To pull (Johan) or not to pull

[batmagadanleadoff]

I obviously didn't like Willie, notwithstanding my post just above this one. In fact, I never detested a Mets manager as much as I did Randolph. Dallas Green was close, but those mid-90's team (so elegantly dressed) weren't going to contend even if Earl Weaver was in the dugout. Randolph wins this contest based on the level of talent he inherited.

My dislike for Randolph was immediate: I saw, early on, that he was a clueless and hopeless bumbler and that any Mets success on his watch would happen in spite of and not because of Randolph's presence. By Memorial Day of '05 I was convinced that he needed to go. You've heard of looking for the silver lining in the cloud. In 2006, I was looking for the cloud in the silver lining. As the Mets were running away with their division, I was bothered by the realization that it would now take another year and a half, at least, to get rid of that idiot.

[Guest sharpie]

I liked Jeff Torborg a whole lot less than Willie. I didn't have much use for Art Howe either and while I liked him as a player I thought Bud Harrelson was a very bad manager. Willie is somewhere in the middle as far as Mets managers go in my opinion. That being said, I like Jerry Manuel a whole lot more.

[Guest AG/DC]

I don't get it how this Willie-esque comment opens the door to contrast Manuel with Willie. The only difference is (1) Jerry's winning right now like Willie hadn't for a year and a half, and (2) Willie became less believable as time passed and he lost more.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Baseball Prospectus' Joe Sheehan weighs in on last Tuesday's Met game. (A worthy read)

]It�s been a couple of days, but I can�t get Tuesday night�s events at Shea Stadium out of my head. In case you missed it, the Mets held a 5-2 lead over the Phillies through eight innings on a night when their closer, Billy Wagner, was unavailable due to some shoulder soreness. Mets ace Johan Santana had thrown 105 pitches through the eighth and had gotten through the eighth on 14 tosses. With Wagner out, it seemed like a good idea to leave Santana in. Interim manager Jerry Manuel decided instead to lift Santana, batting for him with no one on and one out in the bottom of the inning, and bringing in Duaner Sanchez. Six runs later, the Mets were down 8-5 on their way to an 8-6 loss. Here�s what bugged me�we�d just seen this movie. On July 4 against these same Phillies, Santana had made it through eight innings of two-run ball on 95 pitches, getting through the eighth on just 11 and retiring the last seven men he faced. He was cruising with a low pitch count, yet Manuel pulled him in a tied game, double-switching Sanchez in. Four batters later, the Mets had lost, 3-2. The former game made an impression because about six hours after it ended, I was in a car headed upstate with my uncle to play some golf, and we ended up talking about it for much of the trip. As I�ve mentioned, my family likes sports the way most people do, where they watch the games on TV and read about them in the paper. They�re not the kind of people who read BP or get into analysis. They know I write about baseball and think it�s neat that I get to go places, be on TV, write for books and for Sports Illustrated, and at the same time, they don�t completely get what we do here. I�ve probably had more success discussing the economics of the industry and moving people off of the "greedy players" meme than in changing anyone�s mind about, say, Derek Jeter�s defense. So it was interesting to spend an hour kind of working through an argument with my uncle. He actually didn�t have the reactionary stance you might expect, and was patient as I did a filibuster on the history of pitching that took us well past the Tappan Zee Bridge. What I kept coming back to, though, was that I couldn�t defend Manuel�s decision. This wasn�t removing a gassed 23-year-old coming off of a 30-pitch inning that pushed his needle into the red. This was the best pitcher in baseball, making about $700,000 a start, throwing well with a pitch count in double digits. This was, I hoped (as we reached Route 17) the nadir of a trend that, while probably a net positive for the industry and for hundreds of individuals, has gone too far in the handling of veteran pitchers. This may seem strange coming from a BP guy, but the truth is pitchers are babied these days, and that babying has gotten out of hand. When we were advocating paying greater attention to pitch counts in the 1990s, when Rany Jazayerli was developing the Pitcher Abuse Points system, and then when Rany and Keith Woolner were improving upon it, the push behind it was largely about two things: young pitchers, and the extreme edge of high pitch counts. This was a time when Kerry Wood would go from striking out 20 hitters to missing 20 months, when David Cone would throw 300 pitches over two starts, when going past 130, even 140 pitches, wasn�t unusual. Rany and Keith applied a data framework to the discussion, and we wrote about and talked about it, and the industry was working to answer the questions itself, and over a period of 10 years, the problem pretty much solved itself. Young pitchers are now handled with great care, and virtually no one with influence suggests treating them like Salem treated witches. Starts of greater than 130 pitches have disappeared from the landscape, and with so much misplaced emphasis�for which we have to take some blame�on "100 pitches," even starts of 120 or more throws are becoming rare. That was never, ever the intent. The argument that a 21-year-old Kerry Wood shouldn�t throw 120 or more pitches five times in six weeks, or that pitchers of any age should max out around 130 or so pitches in modern baseball, has absolutely nothing to do with whether Johan Santana can come out for the ninth having thrown fewer than 110 pitches. If we�ve reached a point, as an industry, where the default setting isn�t to have the best pitcher in the game taking the mound in that spot, something has gone terribly wrong. There�s been a loss of information along the way, and that loss has contributed to some poor practices within the game. I don�t think I�m bastardizing the work of Jazayerli and Woolner to make the following statement: starting pitchers who are past the injury nexus and in reasonable health can pitch into the 110- or 120-pitch range regularly without fear of injury due to overwork. That�s a general, broad statement, and it will mean different things to Ted Lilly and Livan Hernandez, different things in July and September, different things when a pitcher is throwing well and poorly. What it will always mean is that the guy making $20 million a year, pitching well and with 95 pitches under his belt will take the mound in the ninth inning of a tied game against a division rival. It will always mean that the highest-paid pitcher in baseball, having thrown 105 pitches, will close out the game when the closer is unavailable. Jerry Manuel�s hyper-conservative use of Santana, justified weakly in both cases, has no defense. It is, however, a very clear sign that we�ve gone too far. A good idea�protecting pitchers from injury due to overuse�has been warped, with ill effects for the industry. The marginal innings that veteran starters aren�t throwing�and we�re talking about maybe 10-20 a season for some large number of pitchers�are not just going to inferior pitchers, but they�re driving roster decisions that have changed the way the game is played. As much as La Russa-influenced tactics have helped redesign reliever usage, the lack of those extra pitches and extra innings has forced teams to carry 11, 12, and sometimes 13 pitchers as a workaround. That change has reduced the amount of platooning and shortened benches to the point that many teams have non-functioning reserve corps. All for the gain of low-leverage innings from low-impact pitchers. The solution here is fairly simple: forget that anyone ever mentioned the number "100." That number isn�t meaningful in any sense. If you really want to use numbers to guide you, here are two: 25 and 120. Once a pitcher is 25 years old, you can generally consider him physically mature enough to handle a full workload. A full workload for a mature, healthy pitcher should include starts of up to 120 pitches without inviting injury risk. Usage beyond that mark�actually, 121 pitches in the PAP^3 framework�do raise the risk, but that risk can be measured against the context of the situation. Flags fly forever, and the pursuit of one does sometimes outweigh the risks involved. There are no bright-line tests here. "Pitcher abuse" will always mean different things in different contexts, but the concept has all but been eliminated in today�s game. It�s time for the pendulum to swing back a bit, and let starting pitchers take a greater share of the workload.

[Guest AG/DC]

I agree with him on every thing but that the two starts by Santana are the nadir. The nadir had been with Bud Black's recent treatment of Greg Maddux. I'd be insane if I was a Padre fan.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

I like Manuel. Seem slike a straightforward guy, and without the Yankee taint.


The thing with Randolph is that once the drums start beating for him to get dumped, they generally don't stop.

If he was still managing the Mets, he would have been praised for the 10-game streak, then the "Willie on hot seat" stories and questions would have started again with the split in Cincy and especially after the bullpen implosion on Tuesday. It was never going to end.

Is that fair to Willie? No, but it's the nature of the beast. If they hadd't made the change, everything would be seen in how it related to the collapse.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

I was about to toss that article in this thread, beat me to it, Batmag.
I dunno- I still have no problem with pulling Johan there. There's no reason to expect that the bottomish part of the Phillie's order would be able to score three runs before a mix of Sanchez, Feliciano and Smith could get three outs. I do better understand the distinction between the avoiding PAP and limiting them, but I don't think that Tuesday's game was a proper spot to tack on abuse points. As much as it felt like an important game, it wasn't really any more important than tonight's or any other, save that it was against the team the Mets were chasing. I think there's too much value wrapped up in Johan's arm to put it at risk in a regular season game where you have a three run lead going into the ninth.

[Guest AG/DC]

I hear the "no reason to expect it to happen" argument, but it happend. Twice now in very similar circumstances, as the article reminds us. And it happened again and again last September. So they went out and got Johan Santana at great expense. He's on a roll, only about 100 pitches into his workday, won't pitch again for five days, and the game's pretty tight.

Instead they go to a guy who is two or three notches down in general ability at this stage, may or may not have his stuff togeher on this day, and coughed it up the last time out in this situation. What's the downside of letting him start this inning? That one of the 10-15 more pitches they were going to give him would be the straw that breaks him? That the difference in batters with one out and none on was more important than the difference in pitchers?

You got the ace in your hand, but are only able to play it one day in five. Play it as often as you can on those days.

[Frayed Knot]

One of the things the 'stat-hounds' (not using the term derisively) harp on is how the save rule causes incorrect use when a team automatically uses their closer in 3-run 9th inning games since those games are 95+% wins no matter who you use - so it seems to me that a similar idea should apply here.

Now I agree that if you're pulling your star just because some generic and artificial (and often misunderstood) number was reached then the carping at the manager is justly deserved. At least in this case Sheehan mentions the pinch-hit aspect of the removal. He doesn't discuss it, but he at least acknowledges it, which is something that the rock-throwers on FAN (callers and hosts) have yet to do once.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm with AG. There's an inherent risk every time you make a pitching change. You know what your current guy has got today, but you don't know what the next guy might have.

True, a pitcher can always "lose it" but when you have more than a one-run lead, you have the luxury of letting him pitch while watching for signs of fatigue, loss of control, whatever.

I would have kept Santana in at least until there was that first base runner. If you pull him after someone reaches base, yes, you're bringing the next guy in with a runner on (or with a smaller lead if that base runner was actually a home run) but the tying run is still not at the plate, and maybe there will be one or two outs by then.

And maybe Santana gets a 1-2-3 inning with 8 pitches.

With a three-run lead and a starter who hasn't be struggling? I'd stick with him.

The more the conventional wisdom gets questioned, the more likely it is to change. I don't necessarily believe that "there's no going back" but I acknowledge that it won't happen all at once, or as soon as I'd like.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I agree that players in general, and pitchers in particular, are babied now days. Complete games are virtually a thing of the past and relievers going more than three outs, other than in mop up duty, is increasingly more rare. It seems that all managers are using the same pampered chef recipes and no one is willing to break out and be different.

Call me old fashioned, but I think the game of baseball has become too damn specialized. I like going with the hot hand and having the best available pitcher on the mound in crucial situations when the game is hanging in the balance. Often, this means letting your ace starter stay in the game or using your closer for more than just save opportunities.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It just takes one manager who dares to be different, and then succeeds.

We're finally seeing a pitch-count backlash. I'm not predicting that pitch counts will ever go away; I actually do think they're a valuable thing to measure. But hopefully somebody soon will start using them in a less rigid way.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I agree that pitch counts have their place, but I think most managers/pitching coaches have become too married to them. Pitch counts should not be the same for all pitchers in all circumstances. Some pitchers simply can handle a greater workload due to better conditioning and/or mechanics. Others need to be watched a little more closely. I believe the pitching coach should know his pitchers well enough to know what type of work load each pitcher is capable of best performing under safely.

Ben Grimm -"It just takes one manager who dares to be different, and then succeeds."

I'm hopeful that a free thinking, maverick of a manager will come along and be sufficiently successful to change the way the game is often played today.

[Guest AG/DC]

It's not that they're married to pitch counts; it's that they're married to the number 100 as an indicator of fatigue.

It's round, but it has no other real significance.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

Dusty Baker is still around, if anyone wants a manager who refuses to be bound by pitch counts. Here's a recommendation from sure first-ballot hall-of-famer Mark Prior: "Dusty's great. Throwing all those pitches really helped me man up. I'm the pitcher I am now thanks only to Dusty and his maverick refusal to kowtow to the pitch count mob. Thanks, Dusty!"

The WPA graph for the 7/22 game was somewhere around 95% going into the top of the ninth. I realize that a pitcher in his prime isn't likely to shatter into a million pieces as soon as he hits 120 pitches, but why expose him to PAP in a game you'll win 19 out of 20 times? Is it completely ridiculous to suggest that a less-talented but fresh pitcher is better to use in this situation than Johan Santana after 105 pitches? (I know it's probably not a huge thing, but don't forget that he also had to run the bases for an extended period of time late in the game.)

If it was a one run, heck even if it was a two run game, or if it was a three run game on the last day of the regular season in a tight race, I'd have no problem with Jerry Manuel pointing to him in the dugout and giving him some manager-speak like "You're driving the bus tonight, Johan, we just brought the metro cards." But this was basically a done deal as long as you weren't replacing Johan with David Wright or something like that.

I understand pulling someone after 100 pitches is arbitrary, but if given the choice between that and someone like Baker who would whip Eight Belles all the way to the Jell-O factory, I'd much rather have a manager who errs on the side of caution. A guy like Jerry Manuel might cost the team a few games, but a guy like Dusty Baker costs a team franchise players' careers.

When I first was reading about PAP, I remember reading something that said using your starters once every four games on a careful pitch count would be a lot less stressful than having them pitch past 115 pitches a handful of times over the season in a five man rotation. If you could find me a forward-thinking manager who'd consider using a four man rotation, I'd sign up for that.