IGT 4/30/13: A Fresh Start (Mets @ Marlins)

[Fman99]

Jesus tap dancing fucking Christ.

[A Boy Named Seo]

hi, i'm just logging in to say, 'FUCKING GODDAMN SHIT!' and now i'm gonna go drink some drinks. night, yall.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Let's get out there and find an even more humiliating way to lose tomorrow night!

[Guest Swan Swan H]

I thought last night was the worst loss I've seen in a while, but it only took 21 1/2 hours to top it.

[metirish]

What a fucking joke.....a joke...terrible loss.......feel bad for Heffner.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Hey, at least this one was short.

[Frayed Knot]

At the first passed ball I knew the game was lost.
At the second one the TV was off before the ball was halfway to the backstop.

[Guest cooby]

Well heck

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Because most of the time you _don't_ use those guys. Why carry the 25th man that's only pitching in blowouts or if the game happens to go 15? If he's good enough to use regularly, you're going to find him innings to pitch regularly, and if he's just eating space to save waste innings.. Terry Leach appeared in 52 games in 1988. Darren Oliver in 45 games in 2006. Pat Mahomes appeared in 92 games between 1999 and 2000. These appearances covered a large amount of innings, which served the team. The were not "eating space to save waste innings" (not sure what that means but still), but rather held a little bit more in reserve than other pitchers to be used when a long outing or emergency start might crop up, sparing perhaps several pitchers who maybe are more effective but trained for shorter appearances, and are used with less reserve. There was a pretty demonstrable benefit.

There's some truth to what cee sez. Starting pitchers pitch less innings these days. So relievers, it follows, pitch more frequently. And so the trend is to stock the rosters with shorter relievers who can pitch on more days, if not more innings. Hence, the lack of longer relievers, at least relative to the way things used to be 15 or 20 years ago and before that.

Edgy MD wrote: Having starters pitch fewer innings, and having relievers pitch fewer innings, screws you at two ends, leaving a mushy middle where lesser pitchers get a disproportionate share of high-leverage innings compared to prior years, to say nothing of a less versatile roster.

It screws you at three ends. Because now you need more pitchers. So you have less position players. A player that's not good enough to play every day probably won't make the team unless he can either backstop or play multiple positions. And even then, the bench is still shorter, so a manager has less managerial options. Which is soemwhat ironic because the more pitching changes there are, the more pinch hitters a manager'd like to have. This dramatic change in the makeup of a team really justifies roster expansion to 26. But that'll cost each team an average of over $1M a year between salary expenses, travel costs, extra uniforms and extra salami and lettuce at the post-game buffet. And it's always all about the lettuce. The other lettuce.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Terry said that if Marcum had gotten out of the 15th, Anthony Recker would have been his pitcher for the 16th inning.

I'd fire Terry just for that. In the era of the expanded pitching staff, you shouldn't run out of pitchers after only 15 innings.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Disagree. I'd sooner a manager for saving relievers to pitch in the 16th inning of a game they were winning throughout.

When Harvey ran low on gas he needed those outs that Carson and Atchison got him. That loss was entirely on the offense and defense.

[batmagadanleadoff]

How does a team get to the 16th inning if they're "winning throughout"?

[Benjamin Grimm]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Disagree. I'd sooner a manager for saving relievers to pitch in the 16th inning of a game they were winning throughout. When Harvey ran low on gas he needed those outs that Carson and Atchison got him. That loss was entirely on the offense and defense.

Yeah, that's fine. But once the game went into extras he should have made fewer pitching changes.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: But once the game went into extras he should have made fewer pitching changes.

This, I totally agree with.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: But once the game went into extras he should have made fewer pitching changes. This, I totally agree with.

Parnell for two (and he was worried about wearing Parnell out off of evidence from last year, and he'd pitched the day before)

Familia for two (This is probably where you needed to go longer, but..precious arm I guess?)

Then Rice for one, who'd already pitched the previous two games. Probably should've pushed him farther too though. Part of the problem is the pitchers you have left are usually the ones you're looking to have a day off to stay fresh.

[smg58]

There's no easy answer here. I wouldn't have lost with somebody other than Parnell out there last night, but maybe that wouldn't be in the team's best long-term interests. I have to agree with the notion that the current Mets team won't make any manager look good.