Eight is More than Enough

[Chad ochoseis]

Blevins. Salas. Gilmartin. Smoker. Robles. Edgin. Montero. Reed.

A closer. Two righthanded set-up guys. A solid LOOGY. A short guy for when we're behind in Edgin. A somewhat capable long guy in Smoker. A somewhat incapable long guy in Montero. And, in Gilmartin, a lefty who is here to make sure the other guys don't get lonely.

And Familia on the way.

Do we really need this much bullpen? I saw the need for bringing up Gilmartin after the 16 inning game in Miami on Thursday. But it's Tuesday now. Yesterday was an off-day, and there's another off-day this Monday. Even though the other three games were close, the bullpen wasn't particularly taxed.

I get that we can't count on much depth from Wheeler and Harvey. But I'm more concerned about running out of bench players in a close game. Is there any reason not to demote/DFA one of the marginal relievers and promote a position player?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I know how you feel. This is why I would like to see a 27-man roster, although I confess that it would probably lead to a 15-man pitching staff instead of a 6-man bench.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm certain we will, but would guess the move comes in concert with Familia's return.

I'm crazy but I think this team also needs Zimmo back.

[Edgy MD]

It's not crazy, it's stone-cold truth.

Another stupid side-effect of short benches is that there are fewer spots for guys on the cusp, like Nimmo, to show their quality and hit their way into the lineup.

[Ceetar]

Meh, you might be better off sending Thor up there to take a hack instead of like, Ty Kelly. The marginal rest and depth of the bullpen is probably worth more than the step up to Quad-A guy/Rene Rivera from Thor

[Edgy MD]

Well, I don't consider Brandon Nimmo to be a "Quad-A" guy. And I think the desire for marginal rest has become a self-defeating unstoppable creep.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Well, I don't consider Brandon Nimmo to be a "Quad-A" guy. And I think the desire for marginal rest has become a self-defeating unstoppable creep.

I wouldn't say self-defeating.

Nimmo's hurt anyway, but I wouldn't think the extra AB or two a week he'd get by being the 25th guy instead of another reliever is going to prove he's not a Quad-A singles hitter.

[Fman99]

Yes. Too many pitchers. Not enough hitters. We want hitters, not bedshitters, I've heard said.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Well, I don't consider Brandon Nimmo to be a "Quad-A" guy. And I think the desire for marginal rest has become a self-defeating unstoppable creep. I wouldn't say self-defeating. Nimmo's hurt anyway, but I wouldn't think the extra AB or two a week he'd get by being the 25th guy instead of another reliever is going to prove he's not a Quad-A singles hitter.

I'm not sure how Brandon Nimmo has to "prove" he's not a "Quad-A singles hitter" but Sean Gilmartin and Rafael Montero and Paul Sewald are somehow necessary enough that they don't have to prove anything.

Nor do I believe that a fifth outfielder or sixth infielder is limited to one to two at-bats per week, especially if they demonstrate their increasing capability.

[soupcan]

Fman99 wrote: Yes. Too many pitchers. Not enough hitters. We want hitters, not bedshitters, I've heard said.

'We want a batter, not a broken ladder'

Apparently my childhood was more G-rated than FMan's.

[Edgy MD]

I hope we can add a thirteenth swinger!
Not some guy engaged to a kooky CNN right-winger!

[Benjamin Grimm]

I recall "We want a pitcher, not a belly-itcher."

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Well, I don't consider Brandon Nimmo to be a "Quad-A" guy. And I think the desire for marginal rest has become a self-defeating unstoppable creep. I wouldn't say self-defeating. Nimmo's hurt anyway, but I wouldn't think the extra AB or two a week he'd get by being the 25th guy instead of another reliever is going to prove he's not a Quad-A singles hitter. I'm not sure how Brandon Nimmo has to "prove" he's not a "Quad-A singles hitter" but Sean Gilmartin and Rafael Montero and Paul Sewald are somehow necessary enough that they don't have to prove anything. Nor do I believe that a fifth outfielder or sixth infielder is limited to one to two at-bats per week, especially if they demonstrate their increasing capability.

If you want to make a case for Nimmo being say the 20th guy on the roster rather than the 25th, that's fine. I'm talking about using the worst hitter left on the bench. They're not gonna promote Nimmo with nowhere to play anyway for the sake of pinch hitters, so it'd be garbage Eric Campbell types. Sewald and Gilmartin are riding the shuttle enough that they haven't proven anything either, besides that it's easier to find a guy to throw an inning or two here and there and get outs than it is to find another worthwhile pinch hitter.


The Mets had 4 PH PA from pitchers last year. How many times did they actually need the last guy on the bench versus how many times they used the last reliever over a series to help mitigate rest and such?

[Edgy MD]

The last pitcher takes innings from better pitchers. The last hitter takes at bats from worse hitters, and plays defense for worse fielders, if used effectively.

Ceetar wrote: The Mets had 4 PH PA from pitchers last year. How many times did they actually need the last guy on the bench versus how many times they used the last reliever over a series to help mitigate rest and such?

Too many.

And the last reliever isn't mitigating rest ("mitigating rest?"), he's allowing the manager to remove good pitchers who should be pitching.

The Mets average 5.48 innings per start among their starting pitchers, despite a 3.52 ERA. That should be a scandal. More weaker pitchers equals fewer innings by better pitchers.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: The Mets average 5.48 innings per start among their starting pitchers, despite a 3.52 ERA. That should be a scandal. More weaker pitchers equals fewer innings by better pitchers.

Quantitatively untrue. Third time through the order penalty is real. Wins are a dumb stat, baseball is moving away from 'the starter is the guy that throws most/all of the game' mentality. This is a GOOD sign, and they've been pushing their best relievers, perhaps too hard. Familia back will help that though, and if they could find one other guy to step up, then they're really spreading those innings around better and keeping everyone fresh and in the best position to win.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Quantitatively untrue.

There's nothing I said that's untrue. If you'd somehow like to demonstrate—quantitatively or otherwise—what I've written that is untrue, please be my guest.

Ceetar wrote: Third time through the order penalty is real.

Then cite it.

Ceetar wrote: Wins are a dumb stat,

Maybe you share that with somebody who argues otherwise. I haven't invoked the pitcher-wins stat at all.

Ceetar wrote: baseball is moving away from 'the starter is the guy that throws most/all of the game' mentality.

I noticed. And they're not doing it effectively

Ceetar wrote: This is a GOOD sign, and they've been pushing their best relievers, perhaps too hard.

You're going to have to demonstrate for me how more high-leverage Montero and less high-leverage Syndergaard has been a good thing. I'm not seeing it.

Ceetar wrote: Familia back will help that though,

This isn't controversial.

Ceetar wrote: and if they could find one other guy to step up, then they're really spreading those innings around better and keeping everyone fresh and in the best position to win.

Every team, everywhere, every year is looking for one more guy to step up. The teams with two effective relievers are desperately searching for a third. The team with five effective relievers are desperately searching for a sixth, or a seventh. And that's the unending creeping effect. And if there are 27-man rosters, it won't end, but perpetuate.

[Ceetar]

in 2016 for example, Mets starter 3rd time through the order allowed a .736 OPS. Mets relievers first time through the order allowed a .671 OPS

2016 Mets SP third times through: 4.1 xFIP. Relievers first time through 3.83 xFIP.

These numbers are the norm. There are individuals that buck the trend of course, Syndergaard is one of the top..3? pitchers in baseball after all and Montero is on the other end of the spectrum. But that's why he's generally mop up and it's Salas and Reed and Familia that will/should be taking the high leverage innings. This is why your best reliever should come into the highest leverage spot, not the highest numbered inning. In a lot of cases, the very best pitcher to face Mike Trout in the 7th is the 'closer'.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: These numbers are the norm. There are individuals that buck the trend of course, Syndergaard is one of the top..3? pitchers in baseball after all and Montero is on the other end of the spectrum.

I don't know what rank either pitcher is. But if Syndergaard is anything like that good, I disagree that he should be averaging 6 1/3 innings every five games, with a 0.95 ERA. I wish this wasn't even controversial. And of course, limiting him to mostly the front half of games necessarily places him in fewer high-leverage situations.

Ceetar wrote: But that's why he's generally mop up and it's Salas and Reed and Familia that will/should be taking the high leverage innings.

And I'm arguing that he hasn't been generally mop-up, and this is the problem. Sixteen of 37 of the batters Montero has faced have been in high-leverage situations, and six have been in medium leverage situations.

Ceetar wrote: This is why your best reliever should come into the highest leverage spot, not the highest numbered inning.

Well sure. Again, this is uncontroversial, with me, anyhow, but when you pull your outstanding starters after six, and the other team is doing the same, you are tending to have multiple high-leverage spots, one after the other, eventually with increasingly less effective pitchers to do it in.

Ceetar wrote: In a lot of cases, the very best pitcher to face Mike Trout in the 7th is the 'closer'.

You're changing the argument here. I in no way disagree about the best pitcher being brought in earlier if the game is on the line. I think he should be kept in, too.

[Edgy MD]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't know what rank either pitcher is.

BillJamesOnline has Syndergaard at 16th, deGrom at 27th, Harvey at 123rd, Gsellman at 180th, and Wheeler not currently ranked.

[Edgy MD]

Steven Matz, for what it's worth, is ranked 159th and Seth Lugo 185th (of 187 ranked starters).

[Ceetar]

You're arguing the Mets should let their starters pitch to Trout in the 7th instead of say Reed. That there are multiple high leverage situations throughout the game is not changing based on pitcher use. And they're not necessarily worse pitchers down the line either, the idea here is that you need to have multiple good, maybe equally good, pitchers in the pen because of this. You can play matchups and platoon splits to maximize effectiveness too. This is all to say that sure, have more relievers, because that part of the game is way more crucial than a mildly more effective third pinch hitter.

But leverage? sure, maybe Edgin and Montero are getting too many innings, but in general the leverage usage at the time the pitchers enter the game seems okay to me:

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit≶=all&qual=0&type=3&season=2017&month=0&season1=2017&ind=0&team=25&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=9,d

Maybe a little less for Robles since he's struggled and more for Salas, though it's all fairly small sample there too.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: You're arguing the Mets should let their starters pitch to Trout in the 7th instead of say Reed.

Not particularly, no. But it's pretty telling that you decided to rewrite my argument.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: You're arguing the Mets should let their starters pitch to Trout in the 7th instead of say Reed. Not particularly, no. But it's pretty telling that you decided to rewrite my argument.

or it's telling about the coherency of your argument.

In any event, put the DH in and we'll need even less pinch hitters and can settle on 8+ relievers.

[Guest cooby]

Can I break in here?

[batmagadanleadoff]

cooby wrote: Can I break in here?

I beg you, please do.

[batmagadanleadoff]

[youtube:a9qmpqjg]NtBZXaHZv3o[/youtube:a9qmpqjg]

[Edgy MD]

Cooby, break in any time.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: or it's telling about the coherency of your argument.

I may be remarkably boring, but I'm not unclear. But if you don't understand anything, please ask for further clarification. Please don't make stuff up.

[Ceetar]

You've claimed it's a scandal that the Mets aren't pitching their starters deep into games, but say you don't want them pitching to the best guy in the 7th. But you also don't want the Mets to stock their bullpen full at the expense of a bench guy, so you could see how it's unclear.

[Benjamin Grimm]

If it's the seventh inning, and the Mets are up by 4, and Noah Syndergaard has thrown 95 pitches, and Bryce Harper is up with nobody on base, then yes, I'd let Syndergaard pitch to him.

But if the batter, inning, and pitch count are the same, but the Mets are up by one and there are two runners on base, then maybe it's time to bring in a reliever.