IGT Marlins @ Mets, 04/28/09

[bmfc1]

Edgy DC wrote: Here's my book. My book says we hired Hernandez because he's durable. Why lift him after 91 pitches?

Salient point by Edgy. One of the positives for Livan is that he's durable (200+ IP every year) but Jerry (and I'm not saying he's wrong) thinks that Livan is vulnerable the third time through the lineup.

If so, then the Mets aren't getting one of the reasons they signed him which means they might have made a mistake.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Gwreck wrote: I'm not really upset that the 'pen gave this game away, because we didn't really have any 'pen meltdowns yet this year, and every team is going to have a game or two that their bullpen gives away over the course of the season.

="metirish"]Gary says this is the fourth time this season that the Mets have lost after leading a game by 3 runs .

Gwreck wrote: But Jerry needs to have his starters man up a little and take care of things rather than running to the 'pen at the first sign of trouble.

Or, in this case, the first sign of a sign.

[Gwreck]

All 3 of those other leads were given back by the starters:

One of those games was the 4-run lead that Perez gave back against the Cardinals last week.

One was against San Diego, where Maine gave up 5 runs in the third inning after the Mets got him 3 in the first.

One was Perez's first start against Cincinnati, where the Mets gave him a 3-0 lead and the next half inning he gave 5 back to the Reds.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Ah, it seems I'm misinterpreting my third-hand information.

[Fman99]

Another gutless late inning display by the Mets O.

Boo, I say. These guys fall off the map after about 8:30 PM.

[Fman99]

Edgy DC wrote: Here's my book. My book says we hired Hernandez because he's durable. Why lift him after 91 pitches?

According to da Gangsta, they feel that Hernandez is more susceptible to getting smoked as the opposing lineup gets more face time with him, so they're trying to give him the hook pre-smoke.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Fman99 wrote: Another gutless late inning display by the Mets O. Boo, I say. These guys fall off the map after about 8:30 PM.

Yup. You could just tell we were headed for disaster after Reyes failed to get Muffy in from 2nd.

[metirish]

Gwreck wrote: All 3 of those other leads were given back by the starters: One of those games was the 4-run lead that Perez gave back against the Cardinals last week. One was against San Diego, where Maine gave up 5 runs in the third inning after the Mets got him 3 in the first. One was Perez's first start against Cincinnati, where the Mets gave him a 3-0 lead and the next half inning he gave 5 back to the Reds.

Thanks Greck , that it was the starters that gave up those leads wasn't mentioned in the booth.

[Guest Edgy DC]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: ="Fman99"]Another gutless late inning display by the Mets O. Boo, I say. These guys fall off the map after about 8:30 PM. Yup. You could just tell we were headed for disaster after Reyes failed to get Muffy in from 2nd.

And it's emotional gobbledygook on my part, but I say that, by turning the game over to the pen so early, it's an implicit message that the O needn't keep battling, because they've done their part, and it's on the bullpen to win it now. In the sixth!

I mean, why don't they just trot out some defensive replacements? I tell you now, if the idea with Livan is to look at 5 1/3 innings of two-run ball as a victory, I don't want him.

You know, giving up four runs in seven innings with just your starter is inherently better than giving up four in seven by your starter and two relievers, because in the latter case you still have all your bullets. And yeah, it costs you an extra at-bat by your pitcher to get there, but still.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree with that.

[Centerfield]

Livan has tended to give up runs late in his starts this year...which might have prompted the quick hook. I had no problem with the substitution. My problem was with Sean Green sucking moose cock.

I'm disappointed in this team. At this point in the season (and judging from last season) this team has no sack. They clearly have heart because they care, they just can't turn that into actual production. This team just can't fight back from being down, and will give up leads after being up. Meanwhile in Philly, there is no lead that is safe against that team. I hate to say it, but we are their bitches.

[Guest Edgy DC]

="Centerfield"]Livan has tended to give up runs late in his starts this year...which might have prompted the quick hook. I had no problem with the substitution. My problem was with Sean Green sucking moose cock.

You really should. If we've really gone from needing a guy to close out games for a starter, to needing two then three and now four, we've got to realize that (1) odds are increased that one of them won't have it that day, and (2) we're using all of these guys a lot more and in a lot more game game situations.

It's Russian Roulette. It's one thing asking a guy to save a game and do it successfully every time. But now we're asking four guys to.

FOUR! It's almost guaranteed that one of them will suck MC on a given day, and if you get him out of there in time (Jerry certainly didn't), well then you need a fifth motherfucker to get the precious save. It's insane, I tells ya.

[Guest Edgy DC]

And we're not helping when we vote for a guy as PotG for these five-and-fly appearances.

Alex Cora, derided in this thread as a revisiting of Miguel Cairo when he was penciled in as the #2 batter, goes 2-4 with a double, a walk, two runs, and and RBI (with two out), with nobody left on base. He also stole his first Metly base and acrobatically stayed on the bag when David Wright made an offline throw in key defensive situation. Wright's throw likely cost the Mets a double-play, but Cora still had the agility to get the relay off and take a fighting crack at it.

There's your Schaefer Player of the Game. Vote with body. Vote with flavor.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Guest

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yes, Cora had a strong game and, dare I say, is already beetter than Damian Easley was on his best day last year.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: You know, giving up four runs in seven innings with just your starter is inherently better than giving up four in seven by your starter and two relievers, because in the latter case you still have all your bullets. And yeah, it costs you an extra at-bat by your pitcher to get there, but still.

This makes sense, but only in hindsight. If Jerry knew ahead of time that Green would give up four runs in one inning, then Green doesn't come in. And if Green pitched a scoreless inning in a 4-3 Mets win, nobody complains.

The obvious point here is that Jerry took Livan out thinking that at that point in the game, Fla. would have a tougher time scoring against the Mets pen than against Livan himself.

The real issue in yesterday's game is that Green had a very bad (and costly) inning, and for the season, that the starting pitching after Johan has been unreliable to a man -- 80% of the starting rotation isn't getting the job done. The Mets offense is second in the NL in runs scored, tied with Philly; the Mets have outscored first place Fla. so far this season. The Cubs are the only NL team to have outscored the Mets.

Jerry, and the Mets, are for the most part, stuck with the trio of Maine, Pelfrey and Perez this season. I'm not ready to blame Jerry for their struggles just yet.

[Guest Edgy DC]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: This makes sense, but only in hindsight. If Jerry knew ahead of time that Green would give up four runs in one inning, then Green doesn't come in. And if Green pitched a scoreless inning in a 4-3 Mets win, nobody complains.

The idea isn't to know ahead of time what's going to happen. The idea is to know what is most likely to happen when taking a given course. More pitching changes increases your vulnerability to blow-ups.

I don't know ahead of time what's going to happen when I play Russian Roulette either. But surviving it doesn't mean that it's not still recklessly foolish to play.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]This makes sense, but only in hindsight. If Jerry knew ahead of time that Green would give up four runs in one inning, then Green doesn't come in. And if Green pitched a scoreless inning in a 4-3 Mets win, nobody complains. The idea isn't to know ahead of time what's going to happen. The idea is to know what is most likely to happen when taking a given course. More pitching changes increases your vulnerability to blow-ups.

Yes. And obviously, Jerry didn't think that Green would get tagged for four runs in one inning. I'm not gonna blame Jerry for Green's bad inning, either.

By the way, from June 17, 2008 (Manuel's first day as Met manager) through the end of last season, the Mets had the best record in the NL. The Mets would have clinched their division outright about a week before the regular season ended had Willie's Kids managed to win at Manuel's clip.

I'm not convinced that, all things equal, increasing the number of pitchers used is detrimental.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's logic, man. The more guys you use, the lesser standard of guys you are going to use and the greater the likelihood that one will not have his best stuff, and the more gassed guys you will have the next day.

You simply shouldn't need five guys to do well as pitchers in order to win.

The Mets have five batters with "Multiple All-Star" on their r�sum�s. If we set ourselves up to need all five of them performing well on a given day in order to win, victories would be scarce.

To lift a pitcher doing well in the sixth inning with 91 pitches despite his long-established reputation for durability --- it's counterproductive.

A bunt single and an infield out nailing the lead runner, with a half a chance of a double play. That's what gets a guy yanked? That's gangsta?

That's like Garden City gangsta.

[Centerfield]

="Edgy DC"] ="Centerfield"]Livan has tended to give up runs late in his starts this year...which might have prompted the quick hook. I had no problem with the substitution. My problem was with Sean Green sucking moose cock. You really should. If we've really gone from needing a guy to close out games for a starter, to needing two then three and now four, we've got to realize that (1) odds are increased that one of them won't have it that day, and (2) we're using all of these guys a lot more and in a lot more game game situations. It's Russian Roulette. It's one thing asking a guy to save a game and do it successfully every time. But now we're asking four guys to. FOUR! It's almost guaranteed that one of them will suck MC on a given day, and if you get him out of there in time (Jerry certainly didn't), well then you need a fifth motherfucker to get the precious save. It's insane, I tells ya.

I don't think what you're saying is true. The more guys you have to bring in, the more likely it is that one of them will give up runs. But the longer you leave any one pitcher in, the more likely it will be that that particular pitcher gives up runs.

By your argument, you are more likely to give up runs by using Putz for the 8th and Rodriguez for the ninth, than you are by using Rodriguez for the 8th and 9th, since you're doubling your chances that one of them will be off. I disagree. Any increase (or at least some portion of it or more) is offset by the fact that Rodriguez will be asked to get twice the number of outs.

Now, to the 6th inning, regardless of what you do over innings 7, 8 and 9, your objective there is to make it less likely for the opposition to score. If you look at Livan's starts this year, his OPS against increases drastically as his pitch count increases. The runs he gives up coincides with this trend. In the Milwaukee game, Manuel was criticized for leaving him in too long, allowing Milwaukee to take the lead on a 3 run HR. And so, I have no problem with Jerry thinking that going to his bullpen in that situation provided his best chance to win.

Scenario 1 (Edgy's)
6: Tired Livan Hernandez
7: Parnell or Green
8: Putz
9: Rodriguez

Scenario 2 (Manuel's intended)
6: Livan subbed by Parnell mid-inning
7: Green
8: Putz
9: Rodriguez

I don't see that one is a clear winner over the other.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I do. Livan falters and you can go to your pen.

Livan doesn't fail and you go to your pen, and they falter, and you can't go back. If, say, your third reliever falters, you've already used up two guys who might have bailed him out.

You throw in the towel on your boxer when he gets punched in the face and their are characters --- birds, angels, stars, whatever --- flying in circles above his head.

Why pull a succesful starter in the sixth showing no sign of being tired? It ignores Newton's Laws of Motion. Can anybody argue why? If you don't want him pitching there, you don't want him pitching at all.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm with you. I've had the same perspective for years now. Every time you bring a new pitcher into the game, he's an unknown quantity. It's better to do this as infrequently as possible.

If Putz slams the door decisively in the eighth, let him start the ninth. If he ends up with a two-inning save and he's less available tomorrow, you make up for it with a more-rested Frankie Rodriguez.

[Frayed Knot]

The problem with the pre-emptive pitching change is that it takes out the known quantity (in this case - Livan pitching reasonably well) and subs in the unknown (who in the pen will have it today?) to the point where - absent various ominous signs** - it often does make the 'change now in case it's too late later' strategy the more risky one.





**
- the last 5 outs have all been at'em balls;
- the next two hitters have great numbers against the current hurler and/or lousy against my pen;
- both the radar gun and my eyes tell me he's visibly tiring
- he's blown up in this inning the last 4 times
- yadda, yadda

[Fman99]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm with you. I've had the same perspective for years now. Every time you bring a new pitcher into the game, he's an unknown quantity. It's better to do this as infrequently as possible. If Putz slams the door decisively in the eighth, let him start the ninth. If he ends up with a two-inning save and he's less available tomorrow, you make up for it with a more-rested Frankie Rodriguez.

No one does this anymore. You can thank Tony LaRussa and Dennis Eckersley for the "one and done" method of bullpen management.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I know. And it's frustrating.

I hope I live long enough to see the next innovative manager who'll dare to undo what LaRussa did. And I'm kinda disappointed that Bobby Valentine wasn't that guy.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I know. And it's frustrating. I hope I live long enough to see the next innovative manager who'll dare to undo what LaRussa did. And I'm kinda disappointed that Bobby Valentine wasn't that guy.

I agree. I think that the way to fix this is by increasing the starting pitchers' workload, rather than by having your 6th or 7th inning reliever go longer.

(We're talking about workloads here, I assume, and not about the Save stat dictating pitcher use ... right? )

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Bobby managed the pen very well though.

Having good personnel was a big plus but Bobby would never have used his 3 best guys with a 6-run lead as Jerry did the other night.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Somebody must be out there who is willing to stick with a pitcher who is doing well. Not everybody lifts Livan Hernandez in the fifth. Certtainly there's a broad continuum between looking for four straight guys to perform a save and Billy Martin pumping complete games out of everybody in Oakland.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Bobby managed the pen very well though. Having good personnel was a big plus but Bobby would never have used his 3 best guys with a 6-run lead as Jerry did the other night.

There you go.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Guest

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm talking about both, actually.

[Centerfield]

Without getting into a broad discussion on whether it is a good idea to leave a pitcher in or pull a pitcher in general, let's focus on Livan Hernandez's outings this year:

Florida (4/11): Livan pitches 6 strong. He gives up a run in the 7th, and leaves a runner on who comes across to score after he is pulled with two outs.

Milwaukee (4/17): Livan gives up a run in the fifth, then fails to record an out in the sixth while giving up a 3 run HR.

St. Louis (4/23): Livan gives up 6 ER in the 4th and 5th. He does not survive the 5th inning.

It's a small sample size, but a case certainly can be made that Livan loses his effectiveness as he tires. I haven't been a big fan of Manuel's bullpen moves this year, but pulling Livan there for Parnell wasn't a big deal for me.

[Guest Edgy DC]

(1) It's hard to draw any conclusion from that sample size. I think it's ideal to have a pitcher have his worst inning before being lifted.

(2) It's not like we're talking about what's going on with Livan alone here. Maine and Pelfrey have also recently been lifted mid-game when they were pitching well. Santana also.