Master Index of Archived Threads


theoretical deGrom question

roger_that Nov 05 2023 06:48 AM

How far does your rationality extend? We all (I think) accept that Jake deGrom in 2018 performed phenomenally well and that his Cy Young Award that year was well earned. We cite his bad luck and lousy run support as the primary, if not the sole, reason that he took a loss or a no-decision in 22 of his 32 starts, and could cite his (approximately) 0.960 WHIP and (approximately) 2.10 ERA in those (precisely) 146.1 IP in those 22 starts as evidence of his excellence. But what if he'd been a rookie with no track record behind him, and those 22 starts were his first 22 starts of that season? Would you begin to think of him as a loser, a guy who "didn't know how to win games," a guy who "always found a way to lose"? Forget everything you know about the real Jake deGrom (and the real laws of probability) for the moment. Would you suspend your rational side at that point? (Early August. This [url]https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN201808030.shtml was his 22nd start of 2018, a 2-1 loss to the Braves in which deGrom drove in the Mets' only run.) If not then, how long would you allow him to emerge from game after game without a W before you'd throw your hand up and cry "I don't care what makes sense, or follows reason, or is logical. The guy needs to be out of the rotation! He's killing us!!" Or are you so wedded to rationality that you'd allow this to go on indefinitely before you'd reach that conclusion?

Edgy MD Nov 05 2023 07:25 AM Re: theoretical deGrom question

No, I totally wouldn't have thought of him as a loser. I'd certainly question our team's offensive philosophy, though. Choosing between dumping on deGrom and "allowing it to go on indefinitely" is a false choice.

roger_that Nov 05 2023 11:45 AM Re: theoretical deGrom question

You are a more evolved human being than I am. I'm not sure I'd abandon my rationality at 22 games but there is a point somewhere that I'd want to pull the plug, especially if we had potentially good starters in the bullpen or in AAA, crazy as that is. Which may be why it's a good thing I don't have to make such decisions. Strangely, I just read a remarkably apposite quotation from John Berger, who said that as many times as we watch the sun set, we never really stop believing that it's standing relatively still while the earth moves, even the astronomically-trained among us.

whippoorwill Nov 05 2023 12:38 PM Re: theoretical deGrom question

The trouble is we had no potentially good starters in the bullpen or AAA

RealityChuck Nov 05 2023 04:23 PM Re: theoretical deGrom question

The fans stuck with Andrew Young... But it was clear that DeGrom had poor run support and a bullpen that couldn't hold a lead. Even without modern analytics, it was clear his won-lost record did not reflect how well he pitched.

Edgy MD Nov 05 2023 07:37 PM Re: theoretical deGrom question

=roger_that post_id=140530 time=1699209924 user_id=128] You are a more evolved human being than I am.

You're too kind, but I do try.



As for alternative options for the rotation, there of course were the LuGsellman options. But if they were to re-enter the rotation in 2018, I would have advocated that they do so at the expense of Jason Vargas and/or Corey Oswalt, who got 32 starts between them that season.

metsmarathon Nov 05 2023 09:00 PM Re: theoretical deGrom question

How far does your rationality extend? ... how long would you allow him to emerge from game after game without a W before you'd throw your hand up and cry "I don't care what makes sense, or follows reason, or is logical. The guy needs to be out of the rotation! He's killing us!!" Or are you so wedded to rationality that you'd allow this to go on indefinitely before you'd reach that conclusion? i mean, i'm not an idiot, so... yeah... i don't think i'd ever reach that conclusion.

roger_that Nov 06 2023 02:29 AM Re: theoretical deGrom question

=RealityChuck post_id=140535 time=1699226599 user_id=82] The fans stuck with Andrew Young...

Point well taken. I remember Young well, and how Mets fans were in his corner.



I wonder if Mets fans are more loyal than fans of other teams. If there's one trait that identifies a Mets fan, it's empathy with long-suffering losers of baseball games, and extending that feeling to players whose results are at odds with the efforts they put in.

Edgy MD Nov 10 2023 10:06 AM Re: theoretical deGrom question

I had been confused, but I just realized we're discussing Anthony Young.

MFS62 Nov 10 2023 10:39 AM Re: theoretical deGrom question

IIRC we had a similar discussion about Craig Swan's year in which he led the NL in ERA and went just 9-6 in almost 30 starts. Later

whippoorwill Nov 10 2023 11:09 AM Re: theoretical deGrom question

Edgy MD wrote: I had been confused, but I just realized we're discussing Anthony Young. Lol I never even noticed the misspell

batmagadanleadoff Nov 14 2023 04:04 PM Re: theoretical deGrom question

How far does your rationality extend? ... how long would you allow him to emerge from game after game without a W before you'd throw your hand up and cry "I don't care what makes sense, or follows reason, or is logical. The guy needs to be out of the rotation! He's killing us!!" Or are you so wedded to rationality that you'd allow this to go on indefinitely before you'd reach that conclusion? i mean, i'm not an idiot, so... yeah... i don't think i'd ever reach that conclusion. What mm said: No, because I'm not a goddamned idiot. Here's a few more: 1) deGrom's too damn dominant and we're behind. Maybe if deGrom purposely gave up a few gopher balls, our hitters would perk up. 2) It's Buck's fault. He once managed the Yankees. 3) Where's our offense? Where the hell is Ostrosser?