Master Index of Archived Threads


Clemens Tries Leiter's Act (Split from NYC's Weaker Sisters)

iramets Jun 22 2007 05:37 AM

Seriously, isn't Clemens pretty much doing Leiter's shtik the last time around with the Mets? Throw a zillion pitches, try to hit the black with all of them, get some "veteran" calls, etc. Leiter was calling the game that Clemens pitched against the Mets, and I recorded him making all sorts of rhapsodic praise for Clemens for pulling that weak shit ("His fastball's only about 89-91, not 94 or better like it used to be, but the difference is how Roger's experience allows him to place the ball exactly where it needs to be, so the radar gun isn't a big deal for him" ) (that's a paraphrase, I have not put the tape in yet). Ironic, no? You'd think Al would be the last guy on the planet to think much of that plan for survival. If you don't recall, Al's last year here was excruciatng.

Johnny Dickshot Jun 22 2007 07:25 AM

I dunno why you act like Leiter is somehow unique among pitchers who've had to improvise as their abilities waned, or why you seem to latch onto his remarks as if they reveal his evil schemes to take over the world in code, or why you'd think that any paid MFY shill wouldn't be striving to point out whatever positives might come of a start by Roger F. Clemens.

iramets Jun 22 2007 07:40 AM

Because I'm a warped conspiracist? I'm just pointing out certain parallels. Both Clemens and Leiter are (or were in Leiter's last season here) 1) old 2) power pitchers 3) who lost a crucial 5 MPH off their fastballs 4) and tried to compensate by placing pitches perfectly 5) despite the fact that they had never before been control masters 6) and so pretty much got creamed. Also parallel, of course, is the underlying fact of their contractual status, which pretty well required their clubs to stick with them long after they had demonstrated that they were esentially batting-practice pitchers over the long haul, mainly because it would have been pretty damned humiliating to admit that they had signed this bozo with the big rep who had fewer actual pitching skills than a replacement minor leaguer. It's just funny that Al is the shill who got the job of making Roger's signing seem to be a brilliant move, is all. (OE: Al actually put up a pretty good ERA his last year here, 3.21 --but couldn't last long enough to contribute as a rotation starter--he was gassed after 100 pitches, which took him into the fifth inning, most of the time).

Edgy DC Jun 22 2007 08:35 AM

That's hardly ideal, but neither is it a non-contribution.

iramets Jun 22 2007 09:19 AM

Edgy DC wrote: That's hardly ideal, but neither is it a non-contribution. And of course I didn't call it a non-contribution. But when you've got a starting pitcher who can't get you past the fifth, and when he is incapable of pitching relief, and when the rest of your staff is already putting pressure on the bullpen, it's a little more than just "hardly ideal." IThe only thing that kept him in his job towasards the end was his huge contract, his past reputation, and the important principle of CYA. If you were getting that from a rookie, you wouldn't have gotten as much of it as you did.

Edgy DC Jun 22 2007 09:38 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 22 2007 10:47 AM

iramets wrote: ="Edgy DC"]That's hardly ideal, but neither is it a non-contribution. And of course I didn't call it a non-contribution. I didn't think I was making a leap. going from "but couldn't last long enough to contribute as a rotation starter" to "non-contriubtion." iramets wrote: But when you've got a starting pitcher who can't get you past the fifth, He typically did, it's the sixth he couldn't typically get through. iramets wrote: and when he is incapable of pitching relief, and when the rest of your staff is already putting pressure on the bullpen, it's a little more than just "hardly ideal." IThe only thing that kept him in his job towasards the end was his huge contract, his past reputation, and the important principle of CYA. If you were getting that from a rookie, you wouldn't have gotten as much of it as you did. This is a silly years-old-agenda-driven tangent. He was possibly the team's most effective starter, and certainly one of the top two. You hate the 2004 Mets, aim your gun at the Garcia/Spencer gerrymander or the Jason Phillips pipe dream or something. Leiter did what he could until he couldn't do it any longer, like anyone and everyone, and Omar Minaya successfully moved on just before Leiter reached the point when he could no longer succeed. I mean, excellent, right?.

iramets Jun 22 2007 10:35 AM

I don't know that I have much an agenda here, unless you mean that I had strongly advocated that the Mets use their octogenarian pitchers as tradebait in mid-season in years they weren't winning squat so as to strengthen their staff for years like 2007, when they could use some fresh arms in the starting rotation about as badly as Bob Dole's staff could use a little Viagra about now, just to perform at an acceptably competitive level. In 2004, Leiter lasted 25 batters per start, and averaged 5.79 IP per start. His fellow 38-year old Met starter, Glavine, lasted 26.7 batters per start and 6.4 IP. So, yes, Leiter was getting into the sixth inning, on average, but when he started breaking down (I believe this became a problem in the second half of the season) he was breaking down in the fifth. And when you can't depend on your starter to get through 5 IP/S even on days he doesn't have good stuff or good luck, you're in trouble. The Mets were in trouble with Leiter on the mound for the latter part of '04, though even then, he might have been attractive to a contending club looking for a fifth starter.

Edgy DC Jun 22 2007 10:44 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 22 2007 12:46 PM

Yeah, that's an agenda. Despite it ignoring your notion that (1) Leiter got creamed (not on our watch) and (2) that his contract is all that kept him in the rotation (over who? Baldwin?). I can isolate no such second-half pattern: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/2004/Kleita0010192004.htm Yes, he might have been attractive. Not to you. maybe, but he might have been.

Nymr83 Jun 22 2007 11:28 AM

i count 30 starts, in which he failed to complete the 5th 4 times and the 6th 13 times. he also allowed 3 or less runs in 23 starts, he was helping the Mets even if he wasn't worth his salary and even though he wasn't helping quite as much as he did in the past.

iramets Jun 22 2007 11:40 AM

Well, he did go through a stretch from July 7th through August 8th of 31 IP in 6 starts, or a hair above exactly 5 innings per start. If we had archives, I think the anguish of CPFers (apart from myself) would chill your shit during that stretch. But we're losing sight of my point here--it was funny to hear Leiter assuring fans that the Clemens we were seeing was effective, since he's the one guy who should know how miserable a solution a power pitcher is after he has lost his power and is trying to nibble.

Nymr83 Jun 22 2007 12:45 PM

But he wasn't a "miserable solution" in 2004, he was good enough. The Mets were even smart enough to cut bait with him after a 3.21 ERA over 174 innings because although the results were good they saw that the end was near (something you accuse them of being unable to do.)

Rotblatt Jun 22 2007 12:46 PM

]But we're losing sight of my point here--it was funny to hear Leiter assuring fans that the Clemens we were seeing was effective, since he's the one guy who should know how miserable a solution a power pitcher is after he has lost his power and is trying to nibble. I don't get it. We've (well, they, really, but I agree with them) established that Leiter WAS valuable in his last season as a Met, despite having lost a couple MPH on his fastball, and, yes, despite driving us all fucking crazy by pitching around the plate and not getting out of the sixth inning. But doesn't his success despite those hurdles make him perfectly qualified to assess Clemens' ability to provide value despite the loss of HIS velocity? So I guess I don't really see the irony.

iramets Jun 22 2007 01:27 PM

Depends on how you define "success," I guess. With very strong and very deep bullpen, and a couple of inning-eating starters on your staff, I guess a five inning guy like Leiter or Clemens could be considered a success. But the 2004 Mets, as is the Mets' wont, didn't slot him into the #5 hole and give him the help he needed. They figured he was a star, and spoke of his problems pitching deep as a temporary aberration. In direct violation of Rickey's dictum, they let him go a year too late rather than a year too soon. If you're going to praise Omar for picking up good young starters, and you should, then you have to blast the pre-Omar Mets for hanging onto (re-signing) old pitchers who have shown they're swiftly losing it. Who would replace him in the rotation? I dunno, maybe the untried pitcher they could have picked up from the Red Sox or the Yankees or the Angels for Leiter.

Edgy DC Jun 22 2007 01:34 PM

]They figured he was a star, and spoke of his problems pitching deep as a temporary aberration. The 2004 Mets failed at quite enough without having to make silly things up. He pitched. They coached. All tried to improve. ]In direct violation of Rickey's dictum, they let him go a year too late rather than a year too soon. This is exactly the opposite of true, as we have stated. The number one/number five stuff --- it's useless semantics that's beyond arguing about. He was there and he pitched, no matter what you call him. it's also getting away from what you claim to want your point to be.

iramets Jun 22 2007 01:43 PM

Edgy DC wrote: He was there and he pitched, no matter what you call him. They called him one of the anchors of their rotation, and crucial to their getting to the post-season. I called him tradebait, and I wished they could have called him that too. If they had been more clear-sighted and realistic, we might have another good young starter on this staff right now. And I still think it's funny that he's praising Clemens for sucking in the same exact fashion that he sucked in 2004, and praising the Yankees' wisdom in overpaying for Clemens in the same way the Mets overpaid for him.

Centerfield Jun 22 2007 01:51 PM

Adding to the frustration of the Leiter starts was the fact that he was, much as Clemens is, supposed to be the ace of the staff. I'm surprised to hear those numbers. My memory of that time was that any Leiter start was agonizing to watch.

iramets Jun 22 2007 01:55 PM

Thanks for confirming that I haven't lost my sound judgment, CF. What drove us crazy, I think, was the 3-2 counts on everyone, #8 batters, pitchers, guys with a paper bag over their heads--it didn't matter, Leiter pitched to them like they were Babe Ruth and the World Series was on the line. even when he pitched well, he was in and out of trouble all game long (which typically meant until about 2:45 PM).

metirish Jun 22 2007 02:01 PM

I liked Leiter a lot when he was Mets player,but he drove me fucking crazy with all the 3-2 counts and the animated faces he would make after every close call that went against him...Al throwing a lot of pitches every start was probably annoying to me in 04 because the team sucked..Al throwing 140+ pitches with all his heart in game five of the WS was inspiring.....

Edgy DC Jun 22 2007 02:04 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jun 22 2007 02:14 PM

iramets wrote: ="Edgy DC"] He was there and he pitched, no matter what you call him. They called him one of the anchors of their rotation, and crucial to their getting to the post-season. I called him tradebait, and I wished they could have called him that too. Yes, I know. You've made it clear. This it's why it's an agenda. Why it's aimed at Leiter can only be explained by your love of Ms. Met, and your bitter bitter jealosy over her deep longing for his eyes. He was creamed. But they should have taken advantage of how good he was to trade him. He really started turning in regular short work days in the second half before which they should have moved him. But, on second thought, that second half was July 7 to August 8. You're clear (believe me) that Met teams that are going to lose (most do) should deal for younger players. But this is true of 29 of 30 teams every year. They are going to try, and in the end, fail. All, of them, nonetheless, are responsible for putting a major league team out there and playing in the meantime. Sooner or later you've got to go out there and play. The 2004 Mets did this poorly. We all know that. So give it a rest, and come up with a real topic. I'm counting on you.

Edgy DC Jun 22 2007 02:06 PM

metirish wrote: Al throwing a lot of pitches every start was probably annoying to me in 04 because the team sucked. Of course! And that reflects on him... not at all! It's no different from Armando-perspective.

iramets Jun 22 2007 02:17 PM

]He was creamed. But they should have taken advantage of how good he was to trade him This isn't quite the contradiction you seem to think it is. He was a serviceable (you might say competent) back of the rotation starter. A contending team might well have use for such a guy, gambling if they could get a few good innings out of him, maybe they'll make the playoffs, and maybe even further. Not a terrible move for a team in the hunt. But the Mets in my view needed Leiter to be much more than serviceable, and even then they weren't really a post-season team. They were greedy, and the 2007 Mets are playing the price for their greed. Forgive me, please, if I use this platform to vent a bit.

Edgy DC Jun 22 2007 02:22 PM

It's OK. I miss her too.

Elster88 Jun 22 2007 07:08 PM

iramets wrote: ]He was creamed. But they should have taken advantage of how good he was to trade him This isn't quite the contradiction you seem to think it is. He was a serviceable (you might say competent) back of the rotation starter. A contending team might well have use for such a guy, gambling if they could get a few good innings out of him, maybe they'll make the playoffs, and maybe even further. Not a terrible move for a team in the hunt. But the Mets in my view needed Leiter to be much more than serviceable, and even then they weren't really a post-season team. They were greedy, and the 2007 Mets are playing the price for their greed. Forgive me, please, if I use this platform to vent a bit. You did the exact same thing after 2005. You were all over the people on this board for thinking we shoulda got more for Cameron. Then a few weeks later you were all over management for not getting enough for Cameron.

iramets Jun 23 2007 04:22 AM

Yes. That's exactly what I said. Thank you for summing up my position so precisely. This is like that "Kerry said he voted for it before he voted against it" nonsense that makes wonderful sense to any voter without the benefit of a functioning brain stem. When Cameron was going good in mid-season (and healthy) when the Mets were going nowhere fast, he was a highly attractive candidate for a contending team in need of a good centerfielder (of which there were several) and we could have extorted a good price for him. But AFTER the season, when other teams had a chance to put their team together and no longer had an immediate and desperate need for a CFer who could play well right this second (and had broken his face to boot, and no one knew how well he'd play) his VALUE WENT DOWN. Trading him when his value was down instead of when it was at its peak was what the Mets opted to do, and I flogged them for it. Of course, what some idiots wanted for Cameron when he was at his peak and healthy was ludicrously high, and then after he was badly injured these same idiots then said "OK, NOW I'll take the excellent players I spit on back in the middle of the pennant race--what? You're no longer offering those players? You suck." But go ahead--make me out to be an idiot for pointing this out. Were you one of these idiots, or a defender of all-decisions-made-by-the-Mets-however-foolish-and-shortsighted? I forget. As with Leiter, the Mets refused to deal one of their veteran players because, as Edgy keeps reminding me, they are honorbound to field the best team they can in he hope of winning 79 games this season instead of the 71 games they would win if they traded off some old former stars having a good season for some prospects who in a few years could mean the difference between 99 wins and 91. To mean 99 vs 91 is a very big deal, and the difference between 79 and 71 means shit. Which is why I find very hard to root for a team run by gutless, fan-placating management. Maybe you and Edgy really believe that winning a few extra games in a losing season is very importanyou can hold your heads up higher with every win you get that brings your team closer to .500. To me, that's an addict's pleasure --just a better grade of losing baseball. I have no use for it.

Edgy DC Jun 23 2007 07:34 AM

This isn't exactly what I said. You sum up my position very poorly. My position is that you should stop carrying on. You're jealous because Leiter made Ms. Met swoon where you couldn't. We get it.

iramets Jun 23 2007 09:01 AM

oe: Decided not to go there

Elster88 Jun 23 2007 03:24 PM

iramets Jun 23 2007 05:45 PM

What is this, "If-You-Don't-Have-Anything-Nice-To Say, Don't-Say-Anything-At-All" Day? OK, I'll play along. Edgy, you did a kickass job of replacing the "1" in "Intelligent" with a "I"--just a capital job! Kudos!

Edgy DC Jun 23 2007 08:37 PM

Warn't me. KC handles the banner.