 |
| PC - Scott Cunningham I can imagine deGrom asking, “Do we REALLY need to go 5 innings to pick up a W?” |
If it seemed like the Mets' bullpen got more wins and decisions than the starters, you are almost correct.
The Mets' starters went 32-57, just 89 decisions, with the pen going 45-28.
Both of those two groups, by the way, had the same 3.90 ERA.
Don't get me started.
Denny McLain was 31-6 in 1968, all by his lonesome.
But let's not go back to 1968, or 1969 and 1986 for comparisons. I do that too often.
Just ask Texas Gus. (Smiling)
More facts:
In 2021, the Mets starters over 162 games went just 784 innings, about 4.7 innings per start.
In 2021, the median baseball team's starters threw 820 innings.
In 2015, the Mets' starters threw a far higher 1,003 innings, in a year when the median team's starter innings were 940, or 120 innings more than just 6 years later.
The 2015 starters went 64-51, registering 26 more starter decisions than in 2021.
In 2001, 20 years ago, the Mets' starters went 981 innings, while the median team averaged 970 innings, or 150 more than the median team's starters in 2021.
In fact, the team that came in last in starter innings in 2001, Cincinnati, with 875, would have just missed being the 2nd highest in 2021.
So, where am I going with this?
Why not change the "5 inning-to-get-a-win-by-a-starter" rule?
Especially in an era where relievers sometimes start a game and go just 1 or 2 innings, something that happened to the Mets several times in 2021?
Why not change it to 1 inning, or 2 innings, or 3 innings, or 4 innings, being enough for a starter to get a win?
Let's say a reliever starts a game - goes one inning - leaves with a 5-0 lead, and his team wins 7-1.
Why shouldn't he get a W?
Let's say a pitcher like Jacob deGrom is leading 6-0 after 4, but feeling a little twinge of something. Instead of coming out, perhaps he stays in, figuring it is probably nothing, and one more inning gets him a W. So he stays in...and gets hurt.
Better if you can get a win after 4 innings? I think so.
Back in 1969 (yes, I went there after all) there were 28 shutouts and 51 complete games. Yet, the qualifier for a starter win back then was 5 innings, an innings total that starters probably surpassed 130 times that year (just a guess).
These days, the average start was 4.7 innings, but the minimum starter innings to earn a win remains at five.
Given that backdrop, and the likelihood that starter innings will stay about as low as they were in 2021 for the foreseeable future, why not change that minimum 5 inning start-to-get-a-win rule to 4 innings? Or 3 innings? Or 2 innings? Or 1 inning?
Thoughts?
Me? My vote is 4 innings, but I could be persuaded to go to 3 innings. Twist my arm enough, I could even go with 1 inning.
Let's put it this way - you start a game, give up 3 runs and leave after two innings and your team never catches up and loses 4-3. You get the L.
But... if you lead 6-3 after 4, and you get pulled for any reason (your team, say, has bases loaded and 1 out and your spot comes up and you get pinch hit for), and your team wins 6-5, you get...a lousy no decision.
Or you leave after 4 2/3 innings with a 3-0 lead, the next guy gets the last out in the 5th, but coughs up 3 runs and the lead in the top of the 6th, but your team promptly goes ahead in the bottom of the 6th for good, and wins...and the guy who gave up 3 runs in 1 1/3 innings gets the win, not the guy who threw 4.2 shutout innings, who gets a stinking ND.
UNFAIR!!
That's it for now - I'm going to relieve myself.
At my age, that too happens a lot more often than in 1969. Or in 1986.
Your call - keep it at 5 innings, where the starters only earn a win in one of every 5 starts as happened in 2021, or shorten it up?
AND…BILLY EPPLER AS NEW GM…that seems to be the news.
Our readers can weigh in on the merits.
11 comments:
Billy Eppler - 5 years no winning seasons for LA Angels. They had bad pitching and bad defense but...he signed Ohtani and extended Trout.
As far as cutting the 5 inning requirement - just use an opener. Then when the next guy goes 4 innings or even 3 innings, he can get the win.
Also Eppler hand picked Brad Ausmus to replace Mike Scosia which did not work out. This may give usca glimpse to future Mets Manager.
Who cares who gets a win? wins don’t matter as a stat!
WINS DO MATTER AS A STAT. AND I CARE. 32 WINS TOTAL FROM YOUR STARTERS OVER 162 GAMES? I CARE.
John, that is a reasonable suggestion for starters.
Eppler, as with anyone, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. It comes down to getting the most out of your players. The ultimate example being the 1950s Yankees Casey Stengel vs. the 1960s Mets Casey Stengel.
If I was a free agent of value, I'd want to come to NY if I perceived I could thrive and win there. And a player should at least like, and not despise, all it means to be in the Big Apple. That is what Eppler has to build. Other clubs want to build that too. It is not easy.
I believe it is viewed that is better that your starters have a great win loss records. But as deGrom proved, performance and not win loss records is most important. Instead of just a 5 inning minimum for the starter, why not have the official scorers make the decision as to what pitcher was most instrumental in creating the win. The official scorer decides on if it was an error or not and who may have created the error (was it a bad throw or a bad catch).
Where is the argument on deGrom having a Hall of Fame type career but cannot because the Met's offense was / is incompetent to score enough runs for him to earn wins?
Steve M, I have raised the "lack of support for deGrom" position many a time, and I am glad you share it.
No matter how much HOF voters focus on performance, wins matter to enough of them to make for headwinds for Jake.
On the flip side, a guy like Mike Mussina was on strong hitting clubs his entire career. with the side benefit that he did not have to pitch against his own strong hitting clubs. Had he pitched for the Mets, I doubt he'd have won enough games to be in the HOF.
Official scorers calling wins brings subjectivity to it, some will lean more than others, so unless there are clear parameters, not sure that one would fly, but it is an interesting idea.
32 starter wins this year, 70-75 starter wins in 1969. Fair to today's starters?
Also, the longer starters stay in games, the more chance they have to pick up a W - or an L.
Which is how Seaver went 25-7 and McLain went 31-6. Let's stay more current than that:
In 2021, 4 guys threw over 200 innings, and 18 in total threw 180 innings or more.
In the still-recent historical year of 2001, 45 guys threw over 200 innings, and 65 threw over 180 innings. Huge difference.
The top innings guy of 2021 would have been 31st in 2001.
Many starters might wish to stay in their starts, but teams won't allow it these days.
Reducing the 5 innings requirement to even 4 innings will spread a few more Ws their way - how many, only Elias knows! How many guys are pulled in the 5th inning with a lead that the team retains, I don't know. But it is a positive number.
Two options:
1) Just make it the last pitcher that pitched before the team took the final lead without regard for number of innings pitched.
2) Do away with the Wins and Losses for pitchers altogether. With all the other stats out there today to measure effectiveness, the W-L seems a bit old now.
Post a Comment