Thoughts on the (opening day) Game!!!!

[Frayed Knot]

1 - I don�t do a lot of ump bitching but we were DEFINITELY not getting our fair share of ball/strike calls. A lot of the B/S calls were more like BS calls!!!!

2 - It was actually only five walks allowed (seemed like thirty) but every one of them came back to bite us!!!!
* Gee gets Harper 0-2 leading off the 2nd. He appears to have a called strike 3 but didn�t get it and then issued three straight balls. Two batters later LaRoche HR�d for two runs instead of one.
* 7th inning - Gee walks LaRoche w/2 outs. This one wasn�t terrible as it gave him Rendon instead, but then he couldn�t get Rendon and was out of the game.
* then Torres comes on with 2 outs and needs to get one guy (McLouth) he walks him
* on comes Rice needing to get Span and didn�t even throw one strike (OK maybe he did - but still)
* Parnell with 2-outs in the 9th walks K-happy Espinosa on a full count. He then gave up the tying hit on the next pitch

3 - EY�s defense didn�t do his pitchers much good.
Twice with shots at turning a DP he didn�t. First one was when Harper tried to eat his shin, the second again with Harper coming in, much softer this time, but EY was already bailing possibly with thoughts of the first one in mind. Neither turn was a gimme, but both were possible. Both non doubled-up runners later scored.
Then his �no triples� defense when he was out in LF was partially responsible for Werth�s leadoff hit in the 10th
No errors, but also no favors - and all this is giving him a pass on the Harper smash to begin with. Again it was a tough play and correctly scored a Hit, but again it was a possible play not made.

4 - Heard Francesa�s opening just before the game starts (for all these years he and NYM games have been mutually exclusive). Started immediately carping on the �rows and rows of empty seats� and how he �didn�t want to hear that this was a sell-out�. Looked pretty full to me, but I guess that�s what happens when you actually wait for the game to start before reaching a conclusion.

5 - The short bench could have burned us with the extra innings though it didn�t. Hope things are back to full by Wednesday

6 - Parnell?!?? I don�t want to be a slave to the radar gun and start equating slower automatically with worse, but he�s WAY down even from last year much less from his triple-digits of a few years back. This obviously bears watching. The ST numbers were good but of course that's SSS and maybe lots of non-ML hitters faced.

7 - The pen in general. Have to be careful not to overreact off one game: [Replace Parnell w/Valverde, etc.] It's not like all of them aren't going to have good days and bad.

8 - Tough to fault Familia on his inning. A bloop that stayed up forever but still fell, a broken bat seeing-eye single, etc.

9 - Good debut by Valverde, not so good for Granderson, horrid for Lannan

10 - Having to wait 50 hours until the next game suxxx!!!!

Edited March 31, 2014 by Guest

[Guest cooby]

Frayed Knot wrote: 10 - Having to wait 50 hours until the next game suxxx!!!!

Yes...

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

To me it really came down to EY's plays not made, plus the gamble on the pen with Parnell's readiness an obvious red flag from the get-go. No matter how it came apart, it didn't feel like a 1-run lead was the kind of thing you can trust this Mets team with yet.

[ashie62]

I watched on TV and the seats you see behind the plate were largely empty...There were asses in the rest of them..

[smg58]

I'll be more concerned about Parnell's velocity if it stays this low after a week or two. He was a little bit of luck away from a fairly routine inning, so no need to panic.

Lannan does not profile as a situational pitcher -- a guy who at his best gives up loads of singles and has no platoon splits is not somebody you bring in to close out an inning with a man on third. There might not be a right way to use Lannan if he doesn't pitch better, but that was the wrong way.

Torres and Rice have been better than that and I'm not worried about them. Yet.

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: To me it really came down to EY's plays not made, plus the gamble on the pen with Parnell's readiness an obvious red flag from the get-go. No matter how it came apart, it didn't feel like a 1-run lead was the kind of thing you can trust this Mets team with yet.

You know I dislike EY as much as the next guy (he's really generally just average/slightly below as a fielder) but I kinda want to give him a pass given how few reps he's really gotten at second. There was a play in the hole that wasn't ruled an error but should've been though, where he bobbled it and then still maybe could've gotten him but didn't throw.

smg58 wrote: I'll be more concerned about Parnell's velocity if it stays this low after a week or two. He was a little bit of luck away from a fairly routine inning, so no need to panic. Lannan does not profile as a situational pitcher -- a guy who at his best gives up loads of singles and has no platoon splits is not somebody you bring in to close out an inning with a man on third. There might not be a right way to use Lannan if he doesn't pitch better, but that was the wrong way. Torres and Rice have been better than that and I'm not worried about them. Yet.

Lannan's just not really good at all and he's not really a LOOGY with platoon splits either.

Parnell was 93-94 by the end. I know that's down from the 96-97 average he was posting last year, but it's early and he's recovering from neck surgery. That was 3-4 mph higher than he was throwing in Spring, so I figure it's a good sign though I'd still like to try to have bigger leads while he works himself back up to shape.

Chris Young as actually on deck at one point, so presumably the strain isn't that big a deal.

They changed the scoreboard again. It's a little more simplistic now. I like it, though it's missing the running total ERA counts that I used to like.

beer prices went up a quarter to $9 even. Much better selection though.

Cold.

[Zvon]

Frayed Knot wrote: * then Torres comes on with 2 outs and needs to get one guy (McLouth) he walks him 10 - Having to wait 50 hours until the next game suxxx!!!!

This was the turning point for me. He needed to get only one guy and he gives a free pass. It set the tone for the rest.

Somebody explain to me why there isn't a game tomorrow. That's ridiculous.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Saves sellout in event of rainout

[bmfc1]

FK did a nice job of getting in my head, but I also want to mention that we started a terrible SS and then brought in his terrible backup. For all of Sandy's talk about improving the team, Tejada is still the SS and Q is still the backup. Would Tejada be on the roster of any other major league team? I doubt it and if so, he'd be on the bench but he's starting for the Mets. Q is a nonentity and to have him used as a pinchhitter, even with Murphy's absence and C. Young's injury, shows poor roster construction.

[Frayed Knot]

Backup shortstops are almost always going to be low-hitting, glove guys so it's not like getting rid of Q and replacing him with [player X from the pile of available non-starters] is going to change things much. The problem, IOW, isn't really with the specific backup it's that, unless the everyday guy suddenly bounces back to 2012 form, the starter isn't strong enough.

As for using Q yesterday, I though Terry made all the reasonable moves, especially seeing how he was hamstrung with a temporarily short roster.
Q to 2nd for defense plus Young to LF and Brown out of the game in order to protect a one-run lead in the 9th was the way to go, but stuff like that all falls apart when what your pitcher really needs is a LF who's 18 feet tall.

[Centerfield]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Saves sellout in event of rainout

How does that work? Does it make a difference if the makeup is today or Thursday?

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Backup shortstops are almost always going to be low-hitting, glove guys so it's not like getting rid of Q and replacing him with [player X from the pile of available non-starters] is going to change things much. The problem, IOW, isn't really with the specific backup it's that, unless the everyday guy suddenly bounces back to 2012 form, the starter isn't strong enough. As for using Q yesterday, I though Terry made all the reasonable moves, especially seeing how he was hamstrung with a temporarily short roster. Q to 2nd for defense plus Young to LF and Brown out of the game in order to protect a one-run lead in the 9th was the way to go, but stuff like that all falls apart when what your pitcher really needs is a LF who's 18 feet tall.

I don't think Young is appreciably better on defense than Brown and you essentially replaced Brown's bat with 0's.

I was confused by the double-switching though. Like bringing in Recker for the final couple of outs of the 10th, you ended up being what would've been the tying run (with Q behind him). These double-switches didn't lengthen the lineup (just pinch-hitting for pitcher would've done better) and it wasn't that short since Young apparently could pinch hit.

Then again, it always seems like this happens in extra inning games, managers somehow get all the subs in there. And Williams didn't use his closer tie game on the road either.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Saves sellout in event of rainout How does that work? Does it make a difference if the makeup is today or Thursday?

yes, because if I bought tickets to Opening Day (for a different price) I certainly don't want to then miss it by not having tickets to it.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Backup shortstops are almost always going to be low-hitting, glove guys so it's not like getting rid of Q and replacing him with [player X from the pile of available non-starters] is going to change things much. The problem, IOW, isn't really with the specific backup it's that, unless the everyday guy suddenly bounces back to 2012 form, the starter isn't strong enough. As for using Q yesterday, I though Terry made all the reasonable moves, especially seeing how he was hamstrung with a temporarily short roster. Q to 2nd for defense plus Young to LF and Brown out of the game in order to protect a one-run lead in the 9th was the way to go, but stuff like that all falls apart when what your pitcher really needs is a LF who's 18 feet tall. I don't think Young is appreciably better on defense than Brown and you essentially replaced Brown's bat with 0's. I was confused by the double-switching though. Like bringing in Recker for the final couple of outs of the 10th, you ended up being what would've been the tying run (with Q behind him). These double-switches didn't lengthen the lineup (just pinch-hitting for pitcher would've done better) and it wasn't that short since Young apparently could pinch hit. Then again, it always seems like this happens in extra inning games, managers somehow get all the subs in there. And Williams didn't use his closer tie game on the road either.

Young is hardly a GG out there but he's a damn sight better than Brown and Q is better at 2B than Young. With a one-run lead in the 9th those moves are no-brainers IMO.

The double-switches were mainly for batting order reasons (Ike for Duda, etc.) I'd have to re-check the d'Arnaud/Recker one.
And while I've been critical of Terry in the past for over-using that tactic, I was OK with how he handled things yesterday.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Backup shortstops are almost always going to be low-hitting, glove guys so it's not like getting rid of Q and replacing him with [player X from the pile of available non-starters] is going to change things much. The problem, IOW, isn't really with the specific backup it's that, unless the everyday guy suddenly bounces back to 2012 form, the starter isn't strong enough. As for using Q yesterday, I though Terry made all the reasonable moves, especially seeing how he was hamstrung with a temporarily short roster. Q to 2nd for defense plus Young to LF and Brown out of the game in order to protect a one-run lead in the 9th was the way to go, but stuff like that all falls apart when what your pitcher really needs is a LF who's 18 feet tall. I don't think Young is appreciably better on defense than Brown and you essentially replaced Brown's bat with 0's. I was confused by the double-switching though. Like bringing in Recker for the final couple of outs of the 10th, you ended up being what would've been the tying run (with Q behind him). These double-switches didn't lengthen the lineup (just pinch-hitting for pitcher would've done better) and it wasn't that short since Young apparently could pinch hit. Then again, it always seems like this happens in extra inning games, managers somehow get all the subs in there. And Williams didn't use his closer tie game on the road either. Young is hardly a GG out there but he's a damn sight better than Brown and Q is better at 2B than Young. With a one-run lead in the 9th those moves are no-brainers IMO. The double-switches were mainly for batting order reasons (Ike for Duda, etc.) I'd have to re-check the d'Arnaud/Recker one. And while I've been critical of Terry in the past for over-using that tactic, I was OK with how he handled things yesterday.

Young was bad on defense so yeah, I guess the infield and Parnell's tendency for grounders make sense there more than the OF, and I guess you're assuming you don't need the batting order.

But the double switches for batting order cost spots. It's not like the relievers were due up 2nd. You could've pinch-hit Duda and left him in the game and gotten a whole new turn of the batting order.

[Edgy MD]

FK's thoughts were my thoughts. The Mets didn't get any breaks but didn't make any for themselves either.

One thing I'd've added is that Granderson's day of non-contributions really deserved its own line. It was pretty fitting that he whiffed to end the game. He doesn't get his season started in a few days, people are going to be real quick to hang Jason Bay's name over his head.

Terry's moves were mostly solid and defensible, yes, but did you really see going to Torres looking to close out the seventh? I think of him as the long guy, and would look to Parnell, Valverde, Familia, and possibly Germen first.

I hope Terry isn't already locked into a "Valverde for the eighth, Parnell for the ninth" mindset. Un-necessary losses lie in that direction.

[Vic Sage]

I hope Terry isn't already locked into a "Valverde for the eighth, Parnell for the ninth" mindset. Un-necessary losses lie in that direction.

i think he's been locked into that mindset since they sent Black down. Terry is nothing if not a follower of unwritten rules. Has he ever given us any indication that he would use his bullpen creatively, like instead of having pre-designated innings for certain relievers, just putting his best pitchers into the highest leverage situations? If so, i haven't seen it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Vic Sage wrote: I hope Terry isn't already locked into a "Valverde for the eighth, Parnell for the ninth" mindset. Un-necessary losses lie in that direction. i think he's been locked into that mindset since they sent Black down. Terry is nothing if not a follower of unwritten rules. Has he ever given us any indication that he would use his bullpen creatively, like instead of having pre-designated innings for certain relievers, just putting his best pitchers into the highest leverage situations? If so, i haven't seen it.

Jeez, i wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the last Met manager to eschew assigning innings to relievers was Davey Johnson.

[Edgy MD]

He's certainly given lip service*, if nothing else. He seems to have an internal conflict over it. He speaks of objecting to innings-specific roles, while seemingly searching for a bullpen formula that would happily fall into place as such.

I think all managers can be like this to one extent or another and grow moreso with age --- coming with a sensibility that objects to hard-to-justify status quo practice but not necessarily having the... moral energy... to make fundamental alterations. Your underlings waste energy questioning your changes and blaming them. The culture demonizes you. The press makes a mockery of you. And any loss that happens gets attributed to your smarty-pants new age approach, as if teams didn't lose 81 times before you showed up.

This is pretty much why Tony LaRussa probably deserves the Hall of Fame, as poorly as it tastes to say so. People naturally want security, and so gravitate toward cultural norms.

And don't give Davey Johnson too much credit here. His iconoclasm certainly abated with age and with the arrival of new cultural norms.

*Has a history of saying the only one who has a specific role is the closer.

[Frayed Knot]

Vic Sage wrote: I hope Terry isn't already locked into a "Valverde for the eighth, Parnell for the ninth" mindset. Un-necessary losses lie in that direction. i think he's been locked into that mindset since they sent Black down. Terry is nothing if not a follower of unwritten rules. Has he ever given us any indication that he would use his bullpen creatively, like instead of having pre-designated innings for certain relievers, just putting his best pitchers into the highest leverage situations? If so, i haven't seen it.

I think Terry absolutely has the ability to change.
If trends of game 1 continue he might do something really radical like switch Valverde to the 9th and assign Parnell to the 8th.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: And don't give Davey Johnson too much credit here. His iconoclasm certainly abated with age and with the arrival of new cultural norms. *Has a history of saying the only one who has a specific role is the closer.

What does Davey's approach with the Nats have to do with his handling of the Mets bullpen? Did The Godfather suddenly suck when Godfather III was released?

[Edgy MD]

Oh, he certainly standardized his bullpen in a more normative way even while he was with the Mets.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Oh, he certainly standardized his bullpen in a more normative way even while he was with the Mets.

It might've appeared that way, but DJ didn't have to assign specific innings to relievers even if he was so inclined. He had bookend (L/R) relievers in McDowell and Orosco that, by today's standards, would've each been regarded as "closers".

[Edgy MD]

Yes, but that part of the story is done after 1987. By the end of his tenure, it was about finding the right combination of Pena and Whitehurst and Musselman to serve as a bridge to John Franco to pile up one-inning saves.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Yes, but that part of the story is done after 1987.

So what? If that's all you got on Johnson, then he still might be the last Mets manager to use relievers according to the game situation. The only way to debunk this thought is to come up with a Met manager that succeeded Johnson that yada yada yada....

[Edgy MD]

Sew buttons.

You've got a lot of chips on a lot of shoulders.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Sew buttons. You've got a lot of chips on a lot of shoulders.

That's a classy way to end this debate.

[Edgy MD]

There's no "so." My point is my point. It doesn't rebut yours but develops on it.