Master Index of Archived Threads


This pen continues to confound

Frayed Knot Aug 19 2008 07:25 AM

In checking into how bad they're stinking and why, one finds that the numbers across the board aren't all that bad ... until you get to the pesky one about runs given up. - the Met pen is NOT being called upon to cover more innings than other pens. NYM starters have thrown 66% of all innings pitched compared to a 65% NL average - the WHiP of the NYM pen is actually better than NL avg: 1.36 vs 1.38; their BA/OBA/SLG-against is virtually identical: .252/.331/.394 vs .252/.331/.398; Ks & BBs are also essentially the same; HRs are the only thing a bit higher but even there not dramatically so: 1 every 8.8 IPs vs 1 in 9.3 or about 3 more than expected and yet, somehow, this all adds up to the 2nd worst ERA in the league (and barely so) or about 19 more earned runs given up above what would normally be expected given their overall average-ness. And none of that includes whatever inherited runner pain they've inflicted on the starters (don't have those figures but I suspect it's not a pretty sight). So just in case you were starting to believe that Met penners are conspiring to bunch all their hits and walks so as to maximize the number of runs given up, you're not becoming paranoid, it's actually the case. Normally 20 extra runs given up over a length of time would translate into about two extra losses. But since we're talking strictly about late-game runs here it's probably worse than that ... four extra losses?, five?

cooby Aug 19 2008 07:41 AM

For all the more a reliever has to pitch, they should be lights out or give up and retire. It's no different than a punt returner that can't catch or a kicker that can't ever reach the goal. All they have to do it get guys out, not try to be cute about it. That's my opinion.

Mendoza Line Aug 19 2008 07:50 AM

I wonder how their numbers have been relative to the league just from June through August. Wagner didn't even give up a hit for his first X appearances (I think X is 9, but I'm not certain) and if I remember correctly, the big April and May problems were the starting pitching and the big Carlos Delgado-shaped hole in the middle of the lineup. The early-season bullpen was actually pretty good.

smg58 Aug 19 2008 07:54 AM

Part of that could be bad luck, but the Mets have some very up-and-down relievers. Heilman has alternated bewteen lights-out and nightmarish. Sanchez has been mostly solid, but when he's been off he's been way off. Joe Smith's ERA went from 2.90 on July 18 to 4.40 on August 11. When you give up runs in bunches, your ERA will look worse than your overall peripherals would imply.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 09:34 AM

="smg58"]Part of that could be bad luck.... When I saw the relief stats posted, bad luck was the first thing that came to my mind, as well. The numbers (other than runs allowed) don't stand out as being significantly bad and in fact, are somewhat comparable to the Mets starters stats (again, other than runs allowed). But relievers, for example, can get called upon to complete the last three innings of a game and in doing so, allow three hits and two walks. If those runners allowed are spread out over the three innings, the bullpen might come away scoreless. But bunch up those same runners in one inning, and the result could be disastrous. Or two pitchers might each yield a HR and three walks in the same inning but based on the order of events, one pitcher allows four runs and the other allows just one. I haven't looked, but there's a SABR stat - ERC (Earned Runs Created Average) - which calclulates a pitcher's ERA on the number of runs a pitcher ought to have given up based on the # of singles,doubles, walks allowed etc, rather than on actual runs allowed. It's the pitching corollary to RC for batters.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 19 2008 09:48 AM

Any interest in Al Reyes? He refused an AAA assignment and became a free agent. Averages a whiff an inning over his career and has "closing experience" which you know appeals to the Mets. Plus you know our Reyes Factor isn't high enough.

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 10:00 AM

He's old and has a slight Yankee taint to him, but he can still strike people out and don't costt nothing but a contract. I say go.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 19 2008 10:01 AM

I'm thinking we shut down Duaner with a "sore arm" and add the guy.

AG/DC Aug 19 2008 10:06 AM

I'm thinking we re-assign Stokely.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 10:16 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Any interest in Al Reyes? He refused an AAA assignment and became a free agent. Averages a whiff an inning over his career and has "closing experience" which you know appeals to the Mets. Plus you know our Reyes Factor isn't high enough. Omar's dream is to one day field an all Reyes team. Rodriguez would work for him, too.

smg58 Aug 19 2008 11:34 AM

Assuming he's healthy, Al Reyes is more likely to be an asset than Luis Ayala at this point. But health could be the issue with Ayala as well.

Frayed Knot Aug 19 2008 12:14 PM

"When you give up runs in bunches, your ERA will look worse than your overall peripherals would imply" Which is clearly what's happening here. Our pen's baserunners allowed is almost exactly average but the pct of those runners who score is way outta whack to the point where it's cost them around 20 runs allowed and maybe 3 or 4 wins above what they "deserve". The question then becomes, is this just shit luck that'll, if not turn around, at least swing somewhat back towards normal, or is this some sort of trait inherant with this group? Of course it always SEEMS LIKE your guys are the masters of giving up hits/runs at the worse possible moment - a statement which not only implies that there's a good time to give up runs late in the game by is probably uttered by fans of all 30 teams. But there seem to be two forces at work here: - the first baserunner almost inevitably seems to lead to more baserunners and therefore more runs - and that the first reliever seems to set the tone so that if he gives up runners he's likely to be followed by who's going to toss more gasoline on the fire allowing the first guy's runners to score plus maybe a few of his own. There seems to rarely be any compromise between 'perfect' and 'prefectly awful'

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 19 2008 12:33 PM

I tend to want to attribute it all to the centrifugal mojo of the preceding innings. Seems like every minor sin committed by the offense in terms of failing to add tack-on runs or clearing the pitcher or even making a non-productive out, is revisited upon the bullpen with exacting fury. Do that often, and there's a palpable sense that there's litle margin for error. It's 2-0 in the 7th, not 4-0. That, and what's been said before of there being too many "specialists" in the pen. I applaud Willie for trying to mange as if they were not specilists, but I think they see themselves that way anyway.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 19 2008 01:32 PM

Oh, they're "specialists" all right. Some give up homers to left-handed batters and some give them up to righters. Heilman specializes in giving them up only when a big game/series/playoff is on the line. :)

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 02:10 PM

="Frayed Knot"]"When you give up runs in bunches, your ERA will look worse than your overall peripherals would imply" Which is clearly what's happening here. Our pen's baserunners allowed is almost exactly average but the pct of those runners who score is way outta whack to the point where it's cost them around 20 runs allowed and maybe 3 or 4 wins above what they "deserve".... We also shouldn't forget that ERA isn't necessarily the most effective way of measuring relievers. The Met bullpen has surely allowed a good number of inherited runners to score. This, of course, wouldn't show up in the bullpen's ERA.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 02:25 PM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I applaud Willie for trying to mange as if they were not specilists, but I think they see themselves that way anyway. Since I'm the guy that can't say anything nice about Willie if my life depended on it, I'll say this not nice thing about Willie: I wouldn't applaud Willie for that because the Mets had their share of bullpen specialists whether Willie liked it or not: guys that dominated righties but couldn't get a lefty out even if that lefty was Al Leiter, and lefty specialists. What would be the point of using specialists to their weaknesses? Beats me, but this is all from the same manager that sac bunts in the first inning of a game being played in Colorado and bats David Wright seventh for more than half a season, all with the Wild Card within reach.

Nymr83 Aug 19 2008 02:40 PM

it wasn't willie's fault, and it's not jerry's, that the bullpen has so many guys who are ineffective against righties/lefties to the point that you want to pull them against that particular type of batter. its been my experience from past Met/Yankee bullpens (and i dont remember other teams rosters all that well over the past 5-10 years offhand to comment on them without research) that you usually have 1 "lefty specialist" if that and the guys you bring in to face big righties are the type of guys, like an effective heilman, who you can leave in for lefties too. now even thouhg its not the manager's fault he needs to manage the team he's got. to me that means the starters need to be pushed deeper into the games and you sometimes have to leave a schoenweis or a smith in to face the "wrong" handed batter if that batter isn't a very good one. i feel willie did a better job of the latter, but manuel has done a (somewhat) better job of pushing the starters. i would have said "much" better until the past two weeks when both Pelfrey and Maine were pulled from a start in which they looked good (better than good in pelfrey's case, maybe just o.k. in maine's.)

Frayed Knot Aug 21 2008 11:49 AM

]I wonder how their numbers have been relative to the league just from June through August? Something like this: --- Rel-IP Pct of/IP H R ER BB K HR WHiP ERA IP/HR K/BB NL-Avg 395.0 35% 378 192 174 166 328 42 1.38 3.98 9.3 2.0 Mets 390.1 34% 375 208 191 154 325 45 1.36 4.40 8.7 2.1 APR 92.2 39% 85 49 35 37 72 11 1.32 3.40 8.4 1.9 MAY 82.1 33% 77 40 37 29 73 5 1.29 4.04 16.5 2.5 JUN 89.1 36% 85 45 44 35 69 13 1.34 4.43 6.9 2.0 JUL 80.0 34% 77 42 41 33 77 7 1.38 4.61 11.4 2.3 AUG 46.0 27% 51 32 34 20 34 9 1.54 6.65 5.1 1.7 That's the League Y-T-D average, the Mets pen Y-T-D total, and then the Mets monthly breakdowns. Those first two columns are Total Innings pitched by the pen and then the Pct of All Innings covered by the pen. Like I said starting out, most of the overall stats are right around league averages with the rather large exception of runs allowed (also HRs are slightly high). Looking at it month-by-month, the WHiP didn't get out of control until just this month while the ERA has been worse all along since about May and has actually been getting worse even as the load they're being asked to shoulder gets smaller.

smg58 Aug 21 2008 11:55 AM

The home runs are significant, especially when you factor in the ballpark.

Frayed Knot Aug 21 2008 12:05 PM

You have a point about the park but it's still less than one extra HR for every 100 pen-innings pitched and not enough by itself to explain why the ERA is so much worse than the peripherals imply.