J.J.: Not that Good

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I dunno about the rest of yous but JJ Putz is playing like he wants to be on my shitlist. The guys at Amazin Avenue are doing a pitchfx analysis suggesting he's hurt or something; JJ in the papers today is blaming his recent suckitude on being unable to summon his old energy by being the 8th inning guy (oh shut up and pitch).

My take is just that relief pitching is enigmatic and hard to predict and this is just what happens. Maybe a mile or two off one pitch or a slight delivery flaw or something, and the next thing you know the guy is a ccomplete train wreck.

What gets me is that the guy's innings, even when he's not scored on, have become interminable and difficult to watch. I also think, as one of you suggested before, that the Mets are so devoted to making him into the "8th inning guy" that they'll use him there needlessly and too frequently, and that can't be helping whatever delivery or velocity issues he's having. Plus, he's resisting it.

Worried.

[seawolf17]

I honestly came into the season worried about JJ. Never mind the closing/not-closing thing, it was that everything fell off last year for him, and Seattle was so quick to get rid of him. I agree with a lot of your sentiment, though.

[Benjamin Grimm]

And he has a $9 million option for next year? I don't see that being picked up.

His line about not being able to get motivated to pitch the 8th inning is a load of crap. The fact that we've come to this shows how out of hand the bullpen specialization has become. Can you imagine Danny Frisella or Roger McDowell saying anything like that?

[metirish]

I thought his excuse was a bit mind numbing , so you can't get up for games in the 8th inning for a first place team in front of a good fan base in the big city . I'm sure there will be plenty of times where the 8th inning will be the key one having to go through the heart of the order and all that bull. Paging Dr. Sports Psychologist for Mr. Putz.

[Centerfield]

Load of crap seems perfect.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

PS -- Mike Carp is OPSing at 982 for Seattle's AAA squad.

Not that there's a chance we'll need a fill-in first baseman or anything...

[Frayed Knot]

="Benjamin Grimm"]And he has a $9 million option for next year? I don't see that being picked up.

Yeah, $8.6 with a $1mil buyout. That's overly hefty for a good set-up man much less a shaky one.
No I can't see that getting picked up, nor does he have any incentive to re-negotiate that into a less-hefty/longer term one. He'd be a FA otherwise and be able to negotiate with anyone. At those prices we'd be better off trying to work out a one-year deal with (ducks) Wagner to be the set-up/alt closer.
And, of course, it doesn't help that Sean Green, the "extra" incentive in that package, isn't pulling his weight either. He's rapidly becoming this trade's version of Gene Walter or Bill Pecota.



And while I normally hate to presume ahead in these things (but apparently am going to do it anyway) the best case scenario for les Metsies is that Putz re-finds his form to the point where we can deal him for something good, either towards the trading deadline (if things are going poorly for the team) or after the season to someone looking for a 2010 closer if things go well.



And, yeah, slow pitchers in general are annoying and slow relievers, for some reason, even moreso to me. Papelbon may be real good but Jeez is he a chore to watch!

[Guest Edgy DC]

I wonder if Putz can summon energy for pitching the fifth inning with a seven run gap against Florida on the road, because that's the role he's slipping toward, and he might want to think about excelling in it.

[smg58]

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1irek9pi]PS -- Mike Carp is OPSing at 982 for Seattle's AAA squad. Not that there's a chance we'll need a fill-in first baseman or anything...[/quote:1irek9pi] The Mets didn't really have room for both Evans and Carp, and Evans seemed at the time to be a slightly better bet (plus we're short on righthanded bats). But Putz and Green were both risky pickups. (And I'm more worried that Jayson Vargas, now fully healthy, is turning into the player that Minaya thought he was getting when he dealt Henry Owens and Matt Lindstrom to get him.)

Fman99 May 14 2009 09:11 AM

JJ is quite good... at sucking ass! HIYO! Tip your wait staff folks, they're working hard tonight. Seriously, he is either a) dinged and unable to bring the heat, or a malcontent who is pouting because he's now only the second coolest kid in class. Well he should therefore a) figure himself out, medically, DL, rest, what have you, or drive himself headlong into a bridge abutment.

Benjamin Grimm May 14 2009 09:18 AM

I sense that J.J. Putz won't be getting introduced to Fman's imaginary sister.

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 14 2009 09:25 AM

="smg58":1l71a27b] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1l71a27b]PS -- Mike Carp is OPSing at 982 for Seattle's AAA squad. Not that there's a chance we'll need a fill-in first baseman or anything...[/quote:1l71a27b] The Mets didn't really have room for both Evans and Carp, and Evans seemed at the time to be a slightly better bet (plus we're short on righthanded bats). But Putz and Green were both risky pickups. (And I'm more worried that Jayson Vargas, now fully healthy, is turning into the player that Minaya thought he was getting when he dealt Henry Owens and Matt Lindstrom to get him.)[/quote:1l71a27b] Yeah, I know. It's just that when you trade 5 guys for 2 short relief pitchers, essentially, the chances you'll look bad are pretty good. As one guy described it this trade was like Baseball Mogul where the "opposing GM" keeps turning down your trade while you keep on adding guys to it until he says yes. I'd be interested to see what the CPF thought about the trade to begin with. Benjamin Grimm May 14 2009 09:31 AM If I recall correctly, I was happy to get Putz, but regretting giving up Smith, since I felt that Putz would be a one-year Met and Smith looked like he could be a good bullpen part for several years. Giving it more thought, I saw Green as the long-term replacement for Smith, and was a bit happier about the trade. I don't think I much regretted the loss of Carp. Last time I checked, Smith wasn't doing that great either, so even though this trade isn't working out so well so far, it doesn't seem like it will go down in history alongside the Nolan Ryan and Scott Kazmir trades. Farmer Ted May 14 2009 09:33 AM We could still have Heilman for the 8th inning. Putz v Heilman. Edge Putz. Less angina. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 14 2009 09:34 AM "The TiTTS say yea, verily Well of course they did. Edgy DC May 14 2009 09:40 AM To give Putz his due (and all setup men, for that matter), the system of a designated savior in a bullpen, where you're either the man or no man, is a fucking head trip and it's as psychologicially counterporuductive as it is strategically counterproductive. The idea that a guy could get through the eight in dazzling fashion but still get pulled to start the ninth, because, damn it, that's the other guy's job, well, it toys with a man. It toys with him. You figure, in a fair system, the number two guy would at least be able to sneak in and steal 1-3 saves a month. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 14 2009 09:45 AM Isn't it funny though that we all knew the Mets would show zero creativity with the whole thing and only wanted to give the impression they had created a "lock-down" endgame, above all other strategies that might better optimize the guys they got. Hell, they should have taken my advice and called Putz the "fireman" then maybe he'd get an erection when he was called on every now and then. But the fear of failure is baked in there too. Edgy DC May 14 2009 10:02 AM The fear of failure can be offset when there's an occasional bauble for the guy who earns it. The eighth innng guy can almost only fail. I mean, who knows --- or honestly cares --- who the all-time holds leader is? metirish May 14 2009 10:02 AM SNY play into this too, several times I have heard the booth guys and Burkhardt talk about how " lock down tight" the pen is now....Burkhardt was on recently talking about how great the pen is and I thought I must be missing games or something. Yes it's better than last year and I believe it has the best pen ERA but it's not as good as they might have you believe. Edgy DC May 14 2009 10:07 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 14 2009 10:16 AM And top guys are being grossly over-used because they use one where two would suffice, four where two would suffice, and pull the starters between 100 and 110 pitches almost as a rule. Benjamin Grimm May 14 2009 10:12 AM I agree. Let's get Jerry in here for an intervention. Fman99 May 14 2009 10:29 AM ="Edgy DC":2o1v6d4w]And top guys are being grossly over-used because they use one where two would suffice, four where two would suffice, and pull the starters between 100 and 110 pitches almost as a rule.[/quote:2o1v6d4w] How true. Betcha didn't know that Stokes got four outs yesterday on all of NINE PITCHES. They should've left him in for another inning, he was cruising. Edgy DC May 14 2009 10:41 AM I should have noted that in his grading. smg58 May 14 2009 03:37 PM Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork. Edgy DC May 14 2009 06:35 PM Every day, that "part" grows in my thinking. 2007, also. Elster88 May 15 2009 11:53 PM Ugh, the first casualty to pen overuse. Should they really overdo protecting Santana just to blow out the guys they got to protect his wins? Maybe they should so he can go nine in September, but I'm worried that this Torre-style bullpen use will end up with all our guys getting Tommy John surgery. Ashie62 May 16 2009 09:08 AM J.J. is a Putz Benjamin Grimm May 16 2009 09:50 AM It's funny because that's his name! OlerudOwned May 16 2009 10:06 AM Sigh. soupcan May 17 2009 09:25 AM ="smg58":9h0j2e51]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:9h0j2e51] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 17 2009 10:54 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 17 2009 12:51 PM ="soupcan":2k7waus1] ="smg58":2k7waus1]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2k7waus1] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)?[/quote:2k7waus1] Yes, but does it follow that one must overwork the pen--largely, by overusing the alphas-- to get there? [That's like saying, "We'll need plenty of electric light to do this job," and always using the same 2 fixtures, without changing the bulbs.] smg58 May 17 2009 11:11 AM Soupcan's point is a fair one; you could certainly argue that the ultimate source of the problem in 2007 was that the starters couldn't get deep enough into the games. And reserving a roster spot all season for Aaron Sele (53 innings of 5.37 ERA work) didn't help. Ideally, I wouldn't ask for more than 70 innings from any of our relievers, and not much more than 60 from Feliciano. Right now, most of the pen is on pace for close to 70 innings, Rodriguez is on pace for 80 (he's gone over 70 once since 2004), and Putz is on pace for 92. Putz absolutely needs a reduced load; he won't last the season otherwise. Frankie can probably handle it, but I wouldn't push it if I didn't have to. They need more innings from the last spot in the pen, whether it's Takahashi or somebody else. Stokes has worked as a starter, so he might be the best bet to take on more innings. (That has to be within reason, though -- in 2007 Jorge Sosa pitched 20 innings his first month in the pen, but he fell apart in September and hasn't recovered yet.) Mendoza Line May 17 2009 01:17 PM Manuel's use of pitchers so far: Pitcher Innings to Date Projection for Season Career High Expectation Maine 40.33 181.49 191 190 Pelfrey 35 157.5 201 190 Santana 53 238.5 234 230 Hernandez 38.67 174.02 255 150 Perez 21.67 97.52 196 90 Figueroa 6 27 93 50 Redding 0 0 176 25 Rodriguez 18.67 84.02 86 80 Putz 21 94.5 78 65 Parnell 17.33 77.99 - 85 Feliciano 15.67 70.52 64 70 Green 15.33 68.99 79 50 Stokes 16 72 62 70 Takahashi 7 31.5 - 80 Others 17.67 79.52 - 30 Total 323.33 1455 - 1455 The projection for the season is simply the innings pitched multiplied by 9/2, as we're 2/9 through the season as of now. I didn't do anything to account for injuries/missed starts. The expectation is my expectation of how many innings we could reasonably expect to get out of each pitcher this season. The 1455 inning projection is roughly in line with the number of innings the Mets have played per season over the past few seasons. This is going to be tight. I really don't want to see another 35 innings of Sean Green, and 48 more innings of an effective Takahashi is optimistic. And I'm counting on no major injuries to any key pitchers (except for Livan, who figures to miss a few starts). It looks like Manuel is doing a decent job of managing the starters - Pelfrey's innings are low because he was injured at the start of the season. But, yeah, Putz is getting a little too much work right now if you believe this table. I wouldn't mind seeing Manuel throw a few more eighth-inning appearances Takahashi's way, just to see how he'd perform. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 17 2009 01:49 PM What would be telling is a breakdown of games in which Putz has already appeared, and how many of them were in games the Mets were losing and/or comfortably ahead. Strike those, do the projection over, and I'd bet he'd be in normal range. Edgy DC May 17 2009 01:51 PM No, I don't know that the Mets would have made it as far as they did hadn't they rode the bullpen as hard as they did. I know that they didn't make it to the playoffs either year and, and the end of them, several of their relievers were among the league leaders in appearances, even as their late-season breakdowns left them with statitistics that wouldn't suggest they should be pitched every day. Regarding those projections, they're a little deceptive. Johan Santana may have never thrown over 234 innings, but I'd wager he's never gotten half through May with a 1.36 ERA before, suggesting he's pitching to significantly fewer batters per inning. In short, usage isn't best measured in innings, but in pitches. For relievers, appearances is also a key measure. smg58 Jun 02 2009 07:37 AM ="smg58":2w5w8d0z]Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2w5w8d0z] Even with recording no outs yesterday, Putz is on a 90-inning pace. Putz never broke 80 in his years with Seattle. And it couldn't be more obvious his arm is not 100% back. We have guys (Stokes for sure, probably Parnell and Takahashi too) who can take on more work. Manuel is not doing Putz or the team any favors sending him out this often. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:14 AM I kept going over last night in my head. For what it's worth, J.J. didn't walk his way into trouble, but got Baltimore chopped to death. (Keith, you really don't know what that means? Grab a book.) Four seasons hop into my head --- the last two, 1985, and 1973. In the first three of these, the manager had a struggling righthanded reliever (last year, there were two), who was a big part of the team's plans going into the season. The manager in each case would find himself torn between the game at hand and the season at large. In order to win the game, you don't want to put it in the hands of a struggling pitcher. But in order to save the season, you want to redeem that struggling pitcher. So, rather than bury the guy, they downgrade him for one or two appearances before returning him to high-leverage situations. But I think that can be stubborn adherence to The Plan. And you can miss that a new --- perhaps better --- plan is emerging right before you. Davey Johnson in 1985 bounced Doug Sisk below Roger McDowell, but as the season wore on, McDowell was wearing down, and Sisk was still needed (and failing) in big situations. According to Bats, Frank Cashen had a deal on the table to move some prospects (it's never said which ones) to re-acquire Tom Seaver, which would have allowed him to move Rick Aguilera to the pen, where he had flourished in his few appearances and where he would eventually star. What's most bothersome to this day was that Johnson didn't want to move Aguilera because he didn't want to break with the plan, not only for 1985, but 1986, to which he was already looking ahead. The presence of Seaver would force him to rework his rotation, as if somebody (most likely Seaver) wouldn't get hurt and give Aguilera another chance at starting. In 2007, Willie Randolph always trying to redeem Guillermo Mota. He'd downgrade him for a few games and then return him to the mix. Granted, there were no obvious alternatives, but it took a while to even give Joe Smith more trust. Last year, the redemption of Heilman and Sanchez was continually stillborn while other alternatives fell by the wayside. The Mets have real alternatives here in Stokes and Parnell. I like working for redemption. The redemption of Tug McGraw (effected, it seems, by giving him two starts after all else had failed) was the story of 1973. But how about not returning Green and Putz to big moments until they show success after 10 appearances in the back of the pen, rather than two? And if some Eddie Kunz looks like he can move in there, give him a real crack at it. Adapt, baby! John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 02 2009 08:28 AM It's plainly obvious they are leaning way too heavily on Putz and I am convinced it is in the service of creating an illusion of a "lock-down pen" as overcompensation for 2008's failures. I'd give him Takahashi's role for a few weeks, slide Parnell and Stokes up a notch and score more fucking runs. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:35 AM Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night. OlerudOwned Jun 02 2009 01:26 PM We could certainly benefit a lot from Sean Green turning things around. He's walking too many batters, his GB% is down 8 notches from last year, his FB% is up 10, and a nutty 16.7% of those fly balls are homers. Doesn't look like any physical problems, so hopefully he can work through it. Give him some innings at home, maybe. The flyballs can turn into outs instead of homers, and hopefully confidence would beget a return to form. Anything to lessen the load on Putz, because his arm is clearly not all there. Fman99 Jun 02 2009 01:41 PM ="Edgy DC":6cnbj2zu]Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night.[/quote:6cnbj2zu] Not only that, that save was the one punctuated by two tremendous plays on defense, on balls that were hit hard and turned into outs by Castillo/Wright and Ramon Martinez. Benjamin Grimm Jun 02 2009 01:49 PM Yeah. I took the Schaefer point I'd normally give for a one-inning save and divided it among Wright, Castillo, and Martinez.

[Fman99]

JJ is quite good... at sucking ass! HIYO! Tip your wait staff folks, they're working hard tonight.

Seriously, he is either a) dinged and unable to bring the heat, or a malcontent who is pouting because he's now only the second coolest kid in class.

Well he should therefore a) figure himself out, medically, DL, rest, what have you, or drive himself headlong into a bridge abutment.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I sense that J.J. Putz won't be getting introduced to Fman's imaginary sister.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

="smg58":1l71a27b] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1l71a27b]PS -- Mike Carp is OPSing at 982 for Seattle's AAA squad. Not that there's a chance we'll need a fill-in first baseman or anything...[/quote:1l71a27b] The Mets didn't really have room for both Evans and Carp, and Evans seemed at the time to be a slightly better bet (plus we're short on righthanded bats). But Putz and Green were both risky pickups. (And I'm more worried that Jayson Vargas, now fully healthy, is turning into the player that Minaya thought he was getting when he dealt Henry Owens and Matt Lindstrom to get him.)[/quote:1l71a27b] Yeah, I know. It's just that when you trade 5 guys for 2 short relief pitchers, essentially, the chances you'll look bad are pretty good. As one guy described it this trade was like Baseball Mogul where the "opposing GM" keeps turning down your trade while you keep on adding guys to it until he says yes. I'd be interested to see what the CPF thought about the trade to begin with. Benjamin Grimm May 14 2009 09:31 AM If I recall correctly, I was happy to get Putz, but regretting giving up Smith, since I felt that Putz would be a one-year Met and Smith looked like he could be a good bullpen part for several years. Giving it more thought, I saw Green as the long-term replacement for Smith, and was a bit happier about the trade. I don't think I much regretted the loss of Carp. Last time I checked, Smith wasn't doing that great either, so even though this trade isn't working out so well so far, it doesn't seem like it will go down in history alongside the Nolan Ryan and Scott Kazmir trades. Farmer Ted May 14 2009 09:33 AM We could still have Heilman for the 8th inning. Putz v Heilman. Edge Putz. Less angina. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 14 2009 09:34 AM "The TiTTS say yea, verily Well of course they did. Edgy DC May 14 2009 09:40 AM To give Putz his due (and all setup men, for that matter), the system of a designated savior in a bullpen, where you're either the man or no man, is a fucking head trip and it's as psychologicially counterporuductive as it is strategically counterproductive. The idea that a guy could get through the eight in dazzling fashion but still get pulled to start the ninth, because, damn it, that's the other guy's job, well, it toys with a man. It toys with him. You figure, in a fair system, the number two guy would at least be able to sneak in and steal 1-3 saves a month. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 14 2009 09:45 AM Isn't it funny though that we all knew the Mets would show zero creativity with the whole thing and only wanted to give the impression they had created a "lock-down" endgame, above all other strategies that might better optimize the guys they got. Hell, they should have taken my advice and called Putz the "fireman" then maybe he'd get an erection when he was called on every now and then. But the fear of failure is baked in there too. Edgy DC May 14 2009 10:02 AM The fear of failure can be offset when there's an occasional bauble for the guy who earns it. The eighth innng guy can almost only fail. I mean, who knows --- or honestly cares --- who the all-time holds leader is? metirish May 14 2009 10:02 AM SNY play into this too, several times I have heard the booth guys and Burkhardt talk about how " lock down tight" the pen is now....Burkhardt was on recently talking about how great the pen is and I thought I must be missing games or something. Yes it's better than last year and I believe it has the best pen ERA but it's not as good as they might have you believe. Edgy DC May 14 2009 10:07 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 14 2009 10:16 AM And top guys are being grossly over-used because they use one where two would suffice, four where two would suffice, and pull the starters between 100 and 110 pitches almost as a rule. Benjamin Grimm May 14 2009 10:12 AM I agree. Let's get Jerry in here for an intervention. Fman99 May 14 2009 10:29 AM ="Edgy DC":2o1v6d4w]And top guys are being grossly over-used because they use one where two would suffice, four where two would suffice, and pull the starters between 100 and 110 pitches almost as a rule.[/quote:2o1v6d4w] How true. Betcha didn't know that Stokes got four outs yesterday on all of NINE PITCHES. They should've left him in for another inning, he was cruising. Edgy DC May 14 2009 10:41 AM I should have noted that in his grading. smg58 May 14 2009 03:37 PM Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork. Edgy DC May 14 2009 06:35 PM Every day, that "part" grows in my thinking. 2007, also. Elster88 May 15 2009 11:53 PM Ugh, the first casualty to pen overuse. Should they really overdo protecting Santana just to blow out the guys they got to protect his wins? Maybe they should so he can go nine in September, but I'm worried that this Torre-style bullpen use will end up with all our guys getting Tommy John surgery. Ashie62 May 16 2009 09:08 AM J.J. is a Putz Benjamin Grimm May 16 2009 09:50 AM It's funny because that's his name! OlerudOwned May 16 2009 10:06 AM Sigh. soupcan May 17 2009 09:25 AM ="smg58":9h0j2e51]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:9h0j2e51] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 17 2009 10:54 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 17 2009 12:51 PM ="soupcan":2k7waus1] ="smg58":2k7waus1]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2k7waus1] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)?[/quote:2k7waus1] Yes, but does it follow that one must overwork the pen--largely, by overusing the alphas-- to get there? [That's like saying, "We'll need plenty of electric light to do this job," and always using the same 2 fixtures, without changing the bulbs.] smg58 May 17 2009 11:11 AM Soupcan's point is a fair one; you could certainly argue that the ultimate source of the problem in 2007 was that the starters couldn't get deep enough into the games. And reserving a roster spot all season for Aaron Sele (53 innings of 5.37 ERA work) didn't help. Ideally, I wouldn't ask for more than 70 innings from any of our relievers, and not much more than 60 from Feliciano. Right now, most of the pen is on pace for close to 70 innings, Rodriguez is on pace for 80 (he's gone over 70 once since 2004), and Putz is on pace for 92. Putz absolutely needs a reduced load; he won't last the season otherwise. Frankie can probably handle it, but I wouldn't push it if I didn't have to. They need more innings from the last spot in the pen, whether it's Takahashi or somebody else. Stokes has worked as a starter, so he might be the best bet to take on more innings. (That has to be within reason, though -- in 2007 Jorge Sosa pitched 20 innings his first month in the pen, but he fell apart in September and hasn't recovered yet.) Mendoza Line May 17 2009 01:17 PM Manuel's use of pitchers so far: Pitcher Innings to Date Projection for Season Career High Expectation Maine 40.33 181.49 191 190 Pelfrey 35 157.5 201 190 Santana 53 238.5 234 230 Hernandez 38.67 174.02 255 150 Perez 21.67 97.52 196 90 Figueroa 6 27 93 50 Redding 0 0 176 25 Rodriguez 18.67 84.02 86 80 Putz 21 94.5 78 65 Parnell 17.33 77.99 - 85 Feliciano 15.67 70.52 64 70 Green 15.33 68.99 79 50 Stokes 16 72 62 70 Takahashi 7 31.5 - 80 Others 17.67 79.52 - 30 Total 323.33 1455 - 1455 The projection for the season is simply the innings pitched multiplied by 9/2, as we're 2/9 through the season as of now. I didn't do anything to account for injuries/missed starts. The expectation is my expectation of how many innings we could reasonably expect to get out of each pitcher this season. The 1455 inning projection is roughly in line with the number of innings the Mets have played per season over the past few seasons. This is going to be tight. I really don't want to see another 35 innings of Sean Green, and 48 more innings of an effective Takahashi is optimistic. And I'm counting on no major injuries to any key pitchers (except for Livan, who figures to miss a few starts). It looks like Manuel is doing a decent job of managing the starters - Pelfrey's innings are low because he was injured at the start of the season. But, yeah, Putz is getting a little too much work right now if you believe this table. I wouldn't mind seeing Manuel throw a few more eighth-inning appearances Takahashi's way, just to see how he'd perform. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 17 2009 01:49 PM What would be telling is a breakdown of games in which Putz has already appeared, and how many of them were in games the Mets were losing and/or comfortably ahead. Strike those, do the projection over, and I'd bet he'd be in normal range. Edgy DC May 17 2009 01:51 PM No, I don't know that the Mets would have made it as far as they did hadn't they rode the bullpen as hard as they did. I know that they didn't make it to the playoffs either year and, and the end of them, several of their relievers were among the league leaders in appearances, even as their late-season breakdowns left them with statitistics that wouldn't suggest they should be pitched every day. Regarding those projections, they're a little deceptive. Johan Santana may have never thrown over 234 innings, but I'd wager he's never gotten half through May with a 1.36 ERA before, suggesting he's pitching to significantly fewer batters per inning. In short, usage isn't best measured in innings, but in pitches. For relievers, appearances is also a key measure. smg58 Jun 02 2009 07:37 AM ="smg58":2w5w8d0z]Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2w5w8d0z] Even with recording no outs yesterday, Putz is on a 90-inning pace. Putz never broke 80 in his years with Seattle. And it couldn't be more obvious his arm is not 100% back. We have guys (Stokes for sure, probably Parnell and Takahashi too) who can take on more work. Manuel is not doing Putz or the team any favors sending him out this often. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:14 AM I kept going over last night in my head. For what it's worth, J.J. didn't walk his way into trouble, but got Baltimore chopped to death. (Keith, you really don't know what that means? Grab a book.) Four seasons hop into my head --- the last two, 1985, and 1973. In the first three of these, the manager had a struggling righthanded reliever (last year, there were two), who was a big part of the team's plans going into the season. The manager in each case would find himself torn between the game at hand and the season at large. In order to win the game, you don't want to put it in the hands of a struggling pitcher. But in order to save the season, you want to redeem that struggling pitcher. So, rather than bury the guy, they downgrade him for one or two appearances before returning him to high-leverage situations. But I think that can be stubborn adherence to The Plan. And you can miss that a new --- perhaps better --- plan is emerging right before you. Davey Johnson in 1985 bounced Doug Sisk below Roger McDowell, but as the season wore on, McDowell was wearing down, and Sisk was still needed (and failing) in big situations. According to Bats, Frank Cashen had a deal on the table to move some prospects (it's never said which ones) to re-acquire Tom Seaver, which would have allowed him to move Rick Aguilera to the pen, where he had flourished in his few appearances and where he would eventually star. What's most bothersome to this day was that Johnson didn't want to move Aguilera because he didn't want to break with the plan, not only for 1985, but 1986, to which he was already looking ahead. The presence of Seaver would force him to rework his rotation, as if somebody (most likely Seaver) wouldn't get hurt and give Aguilera another chance at starting. In 2007, Willie Randolph always trying to redeem Guillermo Mota. He'd downgrade him for a few games and then return him to the mix. Granted, there were no obvious alternatives, but it took a while to even give Joe Smith more trust. Last year, the redemption of Heilman and Sanchez was continually stillborn while other alternatives fell by the wayside. The Mets have real alternatives here in Stokes and Parnell. I like working for redemption. The redemption of Tug McGraw (effected, it seems, by giving him two starts after all else had failed) was the story of 1973. But how about not returning Green and Putz to big moments until they show success after 10 appearances in the back of the pen, rather than two? And if some Eddie Kunz looks like he can move in there, give him a real crack at it. Adapt, baby! John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 02 2009 08:28 AM It's plainly obvious they are leaning way too heavily on Putz and I am convinced it is in the service of creating an illusion of a "lock-down pen" as overcompensation for 2008's failures. I'd give him Takahashi's role for a few weeks, slide Parnell and Stokes up a notch and score more fucking runs. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:35 AM Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night. OlerudOwned Jun 02 2009 01:26 PM We could certainly benefit a lot from Sean Green turning things around. He's walking too many batters, his GB% is down 8 notches from last year, his FB% is up 10, and a nutty 16.7% of those fly balls are homers. Doesn't look like any physical problems, so hopefully he can work through it. Give him some innings at home, maybe. The flyballs can turn into outs instead of homers, and hopefully confidence would beget a return to form. Anything to lessen the load on Putz, because his arm is clearly not all there. Fman99 Jun 02 2009 01:41 PM ="Edgy DC":6cnbj2zu]Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night.[/quote:6cnbj2zu] Not only that, that save was the one punctuated by two tremendous plays on defense, on balls that were hit hard and turned into outs by Castillo/Wright and Ramon Martinez. Benjamin Grimm Jun 02 2009 01:49 PM Yeah. I took the Schaefer point I'd normally give for a one-inning save and divided it among Wright, Castillo, and Martinez.

[Benjamin Grimm]

If I recall correctly, I was happy to get Putz, but regretting giving up Smith, since I felt that Putz would be a one-year Met and Smith looked like he could be a good bullpen part for several years.

Giving it more thought, I saw Green as the long-term replacement for Smith, and was a bit happier about the trade.

I don't think I much regretted the loss of Carp.

Last time I checked, Smith wasn't doing that great either, so even though this trade isn't working out so well so far, it doesn't seem like it will go down in history alongside the Nolan Ryan and Scott Kazmir trades.

[Farmer Ted]

We could still have Heilman for the 8th inning. Putz v Heilman. Edge Putz. Less angina.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

"The TiTTS say yea, verily Well of course they did.

[Guest Edgy DC]

To give Putz his due (and all setup men, for that matter), the system of a designated savior in a bullpen, where you're either the man or no man, is a fucking head trip and it's as psychologicially counterporuductive as it is strategically counterproductive. The idea that a guy could get through the eight in dazzling fashion but still get pulled to start the ninth, because, damn it, that's the other guy's job, well, it toys with a man. It toys with him.

You figure, in a fair system, the number two guy would at least be able to sneak in and steal 1-3 saves a month.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Isn't it funny though that we all knew the Mets would show zero creativity with the whole thing and only wanted to give the impression they had created a "lock-down" endgame, above all other strategies that might better optimize the guys they got.

Hell, they should have taken my advice and called Putz the "fireman" then maybe he'd get an erection when he was called on every now and then. But the fear of failure is baked in there too.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The fear of failure can be offset when there's an occasional bauble for the guy who earns it. The eighth innng guy can almost only fail.

I mean, who knows --- or honestly cares --- who the all-time holds leader is?

[metirish]

SNY play into this too, several times I have heard the booth guys and Burkhardt talk about how " lock down tight" the pen is now....Burkhardt was on recently talking about how great the pen is and I thought I must be missing games or something.

Yes it's better than last year and I believe it has the best pen ERA but it's not as good as they might have you believe.

[Guest Edgy DC]

And top guys are being grossly over-used because they use one where two would suffice, four where two would suffice, and pull the starters between 100 and 110 pitches almost as a rule.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree. Let's get Jerry in here for an intervention.

[Fman99]

="Edgy DC":2o1v6d4w]And top guys are being grossly over-used because they use one where two would suffice, four where two would suffice, and pull the starters between 100 and 110 pitches almost as a rule.[/quote:2o1v6d4w] How true. Betcha didn't know that Stokes got four outs yesterday on all of NINE PITCHES. They should've left him in for another inning, he was cruising.

Edgy DC May 14 2009 10:41 AM

I should have noted that in his grading.

smg58 May 14 2009 03:37 PM

Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.

Edgy DC May 14 2009 06:35 PM

Every day, that "part" grows in my thinking. 2007, also.

Elster88 May 15 2009 11:53 PM

Ugh, the first casualty to pen overuse. Should they really overdo protecting Santana just to blow out the guys they got to protect his wins? Maybe they should so he can go nine in September, but I'm worried that this Torre-style bullpen use will end up with all our guys getting Tommy John surgery.

Ashie62 May 16 2009 09:08 AM

J.J. is a Putz

Benjamin Grimm May 16 2009 09:50 AM

It's funny because that's his name!

OlerudOwned May 16 2009 10:06 AM

Sigh.

soupcan May 17 2009 09:25 AM

="smg58":9h0j2e51]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:9h0j2e51] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 17 2009 10:54 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 17 2009 12:51 PM ="soupcan":2k7waus1] ="smg58":2k7waus1]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2k7waus1] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)?[/quote:2k7waus1] Yes, but does it follow that one must overwork the pen--largely, by overusing the alphas-- to get there? [That's like saying, "We'll need plenty of electric light to do this job," and always using the same 2 fixtures, without changing the bulbs.] smg58 May 17 2009 11:11 AM Soupcan's point is a fair one; you could certainly argue that the ultimate source of the problem in 2007 was that the starters couldn't get deep enough into the games. And reserving a roster spot all season for Aaron Sele (53 innings of 5.37 ERA work) didn't help. Ideally, I wouldn't ask for more than 70 innings from any of our relievers, and not much more than 60 from Feliciano. Right now, most of the pen is on pace for close to 70 innings, Rodriguez is on pace for 80 (he's gone over 70 once since 2004), and Putz is on pace for 92. Putz absolutely needs a reduced load; he won't last the season otherwise. Frankie can probably handle it, but I wouldn't push it if I didn't have to. They need more innings from the last spot in the pen, whether it's Takahashi or somebody else. Stokes has worked as a starter, so he might be the best bet to take on more innings. (That has to be within reason, though -- in 2007 Jorge Sosa pitched 20 innings his first month in the pen, but he fell apart in September and hasn't recovered yet.) Mendoza Line May 17 2009 01:17 PM Manuel's use of pitchers so far: Pitcher Innings to Date Projection for Season Career High Expectation Maine 40.33 181.49 191 190 Pelfrey 35 157.5 201 190 Santana 53 238.5 234 230 Hernandez 38.67 174.02 255 150 Perez 21.67 97.52 196 90 Figueroa 6 27 93 50 Redding 0 0 176 25 Rodriguez 18.67 84.02 86 80 Putz 21 94.5 78 65 Parnell 17.33 77.99 - 85 Feliciano 15.67 70.52 64 70 Green 15.33 68.99 79 50 Stokes 16 72 62 70 Takahashi 7 31.5 - 80 Others 17.67 79.52 - 30 Total 323.33 1455 - 1455 The projection for the season is simply the innings pitched multiplied by 9/2, as we're 2/9 through the season as of now. I didn't do anything to account for injuries/missed starts. The expectation is my expectation of how many innings we could reasonably expect to get out of each pitcher this season. The 1455 inning projection is roughly in line with the number of innings the Mets have played per season over the past few seasons. This is going to be tight. I really don't want to see another 35 innings of Sean Green, and 48 more innings of an effective Takahashi is optimistic. And I'm counting on no major injuries to any key pitchers (except for Livan, who figures to miss a few starts). It looks like Manuel is doing a decent job of managing the starters - Pelfrey's innings are low because he was injured at the start of the season. But, yeah, Putz is getting a little too much work right now if you believe this table. I wouldn't mind seeing Manuel throw a few more eighth-inning appearances Takahashi's way, just to see how he'd perform. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 17 2009 01:49 PM What would be telling is a breakdown of games in which Putz has already appeared, and how many of them were in games the Mets were losing and/or comfortably ahead. Strike those, do the projection over, and I'd bet he'd be in normal range. Edgy DC May 17 2009 01:51 PM No, I don't know that the Mets would have made it as far as they did hadn't they rode the bullpen as hard as they did. I know that they didn't make it to the playoffs either year and, and the end of them, several of their relievers were among the league leaders in appearances, even as their late-season breakdowns left them with statitistics that wouldn't suggest they should be pitched every day. Regarding those projections, they're a little deceptive. Johan Santana may have never thrown over 234 innings, but I'd wager he's never gotten half through May with a 1.36 ERA before, suggesting he's pitching to significantly fewer batters per inning. In short, usage isn't best measured in innings, but in pitches. For relievers, appearances is also a key measure. smg58 Jun 02 2009 07:37 AM ="smg58":2w5w8d0z]Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2w5w8d0z] Even with recording no outs yesterday, Putz is on a 90-inning pace. Putz never broke 80 in his years with Seattle. And it couldn't be more obvious his arm is not 100% back. We have guys (Stokes for sure, probably Parnell and Takahashi too) who can take on more work. Manuel is not doing Putz or the team any favors sending him out this often. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:14 AM I kept going over last night in my head. For what it's worth, J.J. didn't walk his way into trouble, but got Baltimore chopped to death. (Keith, you really don't know what that means? Grab a book.) Four seasons hop into my head --- the last two, 1985, and 1973. In the first three of these, the manager had a struggling righthanded reliever (last year, there were two), who was a big part of the team's plans going into the season. The manager in each case would find himself torn between the game at hand and the season at large. In order to win the game, you don't want to put it in the hands of a struggling pitcher. But in order to save the season, you want to redeem that struggling pitcher. So, rather than bury the guy, they downgrade him for one or two appearances before returning him to high-leverage situations. But I think that can be stubborn adherence to The Plan. And you can miss that a new --- perhaps better --- plan is emerging right before you. Davey Johnson in 1985 bounced Doug Sisk below Roger McDowell, but as the season wore on, McDowell was wearing down, and Sisk was still needed (and failing) in big situations. According to Bats, Frank Cashen had a deal on the table to move some prospects (it's never said which ones) to re-acquire Tom Seaver, which would have allowed him to move Rick Aguilera to the pen, where he had flourished in his few appearances and where he would eventually star. What's most bothersome to this day was that Johnson didn't want to move Aguilera because he didn't want to break with the plan, not only for 1985, but 1986, to which he was already looking ahead. The presence of Seaver would force him to rework his rotation, as if somebody (most likely Seaver) wouldn't get hurt and give Aguilera another chance at starting. In 2007, Willie Randolph always trying to redeem Guillermo Mota. He'd downgrade him for a few games and then return him to the mix. Granted, there were no obvious alternatives, but it took a while to even give Joe Smith more trust. Last year, the redemption of Heilman and Sanchez was continually stillborn while other alternatives fell by the wayside. The Mets have real alternatives here in Stokes and Parnell. I like working for redemption. The redemption of Tug McGraw (effected, it seems, by giving him two starts after all else had failed) was the story of 1973. But how about not returning Green and Putz to big moments until they show success after 10 appearances in the back of the pen, rather than two? And if some Eddie Kunz looks like he can move in there, give him a real crack at it. Adapt, baby! John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 02 2009 08:28 AM It's plainly obvious they are leaning way too heavily on Putz and I am convinced it is in the service of creating an illusion of a "lock-down pen" as overcompensation for 2008's failures. I'd give him Takahashi's role for a few weeks, slide Parnell and Stokes up a notch and score more fucking runs. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:35 AM Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night. OlerudOwned Jun 02 2009 01:26 PM We could certainly benefit a lot from Sean Green turning things around. He's walking too many batters, his GB% is down 8 notches from last year, his FB% is up 10, and a nutty 16.7% of those fly balls are homers. Doesn't look like any physical problems, so hopefully he can work through it. Give him some innings at home, maybe. The flyballs can turn into outs instead of homers, and hopefully confidence would beget a return to form. Anything to lessen the load on Putz, because his arm is clearly not all there. Fman99 Jun 02 2009 01:41 PM ="Edgy DC":6cnbj2zu]Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night.[/quote:6cnbj2zu] Not only that, that save was the one punctuated by two tremendous plays on defense, on balls that were hit hard and turned into outs by Castillo/Wright and Ramon Martinez. Benjamin Grimm Jun 02 2009 01:49 PM Yeah. I took the Schaefer point I'd normally give for a one-inning save and divided it among Wright, Castillo, and Martinez.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I should have noted that in his grading.

[smg58]

Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Every day, that "part" grows in my thinking.

2007, also.

[Elster88]

Ugh, the first casualty to pen overuse. Should they really overdo protecting Santana just to blow out the guys they got to protect his wins?

Maybe they should so he can go nine in September, but I'm worried that this Torre-style bullpen use will end up with all our guys getting Tommy John surgery.

[ashie62]

J.J. is a Putz

[Benjamin Grimm]

It's funny because that's his name!

[Guest OlerudOwned]

Sigh.

[soupcan]

="smg58":9h0j2e51]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:9h0j2e51] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 17 2009 10:54 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 17 2009 12:51 PM

="soupcan":2k7waus1] ="smg58":2k7waus1]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2k7waus1] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)?[/quote:2k7waus1] Yes, but does it follow that one must overwork the pen--largely, by overusing the alphas-- to get there? [That's like saying, "We'll need plenty of electric light to do this job," and always using the same 2 fixtures, without changing the bulbs.] smg58 May 17 2009 11:11 AM Soupcan's point is a fair one; you could certainly argue that the ultimate source of the problem in 2007 was that the starters couldn't get deep enough into the games. And reserving a roster spot all season for Aaron Sele (53 innings of 5.37 ERA work) didn't help. Ideally, I wouldn't ask for more than 70 innings from any of our relievers, and not much more than 60 from Feliciano. Right now, most of the pen is on pace for close to 70 innings, Rodriguez is on pace for 80 (he's gone over 70 once since 2004), and Putz is on pace for 92. Putz absolutely needs a reduced load; he won't last the season otherwise. Frankie can probably handle it, but I wouldn't push it if I didn't have to. They need more innings from the last spot in the pen, whether it's Takahashi or somebody else. Stokes has worked as a starter, so he might be the best bet to take on more innings. (That has to be within reason, though -- in 2007 Jorge Sosa pitched 20 innings his first month in the pen, but he fell apart in September and hasn't recovered yet.) Mendoza Line May 17 2009 01:17 PM Manuel's use of pitchers so far: Pitcher Innings to Date Projection for Season Career High Expectation Maine 40.33 181.49 191 190 Pelfrey 35 157.5 201 190 Santana 53 238.5 234 230 Hernandez 38.67 174.02 255 150 Perez 21.67 97.52 196 90 Figueroa 6 27 93 50 Redding 0 0 176 25 Rodriguez 18.67 84.02 86 80 Putz 21 94.5 78 65 Parnell 17.33 77.99 - 85 Feliciano 15.67 70.52 64 70 Green 15.33 68.99 79 50 Stokes 16 72 62 70 Takahashi 7 31.5 - 80 Others 17.67 79.52 - 30 Total 323.33 1455 - 1455 The projection for the season is simply the innings pitched multiplied by 9/2, as we're 2/9 through the season as of now. I didn't do anything to account for injuries/missed starts. The expectation is my expectation of how many innings we could reasonably expect to get out of each pitcher this season. The 1455 inning projection is roughly in line with the number of innings the Mets have played per season over the past few seasons. This is going to be tight. I really don't want to see another 35 innings of Sean Green, and 48 more innings of an effective Takahashi is optimistic. And I'm counting on no major injuries to any key pitchers (except for Livan, who figures to miss a few starts). It looks like Manuel is doing a decent job of managing the starters - Pelfrey's innings are low because he was injured at the start of the season. But, yeah, Putz is getting a little too much work right now if you believe this table. I wouldn't mind seeing Manuel throw a few more eighth-inning appearances Takahashi's way, just to see how he'd perform. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 17 2009 01:49 PM What would be telling is a breakdown of games in which Putz has already appeared, and how many of them were in games the Mets were losing and/or comfortably ahead. Strike those, do the projection over, and I'd bet he'd be in normal range. Edgy DC May 17 2009 01:51 PM No, I don't know that the Mets would have made it as far as they did hadn't they rode the bullpen as hard as they did. I know that they didn't make it to the playoffs either year and, and the end of them, several of their relievers were among the league leaders in appearances, even as their late-season breakdowns left them with statitistics that wouldn't suggest they should be pitched every day. Regarding those projections, they're a little deceptive. Johan Santana may have never thrown over 234 innings, but I'd wager he's never gotten half through May with a 1.36 ERA before, suggesting he's pitching to significantly fewer batters per inning. In short, usage isn't best measured in innings, but in pitches. For relievers, appearances is also a key measure. smg58 Jun 02 2009 07:37 AM ="smg58":2w5w8d0z]Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2w5w8d0z] Even with recording no outs yesterday, Putz is on a 90-inning pace. Putz never broke 80 in his years with Seattle. And it couldn't be more obvious his arm is not 100% back. We have guys (Stokes for sure, probably Parnell and Takahashi too) who can take on more work. Manuel is not doing Putz or the team any favors sending him out this often. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:14 AM I kept going over last night in my head. For what it's worth, J.J. didn't walk his way into trouble, but got Baltimore chopped to death. (Keith, you really don't know what that means? Grab a book.) Four seasons hop into my head --- the last two, 1985, and 1973. In the first three of these, the manager had a struggling righthanded reliever (last year, there were two), who was a big part of the team's plans going into the season. The manager in each case would find himself torn between the game at hand and the season at large. In order to win the game, you don't want to put it in the hands of a struggling pitcher. But in order to save the season, you want to redeem that struggling pitcher. So, rather than bury the guy, they downgrade him for one or two appearances before returning him to high-leverage situations. But I think that can be stubborn adherence to The Plan. And you can miss that a new --- perhaps better --- plan is emerging right before you. Davey Johnson in 1985 bounced Doug Sisk below Roger McDowell, but as the season wore on, McDowell was wearing down, and Sisk was still needed (and failing) in big situations. According to Bats, Frank Cashen had a deal on the table to move some prospects (it's never said which ones) to re-acquire Tom Seaver, which would have allowed him to move Rick Aguilera to the pen, where he had flourished in his few appearances and where he would eventually star. What's most bothersome to this day was that Johnson didn't want to move Aguilera because he didn't want to break with the plan, not only for 1985, but 1986, to which he was already looking ahead. The presence of Seaver would force him to rework his rotation, as if somebody (most likely Seaver) wouldn't get hurt and give Aguilera another chance at starting. In 2007, Willie Randolph always trying to redeem Guillermo Mota. He'd downgrade him for a few games and then return him to the mix. Granted, there were no obvious alternatives, but it took a while to even give Joe Smith more trust. Last year, the redemption of Heilman and Sanchez was continually stillborn while other alternatives fell by the wayside. The Mets have real alternatives here in Stokes and Parnell. I like working for redemption. The redemption of Tug McGraw (effected, it seems, by giving him two starts after all else had failed) was the story of 1973. But how about not returning Green and Putz to big moments until they show success after 10 appearances in the back of the pen, rather than two? And if some Eddie Kunz looks like he can move in there, give him a real crack at it. Adapt, baby! John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 02 2009 08:28 AM It's plainly obvious they are leaning way too heavily on Putz and I am convinced it is in the service of creating an illusion of a "lock-down pen" as overcompensation for 2008's failures. I'd give him Takahashi's role for a few weeks, slide Parnell and Stokes up a notch and score more fucking runs. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:35 AM Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night. OlerudOwned Jun 02 2009 01:26 PM We could certainly benefit a lot from Sean Green turning things around. He's walking too many batters, his GB% is down 8 notches from last year, his FB% is up 10, and a nutty 16.7% of those fly balls are homers. Doesn't look like any physical problems, so hopefully he can work through it. Give him some innings at home, maybe. The flyballs can turn into outs instead of homers, and hopefully confidence would beget a return to form. Anything to lessen the load on Putz, because his arm is clearly not all there. Fman99 Jun 02 2009 01:41 PM ="Edgy DC":6cnbj2zu]Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night.[/quote:6cnbj2zu] Not only that, that save was the one punctuated by two tremendous plays on defense, on balls that were hit hard and turned into outs by Castillo/Wright and Ramon Martinez. Benjamin Grimm Jun 02 2009 01:49 PM Yeah. I took the Schaefer point I'd normally give for a one-inning save and divided it among Wright, Castillo, and Martinez.