Master Index of Archived Threads


Insulting Omar's mother

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 01:32 PM

When did the idea of a spot starter become worse than an insult to your mother, Omar? For years and years, MLB teams carried one or two guys on the roster at all times who could step into the rotation for a couple of weeks, and then go back to long relief when the starters got healthy again. Heilman seems perfect for such a role, as does Oliver. Did some epochal event happen while I wasn't watching to make this option into a revolutionary choice? Of course your bullpen would be shorthanded during that time. So what? Your eighth-best reliever becomes number 7, etc. and you call up (or pick off the waiver wire) a new guy to pitch in blowouts, while your blowout guy gets tested in slightly more challenging roles for a few weeks. When did this become an option you would only employ at the end of the world, and maybe not even then?

GYC May 21 2006 01:44 PM

Jorge Julio in the month of May Games Innings Hits ER BB K ERA BAA 7 8.2 6 2 5 10 2.08 .194 I understand not having Heilman in at first when Bannister went down as it was only supposed to be a minor injury, but once you lose Bannister, Maine, and then Zambrano for the season, you need to do it because your short-term minor problem just because a long-term disaster.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 02:52 PM

Where the fuck did the concept of "stretching out your pitcher" come from? What is he? A cashmere sweater? It's a huge issue to ask Heilman to give you five innings a few times until Bannister comes back? Tell me, if the Mets go through 5 pitchers in 9 innings, as they sometimes do, and then get into one of these 22-innning jobs, they're going to ask someone to give them 6 or 7 innings, aren't they? Probably someone selected at random, with no prep or anything, right? SO WTF is the big deal in having Heilman take a couple of turns? They guy has been a starter, he want to be a starter, the Mets badly need a starter-- Is this rocket surgery? These guys are not only stupid, they're stubborn about their stupidity.

Bret Sabermetric May 22 2006 04:29 AM

What the Yankees did tonight with Aaron Small is what I have in mind. I know, he got hit the second time through the order, but he was certainly an effective starter last year, as was Heilman at times, and it's certainly stupid to pretend that neiither could possibly pitch well in a starting role (as opposed to Lima, say, where that's a pretty fair assumption before he gets a start and a no-brainer afterwards.) For the few weeks Heilman starts, you increase Sanchez's load a bit, give Wagner a few two-inning saves, you give Bradford and Feliciano etc. a little more work and responsibility, and you get through it until Bannister or Maine or Zito or some other long-term solution is ready. Does anyone but me think the fear here is not that Heilman will fail in the starting role but that he'll succeed? A couple of one-hitters back to back, for example, and they'll have a hell of hard time explaining that he's not equipped to start, and then they'll look stupid(er), so they go to any length to avoid putting themselves in that embarrassing position.

Gwreck May 22 2006 09:23 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Does anyone but me think the fear here is not that Heilman will fail in the starting role but that he'll succeed? A couple of one-hitters back to back, for example, and they'll have a hell of hard time explaining that he's not equipped to start, and then they'll look stupid(er), so they go to any length to avoid putting themselves in that embarrassing position. You've very seriously undermined your previous statements by making this riddiculous claim.

Bret Sabermetric May 22 2006 09:36 AM

Gwreck wrote: You've very seriously undermined your previous statements by making this riddiculous claim. "very seriously"-- A bit much? "undermined" --How? "previous" --To what? "ridi[d]culous" --why? Other than that, I'm fine with your comment.

Gwreck May 22 2006 10:19 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: "very seriously"-- A bit much? I think it takes much of the credibility out of the points you've made about the Mets' inability to gauge how much starting pitching they'd need thsi year. ]"undermined" --How? By suggesting that "they" have left Heilman in the bullpen because the concern is not making "themselves" look foolish. That the "fear" is him succeeding. ]"previous" --To what? Mets' problems with starting pitching ]"ridi[d]culous" --why? 1. There's no substantive base for your allegation 2. Heilman's performance indicates that there's more than a defensible argument for keeping him in the pen.

RealityChuck May 22 2006 11:00 AM

Gwreck -- ignore the troll. He really doesn't believe anything he posts, anyway.

Bret Sabermetric May 22 2006 06:44 PM

Reality Chuck aside, I do believe that the Mets, and particular WWSB, are incredibly stubborn. They make "decisions" and insist on their propriety long after they've lost all credibility. A recent case in point would be WWSB, inviewed on Sunday's pre-game report about his disastrous choice to put Wagner into a 4-0 game the night before: Unnecessarily and with truly incredible arrogance, WWSB proclaimed Wagner the night before as a "no-brainer." It may have been a choice that could have, some how, been rationalized. I don't really see how myself, since WWSB had no way of knowing that he wouldn't need Wagner again (third straight night) in Sunday's game (as it happened he did), and for a more grueling outing than he actually needed him for (like an extra inning, multi-inning appearance), and he wouild have (rightly) gotten KILLED if Wags had blown Sunday's save situation after being used in a highly questionable spot on Saturday, so it was an option that only a minority of MLB managers in my opinion would have gone for: It was a decision that positively required the use of brains, and not along the lines that that WWSB used his in. To call it a no-brainer is to insult every critic of WWSB's, and to insist that his choice was not only justifiable but plainly, obviously, surely and easily the right choice. That's some kind of stubborn. That said, the decision to put Heilman in the pen (not necessarily WWSB's choice alone) is eminently justifiable. Bannister may have beaten him out for the #5 spot, or he may not have have but simply was less suitable for warming up quickly (so Heilman's ability in that regard may have worked against his own goals there), and I can disagree with it without attributing it to stubbornness--yet. When Bannister goes down, they could have reconsidered Heilman as his replacement. I've argued the reasons for thinking of Heilman as a spot (#6) starter, which could have worked beautifully (as it has worked well for over a hundred years of standard managerial moves). Do they do this? No. That looks a little stubborn to me. When Maine, Lima, Gonzales and a cast of thousands go down, however, and we're reduced to pitching kids with 20-odd IP (lifetime total) below AAA as our Thursday starter, and Heilman is still ruled "not an option," I've got to say that looks like remarkable stubbornness, and self-justifing behavior to me. If he does well in a start, that puts not only a little extra heat on the Mets, for using him in a role less critical than a starting spot (at least as far as IP goes, but also otherwise) but also makes it hard for them to move him back once Bannister (or whoever) is healthy again. If he does throw two one-hitters, and Pedro and Glavine and Trax hit their inevitable skid, and he's the only starter they've got who's pitching well, wouldn't it look terrible to put him back in the bullpen at that point? And wouldn't it look even worse to keep him in the rotation and thereby admit that a starting role was actualy the right one for Heilman all along? Better to stick with the decision to keep him in the pen, and allow Heilman no chance to show how wrong youi've been about his role. Disagree away, but is it necessary to label this argument unsubstantiated, rid[d]iculous, incredible, etc.? To call me a troll for making it is just name-calling. Again.

old original jb May 22 2006 07:46 PM

The problem I have with this argument is that it is too convoluted and has the Mets management thinking far too much about how things will "look". Who is the intended audience for this? The Mets management are not, after all, politicians running for office. Mets fans still throng the park, despite the pleas of folks like Bret (and on the old forum, Ambler Moss) who have seen the light and beg us not to be snookered into enabling the Mets further in their quest for second place. I think its more a matter of not wanting to give something you have (a terrific bullpen) for what is uncertain (excellent starting pitching by Heilman). That's a form of fear of change, and fear of loss. Also just plain fear of screwing up. And at this point I think they're still more worried about screwing up than about looking like they've screwed up--which is appropriate, because worrying about the appearence of being wrong is for the advanced class. Of course, some situations call for giving up what you already have in order not to lose everything, and we can all argue whether the Mets are there yet or not. By the way, what I do think is that if they wind up starting Heilman and he does well, and they patch together the bullpen, management will heave a giant audible sigh of relief, yell out "Thank the Lord", and maybe even explain in a press conference how that was the plan all along. And because this is baseball, a form of entertainment, while I might say "yeah, sure it was" as I hear it, I'm not going to get too righteous or steamed up about it.

Bret Sabermetric May 23 2006 03:49 AM

old original jb wrote: The problem I have with this argument is that it is too convoluted and has the Mets management thinking far too much about how things will "look". Who is the intended audience for this? The Mets management are not, after all, politicians running for office. Mets fans still throng the park, despite the pleas of folks like Bret (and on the old forum, Ambler Moss) who have seen the light and beg us not to be snookered into enabling the Mets further in their quest for second place. I think its more a matter of not wanting to give something you have (a terrific bullpen) for what is uncertain (excellent starting pitching by Heilman). That's a form of fear of change, and fear of loss. Also just plain fear of screwing up. And at this point I think they're still more worried about screwing up than about looking like they've screwed up--which is appropriate, because worrying about the appearence of being wrong is for the advanced class. Of course, some situations call for giving up what you already have in order not to lose everything, and we can all argue whether the Mets are there yet or not. By the way, what I do think is that if they wind up starting Heilman and he does well, and they patch together the bullpen, management will heave a giant audible sigh of relief, yell out "Thank the Lord", and maybe even explain in a press conference how that was the plan all along. And because this is baseball, a form of entertainment, while I might say "yeah, sure it was" as I hear it, I'm not going to get too righteous or steamed up about it. That's a peculiarly Mets-fan perspective on this, one for which you can expect a lot of support and love on this site. It isn't necessarily the way it is, though. Certainly, the public reaction to Heilman's working out in the rotation will be spun "Thank the Lord, that was exactly what what we were shooting for." We could go in a variety of directions from your post, all of them intensely boring to you: 1) Whenever I'm granted a grudging "Let's grant there may be a shred of rationality to what you're complaining about" on this fine site, it gets dismissed with a "But what normal person would ever 'get too righteous or steamed up about it'?" IOW, if it could ever be shown (and it can't) that I was 100% on the money about anything, your attitude would be "Who cares? I'd still rather than be me and sane than have to live like Bret and be all paranoid and suspicious and mistrustful. Yay, me!!!" 2) "this argument is... too convoluted" could be paraphrased as a particularly simpleminded version of Occam's Razor, i.e., "Since the most elegant explanation of the Mets' narrishkeit is 'They can do no wrong--therefore whatever they do is right', a more complex explanation is inherently wrong." Complexity = bad, which also appeals to the skimmers, mouth-breathers, anti-intellectual nose-pickers among your readership. BTW, this is also poisoning the well, since "convoluted" is by definition pejorative, yet you use it as if YOU are okay with some degree of convolution, but I'm taking the concept way too far. 3) 'this argument ...has the Mets management thinking far too much about how things will "look".' Again, poisoning the well. If it's "far too much," of course it's therefore wrong. Is the Mets organization far less, to your mind, interested in spinning PR in their favor, far less concerned with image than most corporations and most MLB teams? Really? How touchingly naive. This self-serving viewpoint is effectively argued against by the plethora of Mets (beginning with WWSB and much documented here) who say things in public every day that are palpable nonsense, yet which are reflexively justified here by such winning arguments as "Everyone spins shit, don't have a cow," "He made an innocent mistake--when WWSB says 'up' everyone knows that he means 'down'," "He's still learning about being a MLB manager" etc. The concept of deliberate manipulation, IOW, must be (and can't be) proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Which is all to say that we will never know for sure how much is cynical spinning and how much is just being humanly sincere. Which comes back to the adage, "Fool me once--shame on me. Fool me for five fucking seasons in a row by spending more money than God and Jesus combined, you filthy cocksuckers, while finishing in last place and trading Kazmir for Zambrano and telling me how pleased you are with yourselves, shame on you."

Bret Sabermetric May 23 2006 05:07 AM

I forgot to get to my main point: You misstate my argument about what it is I think the Mets are trying to do. They are NOT trying to finish in last place so they can exult about how clever they were in scamming the $$$ of those stupid, trusting Mets fans, bwah hahaha!--but stating it that way certainly does make me look silly, doesn't it? They ARE: 1) Intent on signing players to draw fans to the Stadium, often very good players who also help them to win games. Their competition, however, is more focussed on the winning games part than the drawing fans part, and therefore tend to be better at the winning games part. 2) resistant to the idea that one needs to have a plan, even one undivulged to the public, which often involves short-term losses in order to get long-term gains. Specifically, this often means trading off popular established stars and playing unknown younger players, which hurts you in the short run but establishes a base of cheap young talent, allowing you to fill in the blanks with expensive FA purchases when the young guys click. Doing it the other way around puts WAY too much pressure on the young players to perform well instantly. 3) Having no ability to appraise young talent, they're in the market for committing to established talent, which is a loser's game. It's always easy to justify paying X million for an older player's contract, because older players often give you a performance in line with what they've established they're capable of (unlike younger players, who have higher upsides and downsides) and when they don't come through, you can point to the track record and claim "Who knew?" which seems plausible to the unwashed masses. But it's a loser's game, overall, because if you get lucky and get a surprisingly good year out of an older player, he's stilll facing sudden extinction the next year so you've got wonder perpetually about replacing him again. With younger guys, you can count on overall improvement, generally speaking, instead of crisis after crisis. 4) Crisis after crisis sells. Fans, being stupid swine, will flock to see Aged Retread because ARs are recognizable names who can always (fans believe) put up their career high numbers. (See Doug Mienkewicz for an example of such deluded thinking.) So they 'll root for ARs for months and months, and will usually be strung along by their own hopefulness until the season is shot, and then they reset their clocks to "0games" and begun trusting your newest AR acquisitions. YThis keeps them hopeful, and keeps them coming, but doesn';t do much for building a winning team. Which you don't really care about anyway, do you, Mr. Wilpon? 5)"You don't really care about winning anyway, do you, Mr. Wilpon?" this is the crux of my argument, which you misstate as "So you're saying that Wilpon is trying to lose, do you, Mr. Cynic?" No, I'm saying that winning is nice, and one day, through blind luck, the Mets will win another post-season spot. This is good enough. Wilpon makes money if the Mets can field a competitive team for the first months of each season--in the really lucky years (weak divisions, unexpected rookies playing well, usually die to some Providential injury to an AR or three, etc) they will play well all year long, and in really lucky years get to the playoffs. When this happens, the Wilpons will not (as you would have me arguing) say "Curses! Foiled again!" but rather "Aren't we clever! Our half-assed plan worked. What was that half-assed plan again?" And the vast majoity of years, when Providence, Luck, Jove, and Happenstance don't conspire to get the Mets into the playoffs, the Wilpons can count on a loyal fan base who will search for any excuse to support their team again next season. All the Wilpons have to do, in my scenario, is avoid fielding a terrible team, a 100-loss team, that plays poorly from early April. (They have not been uniformly successful even in this modest ambition, but they've done all right for themselves overall.)

Elster88 May 23 2006 10:07 AM

I have very little desire to read this thread. I get that feeling a lot these days.

old original jb May 23 2006 10:20 AM

="Bret Sabermetric"] That's a peculiarly Mets-fan perspective on this, one for which you can expect a lot of support and love on this site....... Well of course; most of us here are peculiar Mets fans. ="Bret Sabermetric"] Whenever I'm granted a grudging "Let's grant there may be a shred of rationality to what you're complaining about" on this fine site, it gets dismissed with a "But what normal person would ever 'get too righteous or steamed up about it'?"... I'm not saying no normal person would get steamed up about it. There are no normal people here. This is a Mets fan forum. I'm saying that I can't get too steamed up about it. ="Bret Sabermetric"] IOW, if it could ever be shown (and it can't) that I was 100% on the money about anything, your attitude would be "Who cares? I'd still rather than be me and sane than have to live like Bret and be all paranoid and suspicious and mistrustful. Yay, me!!!" Yay, me indeed! I just can't get as excited as you do about the Mets organization putting out spin. If you can, fine, but don't insist that I join you. They've promised me nothing beyond some entertainment. If they do something that makes my mortgage payment go up, pollutes the air, or increases the price of lunch at Barney Greengrass, then you'll see me organizing one of [url=http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/frankenstein_villagers488.jpg] these [/url] Till then, you're on your own. On second thought, I'll tell you what; if you are 100% right about the Mets being scared that Heilman will succeed, I will send you a handwritten note, thanking you for saving me from being fooled about the intentions of Mets management regarding management of the rotation. And to show my gratitude, I'll even name my fourth child after you. ="Bret Sabermetric"]....this is poisoning the well, since "convoluted" is by definition pejorative, yet you use it as if YOU are okay with some degree of convolution, but I'm taking the concept way too far..... Not meant to be perjorative. Anyone who has waded through my verbose, syntactically labored and overlong posts knows I have nothing against people being convoluted. I'm just saying that this particularly argument is too convoluted for me to believe that it is likely to be true.. ="Bret Sabermetric"] ....Again, poisoning the well. If it's "far too much," of course it's therefore wrong. ..... I do think its wrong. You think its right. No poison intended. You post your opinion and others respond to it. ="Bret Sabermetric"] Which comes back to the adage, "Fool me once--shame on me. Fool me for five fucking seasons in a row by spending more money than God and Jesus combined, you filthy cocksuckers, while finishing in last place and trading Kazmir for Zambrano and telling me how pleased you are with yourselves, shame on you." Actually they've spent 1/2 as much money as God and Jesus combined and 1.5 to 2 times as much as everybody else. And the results have been dissapointing. But I just can't generate moral outrage about it, except maybe for the Kazmir for Zambrano bit.

old original jb May 23 2006 10:50 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: 5)"You don't really care about winning anyway, do you, Mr. Wilpon?" this is the crux of my argument I think they care about winning, but I don't think there is a single team ownership that cares more about winning than they do about solvency and profit. I would bet that every team puts those first and views winning as a conduit to higher profits. And I think that for the most part, the Mets do their best as an organization to make decisions with all of those goals in mind. It just so happens that often times other organizations make those same decisions better. My take on the whole situation is actually somewhat similar to yours. Many of the Mets problems are definitely about the pressure to have a marketable team on the field at all times within the constraints of their finances and available talent. In response to this, they've staked out a middle ground in which they have neither pursued the best free agents to the point of critical mass, nor have they done whole-hearted rebuilding for fear of losing fan interest while a nucleus of young players takes 3-5 years to gel. Where you lose me is on the outrage part. I can't get that morally indignant about the fact that they feel the need to stay profitable. The Mets are not the Met or Lincoln Center or Channel 13 (or fill in your favorite large non-profit here). I also can't get morally outraged when they do dumb things, because for me, doing dumb things isn't a moral question unless you are talking about something that leads to people being actually hurt which this does not. The Mets are by far not the best run organization in baseball, alhtough I do think that they are improving. As a Mets fan, I can accept that even though you will probably tell me I shouldn't. My reasons for being a Mets fan have to do with arbitrary facts of birth, history, and biography, not because I admire their organizational practices. I could suggest other specific teams to root for if you want to use best organizational practices as a criteria for selection, but then I fear we would descend into what is the Mets fan forum equivalent of Godwin's Law. By the way, a Mets fan who switches to the Red Sox is not really cured. It's too much like substituting codeine for heroin. At least you didn't pick the Cubs.

old original jb May 23 2006 10:53 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 23 2006 10:54 AM

[url=http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/frankenstein_villagers488.jpg] DELETED POST AND RESTARTED BELOW TO INCLUDE QUOTE.[/url]

old original jb May 23 2006 10:53 AM

Elster88 wrote: I have very little desire to read this thread. I get that feeling a lot these days. I would propose that Bret and I apologize for hijacking this thread, but it was his thread to begin with. I'll restart the spot starter discussion in another thread to make up for it.