|
|
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Strikeouts and Knuckleballs (67 - 9:25pm, Jul 08)Last: JLAC is engulfed in a harmless burst of flameIt Occurs To Me (16 - 3:49am, May 01)Last: HarrisHow Do You Solve A Problem Like Castillo? (92 - 12:32am, Apr 05)Last: Adam StarblindCan't Anybody Here Catch the Ball? (11 - 3:18am, Jul 25)Last: phoenixscienterAbout ####### Time! (10 - 9:17pm, May 27)Last: HarrisKeystone Options (92 - 6:59pm, Mar 16)Last: josehamiton1032Johan, Pelfrey, Maine - and Pray for Rain? (89 - 12:26am, Dec 15)Last: Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..)Math Loses Again (104 - 6:38pm, Dec 12)Last:  Chris DialReturning to Status Quo (37 - 1:29am, Dec 11)Last: Dog on the sidewalk has an ugly braceletWhat I Saw Last Night - 30 APR 07 Mets-Marlins (16 - 4:04pm, Dec 08)Last: Crispix Attacksel RiosBecause You Are Bad At It (55 - 4:09am, Jun 21)Last: calhouniteMLB Mandates Vambraces (33 - 3:38pm, Mar 20)Last: Russlan is not RussianKong (95 - 4:34am, Jan 13)Last: Scott FischthalSector One Cleared (25 - 4:50pm, Oct 01)Last: GuapoFive Down, One to Go (24 - 5:27am, Sep 03)Last: Chris Dial
|
|
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.
1. Mushroy Posted: December 10, 2008 at 04:38 PM (#3024924)(again, I really don't recall how well Mets LF's have been performing defensively, or how the Mets FO might value that so please note that this is not a snarky rhetorical question)
Unfortunately :) this is a nice signing by the Mets. I'm afeared that the Phils are going to go all Marshalls this off season with stuff like DeRosa for Happ + or signing Juan Rivera. If they get Lowe (rumors are fast fading), I'd almost not care about what they do to replace Burrell.
I just don't agree with this. First, because of the point Edmundo makes: the pen is too OOGIFIED. Even the Mets' relievers who were relatively effective are too limited, and that puts huge pressure on the pen, limits flexibility, and allows the opposing manager to ultimately put the Mets in a bad match-up.
Second, you can believe in the "good bets" of Heilman to perform to previous norms, and Feliciano to be less LOOGYISH if you want. You can believe that Sanchez will continue his recovery and bounce back yet further. The question is . . . what are you willing to risk on those bets? Two seasons, basically, have now been lost to bets that went wrong in the bullpen, and pitchers who were tossed into the high-leverage innings (with high odds of winning turned into losses) that the rest of the team (the excellent offense, the starting pitchers) had created by their efforts. I am not willing to risk 2009's high-leverage innings on the bets you mention.
What do we know about Aaron Heilman? He doesn't want to be pitching in relief; he and his agent have said so, explicitly. He sucked royally in the role last season. Do you really want to have the season depend significantly on a guy who has a negative attitude and is coming off that performance? Good luck with that. Not me. To me, it's all about reducing risk to acceptable levels. Getting someone who is a surer bet to perform solidly in that role, instead of rolling the dice on Heilman's return to form, makes much more sense. The buzzwords for the Mets should be reliable and versatile.
I have no clue about the other guys. Sanchez, without his velocity, is probably a write off, but I could see Aaron pitching well next year.
I could, too. I just don't want to have the season collapse because the Mets don't have a good, reliable alternative for the high-leveage innings we're talking about if he doesn't. They didn't have an alternative in 2007 when Sanchez got hurt -- Randolph depended on Mota, and kept going to him despite his repeated failures. They didn't have an alternative in 2008 when Heilman kept sucking -- and Manuel (to his credit) largely stopped going to him. So the Mets should acquire an alternative, one more likely to be successful than a guy who would rather be doing pretty much anything other than pitching relief for the Mets. To say the Mets have the pieces already in place is just too speculative for my tastes.
We aren't too "OOGIFGIED" We have two OOGIES. THat's what you are supposed to have. Heilman, Sanchez and Felciano are fine as setup men. There aren't better available.
It does exist. First of all, pitchers who want to be relievers do exist, Chris. And second, this notion that there is no such thing as reliable relief performance is to me one of the most indefensible in all of baseball analysis. Brian Fuentes is a reliable, consistent relief pitcher. So is Trevor Hoffman. The idea that a team should have to settle for a crapshoot, and have its entire investment in a season depend on one, is just wrong. Of course there is no absolute certainty, and because of the smaller sample involved in a season's worth of relief pitching, a guy can have an ineffective season that is not in keeping with his career norms more often than will happen with starters. But these things don't mean that a team can't achieve greater certainty, by paying for pitchers with a higher level of performance to begin with, so that even if a downward dip does happen, it is likely to still leave the pitcher involved as at least effective. You can also acquire a guy with a proven track record that is more consistent, over a longer period, so that a downward dip is less likely. And these things don't mean that every drop in effectiveness is just a random fluctuation, and that every drop is equally likely to have a corresponding bounce-back. I don't happen to think Heilman is such a great candidate for a return to effectiveness, especially not if he stays in the bullpen, and particularly not in the Mets' bullpen.
We aren't too "OOGIFGIED" We have two OOGIES. THat's what you are supposed to have.
Well, on that we just disagree. In terms of performance I am willing to depend on, I see Smith, Feliciano and Schoeneweis as reliable only when they have the platoon advantage. And that ought to be the standard: acquisition or development of pitchers who can be utilized with confidence against hitters from either side of the plate.
He did.
Fuentes is a closer - he's not coming here to play second fiddle.
I want the Mets to have truly good alternatives. You think they have them on hand; I don't. I think Heilman and Sanchez are the fall-backs, good enough bets to be there for the low-leverage situations and good enough bets that one of them (and maybe Pedro II) might come back to handle some of the higher-leverage innings. But counting on them to the exclusion of another acquisition? That's just risking too much on Sanchez's return to health and Heilman's return to form (and health, by the way).
None of whom can be counted on to get hitters out if they don't have the platoon advantage. Come on, Chris.
Name a reliever. Name one. You can't do it.
Huston Street. By all accounts, there to be acquired. Has the stuff to get both lefties and righties out, has done so consistently (even when he had one of those dips last year, it was to a level where he was still at least effective). If you'd rather have Heilman than him, so be it.
You might want to read the Basic Agreement. If the Mets acquire Street in a trade with the Rockies, he will be coming to the Mets. In a set-up role. Street isn't a FA.
Wow. Just . . . wow. Street blew up in 2008 . . . Street??? And that's a reason not to want him, but to want to keep Aaron Heilman??? Blowing up in 2008 is the criteria, and Heilman wins??? You are kidding, right?
So we're judging Huston Street on "his last three years," but Heilman on "05-07"? That lends new -- and comical -- meaning to "selective endpoints." If you're going to have selective endpoints, Chris, can you at least choose consistent ones for the guys you're comparing?
Let me continue. Street "blew up in 2008," huh? His K-W ratio was 69/27. His ERA+ was 109. He gave up six HRs in 70 IP. Obviously, it wasn't what you'd want, but it sure would have given the Mets better 8th inning results than they had in 2008. By leaps and bounds. And after the Save Dwarf™ went down, it would have given them better 9th inning results, too.
# 19 is just . . . I don't know what it is. It's almost beyond belief.
But much of your point about Heilman is that he isn't happy in a relief role. What do you think happens when Hudson Street - or any established, consistent, reliable reliever - sees his saves evaporate just before his FA years? Think he'll be happy?
I honestly don't understand how anyone could watch the Mets of the last two seasons and conclude that there weren't bullpen problems. Or that the current Mets aren't too OOGIfied.
A casual glance at the Mets' B-R page shows decent ERA+s from Show, Smith, Feliciano, Stokes ... anybody that actually watched the games should know that the Mets bullpen was incapable of protecting a 3-inning lead because they couldn't get outs from hitters of opposite handedness. The only pitcher in the entire bullpen without an EXTREME platoon split (a 300+ OPS swing) late last year was Ayala - no surprise that he was named closer after about 3 good-enough innings. If your starter poops out in the 6th inning and you need to get 9 outs from 4 OOGYs, no manager on earth can make the right decisions.
Looking at his splits, it is surprising that he didn't have a better season to tell you the truth.
My position: relievers that throw 60-70 IP in a setup role are genrally unreliable from season to season.
Your position: NO There are lots of them - a dime a dozen. We just have hte four who aren't.
Me: Name one.
You: Street.
OKay, so your claim is Street is one who can't nosedive, and is consistent. Street's last three seasons are VERY similar to Aaron Heilman's three seasons prior to his nosedive.
There is no logical reason why I should think Street in 2009 won't be Heilman 2008. Just as there was no logical reason for me to think 05-07 Heilman would be the 2008 Heilman (prior to events).
You don't seem to understand that in these 60-70 IP, set-up pitchers simply aren't terribly consistent, and anyone of them could go in the tank in short order.
Don't continue being an #######.
Your position: NO There are lots of them - a dime a dozen. We just have hte four who aren't.
That is not my position. My position is that there are some of them. That it is thus possible, at least, for a team with a sufficient combination of intelligence and resources to identify and then acquire them. It need not settle for year after year of hoping that its current crop of inadequate guys with get better or more reliable, recover prior form, become more versatile, or suddenly realize that the bullpen is their own personal Garden of Eden. If the team has had serious bullpen issues for two years running, which I believe the Mets have had (but which we disagree on, at least as to nature and extent), then it ought to proactively go out and seek to correct that problem by acquiring those pitchers whom it can identify. That doesn't mean I think there are lots of them, that it is easy, or that it will be a sure thing. But it can increase its odds, as I said in # 10, by acquiring pitchers with better and longer track records.
OKay, so your claim is Street is one who can't nosedive, and is consistent. Street's last three seasons are VERY similar to Aaron Heilman's three seasons prior to his nosedive.
There is no logical reason why I should think Street in 2009 won't be Heilman 2008. Just as there was no logical reason for me to think 05-07 Heilman would be the 2008 Heilman (prior to events).
Again: no, my claim is not that Street can't nosedive. There are no sure things. My claim is that he is a better bet than Heilman. As I have already pointed out, if you acquire a guy with a higher-level norm, his "nosedive" is likely to leave you with a better floor. Do you deny that Street was a better pitcher from 2005-07 than Heilman? You have already said that he "blew up" in 2008 -- and look at what happened when he did -- he was still a reliable, useful pitcher, unlike Heilman when HE blew up.
Is there any logical reason why Street in 2009 won't be Heilman 2008? Well, by your own reasoning you should be thinking of him as a candidate for a bounce-back season rather than a collapse -- he is more likely to regress back to his career norms (up) than the opposite. But more to the point, I think it's very difficult to think of any basis NOT to see Street as simply a better pitcher, period. That's why you should prefer the Mets to have him. He has never had a season close to as bad as Aaron Heilman has had, and thus is less likely to ever be that bad, as long as he is healthy.
Depends on how they see Heilman. If they see him as a starter and value/need that more, it would make sense to do that deal. That would certainly make Heilman happy. Or if the Mets throw something else into the deal.
Much better to use the resources to improve elsewhere where the returns will be more consistent (i.e. offense), and let the pen sort itself out.
I tend to agree with Chris. The Mets didn't need to be 2 wins better in the bullpen to make the playoffs, they just needed to be two wins better.
I would have thought Maddux would have been a decent setup guy.
NO!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main