Starters qualifying for the E.R.A. title

[roger_that]

It's recently come to my attention that the Mets' starters qualifying for the league E.R.A. title (basically an inning pitched per team game) can be tracked simply by seeing if each of them is currently qualified, making my noting (in the "On Track" thread) who is and who isn't on track redundant. My point, however, is a bit more subtle than that simplistic misreading—it's to illustrate how unlikely any Mets' starter is to qualify, as they've all been healthy so far, haven't missed a single start (after tonight's game, all five starters will have gotten exactly 8 starts, with a few going to bullpenners) yet they're all barely qualified (and Megill just dipped below qualifying, 40.2 IP in the first 42 games, and Canning qualifies by the skin of his teeth with exactly 42 IP in 42 games.) It's unlikely they're going to increase their IP/G ratio markedly, and there are two good reasons they'll fall further off the pace: 1) the Mets may go to a 6-man rotation, at least for a while, when Manaea (Blackburn, Montas) is back, and 2) any injury at all, even a skipped start, will pull a starter back, probably permanently.



Another consideration is the season-ending injuries to lefthanders in the bullpen may derail Peterson (currently the team leader with 44.2 IP) if he's sent to the bullpen when we get some extra starters. I think his future is as a starter, but the need for an effective left-hander in long relief, a role Peterson has filled in the past, may be too tempting for Mendoza. At this point, though all five starters have very recently pitched more than an inning per scheduled game, I would doubt that any of them finishes the year with 162 IP.

[roger_that]

Peterson currently ranks 30th in the NL as far as IP goes, so no Met is going to be among the league leaders, though they're all healthy and pitching very well. Zack Wheeler leads the league with 58 IP. I wonder if eventually there will be few enough pitchers who qualify that the rule about 162 IP will need to be changed to reflect current practices. Or maybe it will be just 5 or 8 qualifying pitchers who will compete for the E.R.A. title.

[batmagadanleadoff]

It's recently come to my attention that the Mets' starters qualifying for the league E.R.A. title (basically an inning pitched per team game) can be tracked simply by seeing if each of them is currently qualified, making my noting (in the "On Track" thread) who is and who isn't on track redundant.

Yeah. Because I told you that. Read below.

Next, Holmes and Megill are on track (with 42 and 2/3rds and 40 and 2/3rds IP) to qualify for the ERA title. Canning will join them if he pitches over 5 innings today, giving him 41 IP in 41 games. Senga and Peterson will also qualify over the next few games by pitching 4 or 5 innings. I don't know the last time the Mets had five qualifying starters. There's no need to calculate anything whatsoever to determine which pitchers are on track to "qualify". Here's how it works: any pitcher that's qualified today is on track to "qualify" at season's end. Any pitcher who isn't "qualified " today is not on track to "qualify" at season's end. No math needed. I hope this was helpful..

https://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34356&p=192259#p192259https://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34356&p=192259#p192259



________________

It's recently come to my attention that the Mets' starters qualifying for the league E.R.A. title (basically an inning pitched per team game) can be tracked simply by seeing if each of them is currently qualified, making my noting (in the "On Track" thread) who is and who isn't on track redundant. My point, however, is a bit more subtle than that simplistic misreading—it's to illustrate how unlikely any Mets' starter is to qualify, as they've all been healthy so far, haven't missed a single start (after tonight's game, all five starters will have gotten exactly 8 starts, with a few going to bullpenners) yet they're all barely qualified (and Megill just dipped below qualifying, 40.2 IP in the first 42 games, and Canning qualifies by the skin of his teeth with exactly 42 IP in 42 games.) It's unlikely they're going to increase their IP/G ratio markedly, and there are two good reasons they'll fall further off the pace: 1) the Mets may go to a 6-man rotation, at least for a while, when Manaea (Blackburn, Montas) is back, and 2) any injury at all, even a skipped start, will pull a starter back, probably permanently.

I told you that, too. But without the long-windedness over incredibly obvious things. The Mets haven't had five qualified starters in the same season in almost 40 years. And it was extremely rare even back then. It's a different ballgame today.

Next, Holmes and Megill are on track (with 42 and 2/3rds and 40 and 2/3rds IP) to qualify for the ERA title. Canning will join them if he pitches over 5 innings today, giving him 41 IP in 41 games. Senga and Peterson will also qualify over the next few games by pitching 4 or 5 innings. I don't know the last time the Mets had five qualifying starters. Given the reduced innings pitched loads of today's starting pitchers, its a virtual guarantee that the Mets won't have five qualified pitchers at season's end. But do continue to Chiefs and Prospects us.

https://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34356&p=192259#p192259https://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34356&p=192259#p192259

At this point, though all five starters have very recently pitched more than an inning per scheduled game, I would doubt that any of them finishes the year with 162 IP.

Yeah. Because Chiefs and Prospects. But you really went out on a limb there. And that guy that got two hits on Opening Day won't finish the season with 324 hits, either. Wanna know how I got 324 hits? I multiplied two (hits) by 162 (games played in a season). Two times 162 = 324.





Oh my god. A whole brand new thread for this.

[Fman99]

Why are you such a cranky dickhead all of the time? Do you have a rashy bottom? I don't get it.

[Cowtipper]

=Fman99 post_id=192634 time=1747222249 user_id=86]
Why are you such a cranky dickhead all of the time? Do you have a rashy bottom? I don't get it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Why are you such a cranky dickhead all of the time? Do you have a rashy bottom? I don't get it. You gotta admit he does use a lot of words to say very basic things.

More like a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. He sets up a straw man argument that everyone here is misguided and wrongly convinced that the Mets will have five qualified pitchers at season's end --- so that he can then swoop in like the Einstein of baseball to explain to everyone how unlikely that is. It's a feat so rare that the Mets have only done it twice in franchise history and not in almost 40 years. And I can assure you that nobody here gave two shits about this in the first place. Nobody here was thinking that five Mets pitchers would qualify at season's end. Because it won't happen.



Then he deigns to share with us -- more like lord it over us -- his absurd insights into why Brandon Nimmo was in the starting lineup on that particular day even though Nimmo's in the lineup practically every single day, barring health issues. Nimmo's an everyday player, as much of an everyday player as Alonso and Soto and Lindor -- and not one molecule less.



Now he's laying down a marker, gloating and taking credit for "calling" Baty's I don't know what. He has no idea what Baty's future is but writes idiotic posts about there being no downside whatsoever to giving hundreds and hundreds of at-bats to a player who's been utter horseshit for four seasons now -- the entirety of Baty's career. Then he calls everybody else a Baty hater when the obvious truth of the matter is that everybody here wants very much for Baty to succeed. And that's just in one 24 hour period. He does this every day.

[Fman99]

I guess I never noticed. I read all these comments in passing, really, without giving them so much thought. It's fun to read about the Mets.