“I Simply Can’t Stand It Anymore”
Topic #1 was earlier today.
Moving on to Topic # 2:
ONE MORE THING THAT I SIMPLY CANNOT STAND IN MLB BALL
Seth Lugo, in his Mets days, won 7 games one season as a reliever
Simply, and for whatever reason, so many guys have much trouble going five innings these days in the major leagues. But you still require five innings to qualify for a win.
On the other hand, if you begin to pitch as a starter in a game, give up a HR on the first pitch, and get pulled, you could end up losing the game despite throwing ONLY one pitch. Seems a tad inequitable.
So I looked deeper at Seth‘s numbers and saw he had one start that he got a no decision and where he went 6.1 IP, and gave up seven runs.
Including that bad start, in ten starts, he has a 3.56 ERA.
His record? 1–3. One stinking win in 10 starts with a 3.56 ERA.
Even worse?
Excluding his one rocky start?
Just 1 win in 9 starts, with an ERA below 3.00!
Nuts.
I would immediately change the rule at season’s end to allow a Starter to pick up a win if he throws a minimum of four innings, not five.
It makes me also think of Christian, Scott, whom many Mets fans think very highly of, and who still does not have a major league win. I think that is insane, and I think that rule should be changed.
On Tuesday, in his FOURTEENTH Mets career start, Scott led 4-3 after 4 innings and 81 pitches. They did not allow him to throw even 82 pitches.
They yanked him.
Result? Another ND.
Nuts.
But, if the starter win rule was changed to a minimum 4 innings, rather than 5 innings, he again would have qualified for a W when pulled.
As the 16-7 Mets win unfolded, he still would have gotten an ND, but that is besides the point.
I SAY…
CHANGE THAT OUTDATED RULE TO ALIGN WITH MODERN DAY REALITY.
FOUR INNINGS BY A STARTER SHOULD QUALIFY!
AND…A KIRK NIEUWENHUIS CLONE…
Kirk Nieuwenhuis the former Met was a lefty slugging outfielder who struggled with his batting average, and walked and fanned a lot.
Career split: .221/.311/.384.
MJ Melendez the current Met is a lefty slugging outfielder who struggles with his batting average, walks a lot, and fans a lot.
Career split: .215/.298/.388.
Clones.
34 comments:
This organization has cloned pitchers and handed them bats.
Binghamton .202, Brooklyn .179, on Memorial Day weekend.
St Lucie killing it, relatively speaking, at .242.
Seaver hit better.
Only the FCL Mets (.268) are ripping. But their team ERA is nearly 6.50.
Change the 5 inning rule & add one more pitching roster spot to account for the fact that for health & other reasons the 6 inning starter is not only a true Ace & there are maybe 20-25 of them in the whole league.
Allows for multiple multi-innings guys & also could help the brutal last spot rotation carousel that is unfair to those players right in the edge.
While we are at it - maybe allow one extra pitcher for not only double headers but the game immediately after as well. For player health sake.
I was planning on covering the Cyclones regularly this summer starting mid June treking in from CT once a week for two games, but while I have done my share of wrong in my life nothing I have done, individually or collectively, warrants watching the hitless wonders as appropriate punishment. I have to rethink that plan and replace it with a regular trip to the FCL, which will place me in unbearable humidity, but may offer me the opportunity to pitch again in an apparently unnecessary closer role. :-)
Tom, just go with the flow. Put your head out the window and scream it loud and clear: I can't stand it and I'm not going to take it. I'll be joining you (perhaps even in harmony) here in CT.
The Mets need around 40 picks this draft to turn around the chain. Shame they only get 20... however, they also get 20+ IFAs. Now all they have to do is make the right decisions. Huge void in productive bats
The modern game and the rules that govern it are not aligned. It's worth taking a look at the factors that contribute to that. Here are three of them. I am sure there are more: money, money, money. Initial pitching draft reflects velo at younger and younger ages, thus stressing arms that aren't ready for the demands velocity imposes on the body. The correlation between velo and salary continues throughout ever shorter and more injury prone careers.
Drafting also reflects home run power, at the expense of impact alignment for optimal solid contact. Result, far more K's and a misallocation of talent as skill sets are not aligned with incentives.
Third, owners and TV contracts, that reflect a view that may not be correct, namely that audiences prefer games dominated by the long ball and the strikeouts.
And the Rays keep winning with good pitching, contact hitters at a third of the Mets payroll.
We saw what happened to Nieuwenhuis, so why do we have to wait on Melendez?
RVH, I think adding one more roster spot is a third rail for owners. Even at MLB minimum salary. And there used to be 15 hitters, now only 13, on a team. Lots of guys would have utility MLB careers if it was still 15. I was amazed when they went from 25 to 26, but they squeezed the number of September call ups to offset those added costs. Salaries have followed Hollywood, where the big stars get truckloads while many others get pittance…or nothing at all.
Jules, only start covering Brooklyn if they clear the .200 mark. You will save major wear and tear on the car.
Jules, when I criticized Lindor for not stopping, because I instantly envisioned three game stretches where they scored a total of 3 or 4 runs, like the last 3 games. His bat was too important.
“All they have to do is make the right decisions” seems hit or miss with this organization…mostly miss.
Costly Simon Juan .168? Costly Houck the K King? Far too many of those.
Unfortunately, these Mets provide infield ground balls & strikeouts.
I looked out of curiosity the other day at Ks per game in modern day baseball vs. the past. 5.2 Ks per 9 for the median 1960 team, 8.2 per 9 in 2026. They got there through shredding elbows, since a surgery not in existence in 1960 has become a conveyor belt of surgeries in recent years. Owners: NEXT MAN UP.
I think the wait is almost over…Jared Young seems just about ready. Then, it will be ML DFA?
I get the economics, but $800k for a bottom spot is really splitting hairs. I wonder how much dead or IL pitching money is spread across the league not to mention how many promising pitchers burn out prematurely contributing to lost player development money.
They have to find a way to make it work IMHO
All roster construction strategies are constrained by three factors: how many players, how many pitchers and position players, and total budget. The game could be more interesting if baseball eliminated the pitcher/position players rule and left it to teams to determine what is optimal for them. It could make the game even more interesting if it raised the total number of players to 28 while doing so. Together the latter two rule changes would lead to teams adopting different portfolio construction strategies. So among my posiiton players I could look for what I take to be an optimal mix of contact hitters and power hitters, and feature different lineups against different pitchers or when playing in different ballparks. I could also consider a different mix of starters and relievers and a different approach to starting pitchers of say 4 inning specialists with piggy backing, or I could build an organization that focuses on developing more on the hitting or the pitching side; and so on. And there would be less uniformity in the approaches teams deploy than there is now if there were more ways of creating winning strategies.
A side benefit, in my view, would be that analytics would be deployed where they actually make the most sense, i.e. in developing optimizing overall strategies for constructor roster, when matched against all the possible options that other teams might deploy and facts about how often you have to play teams inside and outside your division and across leagues. That's where computer simulations would be most useful. Then, the real baseball takes over. Also if there are multiple ways of creating winning strategies, pay will be distributed differently to reflect that. More teams may pursue the Rays-like strategy, etc. I don't know what the overall distribution of styles of play will look like, but it would be much more fun to see and watch.
Two questions occur to me that I would like to hear what others think the answers are. Depending on the answers, I might want to look into those questions in more detail in some follow-up posts.
(1) The Brewers are in it every year and with a very consistent level of performance as well, in contrast, say to the ups and downs of the Cubs. Is that recent history that has gone on for a while now and continues, attributable to Stearns or to others in the organization? How would we be able to judge the answer to that question?
(2) More interesting to me is the success of the Tampa Bay Rays, and why it is that their current manager does not get hired away. Surely he has something to do with their success. Maybe we need to take a closer look at the expanding group of what I would call the Billy Beane tree that includes Chaim Bloom and Andrew Friedman among others. There is something interesting that this group shares and it isn't that they succeed only in small markets with limited budgets. Friedman was with the Rays, I believe, and now is with the Dodgers. Chaim Bloom was recently with the Red Sox and is now leading a turnaround with St. Louis. What's the deal/explanation?
And, I can't resist throwing out the following: We had an opportunity to sign Contreras, the ex catcher, turned 1B for 3 years at Polanco prices, with a better hitting history and real experience at 1B, and we chose the person with no experience and an injury history, to avoid a third year of commitment, which we now see would have been a needed year to get us closer to some of our minor leaguers being ready. And oh yeah, Contrares fielded the position quite well in his walk year.
And one last thing on that. The Cardinals let go of Goldschmidt, who has continued to perform pretty well on the Yankees, for Contreras, who is one of the few performing well on the Red Sox, and Chaim Bloom walks in and the Cardinals are moving forward without missing a beat -- and they also traded Donovan as well. There is something these guys know how to do well isn't there.
I think I am beginning to understand why some fans think that Stearns is overrated.
If you had to choose your POBO based on capacity to judge baseball talent, make wise trades and free agent signings, I don't think someone like Stearns stacks up well against the likes of Bloom and Friedman. It's about judgment not money; money is a strategic asset that is important but pales in comparison with good judgment. And in this case: baseball savvy.
And is there any reason for thinking that Kevin Cash wouldn't be the most interesting manager in baseball for the Mets to look at. He's a decidedly modern guy who has managed to stick with the same team for 11 years and you never hear his name.
Tom, the Braves lost Acuna… stop blaming Lindor.
The Wilpons liked Chaim Bloom for GM. But they liked Brodie Van Waganen better. They could play golf with Brodie at their club, so they hired him instead!!!!
I think the only way to fix the problem is to move all MLB fences 10 feet further out, to reduce HR levels baseball-wide to 1970s levels. Guys have less need to throw max if a lot more long shots die on the track.
But that won’t happen.
I must sign off. Keep the discussions going.
1. It took a while for Stearns to build that group in Milwaukee, but he had the luxury of doing it in a city that doesn’t have 20 beat writers following the team, countless tv and radio stations, and millions of stressed out fans screaming over every move. Hence, that’s why Bichette misses Toronto.
2. Brains aren’t patented. Bloom flipped badly in Boston, let’s see how that goes. Then, Breslow came in after Bloom, had initial success, was a genius, and now fumbling and fired Alex Cora. Friedman went to LA, and built up the organization through smart moves and didn’t dumpster dive. But again, the environment is easier. Look at what the Knicks had to go through to get to where they are. You need smart moves, patience, and to not have knee jerk reactions. Plus, knowing your own players in the minors would be great. Those stupid trades for the three relievers and Mullins in July hurt the team and the minors.
Contreras was in his walk year, and not a free agent. The Red Sox traded Sonny Gray for him.
Do you know who the Washington Nationals manager is? He came from college, I think, and didn’t even know the rules correctly his first week. But, his team plays hard. Ditto in San Diego. I recall Tory Lovello getting in Arizona and everyine saying, “who?” When Snitker was hired in Atlanta, he was their AAA manager. I honestly prefer Dick Scott to Mendoza, but handling the media is 70% of the job. Problem is that controlling your team and them not controlling you is the other 30% and Mendoza can’t do that.
Two names mentioned on another site for GM candidates. I know nothing about them so maybe the writers can add some info:
1. Brandon Gomes with the Dodgers organization.
2. Kieran Powel with the Rays.
Does Chaim Bloom not play golf? If he does, he would have had no trouble getting into Fresh Meadows CC, which is also an excellent golf course. If he doesn't play golf then I am disappointed because there are several very good country clubs in St. Louis, one of which he would likely be barred from -- St. Louis CC. :-)
You are right about Contreras. My mistake, but he was available to the Mets. I wonder what it would have taken to get him.
I don't know that Bloom flopped in Boston. He certainly didn't have great success. Leon Rose has done a very good job in a tough position. The Knicks were mismanaged before him for decades, not just years. And the Rangers continue to be.
I'm not a Yankee fan, and I don't think they have constructed a championship team now or in the last ten years or so, but truth is they came pretty close not that long ago to winning a championship. They face the same pressure or worse as the expectations -- WS or bust -- are higher. They have survived the pressure and have been consistently successful, and always watchable. Whatever Cashman's shortcomings are, he has been extremely good at identifying when there is a true ace available and goes after him well: Cole and Sabathia come to mind. He has done very well in backing that up with Fried who is a 1AB pitcher and did pretty well having to hold the fort all of last year.
The Yankees starting rotation and back of the bullpen has historically been very good.
Too early to dump Stearns. I'm concerned about the lack of progress of our minor league teams. None of hitters stand out.
I am not in favor of dumping Stearns. I do think he has made his fair share of poor player related decisions that he needs to own publicly. I don't have any transparency into what the approach is from a player development point of view. I do know a fair bit about hitting, but I wouldn't say that I have the skillset that could make anyone a better hitter. My worry is that neither do the coaches currently serving as hitting instructors, but it is not because they don't know how to hit. I think, as I said before, they don't have a global mapping of what what makes for an efficient swing: not the positions you have to be in, but the sources of motion, which are invariably forces and torques.
I am going to give examples when I return to my posts on hitting in the next couple of weeks, but I can give you a brief idea of what the start of a map of the swing would look like. Here are two connected but fundamental ideas in any mapping: A swing has a loading phase and an unloading phase. What is it that gets loaded and what is it that gets unloaded? I know that what gets unloaded is energy. So that means the body has to recruit energy; and so the loading part must be connected to taking the energy you recruit and turning into potential energy. So loading phase has to be about taking energy you recruit and turning it into potential energy. And the unloading part must be the part that turns the potential energy into kinetic energy released in the right direction at the right time. And the whole process has to be synched up to do all those jobs efficiently and repeatably. And the teaching or learning of any way of doing that has to be personal to each player and achievable by that player. Those would be the first things you would write on the board if you were to be teaching a course on hitting ANYTHING with ANY kind of implement. That is what I call the pattern of patterns. The second set of patterns are the ones players in different sports all have; But they all need to know that at some basic level what the overall activity they are engaged in is ultimately about. And they can then see then that they already have a pattern as soon as they swing, say, a bat for the first time. It is an instance that involves recruiting energy, loading up parts of the body to create potential energy that can be released then unloading it through body movements. Then they can understand what they are doing and what would be involved in a global sense to be as good at it as they can become.
I have found that it is very difficult to get any player to get better without them connecting what they are doing to a global understanding of the task or job they have. But what I worry about is that most coaches in most sports provide tips or impose a model which is rarely more than either a set of pictures or a set of numbers off a Trackman or Force Plate. And that almost never leads to developing an achievable, efficient motion that is sustainable. The ones that are sustainable and achievable are 'owned' by the athlete, and not something he thinks about. They are internalized; and only when they are internalized can a player have the clear mind that is necessary to develop an approach, say, to his at bats. He knows his pattern by what it feels like; knows therefore when he is on and when he is off. And he can take a path to adjustment when he has to. because he understands the task and knows what it feels like when he is executed it well -- regardless of the outcome -- and when he has not. And a good coach is a companion to his getting back on track.
I have articles on Monday and Wednesday that will add to the poor report card.
Post a Comment