IGT 9/22/16: PHI@NYM -- Fall Aboard

[Guest cooby]

MFS62 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I'm going in to the office tomorrow as a blondie. I've decided to be blond tomorrow too. I'd love to. Unfortunately I'll be scalp. Later

lol.

[Edgy MD]

Win probably added by that one swing: 81%, taking the Mets from 19% to (obviously) 100%.

[G-Fafif]

Eleven innings played. Twenty-seven home players used. Two-hundred fourteen home pitches thrown. Two-hundred sixty-three minutes consumed. Two arms raised skyward. One-hundred eighty emotional degrees traversed. And, in the final scene, the Three Amigos riding off into the sunrise, having rescued their team’s season yet again. Their reward as midnight approached was that justice had been done. Jose Reyes. Asdrubal Cabrera. Yoenis Cespedes. Their night. Their month. Their year. Our Amazin’ good fortune. Thursday they were aided and abetted here and there by a handful of their 24 accomplices, but when you got right down to it, it was they who lassoed a loss and giddy-upped it over and over until it galloped across home plate a glorious win. The Mets reached base via hit, walk or error seventeen times. Bundled at the top of the order — a veritable penthouse suite crowning an otherwise ordinary off-ramp motel — they accounted for eleven of those appearances. They scored four and drove in seven of the nine Met runs, making almost all the difference in what became a 9-8 victory that obscured the frustration and heartbreak that defined the two previous evenings at Citi Field and made a person overlook everything that seemed to be going irredeemably wrong in those innings that they could not personally repair. The Mets used 27 players? Who uses 27 players? No basket of deployables is that deep, yet Terry Collins kept dipping in until he became the first manager in the 55-year history of the franchise to deploy one Met for every out required in a normal nine-inning affair. Natch, this wasn’t a normal night, nor could it be confined to nine innings.

This team plays a Game of the Year about once a week.

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You don't want that. Big Jim was put in an a very difficult situation. And that walk came after several strikes three were effectively fouled off. You'll need Jim Henderson before this is all over. The real problem I had was Terry going to the guys he had taxed over the previous four days, and not giving the Hendus and the Robleses a chance at their own inning or two, instead of having to bail out the gassed front-liners. Plus, if Sandy were to follow our advice and trash every reliever that this place asked never to see again there'd be nobody left in the pen except for Reed & Familia.

I'm not asking for every reliever to be trashed. I'm asking for Jim Henderson. Jim Henderson who was great for us in April, but has been awful since then, and is getting worse. His pitches seem to have no life and he seems aware of it. He is our worst reliever, particularly in the second half.

Perhaps I spoke to broadly when I said I don't want to see him ever again, but in an extra-innings nail-biter that we have to have? I know it ended well, but imagine we had come up a run short.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I know that I never want to see Doug Sisk in a game ever again.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: I'm not asking for every reliever to be trashed. I'm asking for Jim Henderson. Jim Henderson who was great for us in April, but has been awful since then, and is getting worse. His pitches seem to have no life and he seems aware of it. He is our worst reliever, particularly in the second half.

Except that I could go back over some IGTs, all within the last month, and read demands that we never see [fill-in this guy] comprising just about every bull-penner we have or have had recently.

[Edgy MD]

Not only will we need Big Jim sooner rather than later, there's a good chance we'll need him tonight.

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: Centerfield wrote: I'm not asking for every reliever to be trashed. I'm asking for Jim Henderson. Jim Henderson who was great for us in April, but has been awful since then, and is getting worse. His pitches seem to have no life and he seems aware of it. He is our worst reliever, particularly in the second half. Except that I could go back over some IGTs, all within the last month, and read demands that we never see [fill-in this guy] comprising just about every bull-penner we have or have had recently.

Sure, if you take my statement and lump it together with everyone else's IGT statements, many of them emotional and reactionary (they are IGT statements after all), then the collective call to banish every reliever can be colored as foolish.

But if you look at my statement individually, as I intended, it is that I don't want to see Jim Henderson in that spot. Jim Henderson is our worst reliever. It is perfectly valid to state that we should not use (or be forced to use) our worst reliever in that spot.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Not only will we need Big Jim sooner rather than later, there's a good chance we'll need him tonight.

Sure. We need him. Now that Matz' arm has fallen off, more so than ever. But just the fact that we need him doesn't mean he's ready to answer the call.

Hell, we really need Harvey, Walker, Wright, deGrom and Wheeler too. Doesn't mean we should put them in any time soon.

[Edgy MD]

The obvious point is that just because we need him, we shouldn't wish to banish him, lest the team need to resort to lesser pitchers, which are legion.

[Centerfield]

Agreed. I spoke to broadly about never seeing him again. It would be great to get him back into gear, but that 11th inning was not the spot for him.

Further agree that mismanagement in the prior games helped to create the need to bring him in to replace our main horses, how appeared to be gassed.

[Benjamin Grimm]