Edgy MD

I'm not sure I agree with that. If all that's going on is that hitters are better and pitchers are better, then we wouldn't have such a grossly detectable change. It'd be largely a standoff. What has happened is the game is played more at the extremes — more homers, more strikeouts, more walks, more hit-batsmen. More hard outs, fewer soft hits. But the worst hitters — even if their bodies are a different shape and their failures are executed differently — are still the worst hitters by a similar margin. They're just palookas who go .180 / .250 / .360 / .610 instead of slappers who go .240 / .315 / .305 / .610. I'm not asking for Greg Maddux or anybody's childhood starters. I'm asking for teams to reconsider how they're deploying their effective pitchers — using them less than ever but seemingly breaking them more frequently. Mostly, I'm asking that of my team.

That would strike me as backwards thinking. But I'm sure MLB would tell me over and over again that they asked me and I demanded it.

I just find it remarkable that we're going to be asked to seriously consider Stephen Strassburg's career for the Hall of Fame a decade from now, because despite his underwhelming case, the state of starting pitching in this era is such a blood bath that virtually none are able to exceed his case. And if we don't intentionally change the way we approach things, few or none will appear going forward. Either that, or we'll end up going back in time and elevating cases from decades before that suddenly shine more brightly. Eddie Whitehill. Joe Niekro. Luis Tiant. Kenny Rogers. Perhaps both. Putting aside the league-wide philosophy, I just can't look at the record of the Mets with the pitching staff they had in the generation of 2015 and say that they did everything as intelligently as they could have. And I want the Mets to be smarter than everybody else.

I understand that. Although there are a folks now arguing that Ryan's fastball was faster than the technology of the time suggested, I certainly understand that.

It's a weird economy our system creates.

That's so Adam!!

This was actually something of a revenge claim, as he had been with the Mets less than a month, having been grabbed from those same Dodgers in a Mets waiver claim.

Well, that was different.

The bottom third of the lineup is a lusty 2-for-9, they're pretty tough to face as a fan. I love the bunt attempt, McNutter, but probably not with two out and the bases empty.

"Kyle Schwarber has 37 homeruns and a negative WAR. How is that even possible?" Where do I start?

It's not even supposed to be a publicly reported matter.

Broadcasting from a luxury suite.

Yeah, I know they are throwing way harder and more often. And I'm suggesting there's probably an upside to not doing that. The funny thing about baseball history is that, despite pitchers pitching vastly different workloads, going from pitching nearly every game to every other game to, ultimately, every fifth game, as time progressed, 300-game winners and 200-game winners are mostly distributed evenly across eras ... until now. Amos Rusie threw about 3700 innings and won about 250 games across 10 years. A hundred years later, Jack Morris did about the same, but it took him 18 seasons. And any number of people did about the same despite wildly different eras and philosophical approaches and workloads. We can look at an all-time list and see these two guys more or less side by side. If every single pitcher who comes along who might be better than either of them* can no longer approach those numbers, as they have all through baseball history, neither the pitchers nor the game is being well served. And a smart team might do well to look at that and philosophically zag as everyone else is zigging. * Both, I think represent something near the back end of the roster of Hall of Fame starting pitchers.

But ... maybe they should. With no data to cite (currently at hand, anyhow), my strong impression is that all the conservation of usage isn't sparing these guys the injuries. So maybe more pitchers, and more teams, might find better long-term benefits from not going full bore 100% of the time, but saving their better pitches for top batters and high-level situations, and their best ones for when those two circumstances overlap.

I think plenty should be available for the next day, without adhering to these hard and fast rules they seem to be adhering to regarding pacing relievers deployments across the season.

I disagree that the bullpen is a disaster. I don't think it's depleted either. I just think managers in 2023 just over-over-control the usage of their relievers. So a guy who is kept from a game is described as unavailable, as if he's observably spent, when in fact he's just under an explicit constraint. Look at the 2022 bullpen. Thee top three pitchers — https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/diazed04.shtmlDiaz, https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ottavad01.shtmlOttavino, and https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lugose01.shtmlLugo — all finished with between 62 and 65 2/3 innings. That seems like a pretty tight distribution — suspiciously so — but maybe it's an accident. But then you look at https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/diazed04.shtmlDiaz, https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maytr01.shtmlMay, and https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/familje01.shtmlFamilia in 2021. The Mets had a different manager, but all three finished with 59 1/3 to 62 2/3 innings. Two, in fact, finished with 62 2/3 exactly. Only Miguel Castro reached the magic 63-inning ceiling, but the Mets had neither a long-term contract nor development time invested in him, so he could be dealt with (slightly) more loosely. The announcers are going to tell you that this guy can be relied on to go for multiple days in a row, or that guy is special because he can be used for multiple innings. I'm saying not to believe that too much. Organizations — the Mets organization anyhow — are treating most all of thier relievers by a universal standard. X number of warmups, Y number of appearances, and Z number of innings on a season. Sometimes, I think, good scientific investigation leads to bad science at the application point.

If your season's gone And the curtain's nearly drawn Don't you shut the door Take a chance on Thor If you just pick up the dough He can take the mound If you're in last place! Oh no! Gotta gain some ground! If you miss the show When his pretty locks would flow Give him his encore Take a chance on Thor If you squint your squintiest He's the same old guy If he fails a urine test Don't you turn and cry Take a chance on Thor! (All it costs would be money ...) Take a chance on Thor!

I'm not sure how that's a choice.

No-dubbles defense ends it.

Those were all strikes, Vogey.

I don't remember the last time I saw José LeClerc, but he still looks like a teenager.

This whole thing about half the relievers being unavailable is untenable.

On 0 and 2 also. And Gott didn't check the runner at all. And Buck brings his infielders in?

We've got what looks like a one-run lead in the ninth to protect. Where is Syndergaard when we need him?!

If Narváez didn't take five seconds to get out of the box, he'd have a bunt single.