Pedro in long relief? An interesting theory

[Guest cooby]

My husband got this book for Christmas



(a very nifty book, btw; and our Pedro is ranked 29 of the author's top 100 players in history)

Here's an interesting observation by the author Elliot Kalb:

If the Red Sox are convinced that Pedro has only seven innings (and about 100 pitches) in him, why do they continue to start him in the first inning? A real riverboat gambler of a manager (like me) would start a Scott Williamson or Alan Embree. Put Pedro in the game to start the third inning. If Martinez doesn't have enough bullets for nine innings, make sure he has some left for the crucial late innings.

I thought "That might work"

What do you think?

[seawolf17]

How unconventional.

If it weren't for Wagner, I might have proposed making Pedro a Fingers/Sutter-style closer for the last two years of his deal.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I coached a little league where young pitchers were limited to four innings. The convention was to put your stud (your eleven-year-old stud) in to pitch the last four innings of a six-inning game.

It didn't work for me, as I always changed my mind and sent the starter out there for the third inning --- occasionally to my team's detriment. I'd tell myself that the kid was throwing great (and often he was), but partially it was that it was just so counter-intuitive to ask a guy to pitch two thirds of a game in seeking a save.

[DocTee]

Sounds like something Pinella would concoct to offset a weak Tampa Bay pen...

[Guest Scrapple8]

that quote sounds like a guy who plays stratomatic baseball and thinks its real.

I was going to borrow that book from the library, but I found a book on the 1969 mets to read first. Maybe some other time I'll get to Kalb

[Zvon]

Ha. Thats is both funny and interesting.

If Pedro came in for the third, and stayed in until the game was over, wouldnt he be eligible for the win/loss by MLB rules?

He wont get a game started stat, this I realize.

[Guest cooby]

That was my first thought Zvon, but then I realized, of course he could, because relievers earn wins all the time.

But obviously his win total would plummet




Edit: But on the other hand, a starter has to have what? Five or six innings to get the win. So maybe he gets it even if the Mets have a lead when he goes in. Confusing in a way.

[Zvon]

cooby wrote: So maybe he gets it even if the Mets have a lead when he goes in. Confusing in a way.

I do think he would.
I believe then its up to the discretion official scorer who is credited with the win, and if Pedro is the only other pitcher to pitch in that game, he would have to get the win.
Wouldnt he?lol.
Im a lil confused myself.

I dont think his win totals would plummet though.
If he pitched well for those last 7 innings (and the Mets won the game).

[Theoldmole]

Starter has to go 5 to get a win. Pedro would get the win.

[A Boy Named Seo]

It always seems like starters have a heckuva time getting through the fifth inning, and most of our guys averaged around 6 before they got yanked. Pedro averaged 7 IP per start last year, but I'd be pleasantly surprised to see that again over the rest of his contract. It'd not be fun to see our guy run out of gas right at the most critical part of the game.

Didn't the Royals org talk about, or actually try this in the low minors?

[nymr83]

i think this is a dumb idea. for one think, inning 1 is always important, inning 3 or 4 when you want pedro in could already be down 4-0. next, what if he comes in with that 4-0 deficit and proceedes to throw 7 shutout innings with only 80 pitches? sounds like he could have gone 9 but we'll never know will we?

a better idea (imo) to get a top starter more important innings is to use him in relief on the "throwing day" between starts.

[Guest cooby]

One thing I thought of too, last night:

Say the bullpen starts the game, goes three good innings, and Pedro comes in with a lead, finishes the game, Mets win.

or

Pedro starts the game, goes seven good innings, bullpen finishes game well (maybe that is the part that seems so impossible for me. But wait! Looper is gone!), Mets win.

No difference. But a cool experiment nonetheless, kinda like starting Tug.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, starting Tug (at least in 1973) was about getting him right enough to return him to the bullpen.

[Guest cooby]

Yep. Because "What the heck, we were in last place anyway"

[Theoldmole]

I like the "Mets win" part.