Torches and Pitchforks (spit from IGT 4/24)

[Benjamin Grimm]

I was thinking about Stearns too. I remember in 2000, when Dude was a coach with the Mets, I was thinking it would be nice if Stearns was Bobby's eventual replacement. (Not that I was looking to get rid of Bobby, of course.)

Most of all, though, I'd like somebody who's smart. I don't think Willie's dumb, but his intelligence doesn't appear to be at all above average. Davey Johnson and Bobby Valentine are the smartest managers the Mets ever had, and the two I enjoyed most. I don't really know of anyone who would fit that bill, but from where I am, it's not always easy to know which candidates are smart and which ones aren't. Tim Teufel has been paying his dues. Is he big league manager material? I really can't say.

I'm not sold on HoJo either. Bud Harrelson's Mets resume is tarnished by his time as manager, but that was such a short stint and such a long time ago now that it's mostly forgotten. I'd hate to see HoJo endure something similar.

I don't want Gary Carter's name in the mix either. I think he'd be an awful manager.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'll throw out a weird one -- Ken Oberkfell. I know he's a former eeemy, but he's been with the org for awhile now and well thought of. Wears No. 0, which would be cool.

[Guest AG/DC]

Oh, I think Oberkfell is definitely on the radar. I just wonder how entwined Willie and Omar are.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Gary Carter.

It seemed like they were grooming him for a while. Did well at the low level he was at, which I realize is not the majors, but still.

He'd certainly bring some fire, and draw attention away from the struggling players.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm afraid that hiring Gary Carter would be a lot like hiring Rosie O'Donnell.

It would all be about him. There are good distractions, and there are bad distractions. I think Gary would be a bad distraction. (Although it would be fun to hear Keith Hernandez criticize and second guess him from the booth.)

[metirish]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: ="metirish"]Fair point , it's not his fault he is getting old and declining , still I would cut him . And who's your everyday first baseman? Marlon Anderson?

Tatis , Abreu at AAA , can they be any worse , I am sure Minaya could pick a first baseman up .

[Benjamin Grimm]

There's no way I cut Carlos Delgado and give the everyday first base job to Michel Abreu in a year in which I hope to win the pennant.

I don't see how Tatis or Abreu's upside is a whole lot more than Delgado's downside. I'll grant that it's more, but I'd still rather take a chance on Delgado improving. Not to a 38-homer season; I think those days are done. But I think there's a reasonable chance that he can hit 15 to 20. And if he does that from the 7-hole, it's not horrible.

[Guest AG/DC]

I'm certain they can be worse. I don't get the zeal to cut.

If they give somebody else some at-bats and they start performing, then that person have an opportunity to win the job. Releasing a guy out of spite and then just hoping that somebody slides in there doesn't hedge bets at all.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm afraid that hiring Gary Carter would be a lot like hiring Rosie O'Donnell.

Rosie O'Donnell. I wish I thought of that one. Funny.

[metirish]

Delgado sits tonight and Anderson plays first , per the FAN.

[Theoldmole]

]I think the best guy to replace Willie is anyone who is not Willie Randolph.

In that case, I'll take the job.

[DocTee]

This performance would test the patience of Job. Gotta think about making a change.

[Guest Triple Dee]

metirish wrote: I don't much care for Randolph but I would not be rushing to Jerry Manuel

Jerry Manuel's teams are known for the playing the sort of one-dimensional baseball, that would not suit the current Mets roster.

However, I was just pointing out he's a more sensible suggestion than some of the other names that have been flaunted around the traps, such as Buck Showalter , the Genius, or Lee Mazzilli.

[Guest Triple Dee]

="Grote15"] Aaron Heilman is not the issue..

Willie's management of the bullpen has been consistently bad, and in the short time I've been posting in IGTs, I've heard people consistently question his bullpen moves.

As for Heilman, I like Aaron and I believe he can be an asset to the Mets when used correctly.

However, over the last 3 years his Inherited Runners Stranded percentage has been consistently below the league average at 63%. That means 37% of base runners inherited by Heilman score.

By contrast, Feliciano strands 74%, and is one of the best in the league. Schoeneweis is even better, believe it or not (when I have time, I'll post a table to CPF)

Anyway, from this, it's pretty obvious that Heilman has not been used properly by Willie, and by extension the rest of the bullpen. The idea that Willie couldn't figure out how to pitch the Schoeneweis to more LHB and less RHB last season, exemplifies his incompetence in this regard.

[Guest Triple Dee]

="Batty31"] Bobby in Disguise

The Mets need the Genius, like a hole in the head,
Like a hole in the head,
Like a hole in the head.

[Frayed Knot]

]... from this it's pretty obvious that Heilman has not been used properly by Willie.

Meaning what, that he should never be brought in mid-inning?
First of all he usually isn't - and his bad games have been a mix of full inning outings in addition to some partials. And even if he is brought in w/runners-on it's still up to him to get the job done.

And the larger point is that I'm generally leery of throwing down the "mismanaging the bullpen" card as it frequently just seems to be code for either - 'the guy he brought in gave up runs', or - 'I don't like the guy he brought in and I don't want him used ever' (aka, he used Mota).

I'm not trying to start a pro-Willie campaign here, but I really don't get most of the 'bullpen mismgmt' arguments - and particularly so with Heilman. If, over the first 3 weeks here, Aaron had been a fraction of what he's been over the last two seasons (ERA ~ 3.30; WHiP ~ 1.10; 1 HR/~13 IP - instead of the current 6.23; 1.69; 1/3.5) would that mean he wasn't being mis-used?

[Guest Triple Dee]

Frayed Knot wrote: First of all he usually isn't - and his bad games have been a mix of full inning outings in addition to some partials. And even if he is brought in w/runners-on it's still up to him to get the job done.

If 37% (29/78) of inherited runners over 3 years have scored from him, wouldn't this suggest he's incapable of getting the job done?

I repeat again, I have no issue with Heilman, and I believe he can be used as an effective pitcher.

[Guest AG/DC]

I don't know. What's the standard on inherited runners? How many of those runners were on third with no outs and how many on first with two? How many were important tying runs, and how many were less important than getting the batter?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Triple Dee wrote: If 37% (29/78) of inherited runners over 3 years have scored from him, wouldn't this suggest he's incapable of getting the job done?

If he can't get the job done, why should he pitch at all? Unless his job should be to come in at the top of the inning with an eight run lead.

[Guest Triple Dee]

="AG/DC"]I don't know. What's the standard on inherited runners? How many of those runners were on third with no outs and how many on first with two? How many were important tying runs, and how many were less important than getting the batter?

I calculated Heilman's inherited runners scored % using raw data.

The rest of the Mets bullpen over the same period (3 years) were:
Feliciano - 23%
Sosa - 29%
Sanchez - 17% (small sample)
Smith - 41% (over 2 years)
Wise - 33%
Schoeneweis - 19%
Wagner - 38% (very small sample; Wagner has only inherited 8 runners in the last 3 years)

I have to admit this statistic may be unstable for two reasons (1) it is likely to be biased in favor of situational pitchers; (2) the standard actually varies according to the total amount of inherited runners faced.

But I found some figures for comparison of inherited runners stranded % which measures the exact opposite (eg Heilman's would be 63%) here

[Guest Triple Dee]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: If he can't get the job done, why should he pitch at all? Unless his job should be to come in at the top of the inning with an eight run lead.

The state of play in the game (ie the lead) is not relevant to this statistic. Also, some closers have high inherited runners scored percentages, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't pitch at all.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Triple Dee wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]If he can't get the job done, why should he pitch at all? Unless his job should be to come in at the top of the inning with an eight run lead. The state of play in the game (ie the lead) is not relevant to this statistic. Also, some closers have high inherited runners scored percentages, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't pitch at all.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather have a pitcher who can get the job done. But maybe that's just me.

[Frayed Knot]

]If 37% (29/78) of inherited runners over 3 years have scored from him, wouldn't this suggest he's incapable of getting the job done?

Not necessarily - and especially not if you're asking me to base a decision on an admittedly "unstable" stat like that which doesn't take situations into account and probably tends to vary over time. Plus, even if Heilman's pct is high, it looks like we may be talking about a half-dozen or so runs above 'normal' over a several year span.
That's not something I'd avoid mid-inning usage over - and I'm still just assuming that mid-inning usage is your objection here.

(btw, the one set of league-wide numbers I was able to find showed Heilman's 2007 'inherited runners allowed to score vs expected' to be virtually neutral)

]I repeat again, I have no issue with Heilman, and I believe he can be used as an effective pitcher.

And how is that different from how he is being used?

[Theoldmole]

He's currently not beig used as an effective pitcher.

[Guest Triple Dee]

="Frayed Knot"] Plus, even if Heilman's pct is high, it looks like we may be talking about a half-dozen or so runs above 'normal' over a several year span.

From one point of view, I'm inclined to agree with you; I don't think it is that drastic of a problem -- and even if it was, the Mets do not have the luxury of using Heilman exclusively when there are no runners on base.

The reason I quoted those figures was to suggest that Heilman's problem may be psychological rather than a defect in his pitching.

="Frayed Knot"]And how is that different from how he is being used?

I don't have any overarching objection of bringing Heilman into a game with runners on base. However, I do think Heilman is a pitcher who struggles a lot when he's low on confidence.

Willie's thought process appears to be that a pitcher who's had a rough outing should seek instant redemption. I don't necessarily agree with that because baseball is a very streaky game. While this approach may have short-term rewards (eg Heilman in the recent Phillies series), I think in the long-run it is more counter-productive.

To sum-up, I would be more protective of a pitcher who has lost a key game or has given up many runs is a short space of time, etc.

[metsmarathon]

in 2007, about 195 relievers were tasked with stranding 15 or more baserunners. these relievers stranded, on average, 69% of the baserunners they inherited.

aaron heilman, in 2007, stranded 72% (21/29) of the baserunners he inherited.

in 2006, about 190 relievers were tasked with stranding 15 or more baserunners. these relievers stranded, on average, 68% of the baserunners they inherited.

aaron heilman, in 2006, stranded 50% (7/14) of the baserunners he inherited.

in 2005, an unknown number of relievers were tasked with stranding 15 or more baserunners, as the only site i could find with a sortable list of inherited runners only had 2006 and '07. these relievers probably stranded, on average, 68-69% of the baserunners they inherited, based on the similarity of the prior two years' data.

aaron heilman, in 2005, stranded 71% (20/28) of the baserunners he inherited.

over the three year period, aaron heilman stranded 48 of the 71 runners he inherited, for a 67.6% stranding rate - approximately league average, if ever so slightly below it.

including this year, he has stranded 50 of the 78 runners he has inherited, for a 64% stranding rate. the difference between this rate, and the league average rate of a presumed 69%, is 3.5 runners.

since 2005, aaron heilman is about 3.5 inherited runners scoring off of league average pace, and those 3.5 runs all basically came in this year.

does that really make the case that he is awful and should never be brought in with runners on base? not to me. granted, he has to start getting it done this year, but he's proven in the past that he can indeed get it done.

(inherited runners sortable list credit sportsnet.ca - aaron heilman's career stats credit espn.com, which maddeningly does not allow one to find inherited runners in any sortable table. grr.)

[Guest AG/DC]

I think Heilman is low on confidence right now.

I think the other pitchers, the hitters, the coaches, and the fans are low on confidence right now, and we're all struggling.

Fran Healy, we cry to you.

[Frayed Knot]

]I don't have any overarching objection of bringing Heilman into a game with runners on base. However, I do think Heilman is a pitcher who struggles a lot when he's low on confidence.

Putting AH into a group which includes ... oh just about every pitcher who's ever pitched in MLB.

And if one wants to make the argument that maybe Smith should have been used the other day (the Nats game w/the GS) rather than a struggling Heilman then I'm OK with that.
My overall point is that, while I can always find individual cases where I disagree with the use of a particular reliever in a specific spot, what I don't find with Willie is a pattern that points to "consistently bad" mismanagement, a viewpoint which, IMO, is one many fans are too eager to jump on whenever (and usually after) the results aren't what we want.

[Guest Triple Dee]

metsmarathon wrote: in 2007, about 195 relievers were tasked with stranding 15 or more baserunners. these relievers stranded, on average, 69% of the baserunners they inherited.

Where did you get the league info from ( I'm not disputing it, I just couldn't find it myself)?

Also, as I mentioned before, the mean is highly sensistive according to the total amount of runners inherited (see the "here" link I provided earlier in this thread). So you'll need to calculate the average according to pitchers with a similar amount of innings to Heilman. Fwiw, I do not think Heilman will compare unfavorably to this group.

I wish I had more time to devote to this. Maybe I'll return it one day.

On edit: I have to say, this stat makes Schoeneweis look infinitely better than his ERA gives him credit for. However, if I dug deeper I'm sure to find he predominately (if not exclusively) faces LHB when he inherits runners.

[Guest Triple Dee]

Frayed Knot wrote: Putting AH into a group which includes ... oh just about every pitcher who's ever pitched in MLB.

Well, the point I was trying to convey is that Heilman is more vulnerable in periods of low confidence. I recall his body language and demeanor from the early part of 2007, and it looked like he still had Yadier Molina on his mind.