The Quick Hook

[Gwreck]

Let’s take a look at the last 5 starts for both Kodai Senga and Sean Manaea, and consider if the hook is coming too soon for who are supposed to be 1-2 in the Mets rotation:

Manaea

July 23 vs LAA

Pulled after 5 complete innings. Mets up 6-1, 82 pitches. 2-3-4 coming up for the Angels in the next innning.

Verdict: A little hasty, but this was Manaea’s third appearance of the season, so maybe defensible if he’s still stretching out.

Game outcome: Mets won 6-3. Butto let up a couple of runs in his second inning of relief.

July 29 vs SD

Pulled after 5 complete innings, tie game (1-1), top of the Padres order coming up, 86 pitches.

Verdict: too hasty.

Game outcome: Butto relieved Manaea and let up one run in the 6th, and Mendoza then sent him out for a second inning which went very poorly. Mets lose 7-1

Aug 4 vs CLE

Pulled in the middle of the 6th with 2 outs. Pitched 5 scoreless innings (allowing only 3 baserunners) but then let up 5 runs (including a bases-clearing homer) in the 6th with one out. Strikes out the next batter for second out, then allows a single and is pulled having thrown 29 pitches that inning (85 total for the game).

Verdict: maybe he could’ve gone one more batter, but this isn’t really an awful decision.

Game outcome: Mets would tie it up but lose in the 10th in large part due to clown car rules.

August 10 vs MIL

Pulled after first batter reaches in 5th. Mets up 6-3 at time. 87 pitches.

Verdict: too quick to pull him

Game outcome: Garrett came in and allowed a 2-run homer to the first batter he faced. Mets never scored again. Helsley and Diaz each allowed a run in the 8th and 9th to lose 7-6

Aug 15 vs SEA

Pulled after 5 complete, Mets up 6-4, 86 pitches. Had allowed 3 runs on homers in the second and third, but had scoreless innings in the 4th and 5th. 6-7-8 coming up for Seattle.

Verdict: too quick, with only 86 pitches

Game outcome: bullpen lets up 7 runs. Mets get a few back but lose 11-9

Senga

Jul 21 vs LAA

Pulled after competing 3 inning, Mets down 4-0, 73 pitches. Threw 37 pitches in the third inning, giving up 3 runs.

Verdict: defensible to pull him there after a very taxing inning and the game within reach if the bullpen could stop the bleeding.

Game outcome: Mets won, 7-5. Kevin Herget with a nice outing to back up Senga’s early exit.

Jul 27 at SF

Pulled after completing 5 innings, Giants up 3-2, 92 pitches, bottom of order coming up in the 6th. Giants were throwing a bullpen game.

Verdict: a little hasty. Senga’s had 4 outings of 100+ pitches so far this year.

Game outcome: Mets won 5-3, using 5 relievers to get 4 scoreless innings.

Aug 2 vs SF

pulled after completing 4 innings, Mets up 5-4. 71 pitches.

Verdict: way too quick for the guy who’s supposed to be the ace of the staff

Game outcome: Mets won 12-6, teeing off on the Giants’ bullpen.

Aug 8 at MIL

Pulled with one out in the 5th, tie game (2-2, one run allowed by Senga was unearned), bases loaded (in part due to an error). Was at 79 pitches.

Verdict: too quick of a hook, especially after a short outing the last time!

Game outcome: Raley hit the next gut with a pitch to force in the run, and nobody scored again. Mets lose 3-2.

Aug 14 vs ATL

Pulled with 2 outs in the 6th, tie game (1-1), runners on first and third, 93 pitches. Had thrown 19 pitches in the inning.

Verdict: probably too quick for a hook, but closer call. Could have allowed Senga to face Albies.

Game outcome: Albies singled off Rogers for a one run lead. Mets would take lead a one run lead back but Helsley had a bad 8th. Mets lose 4-3.

[Edgy MD]

Good analysis. Agreed on most accounts.

[MFS62]

A lot of work put into that analysis.

Good job.

Later

[Edgy MD]

I would like to add, there is nothing special about 100. We have come to see anything over 100 as living on borrowed time, but it ain't.

At least, it ain't necessarily.

[Gwreck]

That’s fair, but also something that’s less easily correctable in-season.

[metirish]

Excellent analysis, this probably doesn't change anytime soon ? This mindset likely gets taught in the minor league system?

[MFS62]

Excellent analysis, this probably doesn't change anytime soon ? This mindset likely gets taught in the minor league system?

 

Believe it or not, it seems they're giving the minor leaguers a little more rope. IIRC, Sproat and Tong have has pitch counts into the 90s this year.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

That’s fair, but also something that’s less easily correctable in-season.

 

Particularly not when Senga, Manaea, Montas, Blackburn, and Megill have all missed time to injury this season and then

you've got Holmes doing an on-the-fly transition from a reliever.

I think it's clear there's an overall philosophy in the org to Not push beyond certain limits even if they frustratingly cling

to that 'policy' seemingly without any degree of flexibility.

[Edgy MD]

I think it is clear too, but I am dubious about its phiosophical grounding.

If you think hard enough about it, there's a reason to curtail any starter's workload. Then you start wringing your hands that you are asking your relievers to carry too much. So you start scheming to curtail their workloads, somehow not realizing that you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. The games are going to still have nine innings, and if you want to win, you are going to want effective pitchers out there to help you win. At the same time, you are programmed to protect those pitchers so you can win some other contest at some unspecified future point.

But it is a zero-sum game.

[roger_that]

I think it is clear too, but I am dubious about its phiosophical grounding.

If you think hard enough about it, there's a reason to curtail any starter's workload. Then you start wringing your hands that you are asking your relievers to carry too much. So you start scheming to curtail their workloads, somehow not realizing that you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. The games are going to still have nine innings, and if you want to win, you are going to want effective pitchers out there to help you win. At the same time, you are programmed to protect those pitchers so you can win some other contest at some unspecified future point.

But it is a zero-sum game.

 

I question the underlying widely held belief that starters of yore rarely, if ever, went all out while today's starters go balls-to-the-wall the whole game from pitch 1 until their strength gives out, causing quicker hooks than earlier.

I question it because in some instances, it doesn't make any sense. Pitchers on the verge of losing their jobs (sent to the minors, released, dropped from the rotation) always have had little motivation to save their strength (whatever that even means)--they're certainly motivated to exert maximum effort on every batter, and if their strength fades from the effort, then it fades. They have nothing to lose.

But also there are games and situations when maximum effort is likewise required. Game 7 of the World Series is the most obvious example, but there are plenty of similar spots, in "must-win" games all season long, where pitchers were encouraged to think (or thought all by themselves) that in this particular spot, they need not to be thinking about saving their strength for a later inning that may never come.

And there were pitchers who routinely went late into games who were never known to be letting up their maximum effort: does anyone remember thinking for a moment "Gee, Bob Gibson seems relaxed out there with a three-run lead but he'll start bearing down if the Mets get a few baserunners on"? No, Gibson and Seaver and a few dozen others I can recall gave every single pitch their all into the ninth inning and often beyond.

And they did it without getting injured, over long careers and 275+ IP every year.

So what's the difference between their pitchloads and that of their contemporary counterparts who consider a 175 IP load to be a Herculean feat? Because I'm not buying that the difference is that current pitchers are exerting themselves and exhausting themselves sooner because that's how the game is played today.