IGT Padres at Mets Sun June 13

[Lefty Specialist]

Barnes has perfected the confused look after giving up a long bomb.

[Gwreck]

Jacob Barnes is not the correct call in a game-critical situation. Full stop.

[bmfc1]

Time for Dom to hit the pine. He's now 0 for his last 20 and his glove isn't the reason he's in the lineup.

[Edgy MD]

Cronenworth forgot who was running.

[Lefty Specialist]

=bmfc1 post_id=67799 time=1623615180 user_id=73]
Time for Dom to hit the pine. He's now 0 for his last 20 and his glove isn't the reason he's in the lineup.

[bmfc1]

In an alternate universe, Luis uses Loup against Profar (yeah, it would have been three days in a row but only one batter if he got him out), Profar makes an out, Gsellman and May finish it off and the Mets sweep... but that would have required a better manager.

[Edgy MD]

Edgy MD wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Peraza is a nice little player. Would have let Lucchesi go another inning- 12 outs is a lot to get. Or at least another hitter or two. And with the short bench, they may end up without an available pinch-hitter in a bigger spot than the one they just burned Drury in.

And so, Gselly became our last hope.

[Lefty Specialist]

An annoying game. I'm OK with 2 out of 3, but this was a winnable game with better strategic thinking.



Rojas/Hefner are slavish to the 'don't let him go third time through the order' thinking. If a pitcher's having a good day, roll with him until he weakens. The converse was true with Familia. He got out of his first inning just by the hair on his chinny-chin chin. Throwing him out there for a second inning (and sticking with him when he put the first two on) produced predictable results.



Barnes is nothing special, except for his tendency to give up soul-crushing home runs. I don't even know why he's in this bullpen. They've got 14 pitchers; they had other options.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, it feels whiny to be complaining that one guy should have gone further and another guy should have gone less, but that's what happened.



And in fact, allowing the first guy to continue could have helped bail out the second guy on the other end.

[Lefty Specialist]

And this is kind of a pattern, it's not just today. They don't go long enough with starters and too long with relievers, the first problem contributing to the second.



How many times this year have we seen them pull someone who seemed to be dealing, an inning early, forcing an extra 3 outs on the bullpen? You can only get away with that for so long.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Lefty Specialist wrote: An annoying game. I'm OK with 2 out of 3, but this was a winnable game with better strategic thinking.

I thought all of the Padres games were winnable. Even the ones in SD. The Mets are getting strong starting pitching and when you have that, you're in every game.

[kcmets]

Lefty Specialist wrote: And this is kind of a pattern, it's not just today. They don't go long enough with starters and too long with relievers, the first problem contributing to the second. How many times this year have we seen them pull someone who seemed to be dealing, an inning early, forcing an extra 3 outs on the bullpen? You can only get away with that for so long.

'They' and 'them' probably more key than some want to acknowledge after a disappointing

loss and calling for the managers head. There's no way Luis, and probably most managers

these days, have full autonomy on what to do. Progress, only when it works though...

[Frayed Knot]

This entire game was a series of missed opportunities by both offenses -- getting leadoff hitters on then not cashing them in and often not even moving them over -- until the Pads finally

redeemed their coupons all at once. Somebody had to get a big hit eventually, it's just that that inning never should have gotten to Tatis. Different pitching decisions could have been

made but you also shouldn't need a lefty to get out Profar, particularly not after having him down 1-2 and particularly not with the three batter rule which would have left Loup in to face

Pham & Tatis if HE allowed Profar to reach. But also, pitching issues aside, Pete, Dom & Nido led the suck parade from the other side of the ball so it was more than just that one half-inning.



Could we have won that game? Sure, if we had managed more than one meaningful hit in the entire game while the Pads kept up their 1-1 ratio of GiDPs & Innings, but those are tough

odds to rely on.

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: Somebody had to get a big hit eventually

I don't believe that. There are plenty of 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 games that the Mets have and will play in this season.

Could we have won that game? Sure, if we had managed more than one meaningful hit in the entire game while the Pads kept up their 1-1 ratio of GiDPs & Innings, but those are tough odds to rely on.

It's convenient to point to the offensive inadequacies of the team, the 3 starters out with injuries, and so forth. Obviously that remains a huge unsolved problem. But this was still a winnable game with 2 runs. It was not a fait accompli the Padres would get a big hit.

[Frayed Knot]

Of course it's not a guarantee that they were to get a big hit, but we had already dodged a bunch of bullets all game with four GiDPs and a couple at'em balls so the odds run against you when you hit so many of those and the 7th inning merely wound up being the one we didn't dodge.



EVERY game is winnable if you get key outs EVERY time they're needed, but get into enough of those and the odds start to shrink towards zero of actually doing so.

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: Of course it's not a guarantee that they were to get a big hit, but we had already dodged a bunch of bullets all game with four GiDPs and a couple at'em balls so the odds run against you when you hit so many of those

I am not a professional mathematician but that's not how I understand odds work. Especially given changing variables (the fortuitous Lucchesi-induced GIDPs are not reflective of the odds of Familia getting a fortuitous GIDP).



I do agree that Familia's second inning (and his first) were indicative of problems.

[Edgy MD]

Of course, if José Peraza is still a Met, then the Mets got a big hit.



If only one.

[Frayed Knot]

Frayed Knot wrote: Of course it's not a guarantee that they were to get a big hit, but we had already dodged a bunch of bullets all game with four GiDPs and a couple at'em balls so the odds run against you when you hit so many of those I am not a professional mathematician but that's not how I understand odds work. Especially given changing variables (the fortuitous Lucchesi-induced GIDPs are not reflective of the odds of Familia getting a fortuitous GIDP).

Not that the early escapes made the 7th inning more likely to not escape, but that getting into jams in multiple innings makes it more likely one or more is going to come crashing down on you. This one just

happened to do so in spades.

Would I have brought in Loup for Profar? Absolutely not, for reasons stated above.

Should Familia have been pulled earlier? I would have yanked him after the Profar walk but that brings into question who's next.

If not Barnes then maybe Smith first but I don't know that that's demonstrably a better choice.

Gone longer with Lucchesi? Yeah maybe, but him falling apart in the sixth would bring out a slew of 'How did he not see that coming?' critiques.

I suspect they had Drury ready to PH anticipating one or two on and one out in a scoreless game when Peraza surprised with a 1st-pitch HR. Could have pivoted there but they didn't.

[Lefty Specialist]

Lucchesi obviously has a short leash. But you have to at least let him open the 6th. If he falters, a quick hook. And you bring in Smith as Familia has determined over a long period of time that he cannot come in with runners on base.



The second inning for Familia made no sense. He'd already thrown 17 pitches and barely escaped the previous inning. You bring in Smith or Gsellman or Trevor May in that spot. Hell, even Barnes if he starts with a clean slate. There were options.

[Benjamin Grimm]

http://potg.leaptoad.com/mets/images/schaefer7.jpg>



http://potg.leaptoad.com/mets/index.phpCast your vote!

[Edgy MD]

The problem with the "third time through the lineup" thinking is that it distorts the situation. You don't decide whether to continue with your pitcher nine batters at a time.



Especially after the fifth, you ask your pitcher to get one more batter. Just one. If he does, you reassess and maybe ask him to get another. If he doesn't, you reassess, and maybe pull him.



Unfortunately this also dovetails with "dry hump" thinking — the almost completely illogical notion that if you warm up a pitcher, you're obliged to put him in the game.

[smg58]

If the starter is pitching well and your pen is thin, asking the starter for six should be a no-brainer. This is real baseball, not Strat-O-Matic.



The game came down to a chess match between Familia/Nido and Profar. Profar made it clear on the pitch that made the count 2-2 that he wasn't going to keep biting on the slider, but Familia kept throwing it. They lost the mental game badly there.



I didn't understand why Barnes was kept up when Reid-Foley was sent down, and I still don't. I get that you give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who doesn't have options, but who had doubts?

Edited June 14, 2021 by Guest

[Benjamin Grimm]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: http://potg.leaptoad.com/mets/images/schaefer7.jpg> http://potg.leaptoad.com/mets/index.phpCast your vote!

Bumping to the new page.