I never thought I'd see a healthy Pedro suck. He has his moments (3-pitch strikeout of Pujols, for example) but the numbers have been really ugly and every pitcher has his moments. He has only had one good start of the seven he has made this year. I could see him getting roughed up really bad this weekend.

Easily the worst loss of the year.

Notwithstanding the results, I just can't accept that an (apparently) healthy Pedro Martinez is not only done, but totally, 100%, extra crispy, fork-in-back done. It would not shock me to see him having a really solid second half.

That notwithstanding, I'm much less sure of that happening for the Mets.

Easily the worst loss of the year.

A lot of losses have hurt this season but this one was so bad that I didn't get upset. I was just in shock. I really thought they were going to win when they took the 7-5 lead.

Pedro since 2006

GS: 35
W: 14
L: 11
IP: 196.0
H: 190
R: 113
ER: 103
HR: 25
BB: 58
K: 194
ERA: 4.73
Approx ERA+: 99

edit: or ERA+ could be 91, depending on whether one takes a weighted avg of the ERA+ figures (which gives the 99) or of the actual lgERA #'s and then divides (which gives 91). I think the 91 figure is better but alas it's 5am and I'm ready for bed, so the logic part of my brain is barely there...

Those stats hide a lot of variability - near dominance in 2007 and major suckitude in 2008. At NO time has be been an average, 99 ERA+ pitcher.

His 2006 numbers have a lot of variability as well. His first two months were ridicously good. 2.50 era, 75.2 IP, 88/17 K/BB, .81 WHIP. He rarely hit 90 MPH during those two months which makes his current struggles odd considering he is throwing relatively hard.

Pedro had a 3.42 ERA up until his last 4 starts of 2006. He posted a 15.43 era in those starts when he was quite obviously hurt.

I have no kind of faith in Muniz...

A lot of losses have hurt this season but this one was so bad that I didn't get upset. I was just in shock. I really thought they were going to win when they took the 7-5 lead.

It's as if it was scripted. Chris Duncan and Pedro Feliciano decide to reenact game 5 of the 06 NLCS; Sanchez of course gets hurt in securing one of the Mets' better wins of the year, so he's unavailable; everyone KNOWS Muniz is going to give up the ghost, yet feel better about things when he gets Pujols and Ankiel; and finally the game-losing homer is JUST out of reach of a leaping Endy in LF (now *there's* a dump truck full of symbolism or karma or... something).

Other teams lose, but no team loses so divinely so often as the Mets do. Some kernel of this franchise's (most recent) failures lives in every game.

I have no kind of faith in Muniz...

I wonder why.

Aren't there better "last pitchers on the roster" candidates out there than him? Hell, Jorge Sosa looks OK right now...

Player VORP
--------------------
Martinez, P. -8.0
Hampton, M. 0.0

I'm just sayin'.

but alas it's 5am and I'm ready for bed,

From now on, please punctuate times of day normally -- i.e. "5 a.m." I say that not as a grammar Nazi (though I'm certainly capable of that), but because (since it's a Mets thread & all) I read that as "it's Sam and I'm ready for bed."

Did anybody hear anything about the Mets making any international signings yesterday, or appearing to be interested in making any international signings?

Easily the worst loss of the year.

A lot of losses have hurt this season but this one was so bad that I didn't get upset. I was just in shock. I really thought they were going to win when they took the 7-5 lead.

Last night was a microcosm of the first half for me:

I went to bed at about 11:25, right after LaGenius (aka "Ray Charles") pulled Agent Mulder.

I said to myself, "Great comeback. They might just win this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they lose..."

When I found out this morning that they did indeed lose, my reaction was "Well, that kinda sucks," as opposed to the depths of despair, anger and bleak augueries about what lies ahead this Holiday Weekend (From winning, New York abstains, courteously.)

That's actually kind of a pity, as it signals the start of an "I 'know' we ain't goin' nowhere this year" attitude from me...

Pedro VORP = negative 8.0
Unit VORP = negative 4.1

I'm winning this Pyrrhic battle

I said it in the chatter last night:

Manuel should be fired today for not using Wagner. That's worse than anything Willie did.

Those stats hide a lot of variability - near dominance in 2007

He had a nice ERA, sure. But can you be "near dominance" by giving up more than a hit per inning?

But can you be "near dominance" by giving up more than a hit per inning?

I think you can when you're K/BB ratio is better than 4.5 to 1.

and finally the game-losing homer is JUST out of reach of a leaping Endy in LF (now *there's* a dump truck full of symbolism or karma or... something).

As far as I'm concerned it represents a sign from God that the Cardinals truly won the Troy Glaus-Scott Rolen trade.

I wouldn't call Pedro "healthy". He's 36 and has had significant injuries over the last couple of years. Velocity isn't all there is for pitching effectiveness and it looks to me like he's having to work harder to keep the velocity and it's hurting him in other areas.

Now, if he can learn to "pitch" with his new, less talented body, he can still be a useful pitcher. But I think too many folks are crediting him with past glories that aren't completely relevant at this point.

This isn't to slag him. He's been one of the greatest pitchers but normal aging, aside from the injuries, can rob a pitcher of his greatness. Throw in the injuries and a great pitcher can downright suck. I'd like to see him to turn it around, but just because he was once great doesn't mean that is a gimme.

I think you can when you're K/BB ratio is better than 4.5 to 1.

It was 28 innings. Almost every pitcher in baseball will look good over some 28 inning stretch.

IMO, he's pretty much done, and has been since the beginning of June, 2006. I agree with bunyon - he's not really healthy, and I don't think he will ever be "healthy" again. He might be able to come back somewhat, at some point, but you absolutely can't count on it. I'd give his odds at less than 50/50 of ever having an extended stretch of effective pitching.

I hope I'm wrong, because he was so much fun when he was healthy.

It was 28 innings. Almost every pitcher in baseball will look good over some 28 inning stretch.

Yeah, but this was his only 28 inning stretch.

Pedro with the Mets:

403 IP, 349 H, 402/105 K/BB, 44 HR, 3.82 ERA (113 ERA+). Zero postseason innings.

It's not over yet, but it looks like the Red Sox played this one right. Even if he's healthy to the end of the year, thats at best 125 IP/season for $13M.

From the Mets standpoint, while this signing was somewhat lousy from a performance standpoint, you could argue that signing Pedro at the time upped the Mets cache a bit. Don't know how much stock I'd put into that argument, as I'm not privy to the Mets players or front office, but I guess I could see the argument.

Though he'd been throwing only 86-88 the past few years, Pedro's various breaking stuff all had absurd movement. He has not been throwing the kind of change-ups/curveballs/whatever that he had been able to do on a regular basis in the past. I think that's much more important than his velocity. For example, someone brought up his strikeout of Pujols last night. Pedro started and finished it with a fastball. My commentary is not scientific at all, I know, but I don't Pedro could have struck Pujols out with his off-speed stuff last night.

Now, if he can learn to "pitch" with his new, less talented body, he can still be a useful pitcher. But I think too many folks are crediting him with past glories that aren't completely relevant at this point.

Agreed. I also think too many people have gotten accustomed to the era of drug tolerance when the top players could continue being dominant into their 40s. Folks, those days are over now. 35 in baseball is the new 40.

Even if Pedro is "healthy", his top effectiveness limit now is 5-6 innings. The old Pedro most likely isn't coming back, last year's brief stretch notwithstanding.

Agreed. I also think too many people have gotten accustomed to the era of drug tolerance when the top players could continue being dominant into their 40s. Folks, those days are over now. 35 in baseball is the new 40.

Give me a break.

Pedro VORP = negative 8.0
Unit VORP = negative 4.1

I'm winning this Pyrrhic battle

Levski, this sounds fun. How about the 1999-2000 MVPs:
Chipper VORP = 52.9
Giambi VORP = 28.6
Ivan VORP = 8.9
Kent VORP = 6.7

One MVP candidate, one good player, and two between replacement level and average.

The ROYs:
Furcal VORP = 26.6
Beltran VORP = 24.8
Williamson VORP = 0.0 (MiLB)
Kaz Sak VORP = 0.0 (Retired)

Not quite as good. Furcal may be done for the year.

Give me a break.

Does that mean that you think I'm wrong?

Players were effective into their forties in the deadball era and every other era.

Desperate for pitching in my roto league, I acquired both Randy Johnson (with Adam Dunn for Hunter Pence, Ryan Franklin, Ryan Freel, and Scott Olsen) AND Pedro (for Pat Burrell and Carlos Villanueva).

I've also just picked up Chris Carpenter off the waiver wire.

With Smoltz out for the year, I figure I now have a good shot to acquire him.

Then - I think I'll just be a flux capacitor away from a title.

Seasons player 40+ years old, 200+PAs, OPS+ over 100:
1901-10: 2
1911-20: 3
1921-30: 5
1931-40: 2
1941-50: 5
1951-60: 7
1961-70: 3
1971-80: 8
1981-90: 16
1991-00: 8
2001-08: 14

If you drop the bar to 175 PAs and OPS+ of 90+
1941-50: 9
1951-60: 8
1961-70: 3
1971-80: 10
1981-90: 22
1991-00: 16
2001-08: 21

So yes, more players are staying effective into their 40s than before (and yes there are more teams now, but that only accounts foe half the increase)

How about 502 PAs, OPS+ 125+ ages 35+?
2001-08: 30 (pace for 43)
1991-00: 41
1981-90: 33
1971-80: 18
1961-70: 10
1951-60: 20
1941-50: 24
1931-40: 16
1921-30: 33
1911-20: 14

and...
1: 1941-50 is skewed by a large number of MLB vets in their late 30s beating the snot out of substandard wartime competition. 1951-60 is skewed by two men- Williams and Musial.

1921-30- a lot of guys became more valuable relative to the league because they could hit HOME RUNS- home runs were easier to come by, working the count and hitting HRs are old guys skills (or so they say)

Some of the sustained productivity of older players in recent years might be due to the same thing- the last skillset to go is pitch recognition/working the count/power... That skillset is relatively more valuable (and more appreciated by those who decide upon a player's PT) in today's baseball offense than it was in earlier eras.

I also think too many people have gotten accustomed to the era of drug tolerance when the top players could continue being dominant into their 40s. Folks, those days are over now. 35 in baseball is the new 40.

To the man who only has a hammer in the toolkit, every problem looks like a nail.