Master Index of Archived Threads


Wagner sent back to NY

Centerfield Aug 16 2008 07:36 PM

Metsblog says his elbow (wtf?) isn't feeling good enough to pitch back to back days. Sent back to NY to be re-evaluated. Anyone watching/listening hear any more details?

seawolf17 Aug 16 2008 07:38 PM

That's all they said on the broadcast -- that and that he "felt about 80%," whatever that means.

metirish Aug 16 2008 07:39 PM

Oliver Perez told him to rub some dirt on it......

Fman99 Aug 16 2008 07:42 PM

Well, fuck.

metirish Aug 19 2008 01:00 PM

From Lennon's blog , nothing good. ] Here is the updated medical information on Billy Wagner… This doesn't sound like great news. The Mets just released this brief statement on Wagner's examination this morning: Billy Wagner was re-evaluated today at New York’s Hospital for Special Surgery. He continues to have swelling and pain in his elbow. He will need additional rest before he can resume throwing. We'll see what Wagner has to say about this latest development when the clubhouse opens this afternoon. Looks like the Mets are going to need a contingency plan for the immediate future.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 19 2008 01:03 PM

Gotta like how "forearm pain" is finally revealed to be "elbow pain."

metirish Aug 19 2008 01:05 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 19 2008 01:15 PM

Seriously, I would not be surprised to hear " season ending surgery" in the next few days.

soupcan Aug 19 2008 01:12 PM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Gotta like how "forearm pain" is finally revealed to be "elbow pain." They had said that it started as 'forearm pain' and eventually moved to the elbow. Truthfully, I'm less worried about replacing Billy in the 9th as I am about the rest of the 'Pen.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 03:10 PM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Gotta like how "forearm pain" is finally revealed to be "elbow pain." If it's Wagner, it was probably brain pain all along. Isn't the elbow bone connected to the brain bone?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 19 2008 04:11 PM

Everything on Wagner is connected to the jawbone, I think. While its no great confession to consider us better with Wagner than without, I think that in a matter of taste I prefer a Wagner-free squad to one that's only trying to get by without him temporarily. Same thing as Alou and Church too. It feels better to perform knowing they're not around than with their shadows hovering from above.

TransMonk Aug 19 2008 04:38 PM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Everything on Wagner is connected to the jawbone, I think. Bullet of cool!

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 05:15 PM

Someday I'm going to have to think through this players-on-rehab-are-worse-than-no-players-at-all business. I don't quite get it.

SteveJRogers Aug 19 2008 06:05 PM

AG/DC wrote: Someday I'm going to have to think through this players-on-rehab-are-worse-than-no-players-at-all business. I don't quite get it. No crutch. TPTB can't rely on the "Just wait until he comes back, things will be better" line as the ship takes in water around them. Forces their hand to make a move, one way or another.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 19 2008 06:14 PM

Sorta, yeah.

Kong76 Aug 19 2008 06:21 PM

post moved to correct thread

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 07:20 PM

During a pre-game press conference today, Wagner said that he wasn't necessarily any better than any of the other Met relievers, but that he has this "Closer" title because he pitches the 9th inning, perhaps implying that the Closer title gives him an extra and undeserved aura of superiority. Notwithstanding Wagner's obvious modesty here (he really is better than the other Met relievers, even if he says otherwise -- Wagner jawbones even when says things against his own interest), I wonder if there wasn't some subconscious slip that pitching the ninth inning is no different than pitching any other inning. I suspect that pitchers privately know this to be the truth, but claim otherwise out of self-interest because of the disproportionate amount of money they earn for simply racking up Saves. To me, this closer business is so overblown.

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 07:25 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 19 2008 07:27 PM

But it is different. Not always, but ninth innngs with small leads tend to be different from sixth innings with large defecits. On edit: doesn't mean I don't agree that closers are overblown. Actually, I believe saves are overblown.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 07:27 PM

AG/DC wrote: But it is different. Why? Is the centerfielder required to defend the ninth inning with his shoelaces tied together?

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 07:28 PM

Don't be a jerk.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 07:29 PM

AG/DC wrote: But it is different. Not always, but ninth innngs with small leads tend to be different from sixth innings with large defecits. And sixth innings with small leads differ from ninth innings with large leads. And so ......?

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 07:33 PM

Closers don't tend to enter ninth innings with large leads. Can you please dial down the sarcasm?

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 07:34 PM

AG/DC wrote: But it is different. Not always, but ninth innngs with small leads tend to be different from sixth innings with large defecits. On edit: doesn't mean I don't agree that closers are overblown. Actually, I believe saves are overblown. Yous post keeps on changing on me. I agree with your on-edit point. There's nothing necessarily wrong with using your best reliever in the ninth inning. But when the starting pitcher is removed after the fifth or sixth inning, so that the manager absolutely knows that his bullpen will need to pitch three or four innnings, it makes little sense to decide three or four innings in advance, that the most effective reliever will only pitch the ninth, without any consideration for the developing game situation.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 07:37 PM

="AG/DC"]Closers don't tend to enter ninth innings with large leads. Can you please dial down the sarcasm? But three run leads going into the ninth are large. There's absolutely no reason why the team's "Closer" gets to notch this particular one-inning save more than any other pitcher on the team. So how come you don't like my shoelace post?

OlerudOwned Aug 19 2008 07:54 PM

Playing to the point we all seem to be making: Atlanta's best reliever is Mike Gonzalez. He's lefthanded. But with the game on the line, they go to the "specialist" Ohman against Delgado to presumably save Gonzalez for the 9th inning. Yeah, whoops.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 07:58 PM

AG/DC wrote: But it is different. Not always, but ninth innngs with small leads tend to be different from sixth innings with large defecits. ="batmagadanleadoff"]And sixth innings with small leads differ from ninth innings with large leads. And so ......? Why would it be harder to retire batters in one inning as opposed to another based upon the existing run differential?

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 08:00 PM

OlerudOwned wrote: Playing to the point we all seem to be making: Atlanta's best reliever is Mike Gonzalez. He's lefthanded. But with the game on the line, they go to the "specialist" Ohman against Delgado to presumably save Gonzalez for the 9th inning. Yeah, whoops. Exactly. That 8th inning was where the game was on the line, where the most damage could've been done. And Delgado was 3 for 9 against Ohman going into that last at bat. Strange game from Cox, who is no slouch. He also sac bunted in the first inning. Unless that batter was going solo.

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 08:01 PM

Well, I agree there, at least in principle. Best pitchers should be used in the game situation where they are most useful. Although, in particular, I'm not that impressed with Gonzalez as anybody's idea of a best pitcher, and I understand looking for the best matchups.

OlerudOwned Aug 19 2008 08:04 PM

="batmagadanleadoff"] ="AG/DC"]But it is different. Not always, but ninth innngs with small leads tend to be different from sixth innings with large defecits. ="batmagadanleadoff"]And sixth innings with small leads differ from ninth innings with large leads. And so ......? Why would it be harder to retire batters in one inning as opposed to another based upon the existing run differential? Psychologically, I think it is something of a different animal to a lot of players. Even if it doesn't ring true with the numbers, how many players out there actually give a damn about run expectancy and the such? Don't get me wrong, I don't think it (the inning, that is) should matter, but when you have a bunch of guys who've been trained their whole lives to play baseball, and when that training includes the completely illogical parts of baseball "wisdom," it's bound to ingrain itself within the players. Who knows, hopefully as advanced analysis strengthens it's foothold, that sort of thinking will dissipate over time.

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 08:21 PM

Advance analysis has re-nforced and will reinforce the idea that it's harder to pitch as the inning gets later and the run differential gets narrower. Aaron Heilman faced relief pitcher Jeff Bennett today. Who was the last pitcher Billy Wagner ever faced.

OlerudOwned Aug 19 2008 08:28 PM

="AG/DC"]Advance analysis has re-nforced and will reinforce the idea that it's harder to pitch as the inning gets later and the run differential gets narrower. Aaron Heilman faced relief pitcher Jeff Bennett today. Who was the last pitcher Billy Wagner ever faced. Was that aspect ever up for debate here? I think we might all be arguing slightly different things here. Certainly a 1-run game in the 9th is going to be tougher than a 1-run game in the 8th, but you're not getting the former if you can't make it through the latter.

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 08:38 PM

OlerudOwned wrote: Was that aspect ever up for debate here? Mebbe I'm misreading, but it seems right there explicitly in the question you're speculating on.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 08:40 PM

OlerudOwned wrote: I think we might all be arguing slightly different things here. Since I started it, I'll tell you what I'm sayin': That it's no harder to get a batter out in the ninth inning, than in the sixth, or seventh, or any other inning, all things being equal. Obviously, it's harder to protect a smaller lead than a larger lead, but that was never the point of discussion, which should be obvious by reading the posts in question together.

OlerudOwned Aug 19 2008 08:54 PM

AG/DC wrote: ="OlerudOwned"]Was that aspect ever up for debate here? Mebbe I'm misreading, but it seems right there explicitly in the question you're speculating on. I think I may have been the one off track there. What I'm saying is what magadan is saying, "That it's no harder to get a batter out in the ninth inning, than in the sixth, or seventh, or any other inning, all things being equal." What I'm also saying is that all things aren't equal, psychologically, for whatever reasons that may or may not have to due with the culture of the game. It's harder to protect that 1-run 9th inning lead if you've been convinced that it's harder.

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 08:57 PM

And I'm saying that, even with run differential frozen at one for all innings considered, on average, you're going to face better batters in the ninth.

OlerudOwned Aug 19 2008 09:11 PM

AG/DC wrote: And I'm saying that, even with run differential frozen at one for all innings considered, on average, you're going to face better batters in the ninth. I don't think that's going to make too dramatic of a difference. I'm out of my depth running the math here, but there's a whole lot of variables to that. Where the inning is starting off, double-switches earlier in the game, how good the batting team's bench is, the thought that a team would probably just as likely to go with their top pinch-hitter in, say, the 7th inning of a close game. Also, prototypical closer has the benefit of usually starting off the 9th inning. You'd be better off going to the best man in the 'pen with a baserunner on in a 1-run game in the 8th, no?

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 09:21 PM

By the ninth inning, it's entirely random as far as what part of the batting order will bat. Pinch hitters? They're usually bench players anyway.

Frayed Knot Aug 19 2008 09:36 PM

Wagner's little speech - and particularly the line about "everybody in there" (implying the rest of the pen) is as good as I am if not better - was more sticking up for the rest of the pen than anything else. Having to hear how much they suck all the time can't be easy even if no one wants to hear them complain about it. Wags is just the only one who's going to say something like that and not worry about how it sounds. His best line overall was when he said; "the only reason I'm the closer is that I sucked at starting"

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 09:37 PM

In the early innings, you pinch hit for your pitcher only if the game has already gotten egregious. In the middle innings, you pinch hit for the pitcher only, and only if he's finished or a game-changing RBI. In the later innings, you pinch-hit for the pitcher, the eighth guy if the tying run is up, and potentially the second, seventh, and maybe sixth if it can help you get a fortuitous matchup in a game-changing situation. I wouldn't to poo-poo the difference. Managers bend over backwards trying to get their best available hitters into game-changing situations, as they try to get their best available pitchers, often over-focusing on saving their best card for the ninth as they do with pitchers. This seems pretty clear. Pinch-hitters in the National League in 2008 have a .651 OPS --- no great shakes, but they sure have an advantage on pitchers, who check in with a .353.

OlerudOwned Aug 19 2008 09:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 19 2008 09:53 PM

AG/DC wrote: In the early innings, you pinch hit for your pitcher only if the game has already gotten egregious. In the middle innings, you pinch hit for the pitcher only, and only if he's finished or a game-changing RBI. In the later innings, you pinch-hit for the pitcher, the eighth guy if the tying run is up, and potentially the second, seventh, and maybe sixth if it can help you get a fortuitous matchup in a game-changing situation. I wouldn't to poo-poo the difference. Managers bend over backwards trying to get their best available hitters into game-changing situations, as they try to get their best available pitchers, often over-focusing on saving their best card for the ninth as they do with pitchers. This seems pretty clear. Pinch-hitters in the National League in 2008 have a .651 OPS --- no great shakes, but they sure have an advantage on pitchers, who check in with a .353. They've got a plenty big lead on pitchers, but they're about even with hitters in the 8th spot (with LaRussa and Yost dragging down the position by sticking pitchers in there) and significantly worse than every other place in the order, making your second point something of a wash. It doesn't matter how much managing you do, having the middle of the order come up in the 9th is a matter of fortune.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 09:50 PM

The pitcher's batting slot isn't any more likely to come up in the ninth inning, as opposed to the eighth or seventh. Therefore, the idea that the pitcher will not bat in the later innings does not, by itself, justify the opponent's predetermined use of its' best reliever in the ninth inning. I don't believe that pinch hitters who bat for someone other than the pitcher are used significantly more frequently in the ninth inning.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 09:54 PM

OlerudOwned wrote: They'd got a plenty big lead on pitchers, but they're about even with hitters in the 8th spot (with LaRussa and Yost dragging down the position by sticking pitchers in there) and significantly worse than every other place in the order, making your second point something of a wash. It doesn't matter how much managing you do, having the middle of the order come up in the 9th is a matter of fortune. I agree. No one can dispute the huge offensive upgrade in pinch-hitting for the pitcher. But the pitcher's slot doesn't come up in the ninth inning any more so than in the eighth or seventh innings. And the other pinch hitters are usually bench players. Do you think that Marlon Anderson strikes fear into the heart of the opposing manager?

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 10:05 PM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The pitcher's batting slot isn't any more likely to come up in the ninth inning, as opposed to the eighth or seventh. Therefore, the idea that the pitcher will not bat in the later innings does not, by itself, justify the opponent's predetermined use of its' best reliever in the ninth inning. If there's any doubt whatsoever in the game, it's almost guaranteed to never come up. And I'm not justifying anything. I'm arguing that the ninth inning is harder, other things being equal. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't believe that pinch hitters who bat for someone other than the pitcher are used significantly more frequently in the ninth inning. Believe it.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 10:12 PM

AG/DC wrote: If there's any doubt whatsoever in the game, it's almost guaranteed to never come up. And I'm not justifying anything. I'm arguing that the ninth inning is harder, other things being equal. What's your favorite ocean: Pacific or Atlantic?

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 10:15 PM

The Ocean of Love.

Fman99 Aug 20 2008 06:16 AM

Billy Ocean, duh.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 20 2008 10:01 AM

Get out of my dreams and into my car. Get out of the Mexican League and into the Mets bullpen, Ricardo Rincon.

Centerfield Sep 03 2008 11:40 AM

Daily News says Billy is doing better. Could pitch in a simulated game this weekend and be activated by next week.

holychicken Sep 03 2008 05:40 PM

Centerfield wrote: Daily News says Billy is doing better. Could pitch in a simulated game this weekend and be activated by next week. You know at that point our BP will have continued this nice little run they are on and having him come back will make people nervous.

cooby Sep 03 2008 07:11 PM

So what's the deal? Should I put him back on my fantasy team?