Master Index of Archived Threads


Dammit

Edgy DC Jul 31 2006 04:44 PM

Stop remaking my beloved little team with pieces of other people's disagreeable little teams.

Centerfield Jul 31 2006 04:57 PM

I hate the trade deadline.

Yancy Street Gang Jul 31 2006 04:59 PM

I liked it in 1983. And in 1989. (1983 turned out better in the long run.)

Johnny Dickshot Jul 31 2006 05:17 PM

Well, you know, we appear to have survived without giving away any organizational prospects or Tenured True Mets. It most certainly could have been worse.

KC Jul 31 2006 05:22 PM

I was going to echo that sentiment in that hate, dislike, marry me poll thread. This trade wasn't that big a deal in my eyes and I'm happy to still have our core minor and major club guys.

Vic Sage Jul 31 2006 05:27 PM

yes, but why must each July trading deadline elicit such terror for Mets fans? why can't we do nothing at all, instead of something stupid?

KC Jul 31 2006 05:52 PM

I didn't feel too much terror, and if Perez can turn things around this might just work out afterall.

metirish Jul 31 2006 08:54 PM

I heard Rick Sutcliffe say on the ESPN game tonight that the Pirates changed the pitching motion of Perez after he won 12 games a few years ago,any truth to this?.I think if that's true then there is hope for him under Peterson.

MFS62 Aug 01 2006 09:50 AM

metirish wrote: I heard Rick Sutcliffe say on the ESPN game tonight that the Pirates changed the pitching motion of Perez after he won 12 games a few years ago,any truth to this?.I think if that's true then there is hope for him under Peterson. I heard Omar say that Perez' mechanics had changed, but didn't say how it happened. He added that as a result of that change, his velocity dropped. We can see the results. He was the opening day starter for the Bucs this year and is still "only" 25. You've heard the old baseball adage "lefthanders take longer to develop". Let's wait and see if his mechancs can be corrected. If so, we could have a real good pitcher here. Later

Elster88 Aug 01 2006 09:51 AM

MFS62 wrote: ="metirish"]I heard Rick Sutcliffe say on the ESPN game tonight that the Pirates changed the pitching motion of Perez after he won 12 games a few years ago,any truth to this?.I think if that's true then there is hope for him under Peterson. I heard Omar say that Perez' mechanics had changed, but didn't say how it happened. He added that as a result of that change, his velocity dropped. Didn't this happen to Doc, too?

Willets Point Aug 01 2006 09:54 AM

According to Jeff Pearlman, yes.

Elster88 Aug 01 2006 09:57 AM

That's what I was going from, but I'm not 100% sure how much of that book to believe.

Willets Point Aug 01 2006 10:21 AM

Same here. I recall Doc being an excellent starting pitcher at least through 1991 and any dropoff in performance from his phenomenal 1985 to 1986 is just the natural order of things.

ScarletKnight41 Aug 01 2006 10:34 AM

I remember a dropoff as soon as he got back from Smithers. He never again had that focused look in his eyes that he had in 1984 and 1985.

RealityChuck Aug 01 2006 10:40 AM

Willets Point wrote: Same here. I recall Doc being an excellent starting pitcher at least through 1991 and any dropoff in performance from his phenomenal 1985 to 1986 is just the natural order of things. I see. So making changes in how you pitch has no effect on your performance?

Willets Point Aug 01 2006 10:45 AM

My point was more that Pearlman overstated the effect of the changes by saying that Doc was unable to repeat the incredibly great season of 1985. Doc was still a great pitcher in 1986 even if it wasn't as great as 1985 and that's to be expected.

Elster88 Aug 01 2006 11:00 AM

Willets Point wrote: Same here. I recall Doc being an excellent starting pitcher at least through 1991 and any dropoff in performance from his phenomenal 1985 to 1986 is just the natural order of things. I'm not sure that it can be definitively stated like this one way or the other. What we do know is that he had a drug problem and we do know that Mel was trying to fool with his mechanics. But you're right, to say whether of those attributed to his drop from '85 to '86 is probably not possible. ]I remember a dropoff as soon as he got back from Smithers. He never again had that focused look in his eyes that he had in 1984 and 1985. I am extremely wary of reading into the look in a player's eyes, and will argue against such reasonings the same way I argued against that writer from the post who claimed to be able to read ARod's body language. I thought his first trip to rehab was in 1987? If so, I'm not sure that it can be used to explain the dropoff from 1985 to 1986, unless my timeline is screwed up.

ScarletKnight41 Aug 01 2006 11:21 AM

The timeline is right. The drug use started in 1986. Rehab started during spring training 1987. And he was never again a dominating force.

Elster88 Aug 01 2006 11:54 AM

ScarletKnight41 wrote: The timeline is right. The drug use started in 1986. Rehab started during spring training 1987. And he was never again a dominating force. If this is correct, then it's hard to ignore. But if he was sniffing mirrors when he was a rookie then all bets are off. I've never read his autobiography, does it pinpoint 1986 as his first year?

Willets Point Aug 01 2006 11:58 AM

In his first "autobiography" Rookie, Gooden or his ghostwriter claims that he'd never never never use drugs. I haven't read the other Gooden book. Pearlman insinuates that Gooden was using coke during the 1986 season (actually he relates an account where Straw accuses him of using). The official PR I recall is that Gooden started using cocaine during the offseason between 1986 & 1987.

Elster88 Aug 01 2006 12:00 PM

What about Heat?

Willets Point Aug 01 2006 12:07 PM

="Elster88"]What about Heat? ="Willets Point"]I haven't read the other Gooden book. Anyone here read and remember Heat.

Elster88 Aug 01 2006 12:15 PM

oops.

soupcan Aug 01 2006 12:59 PM

And while we're at it - does anyone remember laughter?

Yancy Street Gang Aug 01 2006 01:18 PM

I don't think I read that one.

Iubitul Aug 01 2006 02:43 PM

ScarletKnight41 wrote: The timeline is right. The drug use started in 1986. Rehab started during spring training 1987. And he was never again a dominating force. OMG - not again... His shoulder injury had more to do with his down fall than anything else. Look at how his ERA jumps after he was injured in 1989: Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP BFP IBB BK ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP 1984 19 NYM NL 17 9 31 31 7 3 0 0 218.0 161 72 63 7 73 276 2 3 879 2 7 2.60 3.56 137 1.073 1985 20 NYM NL 24 4 35 35 16 8 0 0 276.7 198 51 47 13 69 268 2 6 1065 4 2 1.53 3.45 226 0.965 1986 21 NYM NL 17 6 33 33 12 2 0 0 250.0 197 92 79 17 80 200 4 4 1020 3 4 2.84 3.54 124 1.108 1987 22 NYM NL 15 7 25 25 7 3 0 0 179.7 162 68 64 11 53 148 2 1 730 2 1 3.21 3.80 119 1.197 1988 23 NYM NL 18 9 34 34 10 3 0 0 248.3 242 98 88 8 57 175 6 5 1024 4 5 3.19 3.21 101 1.204 1989 24 NYM NL 9 4 19 17 0 0 1 1 118.3 93 42 38 9 47 101 2 7 497 2 5 2.89 3.26 113 1.183 1990 25 NYM NL 19 7 34 34 2 1 0 0 232.7 229 106 99 10 70 223 7 6 983 3 3 3.83 3.76 98 1.285 1991 26 NYM NL 13 7 27 27 3 1 0 0 190.0 185 80 76 12 56 150 3 5 789 2 2 3.60 3.65 101 1.268 1992 27 NYM NL 10 13 31 31 3 0 0 0 206.0 197 93 84 11 70 145 3 3 863 7 1 3.67 3.47 95 1.296 1993 28 NYM NL 12 15 29 29 7 2 0 0 208.7 188 89 80 16 61 149 9 5 866 1 2 3.45 3.93 114 1.193 1994 29 NYM NL 3 4 7 7 0 0 0 0 41.3 46 32 29 9 15 40 1 2 182 1 0 6.31 4.18 66 1.476

Iubitul Aug 01 2006 02:46 PM

In fact, looking at his numbers in his first 6 seasons, 1985 was the exception, not the rule.

Edgy DC Aug 01 2006 03:10 PM

It's instructive to look at his K/9 Year K IP K/9 1984 276 218 11.39 1985 268 276.67 8.72 1986 200 250 7.20 1987 148 179.67 7.41 1988 175 248.33 6.34 1989 101 118.33 7.68 1990 223 232.67 8.63 1991 150 190 7.11 1992 145 206 6.33 1993 149 208.67 6.43 1994 40 41.33 8.71 but obviously there's no smoking gun there. He was trying abnormally early in his career to be more of a pitcher and les sof a thrower, but the question is how much the dramatic K/9 drop of his first hree years was arm wear, perhaps signalling injury and degeneration to come later. These numbers also deserve to be looked at in context of the league-wide k/9 numbers, but I'm not up for that.

Willets Point Aug 01 2006 03:15 PM

Iubitul wrote: In fact, looking at his numbers in his first 6 seasons, 1985 was the exception, not the rule. Thanks that's kind of the point I was trying to make albeit poorly.

Iubitul Aug 01 2006 03:16 PM

His WHIP also took a big jump after the injury.

Iubitul Aug 01 2006 03:17 PM

Willets Point wrote: ="Iubitul"]In fact, looking at his numbers in his first 6 seasons, 1985 was the exception, not the rule. Thanks that's kind of the point I was trying to make albeit poorly. The problem is that we lump 1984-86 together because of that 50 game string from August, 1984 through April of 1986 that FAFIF highlighted so well.