As we approach the ten-year anniversary

[roger_that]

...of the first/only no-hitter in Mets history, perhaps it's time, in light of recent practices, to reconsider whether leaving Johan Santana in to pitch a complete game wrecked his arm and his career.



https://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/04/johan-santana-comeback-new-york-mets-no-hitter-134-pitches-terry-collins-mlbhttps://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/04/johan-santana-comeback-new-york-mets-no-hitter-134-pitches-terry-collins-mlb



Have you changed your mind in the past ten years on this issue?



What sort of risk of blowing out his arm does any pitcher take any time he takes the mound?



What is your standard for taking a pitcher out of a no-hitter in progress? Has that changed?



Do you admire Santana as much as you once may have for telling Jerry Manuel "I'm a Man" (yes, I am, and I can't help but love you so) when he came out to the mound to remove Santana from a game?



Are you okay with never seeing another no-hitter for the remainder of your lifetime?

[Fman99]

The no hitter didn't ruin his career, Reed Johnson mashing his ankle on a play covering first did.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

One of the reasons I disliked the Santana hitter was how the spectre of the Mets history as having never had one was interpreted as a black eye for the Mets when it needn't have ever been, and really imo spoke to the paranoia and low self esteem that marked the Wilpon Era.



No hitters should be random and earned, not forced into existence to slay some imaginary dragon, willfully pretending that Beltrans hit was foul.



I'm not going to blame the arm trouble on that single event--pitchers get hurt allatime--just saying, Collins going for it that way introduced subtext to the event that in my opinion interfered with its purity. All to break some meaningless streak of bad luck that didn't make an iota of difference in the big picture and could be debated a decade later. For what?

[kcmets]

Have you changed your mind in the past ten years on this issue?

Never did and still don't think it ruined his career.



What sort of risk of blowing out his arm does any pitcher take any time he takes the mound?

Could happen on any pitch.



What is your standard for taking a pitcher out of a no-hitter in progress? Has that changed?

I have no standards. (that's unintentionally amusing so I'm leaving it)



Do you admire Santana as much as you once may have for telling Jerry Manuel "I'm a Man" (yes, I am, and I can't help but love you so) when he came out to the mound to remove Santana from a game?

Admiration for Santana hasn't changed. The "I'm a Man" slant doesn't

apply. I'd be a fan if I found out he became a woman.



Are you okay with never seeing another no-hitter for the remainder of your lifetime?

So long as it's not pitched against the Mets, especially in a 'big game.'

[Edgy MD]

I think Jerry had something of an insecurity with trying to establish authority over his players.



There's a constant push and pull with regard to players and management with regard to that, and it really is exacerbated in a strange profession where managers make a laughable fraction of the money paid to the employees they supervise. But I tended to root for the players over Jerry. I'm not sure why that is.



So Johan talking back to Jerry (I don't really remember the incident) leads me to not so much remember Johan more fondly as remember Jerry less fondly.



Terry was less insecure with the players than he was with the media. He was so transparently honest about his fears that he was damaging Santana by leaving him in. I respected that, but he didn't really have to shed so much blood there.

[smg58]

No-hitters (especially one-pitcher no hitters) are fantastic moments that transcend the context of the team's place in the standing or the health of the pitcher's arm. That game remains one of the team's most memorable moments, and it's doubtful at best that pulling him would have led to anything more memorable for the team.



The injury that sidelined his season had more to do with a collision than with anything else. As far as injuries in general are concerned, we still don't really know how many pitches is too many, or how fast is too fast, or if leaving the ace in because the short-term situation calls for it is asking for trouble long-term. Plenty of pitchers have thrown no-hitters while throwing more pitches than they otherwise would have been allowed to do, without anybody questioning the prudence of it ten years later.



I have much bigger issues with the Dodgers taking out Kershaw after seven perfect innings and a perfectly reasonable pitch count. I also would have kept Megill in, but his control was less than ideal and I might have considered taking him out before a hit if it was clear he was pitching on fumes with a long way still to go.



A pitcher who is happy to leave the game is a pitcher I don't want on my team. A manager who lets his pitchers make his decisions for him is a manager I don't want on my team.



I realize that the league is nerfing starting pitchers right now (with no noticeable benefit in return), but I'm guessing/hopeful that will change back eventually.

[nymr83]

=Fman99 post_id=91720 time=1652102066 user_id=86]
The no hitter didn't ruin his career, Reed Johnson mashing his ankle on a play covering first did.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=smg58 post_id=91730 time=1652108591 user_id=62]


I realize that the league is nerfing starting pitchers right now (with no noticeable benefit in return)....

[Gwreck]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: One of the reasons I disliked the Santana hitter was how the spectre of the Mets history as having never had one was interpreted as a black eye for the Mets when it needn't have ever been, and really imo spoke to the paranoia and low self esteem that marked the Wilpon Era. No hitters should be random and earned, not forced into existence to slay some imaginary dragon, willfully pretending that Beltrans hit was foul.

I disagree. The Santana no-hitter was a pure moment of joy in what was run of really bad years. I mean, take a look at the IGT that night. Was there as fun a game in 6 seasons between 2009 and 2014?

http://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/archives/17900/f14_t17982.shtmlhttp://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/archives/17900/f14_t17982.shtml



I guess we can worry about a missed call (and there unquestionably have been other missed calls in other no-hitters) but I have a really tough time accepting that it was “forced into existence.” Maybe that's easier to say now that there was a second one this year, but I don't buy that narrative. It was a tremendous achievement and a great moment for the franchise.



I'll admit my own part in being extremely fed up with the Mets and ownership and lots of various missteps that were made in this time period. But not everything has to be forced into a “LOLMets” or even a “it's just not quite right” narrative.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: One of the reasons I disliked the Santana hitter was how the spectre of the Mets history as having never had one was interpreted as a black eye for the Mets when it needn't have ever been, and really imo spoke to the paranoia and low self esteem that marked the Wilpon Era. No hitters should be random and earned, not forced into existence to slay some imaginary dragon, willfully pretending that Beltrans hit was foul. I disagree. The Santana no-hitter was a pure moment of joy in what was run of really bad years. I mean, take a look at the IGT that night. Was there as fun a game in 6 seasons between 2009 and 2014? http://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/archives/17900/f14_t17982.shtmlhttp://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/archives/17900/f14_t17982.shtml I guess we can worry about a missed call (and there unquestionably have been other missed calls in other no-hitters) but I have a really tough time accepting that it was “forced into existence.” Maybe that's easier to say now that there was a second one this year, but I don't buy that narrative. It was a tremendous achievement and a great moment for the franchise. I'll admit my own part in being extremely fed up with the Mets and ownership and lots of various missteps that were made in this time period. But not everything has to be forced into a “LOLMets” or even a “it's just not quite right” narrative.

I always took JCL's view on that no-no and I'm sure I even wrote about it here. First of all, the no no-hitter streak never bothered me. I never saw it as.a source of shame. Any knowledgeable baseball fan should understand that no- hitters are extremely lucky events and that in the 50 years of the Mets existence up until that day, their pitching heritage was about as good as any other baseball team's. In fact, wish that streak was still intact. Just like I hope no other team ever loses more than 120 games in a season.



Plus, Santana 's no- hitter, as far as I'm concerned, really isn't one. It's a fake. A fugazi. And if it is a no-hitter, it's extremely tainted.



That's my experience.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: One of the reasons I disliked the Santana hitter was how the spectre of the Mets history as having never had one was interpreted as a black eye for the Mets when it needn't have ever been, and really imo spoke to the paranoia and low self esteem that marked the Wilpon Era. No hitters should be random and earned, not forced into existence to slay some imaginary dragon, willfully pretending that Beltrans hit was foul. I disagree. The Santana no-hitter was a pure moment of joy in what was run of really bad years. I mean, take a look at the IGT that night. Was there as fun a game in 6 seasons between 2009 and 2014? http://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/archives/17900/f14_t17982.shtmlhttp://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/archives/17900/f14_t17982.shtml I guess we can worry about a missed call (and there unquestionably have been other missed calls in other no-hitters) but I have a really tough time accepting that it was “forced into existence.” Maybe that's easier to say now that there was a second one this year, but I don't buy that narrative. It was a tremendous achievement and a great moment for the franchise. I'll admit my own part in being extremely fed up with the Mets and ownership and lots of various missteps that were made in this time period. But not everything has to be forced into a “LOLMets” or even a “it's just not quite right” narrative.

I should be clear. I didn't dislike Santana's no hitter; I disliked it as no-hitters by my favorite team goes-- how brazenly the club went about it. I would argue that had Jimmy Qualls' hit been caught, for example, there wouldn't have been nearly as much pressure to have Santana throw 157 pitches that night. And I truly feel the Mets were wrongly embarrassed by having not had a non-hitter when they could just have easily used that peculiarity of their history to highlight how proud the club and its fans ought to be of its pitching history, had the Wilpons been the least bit creative or capable of properly understanding the team they owned.

[Edgy MD]

To be additionally clear, he threw 134 pitches.



Adam Wainwright on the losing end.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

PS that is a great thread!



(thanx for the correction, I don't why 157 stuck in my mind, probably b/c he wore No. 57)

[batmagadanleadoff]

Someday, if Terry Collins outlives the Wilpons, it's gonna come out that stupid tyrant Jeff was calling into the dugout, ordering Terry to keep Santana in the game no matter what, so long as the no-hitter was still intact.

[G-Fafif]

I didn't start rooting for the Mets until the late summer of 1969, so I just missed the Jimmy Qualls Game in real time. I learned about it in from reading Tom's book The Perfect Game, written with/by Dick Schapp, in 1971 and 1972 (I read it repeatedly). I came home from the beach on the Fourth of July in 1972, turned on the radio and heard our announcers report with admiration laced with dismay that Tom Seaver had just, in the first game of today's doubleheader versus the Padres, replicated the near-miss feat he produced three years earlier, taking a no-hitter into the ninth with one out before Leron Lee foiled him. By then, it was cemented in me that it was odd that the Mets didn't have a no-hitter, and every hint of possibility that followed for the next 40 years had my personal antennae up, whether it was Randy Tate in 1975, Doc in 1984 (still say Knight should have been charged with an error), Rick Reed in 1998, Pedro twice in 2005 or forgotten, truncated quests like one night against the Phillies in 1982 when I happened to be at Shea as Craig Swan gave up no hits until there were two out in the sixth (done in by Pete Rose, as anti-Qualls as it gets, I suppose). I wanted it badly as a kid. I wanted it badly as an adult. I wanted it when Joan Payson owned the team. I wanted it after Nelson Doubleday owned the team. I wanted it always. I wanted it so much that I sat in a Broadway theater fiddling with a Walkman amidst the overture to Bombay Dreams, leasing out my heart to T#m Gl@v!ne in 2004 as he closed in on the impossible dream.



Eight years later, Johan Santana got it and I was fulfilled. I still am. I believed it was Santana's to win, Santana's to finish, Santana's for keeps -- and it was Terry Collins's role to sit back and say afterward, "What a performance, onto tomorrow's game." Santana has never evinced an iota of regret. Unless he does, I won't.

[MFS62]

=G-Fafif post_id=91758 time=1652127374 user_id=55]
leasing out my heart to T#m Gl@v!ne

[roger_that]

Santana has never evinced an iota of regret. Unless he does, I won't.

Do you really expect him to say, "Ya know, thinkin' it over, I wrecked my arm and aborted my career, and lost my shot at the Hall of Fame, all for the sake of a stupid, ego-driven error that doesn't add up to a hill of beans. I was a world-class jerk, throwing more pitches than my poor arm could take, and I'm ashamed of my machismo self"?



Even if that's how he really feels?

[Bob Alpacadaca]

I don't know if there was shame attached to not having a no-hitter, just the oddity that a team that for decades had so much great pitching had not been able to claim on -- especially with all the close calls.All those amazing pitchers.



I think the Santana game was a wonderful thing for the Mets and the fans. I don't see how it was tainted. Every game has close calls and wrong calls made by humans, be it foul balls, calls on the bases, calls on strikes and balls. Part of the game.

[roger_that]

=kcmets post_id=91724 time=1652105712 user_id=53]


What sort of risk of blowing out his arm does any pitcher take any time he takes the mound?

Could happen on any pitch.

[G-Fafif]

Do you really expect him to say, "Ya know, thinkin' it over, I wrecked my arm and aborted my career, and lost my shot at the Hall of Fame, all for the sake of a stupid, ego-driven error that doesn't add up to a hill of beans. I was a world-class jerk, throwing more pitches than my poor arm could take, and I'm ashamed of my machismo self"? Even if that's how he really feels?

I don't expect that's something Johan Santana or any actual person would say.

[Frayed Knot]

I'm closer to the JCL/Mags version of things on this one.



Sure, I wanted a NYM no-no. I watched the Qualls game as a 10 y/o. And then later remember being particularly riveted by several Rick Reed close calls.

But it never bothered me that we never had one the way it clearly did some Met fans and, I strongly suspect, Wilpon-era NYM culture where middling-type milestones

often seemed "over-celebrated" (Franco's round number save, Lenny Harris's PH record, Piazza's most HRs for a C) as if in a forced attempt to enrichen NYM lore with those accomplishments.

In fact, in some ways I got a kick out of the luck-driven oddity of great pitching history without a gem attached. I never felt it diminished anything.



No, I don't blame Santana's injury on the game itself. He had several bad games immediately following the no-no but then some quite good ones right after that

including 3 straight starts where he allowed a total of 2 Runs on 12 hits over 20 innings so if there was an effect it was a somewhat delayed and selective one.

It all reminds me somewhat of how the anti-World Baseball Classic segment of baseball would blame ANY injury suffered by ANY WBC participant at ANY time

over the course of the ensuing season as direct cause-and-effect proof to be laid at the fee of on the very existence of that Springtime mini-tournament, because

that fit their pre-determined conclusion. But just because A preceded B doesn't mean A caused B. Could it have? Sure. So could a million other factors.

[kcmets]

=roger_that post_id=91763 time=1652136750 user_id=128]
=kcmets post_id=91724 time=1652105712 user_id=53]


What sort of risk of blowing out his arm does any pitcher take any time he takes the mound?

Could happen on any pitch.

[Edgy MD]

Well, if we work from the position that the chances of getting hurt is simply equal for every pitch, logic would suggest that getting hurt sometime during a 137-pitch start is something like 37% more likely than getting hurt sometime during a 100-pitch start.



The logic and the science certainly go much deeper than that, but it's a starting point.

[kcmets]

It's kinda circuitous bullshit, not surprised I'm the only one it's aimed at.



It's intentional, until proven or disputed otherwise,

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: . But it never bothered me that we never had one the way it clearly did some Met fans and, I strongly suspect, Wilpon-era NYM culture where middling-type milestones often seemed "over-celebrated" (Franco's round number save, Lenny Harris's PH record, Piazza's most HRs for a C) as if in a forced attempt to enrichen NYM lore with those accomplishments.

I wasn't around for Qualls, but my recollection is the “no no-hitters” issue first became prevalent towards the end of Nolan Ryan's career, when he threw his sixth and seventh no-hitters (1990-91) — well before any of the “Wilpon-era culture” stuff you mention.



I also recall the issue being magnified when Doc and Cone threw no-hitters for that other team. I generally try not to care too much what happens over there in the Bronx, but those two (particularly Doc's) were not the happy memories they could have been.

[Edgy MD]

=kcmets post_id=91772 time=1652148034 user_id=53]
It's kinda circuitous bullshit, not surprised I'm the only one it's aimed at.



It's intentional, until proven or disputed otherwise,

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: never lift a pitcher who is getting the job done.

This is one of several principles that have come into dispute over the past few decades, and which are unproven so far.



Pitch counts--do they make sense? Do they prevent injury? Are they set in the right place? In even approximately the right place? Is there a range in which maximum pitch counts make equal sense? (That is, does it make a tiny difference if you pull your starter at 110 pitches or 115?) If high pitch counts are ruinous, then does it make sense to extend them in the post-season? That is, doesn't it risk ruining a pitcher's arm whether he's going to get four days' rest or 140 days' rest? Have we studied how much pitch-counts within an inning matter, as opposed to within a game? Are all pitchers equally susceptible to arm injuries?



There's a lot of exploitable questions in this area. The first team to arrive at answers will gain a huge advantage over its opponents. We're nowhere close to knowing these things now, but they're all knowable.

[kcmets]

Edgy MD wrote: =kcmets post_id=91772 time=1652148034 user_id=53] It's kinda circuitous bullshit, not surprised I'm the only one it's aimed at. It's intentional, until proven or disputed otherwise,

I'm not sure what this means, or if I ruffled anything. If so, it was assuredly unintentional.

[Frayed Knot]

Frayed Knot wrote: . But it never bothered me that we never had one the way it clearly did some Met fans and, I strongly suspect, Wilpon-era NYM culture where middling-type milestones often seemed "over-celebrated" (Franco's round number save, Lenny Harris's PH record, Piazza's most HRs for a C) as if in a forced attempt to enrichen NYM lore with those accomplishments. I wasn't around for Qualls, but my recollection is the “no no-hitters” issue first became prevalent towards the end of Nolan Ryan's career, when he threw his sixth and seventh no-hitters (1990-91) — well before any of the “Wilpon-era culture” stuff you mention. I also recall the issue being magnified when Doc and Cone threw no-hitters for that other team. I generally try not to care too much what happens over there in the Bronx, but those two (particularly Doc's) were not the happy memories they could have been.

I'm saying I suspect a convergence of two fronts on this matter.

There were definitely fans who angst-ed and/or felt diminished over the no no-no 'taint' -- and, yes, that was exacerbated by ex-NYMs throwing them elsewhere, particularly in the Bronx.

I also felt that there was a top-down mentality pushing for more NYM milestones to commemorate even ones which were minor and were partially, or even largely, accomplished elsewhere.

A no-hitter isn't a minor thing but it's not like the absence of one should be seen as a failure either. And while I obviously don't Know that there was pressure, or even direct instructions,

from 'upstairs' to keep Santana in the game so that the franchise could finally check that box, it wouldn't surprise me if there were.

[roger_that]

Diagnosis: institutional insecurity and impatience.



I mean, no one could state that the Mets hadn't had perhaps the greatest run of pitching in any organization's history, year for year, so why did we even care we hadn't had a no-hitter so far? And "so far" wasn't very far--since there was no rational explanation, we got impatient and started attributing our bad luck to irrational causes.