out all game long. There's no coasting and no soft spots in the lineup because everybody can hit it out and the Bud Harrelson-like hitters are obsolete. So pitchers are throwing harder all game long. Those old timers who think they can throw their 300 innings and net 15 or 20 complete games in today's game are delusional. Sam McDowell and Sandy Koufax's k/9ip records have been passed dozens of times .Pitchrers aren't saving their best fastballs for Hank Aaron anymore. Everybody gets the pitcher's best stuff.

Edgy MD Aug 29 2023 03:10 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

But ... maybe they should. With no data to cite (currently at hand, anyhow), my strong impression is that all the conservation of usage isn't sparing these guys the injuries. So maybe more pitchers, and more teams, might find better long-term benefits from not going full bore 100% of the time, but saving their better pitches for top batters and high-level situations, and their best ones for when those two circumstances overlap.

MFS62 Aug 29 2023 03:23 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I don't know how it factors into the current situation, but I recall on those 8 man staffs, the starters would throw in he bullpen two days after their start to "get loose". And if needed, they would pitch in relief that day. IIRC, pitchers did that several times in the 50's and 60s. (Mel Stottlemyre even got a save and Juan Marichal got a save against the Mets) I don't know if today's pitchers have the same off- start throwing schedule, but if they came into some games it might ease the strain on the bullpen. Later

roger_that Aug 29 2023 03:25 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Thank you for that insight. Pitchers last about 15 minutes between career-ending injuries, and MLB is breaking their own arms patting themselves on the back on the fantastic way they're protecting pitchers' arms. Crazy. Who the hell changed my avatar, btw? Looks nothing like me.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 29 2023 03:35 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Edgy MD wrote: But ... maybe they should. With no data to cite (currently at hand, anyhow), my strong impression is that all the conservation of usage isn't sparing these guys the injuries. That's a quantity v. quality issue. They're conserving innings pitched but throwing way harder and more often. Hence, the injuries.Theyre like cars. You drive a car at an average speed of 80MPH, it'll be in the shop more often than if you drove it more but slower. I wouldn't harbor expectations of what pitchers today should or could do based on how they pitched 45 or 50 or 60 years ago. That game is gone. As gone as the dead-ball era.

Edgy MD Aug 29 2023 03:49 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Yeah, I know they are throwing way harder and more often. And I'm suggesting there's probably an upside to not doing that. The funny thing about baseball history is that, despite pitchers pitching vastly different workloads, going from pitching nearly every game to every other game to, ultimately, every fifth game, as time progressed, 300-game winners and 200-game winners are mostly distributed evenly across eras ... until now. Amos Rusie threw about 3700 innings and won about 250 games across 10 years. A hundred years later, Jack Morris did about the same, but it took him 18 seasons. And any number of people did about the same despite wildly different eras and philosophical approaches and workloads. We can look at an all-time list and see these two guys more or less side by side. If every single pitcher who comes along who might be better than either of them* can no longer approach those numbers, as they have all through baseball history, neither the pitchers nor the game is being well served. And a smart team might do well to look at that and philosophically zag as everyone else is zigging. * Both, I think represent something near the back end of the roster of Hall of Fame starting pitchers.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 30 2023 09:11 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, I know they are throwing way harder and more often. Remember how much Nolan Ryan stood out with his 100MPH fastball? There are at least 20, maybe 30 pitchers today who can throw as hard if not harder than Ryan did.

Edgy MD Aug 30 2023 09:22 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I understand that. Although there are a folks now arguing that Ryan's fastball was faster than the technology of the time suggested, I certainly understand that.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 30 2023 09:27 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Edgy MD wrote: I understand that. I know. Just wanted to get that out, though. It's a good point. Ryan was obviously special in that he could throw his high heat all game long. And for decades. I don't think he ever sustained a major injury. Remarkable. If I remember, I think the worst "injury" problems he suffered were over his recurring blisters in the late 60s as a Met.

Edgy MD Aug 30 2023 10:12 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I just find it remarkable that we're going to be asked to seriously consider Stephen Strassburg's career for the Hall of Fame a decade from now, because despite his underwhelming case, the state of starting pitching in this era is such a blood bath that virtually none are able to exceed his case. And if we don't intentionally change the way we approach things, few or none will appear going forward. Either that, or we'll end up going back in time and elevating cases from decades before that suddenly shine more brightly. Eddie Whitehill. Joe Niekro. Luis Tiant. Kenny Rogers. Perhaps both. Putting aside the league-wide philosophy, I just can't look at the record of the Mets with the pitching staff they had in the generation of 2015 and say that they did everything as intelligently as they could have. And I want the Mets to be smarter than everybody else.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 30 2023 10:44 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

In 2022, the only Met who pitched enough innings to qualify for the ERA title was Chris Bassitt. There was only one in 2021: Marcus Stroman. In 2020, it was only Jacob deGrom. This year, only Kodai Senga has a reasonable chance. If this trend continues, there may come a season where nobody in the league qualifies. I'm certainly expecting a year when no Met qualifies. It may even be this year.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 30 2023 10:53 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

There's talk of lowering the IP threshold to qualify for the ERA title and other rate stat titles, recognizing that starters' IP's are down and continuing to trend in that direction.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 30 2023 11:13 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I hadn't heard about that, but it makes sense. Maybe 120 (or three quarters of games played) would be reasonable?

Edgy MD Aug 30 2023 12:04 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

That would strike me as backwards thinking. But I'm sure MLB would tell me over and over again that they asked me and I demanded it.

roger_that Aug 30 2023 12:26 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Maybe they should just award the title to any pitcher who throws a 9 inning shutout. If two manage that feat, they can share the honor.

Frayed Knot Aug 30 2023 01:16 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I hadn't heard about that, but it makes sense. Maybe 120 (or three quarters of games played) would be reasonable? Gary has brought it up a couple of times though it's wasn't clear (or I don't recall) whether it was just him ruminating on the subject or if he was talking about an ongoing discussion within MLB.

MFS62 Aug 30 2023 01:19 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Where do you draw the line with reducing the requirements for an league leadership? Are they going to drop the plate appearance minimum and retroactively award the batting title to Hurricane Hazle for hitting .403 in 155 PA in 1957? Of course they shouldn't. And wouldn't. The game has changed, but since they still (for now) play 162 of them, I'm against reducing any standards. SABR members, has this (the reduction of requirements)come up for discussion? (Posted while FK was posting) Later

dgwphotography Aug 30 2023 01:20 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

When did pitchers stop running in the outfield before games? Maybe they should stop going max effort every pitch, and learn to actually change speeds and keep hitters off balance.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 30 2023 01:47 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor? Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 30 2023 01:54 PM

One of the factors at play here putting stress on pitchers, (among many others) is that today's hitters are simply better than their predecessors. They have access to more and better information and foods and vitamins, and so they can train better. And they're motivated to train better and longer and to start earlier because a player today who can establish himself as a regular everyday playing player will likely earn anywhere from 20 or 30 million dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of his baseball career. They just know more stuff today. Just like your typical 10 year old today probably knows way more about sex than we did when we were 20. I remember watching Reggie Jackson play live and in real-time and thinking to myself that he was some kind of a behemoth. But he doesn't look much bigger, if at all, than today's typical second basemen.

Johnny Lunchbucket Aug 30 2023 01:52 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

There would be nothing stopping a club, if it felt like, to select pitchers based on something other than velocity. But hitters might have something to say about how sensible it is.

Frayed Knot Aug 30 2023 02:40 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Two biggest factors in the changes in pitcher usage (IMO of course). - hitters are better and especially bigger Seaver et al regularly faced 165 lb middle infielders and other 'bat control' types or defensive specialists, who, for the most part, they KNEW couldn't hurt them so, unless a base hit was going to beat you there, it was easy to switch to pitch-to-contact mode while saving bullets for later. Today we see 215 lb middle IFs who can take a hurler out of the park to the oppo field so in-game 'resting' is less of an option. - pitchers are better also! this has the effect of narrowing the talent gap between your top starters and the guys in the pen. So when your childhood starters, certainly the top three anyway, were facing a lineup the 3rd or 4th time around it's likely that, even somewhat fatigued, they were still a better bet in the 7th or 8th innings than all but maybe your ace reliever. The result is starters in the game longer to pick up more decisions thanks in part to lower pitch counts containing fewer max-out ABs. If teams could find more guys who could pitch you a 'Maddux' (CG w/< 100 pitches) then, great. Good luck with that.

Edgy MD Aug 30 2023 03:18 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I'm not sure I agree with that. If all that's going on is that hitters are better and pitchers are better, then we wouldn't have such a grossly detectable change. It'd be largely a standoff. What has happened is the game is played more at the extremes — more homers, more strikeouts, more walks, more hit-batsmen. More hard outs, fewer soft hits. But the worst hitters — even if their bodies are a different shape and their failures are executed differently — are still the worst hitters by a similar margin. They're just palookas who go .180 / .250 / .360 / .610 instead of slappers who go .240 / .315 / .305 / .610. I'm not asking for Greg Maddux or anybody's childhood starters. I'm asking for teams to reconsider how they're deploying their effective pitchers — using them less than ever but seemingly breaking them more frequently. Mostly, I'm asking that of my team.

Frayed Knot Aug 30 2023 05:27 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

btw, all this comes on the heels of SF's 35 y/o Alex Cobb's near-no-hitter Tuesday night. He lost it with one out in the 9th but stayed in to finish the game with six additional pitches which brought him to 131 overall, tied for the most in MLB over the last five seasons.

ashie62 Aug 30 2023 05:40 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Why chase thor? He's finished. Start fresh

ashie62 Aug 30 2023 05:42 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: They didn't throw 98 mph fastballs and 90+ mph sliders in the 1950s. Feller did

Frayed Knot Aug 30 2023 05:55 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

None of us here are old enough to have seen Feller, but my guess is that he didn't throw those speeds as often as today's pitchers do.

Edgy MD Aug 30 2023 06:25 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

=ashie62 post_id=136339 time=1693438856 user_id=90] Why chase thor? He's finished. Start fresh

Because, working with the Mets coaches, he might find it within himself to be able to perform better than the worst guy the Mets have.

Fman99 Aug 30 2023 06:43 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Somehow I lived 50 years without knowing who Amos Rusie was

Edgy MD Aug 30 2023 07:14 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

The Hoosier Thunderbolt!

roger_that Aug 31 2023 04:09 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Who's your thunderbolt? Who's your Thor? Who's your daddy?

whippoorwill Aug 31 2023 07:05 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

=Fman99 post_id=136350 time=1693442580 user_id=86] Somehow I lived 50 years without knowing who Amos Rusie was

I've lived even longer and still don't know!

Edgy MD Aug 31 2023 07:33 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

[fimg=600]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOIU93lXMBgl3Pn.jpg[/fimg]

whippoorwill Aug 31 2023 07:37 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

The Never Sweats. Now that's a great team name

G-Fafif Aug 31 2023 10:11 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Thor officially released today, though not on vinyl.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 31 2023 10:15 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure I agree with that. If all that's going on is that hitters are better and pitchers are better, then we wouldn't have such a grossly detectable change. It'd be largely a standoff. I don't think it's a standoff and I don't that's all that's going on. I don't think that pitchers and hitters have improved equally. I think that there are biological and genetic constraints on just how much a baseball player can improve and I believe that those restraints limit pitchers more so than hitters. Pitchers who overthrow end up in hospitals. It's much safer for a hitter to swing from his heels. But beyond the genetic or evolutionary argument, hitting is also up because there has been a stadium revolution in baseball over the last 30 years, where, during that time, practically every existing stadium was torn down and replaced. And those new stadiums, collectively, are more hitter friendly than the stadiums they replaced. They have smaller dimensions. And they all have less foul territory, this to make the stadiums more intimate and provide seats closer to the action. Also, the DH has been universal since the shortened COVID season, so pitchers don't bat anymore. Finally, there have been two major philosophical shifts in the way the game is played. The first one stems from the realization that all starting pitchers are less effective each successive turn through the lineup. All pitchers. From fringe pitchers to the very best elite starters. And no matter what they throw. Junkball pitchers to fast ball pitchers and everything in between. So as a result, on top of everything else that was discussed, pitchers are now pitching less innings by design. The second shift is for batters to try and hit more HRs. This has led to, obviously, more HR's. But also, more strikeouts. The analysts have determined that the extra strikeouts are worth the increased runs scored from swinging for the fences.

Edgy MD Aug 31 2023 11:57 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

I've never been comfortable with the times-through-the-lineup thinking. It's true enough that pitchers — some more than others — are generally less effective each successive turn through the lineup. But (1) it doesn't necessarily follow that the starting pitcher is going to be less effective than the reliever you replace him with. In fact, when choosing between the starting pitcher (or the pitcher currently in the game) and a couple of relievers warming up in the pen, the guy on the mound is the only one who has really exhibited whether or not he's got his stuff for the day. Sticking with him may or may not be the best decision, but it's the most informed decision, and that's worth something. Everyone in the pen is a crapshoot until he gets out to the mound. Moreover (2), you don't want to get trapped into thinking that you have to make decisions on pulling your pitcher nine guys at a time. If a guy has given up two baserunners and struck out nine through two turns of the lineup, you don't have to pull a Kevin Cash and decide outright that you don't want him to have anything to do with the third time through the lineup. You tighten the reins. You have somebody ready to pull him quickly if he falters. But every single out you get out of your starting pitcher is a victory — a victory that resounds beyond the game at hand, because each out makes it less likely that you won't be in a game situation two days later with your 10th-best pitcher on the mound. Getting one more out from David Peterson in the sixth on a Tuesday can mean you don't have to go to Trevor Gott to protect a one-run lead in the ninth on a Thursday. The game should be less about How can I find one more effective pitcher I can trust? and more about How can I get the most out of the pitchers that I have, that I already trust?

batmagadanleadoff Sep 01 2023 11:28 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Edgy MD wrote: I've never been comfortable with the times-through-the-lineup thinking. It's true enough that pitchers — some more than others — are generally less effective each successive turn through the lineup. But (1) it doesn't necessarily follow that the starting pitcher is going to be less effective than the reliever you replace him with. In fact, when choosing between the starting pitcher (or the pitcher currently in the game) and a couple of relievers warming up in the pen, the guy on the mound is the only one who has really exhibited whether or not he's got his stuff for the day. Sticking with him may or may not be the best decision, but it's the most informed decision, and that's worth something. Everyone in the pen is a crapshoot until he gets out to the mound. Moreover (2), you don't want to get trapped into thinking that you have to make decisions on pulling your pitcher nine guys at a time. I'm quite certain that they've thought of all of that stuff and take it into account. These are game by game decisions for the most part. Also, I left out a significant factor as another reason why IPs are down -- pitch counts. The data is murky on just how effective pitch count limits protect a major league pitcher's health, but at this point in the evolution of that idea, teams don't want to take a chance and end up on the wrong side of the argument or have their aces sustain serious injuries while bearing high pitch count loads. Limiting pitch counts does appear to benefit the health of young and still growing and developing pitchers, though.

MFS62 Sep 01 2023 11:48 AM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Edgy MD wrote: Moreover (2), you don't want to get trapped into thinking that you have to make decisions on pulling your pitcher nine guys at a time. If a guy has given up two baserunners and struck out nine through two turns of the lineup, you don't have to pull a Kevin Cash and decide outright that you don't want him to have anything to do with the third time through the lineup. You tighten the reins. You have somebody ready to pull him quickly if he falters. But every single out you get out of your starting pitcher is a victory — a victory that resounds beyond the game at hand, because each out makes it less likely that you won't be in a game situation two days later with your 10th-best pitcher on the mound. Getting one more out from David Peterson in the sixth on a Tuesday can mean you don't have to go to Trevor Gott to protect a one-run lead in the ninth on a Thursday. I absolutely agree. That formulaic approach to bullpen use drives me nuts. If a reliever retires the side on four pitches, why not use him to start the next inning? Or, as Jim Brosnan said in one of his books, he was told to "throw as hard as you can for as long as you can, then I'll get somebody else in there". Later

Edgy MD Sep 01 2023 12:36 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=136490 time=1693589284 user_id=68] I'm quite certain that they've thought of all of that stuff and take it into account. These are game by game decisions for the most part.

It certainly didn't appear to occur to Kevin Cash when his choice cost the Rays a World Series-winning game. He made clear after the game that pulling his pitcher before facing the third time through the order wasn't a game-by-game choice but a matter of policy, and that there was no circumstance he could think of that would change that.



I think that's a bad policy.



As for pitch counts, it's great that pitchers are having their pitches counted, but there's nothing magical about the 100th pitch and the decisions that are made based on pitch counts seem half thought out.



And again, they sure don't seem to be averting injuries.

batmagadanleadoff Sep 01 2023 01:22 PM Re: Take a chance on Thor?

Edgy MD wrote: I'm quite certain that they've thought of all of that stuff and take it into account. These are game by game decisions for the most part. It certainly didn't appear to occur to Kevin Cash when his choice cost the Rays a World Series-winning game. He made clear after the game that pulling his pitcher before facing the third time through the order wasn't a game-by-game choice but a matter of policy, and that there was no circumstance he could think of that would change that. I think that's a bad policy. As for pitch counts, it's great that pitchers are having their pitches counted, but there's nothing magical about the 100th pitch and the decisions that are made based on pitch counts seem half thought out. And again, they sure don't seem to be averting injuries. Yeah, I know about Cash's World Series decision. That's why I wrote "for the most part". I wasn't necessarily advocating for or against any of the aforementioned policies. I was just answering someone's question about why IPs are down. Better hitters, smaller stadiums, a universal DH -- all leading to more offense -- and then coupled with pitch count limits and times through the opposing batting order. That seems to cover that topic quite thoroughly.