Edgy MD

Reyes one-hops one off the wall in right center and stops at second?

Ceetar wrote: I wonder if anyone has an extra outfielder they want to move...hmm... I'm not advocating, but there's a team not only with an extra outfielder, but a veteran secondbaseman with Pittsburgh pedigree, as well.

Man, they couldn't have done more to giftwrap a bunt single for Bruce, but he still swung away.

Eighty is the standard for first-time positive results.

I think it would be awesome if Hernandez, Cohen, and Darling did this. Tailors should be climbing over each other to dress them.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: And José pops up the first pitch with two on to end the inning. Eflin was digging his own grave and Reyes just took the shovel away from him.

News POURING out on the injury front, although that may just be a case of the writers having had an off day. Matz: Throwing tomorry for the fist time since spring training. Lugo: Throwing tomorry for the fist time since spring training. Wright: Resuming béisbol activities this week.

Me three.

Ceetar wrote: You've claimed it's a scandal that the Mets aren't pitching their starters deep into games, Yes I did. Ceetar wrote: but say you don't want them pitching to the best guy in the 7th. No, I didn't. Ceetar wrote: 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. Once you start making stuff up that I didn't write, yes, I see how the clarity fails. Please don't do that. It's better for you, for me, and society.

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.

Cooby, break in any time.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

You don't see a lot of drummer/drummer/keyboard/keyboard/guitarist-singer lineups. The eighties are everywhere.

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

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.

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.

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.

Torborg.

Yeah I was thinking of that this afternoon. Think about how you can atone for that one.

Eventually you have to think beyond protection mode. You want to protect everybody, which means a willingness to put games on the line not with the guy who is most able, but with the guy who is most disposable. That's counter-competitive. Certainly not what I'm hoping to see.