The Crane Pool Forum

F Diaz for a while at least.

The way Mendoza has been using his guys you would guess it be Lopez or Ottavino, but I kinda hope they give it to Smith when he returns, just give him a slightly more aggressive walk-in music.

What do you think?

Ottavino. Garrett is lightning in a bottle and he is currently excelling in his present role...let's not change any variables that might alter his current state.

I feel Ottavino is too vulnerable for the 9th inning and like Garrett, more or less doing well in his current role.

My suspicion is that anyone good enough to be on an MLB roster could plausibly be a closer, just with the right frame of mind and entrance music.

I'd expect Lopez if this ineffectiveness persists. He has closing experience at least.

My nerves couldn't take watching Ottavino. He's too inconsistent.
I voted Garrett. Let's use the hot pitcher in high leverage situations while he's still hot.

Later

Lefty Specialist wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 9:39 am I'd expect Lopez if this ineffectiveness persists. He has closing experience at least.

This is probably the solution. The Mets probably wouldn't go to the trouble of developing a new closer in Diaz's face as much as we'd like it. They have too much invested in the light show.

I'm on Team Diaz through Memorial Day.

Reassess soon after, if it still matters.

I voted for Garrett , but we need Garrett to get to the closer, so likely not to happen

Is Diaz hiding an injury?

My feeling is that designated closers are are always a invitation to sinking ships. Just go with the pitcher who looks like your best bet for the day and have somebody ready behind that person. Sometimes that guy may be the same guy for most of the season, and sometimes not, but be honest with yourself.

Last night's meltdown was mostly a product of (a) not sticking with Ottavino who had about as ideal an eight inning as you can ask for, (b) placing the redemption of Díaz ahead of winning the contest, and (c) not having somebody ready behind him (which was a byproduct of b).

All pitchers fail, and putting a guy struggling through a current pattern of failure in such a spot was trying to show leadership by courting disaster.

Maybe it should be Raley. Since he can't pitch, he can't give up any three-run homers.

metirish wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 9:52 am I voted for Garrett , but we need Garrett to get to the closer, so likely not to happen

Yes. Also, if youse accept, for the purposes of this hypothetical thread, that Diaz is gonna suck all season long, kinda like in 2019, then there's gonna be a domino effect diminishment of the entire relief corps.


I don't get why lotsa youse are sayin' that Garrett shouldn't be the closer when it's plainly obvious that he's their best reliever this year. What? Garrett's stuff works in the 6th and 7th innings but it won't play in the 9th? What's the logic behind that? It's all the same thing. The laws of physics aren't any different in the 9th inning. And every inning is equally important. Giving up three runs in the 6th is just as devastating as giving up three runs in the 9th. Getting outs in the 6th inning is just as difficult as getting outs in the 9th inning.

While it is statistically untrue that all innings are equally important, it is true that it's counterproductive to not use your best weapon for the highest leverage situations under the rationale that you need him to get those situations.

Puma reports that Mendoza says the Diaz role is fluid

Edgy MD wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 12:50 pm While it is statistically untrue that all innings are equally important ....

Well, yes. Obviously. If possible, I wouldn't waste Garrett, clearly the Mets best reliever this season based on statistics, with a 6th inning stint if the Mets are already trailing by seven runs by then. But if I did, still, getting outs in that 6th inning is just as hard as getting them in any other inning.

My man Garrett

Henry Henry.

Marshmallowmilkshake wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 9:52 am Is Diaz hiding an injury?

Diaz says he's fully healthy, with no physical issues. Of course deGrom used to talk like that too right before one of his many IL stints.