 |
| PC - Ed Delany |
WHERE JAKE DEGROM IS NOT TOM SEAVER
Jake deGrom is a terrifically gifted pitcher....166 major league starts, 2.67 ERA.
He has often labored with poor offensive and bullpen support.
That said, he is not Tom Seaver quality - at least not to me.
I long thought he was Seaver's equivalent...I've changed my opinion, though. Why?
Tom Seaver would have found a way to get the Mets a must-win Thursday night - but Jake deGrom failed to do so.
Tom Seaver, like Jake, also labored with some poor hitting teams during his first long stint with the Mets, 1967 to 1977.
Many of you watched those years - you know. He was brilliant on mostly mediocre teams.
The bullpen the Mets had during most of that period seemed, to my recollection, somewhat more competent than what Jake has had behind him. Seaver used his far less.
Seaver in those 11 years was 189-120, 2.49. He managed, despite weak offensive support and an average pen, to have a .612 win %.
I often felt that if he had pitched for a slugging team like the Reds in those 11 seasons, he would have won 40-50 more games and lost an equal amount fewer.
One reason for that level of Seaver winning is during that period of time, he had 42 shutouts in 367 starts. A shutout equals a win, that simple.
But beyond that, I rarely remember him giving up close leads.
Jake often does not seem to do quite enough to win Seaver style.
First of all, while we live in a rare complete game era. Jake has just 1 career shutouts in 166 starts. And just 3 complete games, meaning that because he could not finish his 98% of his starts, the far inferior bullpen had to step in 98% of the time.
Seaver, though, had 166 complete games in those 367 starts (45%). He did not relegate winning close games to his pen - he'd finish what he started nearly half the time. And it resulted in more wins. And recall, some of those non-completed games were games where the Mets would have big leagues and pull him to give him a blow.
If we ever needed a win in 2019, we sure needed one last night - but it did not happen. Jake wasn't as brilliant as the Mets needed him to be.
Michael Jordan in his NBA days refused to lose close games - he somehow was successful most of the time in beating the opposition.
Other NBA stars were very, very good, but did not have that same "we-won't-lose-on-my-watch" killer mentality.
Jake to me? Falls in the second category.
Seaver falls in the Jordan category. He shut folks out frequently, finished what he started nearly half the time, and rarely gave up leads.
What do you think?
36 comments:
Tom I guess I'd agree with you but put in context it's such a different game now where their conditioned to pitch around 100 pitches which is a very different mind set but the Seaver "killer instinct" is why he's in the HOF. Frankly I hate the dozen relievers every night thing but it's only getting worse in that regard not better and I have no idea where we'll be in 5 or 10 years with it. The thing that still kills me is the team we had in 69' could have ruled the 70's with almost anyone other than M.Donald , the plantation owner as Seaver put it, at the helm. We did so much with so little in 69' and 73' that some real help from the FO would have gone along way oh well it was just a dream.
Both Jake and T.T. were and are great pitches, but deGrom is not Seaver.
Maybe by the end of gis career if he leads his team to a WS crown, but not yet.
Love Jake, but too many games this year and last that he has not won. Seaver somehow would have won 10 more.
I agree with Gary. Very different game today. Seaver set the Mets club record in 1971 with 21 complete games. Nobody in MLB comes close to that.
Punching down DeGrom when he gave up 4 runs in 7 innings is absurd. Seaver would have found a way out of it is absurd. DeGrom has flat out been the best pitcher in baseball over the last 2 years. DeGrom gets out of jams all the time. I think there is no one you would rather see on a mound if they are in a jam. He is a gamer that deals in NY and handles pressure and zero run support incredibly well. He had allowed 3 runs or less in 52 of his 55 previous starts. He got hurt by 2HR by one player. The other hits were frankly bad defense. Jake can't control when Callaway pulls him in the game, I have no doubt he could go longer in many of them. He was what 2nd in innings last year and 5th in the NL this year so far?
"Love Jake, but too many games this year and last that he has not won. Seaver somehow would have won 10 more." Seaver would magically make the Mets score more runs?? I mean DeGrom is actually out hitting several position players, not really in his control. You also assume Callaway lets Seaver in this contrived idea throw more innings? These comparisons are just dumb. DeGrom is the best pitcher in baseball now (in my opinion), who knows how Seaver fairs in this era of baseball and vice versa.
Dallas, no, Seaver was very stingy at surrendering leads, I remember so many times where he would fend off other teams in close games, Jake not so much...then the need for Jake to come out and rely on an oft-unreliable pen makes it worse.
I'd prefer to see Jake lead major league starters in one thing: innings per outing. He is one of the best, and it would minimize losses.
18-17 in 59 starts the past two years? 31% wins in his starts? Seaver would have done 10 wins better, or close to it.
I remember first game of the 1973 playoffs, Mets 1, Reds 0 in the 8th. Seaver gives up a homer in the 8th. And another in the 9th. Final Reds 2 Mets 1. Next day Matlock protects a 1-0 lead most of the game and comes through with the complete game shutout. Tgen, games 3 if the 73 WS, Seaver gets a 2-0 lead and the A's tue him up. Bottom line. No one is perfect.
You're delusional to think anyone could do much better. There is a reason he won Cy Young despite his win record last year because people know its an antiquated stat and doesnt accurately predict performance. There are too many factors out of his control: defense, offense and bullpen. He literally drove in his only run 2 starts ago by hitting a HR. Its one thing to promote Seaver as a great, I think its another to put down DeGrom because he can't control how many runs the team scores, cant control the bullpen blowing up or Rosario flubbing routine grounders. I mean by the Win logic DeGrom must be the 65th best pitcher in baseball this year with his 8 wins and 47th best last year despite winning Cy Young. I'm surprised to hear the "Win" arguments on this site of all places. Like DeGrom didn't "rise up" somehow despite his insane ERA even in the losses.
John, that Reds machine was just that. An elite hit squad.
I still think deGrom's flaw has been to not go deeper into games consistently, knowing the pen often has sucked. Michael Jordan would win if he had to play 40 minutes - he got to 40 minutes, not 32 great minutes and lose.
That said, if Jake started 59 games for the Yanks, with their pen, he'd be 30-12 over the past two years. It is largely his team.
One way Seaver did it, though, was to rely more on GIDP - one pitch, two outs - although I cannot find GIDP stats to compare the two.
Jake was second in baseball last year, averaging 7 innings - this year, he is 13th. In 1970, Seaver averaged 8 innings.
Reverse that, and Seaver relied on the pen for one inning...Jake for 2. Two innings rather than 1 with a mediocre pen = more losses.
I also don't think Seaver lets a mediocre guy like Caratini get to him for 2 homers in a critical game like Jake did. He keeps Caratini on the ground.
John, wasn't it Reggie Jackson that beat Seaver in that As game? Elite hitter. Tip your hat.
Reggie and Bando doubled for one run. Campinaris created the other in that game. Don't blame Yogi for that WS loss.
John, those guys were great players at that time.
I'm sure Seaver got got by plenty of non-HOF's. You seem hyper focused on one game because it just happened. Its not like he got shelled, he gave up 4 runs in 7 innings. He gave up more than 3 runs once last year? This was the first since before the All-Star break. The 2nd HR was hardly a meatball either, it was an inside pitch that he was able to get around on in what has been a ridiculous HR era. Players/teams are breaking home run records in absolute droves this year where even utility players and players you never heard of before have 20+ HR. In fact I think you should give DeGrom credit for limiting the HR given up in this new insane environment. Looks like he has adjusted, gave up 13 HR in the first half and only 4 in the 2nd half.
"I still think deGrom's flaw has been to not go deeper into games consistently" You act like this is really under his control. Its up to the manager and how the game of baseball is played. How many times have we seen the SP get pulled for a PH with less than 80 or 90 pitches this year when they were pitching brilliantly? Jacob has been consistently pulled in the 97-107 pitch range. We will never know how he would fair with that extra inning.
Dallas, good points. If I were Jake, under contract, I'd ask for that extra inning - demand it. I'm the ace. Before the contract, he had a lot to lose. $$$$ wise. No longer.
And where he can, try to get a DP grounder more often rather than trying to blow people away on strikes to get of trouble and rack up lots of pitches in the process. Do whatever is nicesary to keep the pitches down and stay in the games longer.
deGrom is not Seaver.
I'm with Dallas on this one. Think this entire piece is way, way off base and pointless.
"If I were Jake . . . "
Oh, come on, please.
Jimmy
Jimmy you are entitled to your opinion...even if it is wrong. Jake has not won enough...regardless of circumstances, which everyone would agree have been pretty adverse when he takes the mound.
He can shut me up with a 6-0 September.
Tom, he can demand all he wants it doesnt matter. The Wilpons invested 30 plus million a year for him to pitch. They are going to be overly cautious with their investment. Everything is about the money in this day and age.
I'm not going to question DeGrom's process for getting people out. It seems to be working pretty well. Frankly DP grounders on the Mets with Rosario and Cano is hardly a sure thing. Frankly I thought the 2nd base runner before the HR the other night hit a DP ball that went for a hit because of the shift.
I don't care if you think Seaver is the best of all time. Never watched him, frankly don't care. Just appreciate what we have in DeGrom while we have him, he is something special. Pretty decent shot at repeating as Cy Young or at least being top 3. One game against the Cubs does not make him less special. If you had a clear pattern of failing in big situations consistently thats a different story (see Kershaw in the playoffs)
"Jake has not won enough...regardless of circumstances"
Let's just dismiss logical sound reasoning about why he hasn't won...just because.
Go read http://www.firejoemorgan.com/ a website that tackled silly and flawed thinking by mocking it until a majority of people saw the light and it was no longer necessary. There are some beauties on Jerry Manuel and others.
OK, you guys stay satisfied with Jake walking away with a W only in 31% of his starts the past two years. I am not. I think he can do better.
Koufax won 59% of his starts his last 4 years, double Jake's rate. And lost only 17% of his starts thise 4 years. Sandy had a killer instinct that few have ever had.
No one is satisfied with him winning 31% of this starts. Thats not on him, thats on the Mets. He won the Cy Young award and it wasn't even close in the voting. Over the last 2 seasons he leads or is in the top 3 of pretty much every statistic that actually evaluates a pitchers performance in a meaningful way (wins are not one of those). You go tell him that being the best in baseball wasn't good enough and that he should have done better.
"Killer Instinct" sounds pretty subjective to me. Lets fill out the team with guys with "killer instinct" and "good clubhouse presence" or maybe just guys that are good at playing baseball?
The killer instinct narrative sounds better than bad luck but thats all it is, just a narrative. There are plenty of example of mediocre pitchers getting a lot of Wins because they had a lot of run support.
Oh and I know circumstances dont matter but I'll give it to you anyways:
Worst run support in all of MLB in 2018:
Cole Hamels - 1st
Degrom - 2nd
Worst run support in all of MLB in 2019:
DeGrom - 4th
Average that out over both years he has the worst run support in the majors...but circumstances mean nothing...
Stroman with the Mets.....so far, he’s 1-1 with a 4.91 ERA, 1.675 WHIP, and a 2.08 K/BB. Mets have won 4 out of 5 of his starts, he must have a killer instinct?
Dallas, we will have to agree to disagree - unless you don't agree with that, but I am agreeable to it.
Final note: I asked my brother Steve, life long Mets fan, how he felt with my take - he agreed - so I am not the only one. My brother never pitched past HS because he used to pitch every day, until he blew his shoulder out, but he made Al Hrabosky look like a choir boy when he did pitch, so he speaks as someone who brought complete ferocity to his games and refused to lose. And he rarely did. Sadly, no one told him to take a day off every now and then.
Tom it feels like the old guard holding onto old and outdated philosophies. It boggles my mind that I'm arguing on a Mets site about DeGrom not being a gamer because the Mets have given him the worst run support in baseball. I mean I guess you can agree to disagree, you havent provided any real evidence. Relying subjective data of what you consider a gamer or your brothers opinions (because he happen to pitch in HS) doesnt really hold water. I mean Joe Morgan was a hall of fame player doesn't mean he understood all the facets of baseball as evidenced by his horribly outdated thoughts he spewed on TV and was routinely mocked for. I don't understand why you use stats and analysis love on Diaz but then throw them out the window for DeGrom. Your biggest argument seems to land around him not pitching deep enough into games despite yourself saying he averaged the 2nd highest innings per start and this largely being up to the discretion of the manager. Frankly managers are more likely to PH when their team hasn't scored any runs and there is a chance to do so (see that stat on lowest run support).
Verlander has more of a killer instinct than Jake. Saw that today. I don't want Jake to compete at a very high level - I want him to will his way to more wins. September is a vital time to do that.
Diaz has been miserable for a stretch this year - but my gut is he will come back with a vengeance. It is payback time.
"Verlander has more of a killer instinct than Jake" or he is having a historic season...you can't measure killer instinct sorry.
If I had to pick who I wanted to start a playoff game it would be a toss up of Verlander/Scherzer/DeGrom. They are all Cy Young award winning big gamers and can handle the pressure that have been good for years. I'm not going to pick on DeGrom because he had really one bad pitch since the All-Star break. If Stroman went 7 innings and only gave up 4 runs we would probably jump up and down at this point.
Admittedly, Verlander is now pitching for a better team than the Mets , but as an Astro he is 38-14 (.731) in 68 starts, 0.82 WHIP. Winner of 56% of his Astro starts, compared to Jake's 31% over the past two years, and loser of just 20%. JV's .731 is far better than the rest of his team over that period. .656 win % over his last 11 seasons.
If I have one guy to pitch a playoff game, it is JV. Not JD.
Scherzer similarly has won a lot more - 77-37 as a Nat. 116-45 (.730) over his last 7 years. Big game, winner take all, I'd put him over Jake too.
That said, Jake is one of the game's best. Love having him on the Mets. Except when it comes to actually winning his starts. It is a team game - and the team has let him down many times.
But JV and MS would have done better under the same circumstances. That is how I feel.
A Mets fan that shits on DeGrom, I don't understand it. I believe Jake has out pitched Scherzer in every start this year including bullpen meltdown day. DeGrom has had to face a more potent offense than Scherzer in these matchups as well (Nats have scored over 10% more runs than the Mets this year). Even yesterday when DeGrom didn't have his best stuff he outpitched him. I suppose yesterdays game is on DeGrom too. I mean the bullpen having an 8 ERA in his starts is clearly something he can control.
The difference in my evidence and yours? Mine includes things that DeGrom CAN control whereas yours does not. Wins are a TEAM metric. It depends on offense, defense and bullpen behind the pitcher in addition to the SP performance.
Yes arguably Verlander has been the top pitcher in baseball this year. I would agree he has the edge if I picked one today. His WHIP is pretty historic. He also has arguably the best team in baseball behind him but he is a stud all the way (and guess what he has some bad games on occasion too).
Also to add on to DeGroms performance, he has to pitch in much more stressful spots. He can't relax ever because the game is always close because outside of this past week they almost never score him any runs. I'm guessing Verlander and Scherzer generally have a lot more runs to work with. Well I don't really have to guess, when you last in baseball with run support over the course of 2 seasons thats a given. DeGrom is also 2nd in FIP this year behind Kershaw (who has 22 less innings). If you somehow didn't notice the defense behind him hasn't been stellar which also drives up his pitch count, his ERA (plenty of non-error errors) and ability to stay longer in games.
In the end you are trying to dumb down his performance on team win % because you seem like you don't want to put in any effort to actually analyze how well he has done. If you actually looked or tried to understand his underlying stats maybe you would recognize his brilliance. If you can analyze Diaz and tell us he doesnt suck despite his near 6 ERA and plethora of game losing bombs I would think you could do a little more due diligence on DeGrom.
(replace yesterday with 2 days ago, I forgot to hit the submit button :)
Its almost as if the Athletic was reading this thread. Gives breakdowns of bullpen for DeGrom and bullpen for everyone else (lets just say its not pretty) as a whole and for each individual pitcher. It also highlights the hitters. The simple conclusion is that the other Mets as a whole have performed MUCH worse for DeGrom. Not that you really needed stats to know this was true.
Diaz blew gave up a 2R HR blown save against the Phillies and got a Win. That Win metric seems pretty telling right?
https://theathletic.com/1195746/2019/09/09/how-are-the-mets-this-bad-when-jacob-degrom-starts/?source=dailyemail
More fun DeGrom info. An Athletic article on bad luck and also Defensive Runs Saved for pitchers. If you watch any Mets games you wouldnt be surprised to find DeGrom with the 5th worse DRS(defensive runs saved) among all pitchers (-9). Turns out Wheeler is 4th(-10) on that list and Stroman is 2nd (-11).
Now who has the best DRS? Two of the guys ahead of DeGrom in ERA. Soroka (20) and Ryu (17). The Braves and Dodgers saved those guys 29 and 26 more runs than the Mets for DeGrom. DeGrom also has 20 more innings than those guys so I imagine their DRS would be even higher if they pitched as many innings.
Article:
https://theathletic.com/1197655/2019/09/10/ballparks-and-defenses-can-help-determine-the-luckiest-pitchers-in-the-league/
So to summarize he has
- 5th worse defense behind him (all MLB)
- an insane 7.81 Bull pen ERA (this is before last nights game, I dont know where this ranks, but guessing top 3)
- 4th worse run support (all MLB)
Dallas, maybe the Athletic DID read this thread. Good thread, good debate. Jake was sure excellent last night. Amazingly, stuck on 9 wins with 3 starts left.
Yes, Jake just held the best NL offense to 3 hits over 7 innings (0 Walks). Again he got no run support. No one in the top 6 in ERA has more than 12 wins. Its a stat that has become more and more irrelevant.
DeGrom now leads the NL in WAR, WHIP, SO, and is pretty much in the top 4 of every meaningful pitching stat.
I recommend the Athletic if anyone in the thread is not subscribed. Its the first subscription to journalism I've ever bought, they do a pretty good job.
Post a Comment