Dr. Hook and the Traveling Medicine Show

[Edgy MD]

What do you think of the early hooks Mickey is throwing at his pitchers? Four, five, maybe six innings even when dominating. Letting his best starters max out at little more than 100 pitches, and yanking the lesser ones before they even hit 80, going to the bench for a pinch-hitter in the middle innings, using the pen liberally every night.

It's mostly working, but clearly there are a lot of metaphorical balls in the air, egos that may need stroking, and performances that are going to be hard to sustain. The same bullpen that bailed out Matz last night utterly sank deGrom earlier in the series. And the runaway breaking balls of A.J. Ramos are going to take some getting used to.

I'm all for relief pitchers going multiple innings. But when three-inning relief jobbies are part of the design, rather than a situational adjustment strategy, it seems a tough show to keep running.

[Vic Sage]

i agree.

I am hopeful, however, that the quick hook may be more about the weather conditions in the early part of the season, and that he'll let the starters go longer as things warm up. He may even go to a 6-man rotation when Vargas returns, and the extra rest would allow the starters to go deeper into a game, too. Also, i think he'll be shuttling relievers between Vegas and Queens throughout the season, so he'll always have fresh arms out there.

This might all be wishful thinking; it's too soon to tell. But i'm not worried yet about sustainability.

[bmfc1]

I'm waiting to hear what Sylvia's Mother says.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I have the same concerns. This was apparently the plan going in, to rely move heavily on the bullpen. Mickey plans to be smart enough to find a way to do this without straining the bullpen. I'm skeptical. Monday's meltdown doesn't mean his plan won't work. Even the best plans sometimes lead to losses. It's really a question of how often that happens. So we'll see. I remain concerned and skeptical.

[seawolf17]

Vic Sage wrote: i agree. I am hopeful, however, that the quick hook may be more about the weather conditions in the early part of the season, and that he'll let the starters go longer as things warm up. He may even go to a 6-man rotation when Vargas returns, and the extra rest would allow the starters to go deeper into a game, too. Also, i think he'll be shuttling relievers between Vegas and Queens throughout the season, so he'll always have fresh arms out there. This might all be wishful thinking; it's too soon to tell. But i'm not worried yet about sustainability.

This is my mindset too. I'm okay with it because (a) it's early and ( we're fuckin' 13-4. I'm not ready to make a scene where there isn't one.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm glad the Steven Matz Brand ® doesn't fuck up our chances of winning just because its the Steven Matz Brand. That seems a change from the Terry Regime. Whether it's sustainable we'll see. But be honest: You probably like Sewald better than Matz some days yourself.

I think Mickey's getting a lot right so far. I think he'd probably tell you the problem on Monday was not hooking deGrom before the 8th started: It just seemed like the The Plan went all kablooey when he had to make a change midinning and everyone came in with another guy's mess on the bases.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, it wouldn't be fair to Mickey to make too much of the meltdown in the deGrom game, when that game saw the starter take a more typical workload and (more typically) get yanked only when he got himself in trouble late.

To the extent that game is relevant, it's relevant because of the heavy lifting the bullpen had already done in previous games may (may) have left them less equipped to finish deGrom's show.

The main problem with yesterday's yank wasn't that it would offend the Matz brand and the entitlement that may entail, but rather that Matz was cruising at that point and the turnaround may have been a cahnfidence builder. But there was a sweep on the line and if Mickey felt that was the time to go for it, I might argue, but good on him. It's not a game you want to sacrifice to building Matz's confidence.

[Ceetar]

I definitely like the idea of a corral of 9 pitchers to use to get 27 outs over the idea of defined roles or the more typical turn-based style of bullpening.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I definitely like that Mickey wants to get away from defined roles. I've always disliked those defined roles. That an "eighth-inning guy" somehow can't be asked to pitch in the seventh inning.

[Edgy MD]

What might be the next generation is to use what used to be the long reliever — two-three inning guy — first, starting him and then transitioning into the guys who used to be the starters:

[*:1ai9ndza]allowing your star workhorses to appear deeper in the more crucial parts of the game,[/*:m:1ai9ndza]
[*:1ai9ndza]allowing you to screw up the opposition's platoon lineups early in the game, and[/*:m:1ai9ndza]
[*:1ai9ndza]allowing you to use your best pitchers only if the secondary pitchers (the two-three-inning guys) haven't dug a hole first.[/*:m:1ai9ndza][/list:o:1ai9ndza]

[seawolf17]

1. allowing your star workhorses to appear deeper in the more crucial parts of the game,
2. allowing you to screw up the opposition's platoon lineups early in the game, and
3. allowing you to use your best pitchers only if the secondary pitchers (the two-three-inning guys) haven't dug a hole first.

Edgy MD wrote: What might be the next generation is to use what used to be the long reliever — two-three inning guy — first, starting him and then transitioning into the guys who used to be the starters:

The problem with that is that you literally need a 14-man staff for that, because you have to plan on two "starters" every game, more or less. And it requires you to come up with (theoretically) ten guys who can get major league hitters out, which not many teams seem to be able to do.

[Edgy MD]

Well, they're close to 14, but I don't think you do need 10 guys to use two guys every game.

The two-inning guys would be on a three-man rotation. The five-six-inning guys would be on a four-to-five man rotation.

Basically what it is now, but the guys pitching the sixth and the seventh (Gsellman, Lugo, Sewald) would be pitching the first and the second.

[seawolf17]

Edgy MD wrote: Well, they're close to 14, but I don't think you do need 10 guys to use two guys every game. The two-inning guys would be on a three-man rotation. The five-six-inning guys would be on a four-to-five man rotation. Basically what it is now, but the guys pitching the sixth and the seventh (Gsellman, Lugo, Sewald) would be pitching the first and the second.

It's an idea that's not completely bananas. It could work if you've got the right arms. If you're giving those three guys 60 starts, that's 120-180 innings a year. It falls apart if your second starter each game is ineffective, but that happens in the regular setup too.

[Frayed Knot]

For the most part the starters haven't deserved to go much longer than they have.
Either they've been bad (Harv & Matz mostly), or inefficient by throwing decent outings but needing 95 pitches just to get thru 5 (Syndergaard for example), or sometimes both. And there have been close
games where PH's are needed. And it's been cold and it's early, yadda yadda.
I'd like to see them go a bit further, but first they need to show they can.

On Monday, Mickey didn't pull deGrom until deGrom started to get into trouble in the 8th and even then the biggest problem was having 5 consecutive relievers (or was it 6?) all fail in their roles, and not in
pre-designated roles but the roles they were assigned that night. And there was some shit luck involved as well.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, I can't really think of too many examples where I felt Mickey pulled the starter extremely early.

I can see Paul Sewald becoming a Pat Mahomes/Tom Gorman type, a "long reliever" which isn't something we've seen as much of in recent years. Gsellman or Lugo could do that too, but at the moment, Sewald seems to be the most likely.

[G-Fafif]

Well, we're big Met hurlers
We've been All-Star twirlers
And everybody knows we're tops
We throw ninety-eight miles per hour
And nobody calls the cops

We have powerful arms with their powerful charms
But we're not immune to the hook
If Mickey doesn't trust us, then you know they'll expunge us
From the cover of the Mets yearbook

Mets yearbook...
Wanna see our pictures at concessions
(book) Wanna brag between bullpen sessions
(book) Wanna see our eee-normous hype
On the cover of the Mets yearbook

We got some European supermodel girlfriends
Who land our names in Page Six
We get cameos in HBO dramas
And sit courtside for the Knicks

Now we all intend to help contend
But what'd give us a winning look
Is to throw another inning as the year's beginning
Earn the cover of the Mets yearbook

Mets yearbook...
Wanna be a part of franchise lore an'
(book) Wanna get some votes on Crane Pool Forum
(book) Wanna take at least one round
For the cover of our Mets yearbook

We got a verified Twitter-blue check mark
So you can trust us when we tweet
Dave Eiland and that brand new trainer
Monitor the meals we eat
We've all got game and we've all got fame
And we never have to much atone
Yet we'll be sad starters if we can't go farther
Than the inside of the Mets yearbook

[Chad ochoseis]

^^^ Brilliant!

I was curious, so I looked at the percentage of innings pitched by relievers in the AL Central last year. I figured that with Mickey the Hook as pitching coach, the Indians would be at the top, and it turns out I was wrong:

KCR 41.3%
MIN 40.3%
CWS 38.6%
DET 37.3%
CLE 32.8%

The numbers are going to be a little off. They came from BBRef, which doesn't give innings pitched in relief. So I assumed that pitchers who started more often than they relieved were starters, and I assumed every inning pitched by a starter was pitched as a starter (i.e. if Corey Kluber pitched an inning in relief, it would still go in the starting bucket). Also, BBRef uses the annoying convention that, for example, 6 2/3 innings is 6.2 and not 6.67. I didn't convert to actual decimals, so my totals were slightly off. But neither of these assumptions should matter very much.

There are factors that would have worked to decrease the Indians' use of the bullpen last year. They were really good, and being really good is probably highly correlated with not having to go to the bullpen as frequently as an average team. And Mickey didn't have the final say last year on what to do with his staff; Terry Francona did.

But, still, this indicates that Mickey isn't going to be especially bullpen-happy in the long run, and the quick hooks could just be an early season small sample size thing.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

G-Fafif wrote: Well, we're big Met hurlers We've been All-Star twirlers And everybody knows we're tops We throw ninety-eight miles per hour And nobody calls the cops We have powerful arms with their powerful charms But we're not immune to the hook If Mickey doesn't trust us, then you know they'll expunge us From the cover of the Mets yearbook Mets yearbook... Wanna see our pictures at concessions (book) Wanna brag between bullpen sessions (book) Wanna see our eee-normous hype On the cover of the Mets yearbook We got some European supermodel girlfriends Who land our names in Page Six We get cameos in HBO dramas And sit courtside for the Knicks Now we all intend to help contend But what'd give us a winning look Is to throw another inning as the year's beginning Earn the cover of the Mets yearbook Mets yearbook... Wanna be a part of franchise lore an' (book) Wanna get some votes on Crane Pool Forum (book) Wanna take at least one round For the cover of our Mets yearbook We got a verified Twitter-blue check mark So you can trust us when we tweet Dave Eiland and that brand new trainer Monitor the meals we eat We've all got game and we've all got fame And we never have to much atone Yet we'll be sad starters if we can't go farther Than the inside of the Mets yearbook

Quality

[MFS62]

Not bad, kid.
Not bad at all.

Later

[seawolf17]

Damn, Greg. That's fantastic work!

[G-Fafif]

seawolf17 wrote: Damn, Greg. That's fantastic work!

Thanks. Yearbook fever has its benefits.

[Edgy MD]

Opinions on the one-inning hook that deGrom got? Should he have gotten the chance to see if he could turn his afternoon around?

[metirish]

I thought it was a debacle.....so , maybe he goes back out and has a quick inning, ends up going 4, of course maybe he doesn't....I thought Ron was correct in saying that this was a wasted start, send him back out

[nymr83]

Edgy MD wrote: Opinions on the one-inning hook that deGrom got? Should he have gotten the chance to see if he could turn his afternoon around?

If you are going to skip a start when he is medically cleared to pitch "just in case" then you might as well pull him after a 45 pitch inning that followed a lengthy rain delay, just in case.

Its consistent with the philosophy of being overly cautious with pitcher health. If that is ypur philosophy, stick to it.

I'm fine with the hook on that basis and standing alone it actually seems like a better decision than the missed start.