A Tomato Thrower with the Tomato Growers

[Edgy MD]

Oliver Perez trying to learn to pitch again (which is the greatest love of all), appearing out of the bullpen with the Tomateros de Culiac�n in the Mexican Winter League. He's so far put up a 7.36 ERA in three appearances That's certainly not good, but it's not as bad as it sounds and it may be the Hell he has to walk thrugh if he ever to find his way back. He's got two walks and six strikeouts in 3 2/3 innings, which suggests he's (mostly) throwing strikes.

He's meanwhile given up no jonrones and has a 1.5:1 GO ratio, so the strikes he's throwing aren't getting rocketed by the fringe hitters he's facing, but are finding the grass nonetheless.

Hopefully they do what Jerry wouldn't in September and throw him out there to start sooner or later. He could use the love.

�Vivan los Tomateros!

[Valadius]

Edgy DC wrote: and it may be the Hell he has to walk thrugh if he ever to find his way back

Damn, you just gave me the idea to write an "Ollie's Inferno" post.

[Ceetar]

no speed reports right? (which may be the best part, as too many people zero in on the number like literally 92+ is good pitcher and 89 is bad pitcher)

6Ks is comforting. the fringe statistics look okay. Ollie is at his best when he's throwing the ball by guys. Even in some of his bad performances, you'd be screaming for his head in the fourthi nning and suddenly realize he was throwing a no-hitter. So ifhe's getting Ks, and not serving up meatballs that are getting smacked over fences, it may be the first glimmer of hope.

[ashie62]

Maybe if Perez does well in the Mexican league and carries it over into spring training Sandy will have an easier job trading Ollie's sorry azz.

[Edgy MD]

And now it gets interesting.

W	L	ERA	G	GS	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	SO	GO/AO	AVG-A
2	0	3.00	7	2	0	0	0	15	12	5	5	0	9	14	0.67	.222

[MFS62]

I was geting ready to talk about how many of the Mexican teams play at altitudes far above sea level, so its hard to throw breaking ball in the thin air (like Denver, Colorado). Then I googled Culiacan and found out it is less than 200 feet (55 meters)above sea level. So I hold my judgement about Ollie's performance.

Later

[seawolf17]

Thing is, we know Ollie's theoretically capable of that, which is why I've been hesitant to just toss him overboard this whole time.

[Ceetar]

Hypothetical time, because, it's November and my Paradox script is pissing me off and I'd rather think about the Mets.

Say Perez performs well now and in Spring Training and for whatever crazy reason, makes it into the rotation.

It's possible he could have two starts before pitching at Citi Field. Is there anything he can do in those two starts that would earn him any credibility before his first start at home?

And in a related note, will attendance spike for that game? I sense a willingness for fans to actually go out and boo him.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I doubt that Oliver Perez would affect the attendance, at least not in a positive way. I would guess that fans would be more motivated to go to a game that the Mets might win than a game where they'd be (unfairly or not) expected to lose.

I also don't think a good winter and spring would redeem Ollie in the eyes of very many Mets fans, given how high the antipathy got. It will take considerably more than that.

[Edgy MD]

Pitching well in the off-season, in spring training, and in his first two starts on the road will certainly soften the abuse he gets upon his homecoming, in intensity and duration. So would a press-narrative that scapegoats Manuel for undermining Perez, which is true though certainly hugely over-simplistic.

But that's a long road home.

[seawolf17]

The only way it affects attendance is if he throws a no-hitter in one of those first two starts.

If he pitches well enough in the spring to earn a spot, then I'll support him.
If he pitches well enough in the spring to earn a spot and then has two solid starts on the road, then I'll support him.
If he pitches well enough in the spring to earn a spot, then gets lit up in his first two starts, then I'll get my pitchfork and flaming torch ready for his homecoming.

[Ceetar]

seawolf17 wrote: The only way it affects attendance is if he throws a no-hitter in one of those first two starts. If he pitches well enough in the spring to earn a spot, then I'll support him. If he pitches well enough in the spring to earn a spot and then has two solid starts on the road, then I'll support him. If he pitches well enough in the spring to earn a spot, then gets lit up in his first two starts, then I'll get my pitchfork and flaming torch ready for his homecoming.

What if he pitches badly and they make that home start "pitchfork giveaway day"?

[Centerfield]

He will never make up for it in my eyes. More than sucking, his refusal to go to the minors was an unforgivable offense for me.

[Edgy MD]

I understand where you're coming from, but it didn't cost the Mets a thing.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It effectively cost them a roster spot. In the long run, given the way 2010 turned out, it probably didn't matter. But at the time, we didn't know that. The Mets were still a contending team until early July. Perez's stubbornness could have been very costly.

Anyway, whether the selfishness proved harmful or not, it's not an admirable quality. It certainly can be considered grounds for not liking him.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It effectively cost them a roster spot. In the long run, given the way 2010 turned out, it probably didn't matter. But at the time, we didn't know that. The Mets were still a contending team until early July. Perez's stubbornness could have been very costly. Anyway, whether the selfishness proved harmful or not, it's not an admirable quality. It certainly can be considered grounds for not liking him.

Except that M went just as long not using Elmer Dessens either. So it's not like he was sitting there wishing he had another pitcher out there. And the Mets brought him back from the minors early for some odd reason.

[Edgy MD]

I think every team has a roster spot dedicated to a relatively ineffective/out of sorts/project pitcher who pitches mopup in situations of little consequence. There's certainly room on the roster for such a guy. The Mets wanted to give that spot to another guy, and he frustrated those plans, but it didn't cost them anything. Jerry being vindictive and avoiding using Ollie in even those spots probably cost them more. If the GM sees fit to keep him on the roster, the manager has a job to get what he can out of him.

Ceetar wrote: Except that M went just as long not using Elmer Dessens either. So it's not like he was sitting there wishing he had another pitcher out there. And the Mets brought him back from the minors early for some odd reason.

Certainly. Jerry and Omar had a funny thing going with the way the former openly disregarded the players the latter gave him.

[Edgy MD]

Adam Rubin wrote: Just got this from a person familiar with Ollie's winter-ball activity, since obviously velocity is more important than a scoreless-inning streak against Mexican Winter League batters. "Early velocties were 87-89, with an occasional 90 mph, all out of the pen. Starting velocity ... consistent 88 mph, but spikes are higher and more common. They are seeing occasional 91, 92."

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: I think every team has a roster spot dedicated to a relatively ineffective/out of sorts/project pitcher who pitches mopup in situations of little consequence. There's certainly room on the roster for such a guy. .

I disagree with this. Or put it this way: if there is a spot on a team's roster for that guy, then the roster's flawed. Teams can't afford that spot anymore ... not in today's "pitch-count" game where it's not unusual for even the winning team to use four pitchers to preserve the win.

[Edgy MD]

Sure they can. And do. As noted above, they weren't using Dessens either. And whether you develop that player into a more useful part of the team or simply save more effective arms by offering him the garbage innings that inevitiably arise, there is a payback for the team.

A seemingly playoff bound Mets team carried Aaron Sele all year without giving him a high-leverage inning until the last week.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I wouldn't equate Elmer Dessens or Aaron Sele with Ollie v2010.

[Edgy MD]

It's not necessary to.

[seawolf17]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I think every team has a roster spot dedicated to a relatively ineffective/out of sorts/project pitcher who pitches mopup in situations of little consequence. There's certainly room on the roster for such a guy. . I disagree with this. Or put it this way: if there is a spot on a team's roster for that guy, then the roster's flawed. Teams can't afford that spot anymore ... not in today's "pitch-count" game where it's not unusual for even the winning team to use four pitchers to preserve the win.

I agree. If your GM is putting a player on your roster, and your manager is openly saying "I am not using this guy," then every game you lose, you're wasting that spot.

That was the most frustrating thing for me with the Ollie/Warthen/Omar/Jerry demographic. If the guy's on your roster, you need to find a way for him (and your team) to be successful. If not, then something needs to give. Either the GM needs to get rid of the player, or if he feels that the player can still contribute, the manager/pitching coach.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Fine. Don't compare Dessens to Perez. Carrying Perez compromised the Mets ability to compete in 2010. Perez couldn't be trusted. Period. Even when you're down by two or three, you need a dependable pitcher. Otherwise, you're conceding the game before it's over. Dessens was relatively decent. Perez's spot on the roster was unjustifiable. That there were a few one-week or so stretches where Dessens didn't play does not make the case for Perez.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

I agree. If your GM is putting a player on your roster, and your manager is openly saying "I am not using this guy," then every game you lose, you're wasting that spot. That was the most frustrating thing for me with the Ollie/Warthen/Omar/Jerry demographic. If the guy's on your roster, you need to find a way for him (and your team) to be successful. If not, then something needs to give. Either the GM needs to get rid of the player, or if he feels that the player can still contribute, the manager/pitching coach.

That's my contention. That it was Minaya's place to (a) release Perez, ( compell Manuel to use him, or © replace Manuel with someone willing to do his lord's will.

Manuel's stupid doghouse sucked.

Perez's spot on the roster was unjustifiable.

Manuel appeared to have agreed with you and Minaya not, and I think that was the team's real problem.

OE: I suppoe Minaya's superiors could have stripped him of the power to act against either Perez or Manuel.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'm speculating that Minaya's options were limited by ownership, and that cutting Perez and eating his large salary was not in Minaya's toolbox.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: I agree. If your GM is putting a player on your roster, and your manager is openly saying "I am not using this guy," then every game you lose, you're wasting that spot. That was the most frustrating thing for me with the Ollie/Warthen/Omar/Jerry demographic. If the guy's on your roster, you need to find a way for him (and your team) to be successful. If not, then something needs to give. Either the GM needs to get rid of the player, or if he feels that the player can still contribute, the manager/pitching coach. That's my contention. That it was Minaya's place to (a) release Perez, ( compell Manuel to use him, or © replace Manuel with someone willing to do his lord's will. Manuel's stupid doghouse sucked. Perez's spot on the roster was unjustifiable. Manuel appeared to have agreed with you and Minaya not, and I think that was the team's real problem. OE: I suppoe Minaya's superiors could have stripped him of the power to act against either Perez or Manuel.

Whatever. But you're digressing. Because the issue you initially raised, I thought, was not what Minaya ought to have done but whether Perez's roster spot was justified.

[Edgy MD]

Whatever yourself. I wrote the same thing you did and I get "whatever"? Give me a break.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: Whatever yourself. I wrote the same thing you did and I get "whatever"? Give me a break.

I'll rewrite my last post.

[crossout]Whatever.[/crossout] But you're digressing. Because the issue you initially raised, I thought, was not what Minaya ought to have done but whether Perez's roster spot was justified. The back door politics that enabled Perez to remain on the 25 man roster for as long as he did is irrelevant.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Adam Rubin wrote: Just got this from a person familiar with Ollie's winter-ball activity, since obviously velocity is more important than a scoreless-inning streak against Mexican Winter League batters. "Early velocties were 87-89, with an occasional 90 mph, all out of the pen. Starting velocity ... consistent 88 mph, but spikes are higher and more common. They are seeing occasional 91, 92."

Did he really say that? Velocity is more important than a scoreless-inning streak?

Sure Adam, I don't care if Ollie gets anyone out. if he throws 95 he can have a spot in the rotation no matter the result.