Dammit

[Guest Edgy DC]

Stop remaking my beloved little team with pieces of other people's disagreeable little teams.

[Centerfield]

I hate the trade deadline.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I liked it in 1983. And in 1989. (1983 turned out better in the long run.)

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Well, you know, we appear to have survived without giving away any organizational prospects or Tenured True Mets.

It most certainly could have been worse.

[Guest KC]

I was going to echo that sentiment in that hate, dislike, marry me poll thread.
This trade wasn't that big a deal in my eyes and I'm happy to still have our
core minor and major club guys.

[Vic Sage]

yes, but why must each July trading deadline elicit such terror for Mets fans? why can't we do nothing at all, instead of something stupid?

[Guest KC]

I didn't feel too much terror, and if Perez can turn things around this might
just work out afterall.

[metirish]

I heard Rick Sutcliffe say on the ESPN game tonight that the Pirates changed the pitching motion of Perez after he won 12 games a few years ago,any truth to this?.I think if that's true then there is hope for him under Peterson.

[MFS62]

metirish wrote: I heard Rick Sutcliffe say on the ESPN game tonight that the Pirates changed the pitching motion of Perez after he won 12 games a few years ago,any truth to this?.I think if that's true then there is hope for him under Peterson.

I heard Omar say that Perez' mechanics had changed, but didn't say how it happened. He added that as a result of that change, his velocity dropped.

We can see the results. He was the opening day starter for the Bucs this year and is still "only" 25. You've heard the old baseball adage "lefthanders take longer to develop". Let's wait and see if his mechancs can be corrected. If so, we could have a real good pitcher here.

Later

[Elster88]

MFS62 wrote: ="metirish"]I heard Rick Sutcliffe say on the ESPN game tonight that the Pirates changed the pitching motion of Perez after he won 12 games a few years ago,any truth to this?.I think if that's true then there is hope for him under Peterson. I heard Omar say that Perez' mechanics had changed, but didn't say how it happened. He added that as a result of that change, his velocity dropped.

Didn't this happen to Doc, too?

[Willets Point]

According to Jeff Pearlman, yes.

[Elster88]

That's what I was going from, but I'm not 100% sure how much of that book to believe.

[Willets Point]

Same here. I recall Doc being an excellent starting pitcher at least through 1991 and any dropoff in performance from his phenomenal 1985 to 1986 is just the natural order of things.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

I remember a dropoff as soon as he got back from Smithers. He never again had that focused look in his eyes that he had in 1984 and 1985.

[RealityChuck]

Willets Point wrote: Same here. I recall Doc being an excellent starting pitcher at least through 1991 and any dropoff in performance from his phenomenal 1985 to 1986 is just the natural order of things.

I see. So making changes in how you pitch has no effect on your performance?

[Willets Point]

My point was more that Pearlman overstated the effect of the changes by saying that Doc was unable to repeat the incredibly great season of 1985. Doc was still a great pitcher in 1986 even if it wasn't as great as 1985 and that's to be expected.

[Elster88]

Willets Point wrote: Same here. I recall Doc being an excellent starting pitcher at least through 1991 and any dropoff in performance from his phenomenal 1985 to 1986 is just the natural order of things.

I'm not sure that it can be definitively stated like this one way or the other. What we do know is that he had a drug problem and we do know that Mel was trying to fool with his mechanics. But you're right, to say whether of those attributed to his drop from '85 to '86 is probably not possible.

]I remember a dropoff as soon as he got back from Smithers. He never again had that focused look in his eyes that he had in 1984 and 1985.

I am extremely wary of reading into the look in a player's eyes, and will argue against such reasonings the same way I argued against that writer from the post who claimed to be able to read ARod's body language.

I thought his first trip to rehab was in 1987? If so, I'm not sure that it can be used to explain the dropoff from 1985 to 1986, unless my timeline is screwed up.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

The timeline is right. The drug use started in 1986. Rehab started during spring training 1987. And he was never again a dominating force.

[Elster88]

ScarletKnight41 wrote: The timeline is right. The drug use started in 1986. Rehab started during spring training 1987. And he was never again a dominating force.

If this is correct, then it's hard to ignore. But if he was sniffing mirrors when he was a rookie then all bets are off. I've never read his autobiography, does it pinpoint 1986 as his first year?

[Willets Point]

In his first "autobiography" Rookie, Gooden or his ghostwriter claims that he'd never never never use drugs. I haven't read the other Gooden book. Pearlman insinuates that Gooden was using coke during the 1986 season (actually he relates an account where Straw accuses him of using). The official PR I recall is that Gooden started using cocaine during the offseason between 1986 & 1987.

[Elster88]

What about Heat?

[Willets Point]

="Elster88"]What about Heat?

="Willets Point"]I haven't read the other Gooden book.

Anyone here read and remember Heat.

[Elster88]

oops.

[soupcan]

And while we're at it - does anyone remember laughter?

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I don't think I read that one.

[Guest Iubitul]

ScarletKnight41 wrote: The timeline is right. The drug use started in 1986. Rehab started during spring training 1987. And he was never again a dominating force.

OMG - not again...

His shoulder injury had more to do with his down fall than anything else. Look at how his ERA jumps after he was injured in 1989:

 Year Ag Tm  Lg  W   L   G   GS  CG SHO  GF SV   IP     H    R   ER   HR  BB   SO  HBP  WP  BFP  IBB  BK  ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP
 1984 19 NYM NL  17   9  31  31   7   3   0  0  218.0  161   72   63   7   73  276   2   3   879   2   7  2.60  3.56  137 1.073
 1985 20 NYM NL  24   4  35  35  16   8   0  0  276.7  198   51   47  13   69  268   2   6  1065   4   2  1.53  3.45  226 0.965
 1986 21 NYM NL  17   6  33  33  12   2   0  0  250.0  197   92   79  17   80  200   4   4  1020   3   4  2.84  3.54  124 1.108
 1987 22 NYM NL  15   7  25  25   7   3   0  0  179.7  162   68   64  11   53  148   2   1   730   2   1  3.21  3.80  119 1.197
 1988 23 NYM NL  18   9  34  34  10   3   0  0  248.3  242   98   88   8   57  175   6   5  1024   4   5  3.19  3.21  101 1.204
 1989 24 NYM NL   9   4  19  17   0   0   1  1  118.3   93   42   38   9   47  101   2   7   497   2   5  2.89  3.26  113 1.183
 1990 25 NYM NL  19   7  34  34   2   1   0  0  232.7  229  106   99  10   70  223   7   6   983   3   3  3.83  3.76   98 1.285
 1991 26 NYM NL  13   7  27  27   3   1   0  0  190.0  185   80   76  12   56  150   3   5   789   2   2  3.60  3.65  101 1.268
 1992 27 NYM NL  10  13  31  31   3   0   0  0  206.0  197   93   84  11   70  145   3   3   863   7   1  3.67  3.47   95 1.296
 1993 28 NYM NL  12  15  29  29   7   2   0  0  208.7  188   89   80  16   61  149   9   5   866   1   2  3.45  3.93  114 1.193
 1994 29 NYM NL   3   4   7   7   0   0   0  0   41.3   46   32   29   9   15   40   1   2   182   1   0  6.31  4.18   66 1.476

[Guest Iubitul]

In fact, looking at his numbers in his first 6 seasons, 1985 was the exception, not the rule.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's instructive to look at his K/9

Year	K	IP	K/9
1984	276	218	11.39
1985	268	276.67	8.72
1986	200	250	7.20
1987	148	179.67	7.41
1988	175	248.33	6.34
1989	101	118.33	7.68
1990	223	232.67	8.63
1991	150	190	7.11
1992	145	206	6.33
1993	149	208.67	6.43
1994	40	41.33	8.71

but obviously there's no smoking gun there. He was trying abnormally early in his career to be more of a pitcher and les sof a thrower, but the question is how much the dramatic K/9 drop of his first hree years was arm wear, perhaps signalling injury and degeneration to come later.

These numbers also deserve to be looked at in context of the league-wide k/9 numbers, but I'm not up for that.

[Willets Point]

Iubitul wrote: In fact, looking at his numbers in his first 6 seasons, 1985 was the exception, not the rule.

Thanks that's kind of the point I was trying to make albeit poorly.

[Guest Iubitul]

His WHIP also took a big jump after the injury.