BBTF's It's Mets...Just Mets Discussion

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Glavine coming back

When the Mets signed Tom Glavine, everyone said he was washed up - the second half of his last year with the Braves was not strong, and Braves fans said “Glad he’s gone.” Glavine stunk up the joint his first season and spent his first days on the Disabled List. I wrote about his possible demise after the 2003 season. Glavine solved *something*, and despite lots of hate from ZiPS and every other projection system, Glavine bounced back in 2004. He also kept it rolling in 2005. He threw 210+ innings and at a strong ERA+.

So this season he has started out great. But what does it look like? He threw back-to-back games, April 14 versus the Brewers and April 19 versus the Braves, where he was dominant.

CBS.sportsline, and assumably other sites, have pitch location data. It’s not perfect, but it is interesting.

In the Milwaukee grid, Glavine struck out 11 hitters and you can see why. His strikes are precise. Low and away, up and in, down and in. He had tremendous command and it showed.

In the Braves game, he had similar results as far as the game is concerned (H, BB), but he had much worse control. He actually allowed fewer hits and walked none, but his location wasn’t the best. Better than his first start, but not as good as it was against Milwaukee.

Looking at all his starts, he has varied control, but he looks like he is closer to the type of control that wll post a great season - 140 ERA+.

Chris Dial Posted: April 22, 2006 at 10:11 AM | 41 comment(s)
Related News: NY Mets

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. Rob Base Posted: April 22, 2006 at 11:16 AM (#1981699)

2. Sam M. Posted: April 22, 2006 at 11:30 AM (#1981712)

Hate to say it, but you've got to give Rick Peterson some credit for this.

As Glavine himself does.

That said, it's easy to give him too much credit, too -- just as it's too easy for some folks to blame him for the Jae Seo saga in 2004 and not put enough of the blame on Seo himself for not being in shape, etc. I've said plenty of times that Seo has to take a lot of the responsibility for setting his own career back, and the same applies in reverse here: most of the credit has to go to Glavine for turning his own career back around.

3. Raskolnikov Posted: April 22, 2006 at 11:34 AM (#1981717)

I think that Minaya's first priority should be to get Glavine extended before he hits the FA market in the offseason.

4. Insert clever/punny handle here (oi!) Posted: April 22, 2006 at 12:10 PM (#1981747)

Braves fans said “Glad he’s gone.”

Well, most Braves fans who said that were saying that more because of his union leadership than anything else. That, and the belief that he just went for the money.

Myself, I never blamed him for leaving, nor the Braves for letting him leave. Both sides did what they thought was best for them.

Glavine wanted the guarantee of a long term deal. A three year deal looked risky from the team's standpoint, and arguably it was - if he'd signed a one year deal, he would have cost a lot less for the later years of the contract. (I'm sure the Mets aren't complaining, mind you. Just saying he would not have commanded much as a free agent after 2003.) Add in that the Braves wanted to get some younger starters into their staff.

I'm glad he's worked things out and is effective again. I don't want him in the Blyleven limbo when it comes to the Hall of Fame.

5. Rob Base Posted: April 22, 2006 at 12:17 PM (#1981758)

Hard to imagine he wouldn't hit 300 wins now.

6. Sam M. Posted: April 22, 2006 at 12:18 PM (#1981760)

7. PreservedFish Posted: April 22, 2006 at 12:20 PM (#1981761)

It's probably mostly related to his results, but for the first time I'm beginning to think of Glavine as one of the team. I was dead set against his signing, totally convinced he would be a massive flop, and didn't even understand last year, after two very solid campaigns, why they allowed him to reach the IP trigger for 2006.

But I'm starting to like him.

8. Insert clever/punny handle here (oi!) Posted: April 22, 2006 at 12:22 PM (#1981766)

9. Sam M. Posted: April 22, 2006 at 12:32 PM (#1981777)

Sam, I'm not saying they weren't glad he left. It was right after the averted strike, when Glavine was the most visible player during negotiations. I think that had more to do with the anger than his performance as a Brave.

I know, but still -- I would have thought that might have faded some as they got their pound of flesh every time the Braves just killed him. That first year, it was just ugly every time Glavine took the mound against Atlanta. And my sense was Braves' fans loved it more and more every time. At some point, I would have thought they might have winced and said, "Geez, I hate to see that happening to our Tommy, after all those good years . . . . union crap or not."

10. Chris Dial Posted: April 22, 2006 at 02:00 PM (#1981991)

Hate to say it, but you've got to give Rick Peterson some credit for this. Glavine was absolutely falling apart in 2003, and what he was used to doing wasn't working. For whatever reason - Cedeno and Questech come to mind. But he has reinvented himself, from the guy who was throwing everything low and away, to a guy who mixes pitches and locations very very effectively. You have to think he and Peterson have been working very hard together to right the ship, and it's worked.

In 2003, Glavine was working with Leiter on coming inside more. He started tryig to throw Leiter's cutter, and he couldn't get it for strikes.

Glavine is definitely a smarter pitcher than he once was, but mostly because he doesn't have the pinpoint accuracy he once had. If Glavine could still be as precise as he once was, he'd still only throw the occassional inside pitch.

The grids I link to show how often he misses to the middle fo the plate. That's a sign of age and lack of control.

I don't see any reason to give Peterson any credit beyond any normal pitching coach. Glavine bascally stopped trying to throw a cutter like Leiter - and besides, IIRC, against everyone but the Braves his ERA was in the low threes.

That really says that *NOTHING* was wrong mechanically, but he wasn't changing things up enough when he faced the Braves.

11. Sam M. Posted: April 22, 2006 at 02:08 PM (#1982032)

Chris, that's the problem with focusing only on location and not on pitch selection. The other thing Glavine has been doing is throwing a curve ball much more often than he ever has in his career, and he has explicitly credited Peterson with urging him to do that, stated that he resisted (perhaps because he was trying the cutter idea instead?), and adopted it reluctantly.

How does Peterson not get at least some credit for getting past a pitcher's resistance to an idea that has helped him keep hitter's off-balance and make his main stuff more effective?

As I said, most of the credit to Glavine for recognizing and implementing the need to adapt. But this stubborn insistence on seeing the bad as being all or virtually all Peterson's fault (Seo '04) and the good as none or virtually none to his credit (Glavine, Heilman) just makes me think you have a pre-set opinion and all outcomes must be explained by reference to that judgment, evidence to the contrary be damned.

12. Ace the Bat-Hound, not a bumblebee Posted: April 22, 2006 at 03:03 PM (#1982160)

With our pal Zambrano leaving and Trachsel uncertain, there's a good chance we'll need Glavine in next year's rotation, but I'm very happy to wait till the end of the year to determine that. We do have Heilman in the hole, and more importantly, Glavine has been known to pitch like crap for three months at a time.

13. Insert clever/punny handle here (oi!) Posted: April 22, 2006 at 03:10 PM (#1982173)

I've seen suggestions recently that Bobby Cox is not a fan of the curveball. That could be why Glavine resisted throwing it for so long.

14. good_ol_gil Posted: April 22, 2006 at 03:14 PM (#1982181)

I'm a bit worried since it always seems like he always seems to have good halves of seasons and bad halves. Like the mentioned 2002 example, but also him being great the 1st half of 2004 but mediocre the 2nd half, and even last season: at this time last year everyone wanted to throw Glavine overboard. I think there was even a "Glavine IP to option kicks in" counter on the Metsgeek site with the unanimous opinion being that it would be a disaster if he reached the mark. Some were even calling for a demotion to the bullpen in order to prevent it.

So I just hope he can keep it up.

15. good_ol_gil Posted: April 22, 2006 at 03:19 PM (#1982197)

Just looking at the splits.

2002:

Pre-AS: 2.27
Post-AS: 3.93

2004:

Pre-AS: 2.66
Post-AS: 5.06

2005:

Pre-AS: 4.94
Post-AS: 2.22

16. Sam M. Posted: April 22, 2006 at 03:22 PM (#1982209)

It has to be anyone's guess who the heck will join Pedro, Pelfrey, Bannister, and Glavine in the Mets' 2007 rotation. But I think those four guys are pretty good bets, if healthy. My guess is the Mystery Man is not now in the organization.

17. Srul Itza Posted: April 22, 2006 at 04:00 PM (#1982278)

I wrote about his possible demise after the 2003 season.

If that was the first time you wrote about it, you were late to the party. Guys have been writing him off, saying he was doing it with smoke and mirrors, and was just about to crash and burn, since toward the end of the '99 season.

That is one of the reaons I always rooted for him, just to watch him confound expectations. Here's hoping he continues to do so, all the way to #300.

18. bunyon Posted: April 22, 2006 at 04:06 PM (#1982290)

I never got the feeling Braves' fans had an ounce of regret when Glavine was getting ripped by them every time he faced them, though. They really seemed to relish his struggles. By contrast, it is painful to watch Mike Piazza hit right now, in the current series against the Mets. There's at least part of me that wishes he'd just tear it up, albeit in a losing cause for the Padres.

It bothered me. I regretted Glavine leaving - still do. It still seems odd to see him in a Met uniform. And I'm glad he's doing well now.

The comment above about Cox and the curveball is interesting. Maddux has a great curveball. And he hardly ever throws it. I haven't seen him much lately so I don't know if he's been throwing it more now or not, but the Braves' bias against the curve is real, I think, no matter who is the cause.

19. Joshemy Posted: April 22, 2006 at 04:06 PM (#1982292)

I think there was even a "Glavine IP to option kicks in" counter on the Metsgeek site with the unanimous opinion being that it would be a disaster if he reached the mark.

Because, as you point out in #15, he fell apart in the second half of 2004. At the time it seemed, much like Al Leiter in 2004, the first half was not indicative of the pitcher he truly was at that point and the second half was much closer (especially combined with his performance in 2003). His struggles early in 2005 only made that feeling stronger, but then as discussed in this thread, he made many adjustments, including throwing the curveball, that have made him a very good pitcher again. After seeing those adjustments and his performance because of them in the second half, I think most, by the end of the year, were fine with him triggering the option.

20. bunyon Posted: April 22, 2006 at 04:11 PM (#1982299)

23 more wins can be done if he can do two more good seasons. I'm rooting for that, but still won't be surprised if he doesn't make it.

21. Rob Base Posted: April 22, 2006 at 04:12 PM (#1982304)

I don't see any reason to give Peterson any credit beyond any normal pitching coach.

I don't remember suggesting we build a statue of the guy in the rotunda of New Ebbets. I think there's evidence he's done well coaching Glavine. Full stop.

22. mike f Posted: April 22, 2006 at 04:14 PM (#1982309)

I never got the feeling Braves' fans had an ounce of regret when Glavine was getting ripped by them every time he faced them, though. They really seemed to relish his struggles. By contrast, it is painful to watch Mike Piazza hit right now, in the current series against the Mets. There's at least part of me that wishes he'd just tear it up, albeit in a losing cause for the Padres.

I think being in the same division is the difference here. I'll openly admit that I enjoyed the Braves beating up on Glavine, because it meant that the Mets were losing. I have none of those feelings towards Maddux.

23. Rob Base Posted: April 22, 2006 at 04:14 PM (#1982315)

24. Rob Base Posted: April 22, 2006 at 04:36 PM (#1982352)

Though, I guess once Carlos Lee is inked for 5/65, there won't be enough payroll for both.

25. Mike Emeigh Posted: April 22, 2006 at 04:56 PM (#1982389)

See, I'd rather go after Zito.

Why in the world would you want Zito? He's basically a league average pitcher who has been fortunate enough to have an outstanding defense behind him - a luxury he probably wouldn't have in New York.

-- MWE

26. chick-a-DOOM chick-a-DOOM Posted: April 22, 2006 at 06:04 PM (#1982456)

i was a little surprised to read bout the braves fans ripping glavine.

seemed pretty obvious to me that the Organization didn't really want him back and that if the braves and mets had offered him the same deal he would have stayed with the braves.

or maybe it was just that he went to the METS and not the, say, marlins

- but i personally have a weakness for glavine - yeah, it's my little guy thing. and when he come to the Box and i'm up there in the stands i make sure he gets a good loud boo (the respect kind not the jackal kind) when he is introduced.

i sure do hope he makes the hall.

you know that guy has not missed a start in his ENTIRE career?

NOT

ONE

FREAKING

START

so much for you have to be large and strong to be any good.

i think wandy rodriguez has a VERY similar motion and i hope he turns into another glavine

27. Free Rob Base Posted: April 22, 2006 at 06:12 PM (#1982462)

I just thought it was funny to see the NL league leaders in ERA the other day as No. 1 Maddux and No. 2 Glavine. The more things change . . . I have almost Pedro-like confidence in him right now. He really schooled the Brewers.

28. Sam M. Posted: April 22, 2006 at 06:16 PM (#1982465)

I'll openly admit that I enjoyed the Braves beating up on Glavine, because it meant that the Mets were losing.

Yeah, but Mike -- you could have rooted for the Braves to win 3-1, with Glavine pitching well and getting a ND, or taking a hard-luck loss. I got the feeling a lot of Braves' fans were cheering not only for the Braves to win, but also -- separate and apart from that -- for Glavine to get slammed all the way back to his hockey days.

you know that guy has not missed a start in his ENTIRE career?

No longer true. He's missed some starts since joining the Mets.

29. mike f Posted: April 22, 2006 at 08:15 PM (#1982638)

Yeah, but Mike -- you could have rooted for the Braves to win 3-1, with Glavine pitching well and getting a ND, or taking a hard-luck loss.

This is true, but unless good Hudson or Smoltz was on the mound, this wasn't going to happen. It wasn't worth the time hoping Russ Ortiz would throw one-run ball.

30. Chris Dial Posted: April 22, 2006 at 08:17 PM (#1982640)

How does Peterson not get at least some credit

Oh, I think he deserves *some*, but it's not anything like his rep, and his salary.

31. Rob Base Posted: April 22, 2006 at 08:23 PM (#1982654)

Oh, I think he deserves *some*, but it's not anything like his rep, and his salary.

He should get his salary halved because of thar stupid hair.

32. dlf Posted: April 22, 2006 at 09:06 PM (#1982745)

Sam - I've been to two (I think) Glavine starts at the Ted since his departure. There certainly have been a large number of fans booing him and taking job in his struggles. There have also, however, been a substantial number of folks who have roundly applauded him for what he meant to run beginning in 1991. I count myself among the later as I suspect are most of the folks who come to boards like this. Great, great pitcher who was always a pleasure to watch and carried himself with dignity. The departure was rather sordid, but that doesn't take away what he did.

33. Raskolnikov Posted: April 23, 2006 at 10:36 AM (#1983450)

As someone who has done a complete 180 on Glavine, I would favor extending him before he hits the market. I believe that at the present, he is more reliable than Zito or Schmidt - both of whom have kinks to work out. Glavine also wouldn't be expecting the 4+ year commitments that I think both Zito and Schmidt would want.

I think that negotiations are much easier when the player is still under contract than when you have to compete with other franchises for the player. Finally, Glavine has established himself as a Met - all things being equal, I like continuity in rooting for my team.

34. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: April 24, 2006 at 03:43 PM (#1985759)

The name of this blog should be "7 Train."

35. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: April 24, 2006 at 03:43 PM (#1985761)

wait, nevermind, that was a friend of mine's blog.

36. DCA Posted: April 25, 2006 at 12:04 PM (#1987718)

you know that guy has not missed a start in his ENTIRE career?

The same is true of Zito. Health has a bunch of value.

Why in the world would you want Zito? He's basically a league average pitcher who has been fortunate enough to have an outstanding defense behind him - a luxury he probably wouldn't have in New York.

Zito's better than a league average pitcher. Much better, even if you focus only on rate stats and not durability. How much defense does it take to turn to turn a league average pitcher into a 130 ERA+ pitcher? Plus, Peterson knows him, and he pitched very well back then.

37. Sam M. Posted: April 26, 2006 at 09:41 PM (#1991903)

I posted this at the very end of today's game chatter, but just FYI . . . Jim Caple said today in a chat in Baseball America that not only would he prefer Mike Pelfrey to Victor Zambrano in the Mets' rotation in August. He'd prefer Pelfrey right now.

I'm not sure if that says more positive about Pelfrey, or more negative about Zambrano.

38. Rob Base Posted: April 26, 2006 at 09:52 PM (#1991953)

I keep saying this and it keeps getting ignored:

1) Pelfrey is on an 85 pitch count. Just as he should be. A major league starter's workload would turn him into Bill Pulsipher before you can say "Paul Wilson."

2) It was pretty apparent to me in spring that all pelfrey has really working right now is a fastball. It's a major-league caliber fastball that he can locate, but he doesn't have a strong out pitch - a splitter, a curve, whatever. I think he'd be hit pretty hard, if not right away, then certainly the second time through the league.

I'm high on Pelfrey, and as low as anybody on Z, but it's the wrong answer for the 2006 Mets.

39. Sam M. Posted: April 26, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#1991981)

I'm high on Pelfrey, and as low as anybody on Z, but it's the wrong answer for the 2006 Mets.

Party pooper.

Pelfrey is on an 85 pitch count. Just as he should be. A major league starter's workload would turn him into Bill Pulsipher before you can say "Paul Wilson."

And what makes you think Pelfrey can't give the Mets as many innings in 85-90 pitches as Victor Zambrano (and Brian Bannister) give them in 100-115? My own two cents worth is that there's every chance he can. And by August, we'll certainly know a lot more about that very issue.

40. Rob Base Posted: April 26, 2006 at 10:30 PM (#1992087)

Well, Bannister will be lucky to give them an inning before the all-star break now. Summon Heath Bell and put Heilman in the rotation. Also, free that Irikii guy.

41. Rob Base Posted: April 26, 2006 at 10:36 PM (#1992114)

Maine threw a very good game today - 9k, 1 bb, 5 hits, 1 ER, 7 IP.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Glavine coming back

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics