Frayed Knot

Two reasons: 1) there's never enough pitching to go around 2) See reason #1 8:45 is the current first pitch estimate

[YOUTUBE]bDRbF80NKDU[/YOUTUBE]

RMPL

You folks do realize that this discussion is coming a decade-plus into the era where 'Openers' / 'Bulk Starters' have been used and that pct of starter Wins has continued to go down all along, right? The only thing being proposed here is the slight adjustment that openers should go two to three innings instead of just one to two and selling that on the assumption that results are going to be suddenly different. But a longer stint for the opener -- a guy who is, essentially by definition, a lesser pitcher than the eventual starter -- is also a longer time for him to give up more runs and handing the starter not a lead but a deficit. And if it's the day for your Ace when the opener gets bombed are we going to still hand him the ball down multiple runs (potentially wasting his turn) or sit him down until the net game thereby both upsetting his regimen and reducing the the number of games he'll get into that season? This isn't a 'traditionalist'* vs modern argument. If openers were the key to both wins for 'starters' and for team wins then all teams would use them and the ones who have been using them all along would be using them for longer stretches. And, again, this whole (already too long) thread was proposed on the concept of finding out a way to get traditional starters (who would no longer be starting) more 'W's - as if that is, by itself, a goal worth pursuing. * I HATE that term!

Bucket was both right and wrong, but either way he wins the contest. It was indeed on the Tuesday night game vs Atlanta but he incorrectly labeled that day as the 13th rather than the 12th.

Teams are free to use pitchers in whatever fashion they choose now, and some do. If one or more of them hit upon a better mousetrap in doing so then more power to them. But that's a concept totally divorced from the goal of saying, 'Hey, we've got 20+ game winners again!' (even though we, y'know, manipulated what we call and how we use 'starters' just so we could artificially achieve that goal).

If you're doing it because you think it'll win more games, as in Team games, then, fine. Although there's a dearth of evidence indicating that would be the result. But doing it simply so the 'Gilded W' shifts more towards one set of pitchers, those designated as 'Starters' even though, under your plan, they're not actually starting, and away from the set we call 'Relievers', some of whom are now starting, then I don't see the point.

From the dead ball era of the early 20th century, to the Ruthian rise of the HR in the '20s, the hitting dominated '30s, the pitching dominated '60s, introduction of the DH in the '70s, back to the steroid-aided hitting surge of the '90s, and into into the high-velo/high-K 21st century, baseball stats have always varied over time and so any comparison needs to be viewed through that lens anyway. Your 'fix' is merely a manipulation for the sole purpose of driving a particular counting stat towards an artificial (by today's norms) level that you think is correct because that was more or less the norm when you were growing up. Why not jigger things so as to match the early 20th century when league leaders often topped 30? After all, wouldn't that be the 'true' correct level since that one was first and the game you and I were watching was being played the wrong way? Five man pitching staffs? ... Two different pitchers just to cover a double header? ... what are these young whippersnappers doing to MY game?!?!? And if we're going to manipulate how you play the game just so the stats 'work out' then the comparisons fall apart anyway because the conditions that created them aren't the same.

Looks like we should have used Hagenman to close out the last game in Milwaukee the other day: 4 IP, 0 R, 0 H, 1 BB, 5 K

With an eight run lead entering the 9th, mlb.com gives the Mets a 71% chance at winning this game.

Plus they're not going to let him continue to play with his own personal ball going forward. They're going to make him play with the smaller one from now on and that's going to be a big adjustment. [FIMG=300]https://voitusa.vtexassets.com/arquivos/ids/155598-800-800?v=638616906547530000&width=800&height=800&aspect=true[/FIMG]

More worrying is that they've issued six, which seemingly is their nightly average lately.

The mlb.com prospect crew [Jonathan Mayo, Sam Dykstra, Jim Callas] rank the NYM system #7 in their post-trading deadline analysis. Top-100 players: Carson Benge, OF (No. 20); Jett Williams, SS/OF (No. 30); Nolan McLean, RHP (No. 37); Jonah Tong, RHP (No. 44) The Mets have as many up arrows in their system as any other organization in baseball with Benge surging into the No. 20 spot in his first full season, McLean and Tong solidifying their places in the Top 50 overall and Jacob Reimer, A.J. Ewing and Will Watson making significant jumps in the Top 30 team list. That increased depth allowed New York to move several prospects at the Trade Deadline for bullpen help, while still maintaining an impressive system on the whole, and it makes you wonder what the organization could get out of 38th overall pick Mitch Voit as he moves to full-time hitter status in the pros. And you didn't ask but I'm going to tell you anyway: #1 - LAD #2 - MIN #3 - SEA #4 - MIL #5 - CLE #6 - DET #8 - CIN #9 - PIT #10 - TBR https://www.mlb.com/news/farm-system-rankings-2025-midseason?t=mlb-pipeline-coverage

[FIMG=400]https://cdn.theasc.com/Butch-Cassidy-Newman-and-Redford.jpg[/FIMG] Ten runs? Hits with runners in scoring position? HRs with runners on base? All runs scoring after two outs? Who are those guys?

I don't usually love them with bases empty and two outs from your #3 hitter. But in front of Soto it's more justifiable and, in this case, it certainly paid off.

You can't keep living like this and expect to win. Holmes faced 20 batters and retired nine. This is why I never felt secure even with the 5-0 lead the other day*. And today it was 5-1 and that doesn't even last a single inning. * the only time I briefly felt OK was after Tyler Rogers got an inning-ending GiDP in the 7th. I thought we had dodged it, but we didn't. btw, we also never got another hit after Pete's RBI bloop in the 4th of that game so don't think it can't happen again.

And the pattern continues: 16 batters faced, half of them reached base, and 67 pitches (and counting) just to get 10 outs

It also shouldn't go uncommented upon that we have two, count 'em TWO, non-solo HRs today!! I think that raises our total of multi-run HRs in the past month to two.

Pete doesn't deserve as many "He did its" for this HR as Howie gave him for the one in Milwaukee last October. But, He Did It!

I'd like to thank Jurickson Profar for personally directing his batter into a DP to end the top of the 3rd there. It's like he already knew he screwed up the beginning of the play and so he figured if he could get Baldwin to 2nd then it would take him off the hook. Instead, he made it worse.

Of course if the starters keep pitching the way they've been pitching then it's not going to matter When they pitch, only that they pitched. Last 12 NYM games (of which they've lost 11 as I'm sure you're aware), looking at just the combined stats of starters*: 55 IP; 44 RA; 7.20 ERA; 1.60 WHIP 88 baserunners allowed of 254 batters faced (34.6%); they lasted an average of 4-1/2 innings and threw 18.1 Pitches/IP (20+% higher than you'd like). Looked at another way, it's 12 games and in that time they threw just shy of 1,000 pitches (995) which is essentially 1,000 pitches thrown to get through just six games seeing as how they ate up almost exactly half the innings. I know there's a desire to see pitchers go deeper into games but it's not like any of them are making a case for it. * ignoring the 'opener' and treating Frankie Montas and his three run/72 pitch outing -- 72! ... in Three Innings!! -- as the starter in his last game

One memory I have of seeing TLW for the first time was that it was in a college lecture hall that they'd use for movie nights on weekends. So when the credits are going up during the film's intro each succeeding name was cheered ... until there were a substantial bit of booing for Neil Diamond, presumably because his inclusion apparently offended the hipper-than-thou crowd and they were afraid that Neil's lack of (perceived) coolness would rub off on them somehow if they didn't register their complaints. It bothered me then and it still bothers me now on the rare occasions I think about it. Anyway, those who turned their ears off during his 3-4 minutes on stage missed a nice performance from a song of his I didn't know then and don't think I've ever heard anytime since except for when seeing that Last Waltz performance. [YOUTUBE]RurccWvJiS8[/YOUTUBE]

Billy Martin once put his paranoid mind to use by accusing 'Bernie' of being a signal-stealing spy for the Brewers from his perch behind the CF wall. The story went that someone from the Milwaukee org later pulled Billy aside and told him that the guy inside the Bernie get-up in those days was somebody's flunky nephew who couldn't steal signs if you gave him a pair of binoculars and a chair to sit in right behind the pitcher. Not sure if that assuaged Billy or not as GMS III was at least as paranoid and may or may not have planted the idea in Billy's head in the first place.

cut and pasted from the 8/9 IGT Put it this way, with five full and two partial (this one and the Covid one) seasons under his belt, Pete in the next few weeks will pass Piazza and then Lee Mazzilli and move into 12th place on the all-time NYM games played list. He's already 12th in plate appearances. At the top of the list are two lifelong Mets, one a mediocre player in Ed Kranepool (#1 in G/#2 in PA) and then David Wright (#2/#1) whose career was famously cut short. Nimmo, in 11th place, just a slim 61 Games and 73 PA ahead of Pete, is the only other full time Met ahead of him on either list. Reyes (12 seasons a Met/4 yrs elsewhere) is in 3rd. Buddy Harrelson (13/3) and Jerry Grote (11.5/4.5) (both defense-first players at defensive positions during a pitching friendly era) are 4th & 5th. Then Cleon Jones (12/1), Howard Johnson (9/5), Mookie Wilson (10.5/2.5), Darryl Strawberry (8/9), Edgardo Alfonzo (8/4), and Nimmo round out 6th thru 11th. So the numbers of offensive 'stars' who played even the majority of their career as a Met is fairly limited for going on 6-1/2 decades, which was pretty much Keith's point. Two Mets who were among the best offensive players ever for the team played only about half their careers in blue/orange: Piazza (slightly over 50%) and Keith (a bit under).