Mets vs Phillies, 5/23 Game Thread [Archive] - Page 2

statjeff22

05-24-2006, 10:16 AM

I can't believe that you guys are getting this worked up about giving Pedro an extra day in mid May. I'd rather him be fresh in September than have him pitch a game against Philly in May.. You guys need to realize that they aren't throwing the game because Jeremi Gonzalez is pitching, teams win games with crappy pitchers on the mound every day..

Again, since he was much better last year on 4 days rest, especially after the middle of July, the notion of him "being fresh" doesn't make any sense. And you can put me in the camp that says that a win in May is worth the same as a win in September - especially since the Mets don't play the Phillies after August, so a win against them in May is actually worth more than a win against a noncontender in September.

Of course teams win with crappy pitchers on the mound, but the goal should be to make the chances of winning as good as possible when playing a contender, particularly if it is not going to hurt you later on. There is no hint from anyone that this decision is in any way in response to how Pedro feels right now (arm, toe, whatever). I quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson in a Mets thread a couple of days ago ("A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"), and it's hard to imagine something more foolishly consistent than sticking to a schedule made in March when 40% of your rotation is gone (and the substitutes you've tried for that 40% have failed miserably), you're talking about a one day difference, and it's an opportunity to put more distance between you and the team right behind you. Gonzalez could win tomorrow, and Martinez could lose if he pitched tomorrow, but the expected lead the Mets would have afterwards is clearly higher with Martinez pitching.

There's also one other point that isn't being mentioned - Glavine. If Pedro is moved back a day, then so is Glavine. Since July of last year, when he turned his Mets career around, Glavine has had 22 starts (not counting his first of this year), and about 65% have been on four days rest. His ERA with four days rest over that time is 1.97, while his ERA on 5 or more days rest is 2.89. He is clearly more confortable and more effective when pitching on 4 days rest, so changing the normal rotation actually results in three straight games where a pitcher is pitching in a way that hurts the Mets' chances of winning. So, I ask again, why do it?

3rdAnd15Draw

05-24-2006, 10:38 AM

the article above mentions that last year they planned out a whole "schedule" to keep glavine on his regular rest while getting pedro extra days when possible. i guess that went out the window this year with the pedro toe concerns coming out of spring training. i also have to question some of the numbers they cite.

there really is no evidence that i've been able to see that pedro is demonstably better pitching on long rest. i've only been able to go back to 2000 stats(I would argue that numbers earlier then this and possibly 2000 stats aren't even relevant at this point in his career) but aside from 2004, which was a bad year all around for Pedro, his injury shortened 2001 season is the only other one where he was better on longer rest then normal(he only had 5 starts on regular rest this year)

you could live with it last year, as they apparently had a "plan" and nothing happened to screw with it. but now that we have a more recent and relevant set of a data to work with i don't understand why you would try to do this again this season either.

FITM

05-24-2006, 10:41 AM

Rextasy

05-24-2006, 10:41 AM

Again, since he was much better last year on 4 days rest, especially after the middle of July, the notion of him "being fresh" doesn't make any sense. And you can put me in the camp that says that a win in May is worth the same as a win in September - especially since the Mets don't play the Phillies after August, so a win against them in May is actually worth more than a win against a noncontender in September.

Of course teams win with crappy pitchers on the mound, but the goal should be to make the chances of winning as good as possible when playing a contender, particularly if it is not going to hurt you later on. There is no hint from anyone that this decision is in any way in response to how Pedro feels right now (arm, toe, whatever). I quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson in a Mets thread a couple of days ago ("A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"), and it's hard to imagine something more foolishly consistent than sticking to a schedule made in March when 40% of your rotation is gone (and the substitutes you've tried for that 40% have failed miserably), you're talking about a one day difference, and it's an opportunity to put more distance between you and the team right behind you. Gonzalez could win tomorrow, and Martinez could lose if he pitched tomorrow, but the expected lead the Mets would have afterwards is clearly higher with Martinez pitching.

There's also one other point that isn't being mentioned - Glavine. If Pedro is moved back a day, then so is Glavine. Since July of last year, when he turned his Mets career around, Glavine has had 22 starts (not counting his first of this year), and about 65% have been on four days rest. His ERA with four days rest over that time is 1.97, while his ERA on 5 or more days rest is 2.89. He is clearly more confortable and more effective when pitching on 4 days rest, so changing the normal rotation actually results in three straight games where a pitcher is pitching in a way that hurts the Mets' chances of winning. So, I ask again, why do it?

You can give me all the stats in the world( and I must say, you do a great job with that) but I can't see any harm in giving our top two starters, who are both nearing 40 an extra day of rest.

Cakes

05-24-2006, 10:50 AM

3rdAnd15Draw

05-24-2006, 10:53 AM

You can give me all the stats in the world( and I must say, you do a great job with that) but I can't see any harm in giving our top two starters, who are both nearing 40 an extra day of rest.

Well, Glavine IS 40 and Pedro has yet to turn 35. The "harm" comes in having Jeremi Gonzalez starting a game against the Phillies when the Mets could skip his turn in the rotation. There is also nothing to suggest that either pitcher will derive any benefit from the extra day of rest.

Rextasy

05-24-2006, 10:55 AM

I hate when people act like these games in May mean nothing. In the end, if we lose the division by one game, it will mean something.
I don't know that I ever said a game in May means nothing. But if giving our ace, who has a history of wearing down by the end of the season, an extra day of rest in May has him fresh in September than will be a better off because of it..

Cakes

05-24-2006, 10:55 AM

Well, at least the Mets aren't the Royals.

statjeff22

05-24-2006, 11:35 AM

I'll stop with the stats (thankfully, I'm sure some of you would say), and just leave it at this - an off day (like the Mets had on Monday) is the perfect opportunity to avoid exposing the worst pitcher on your staff by just skipping over him. Given that the Mets effectively don't even have a fourth or fifth starter, this is especially true for them. A team should have good reasons to choose to pitch bad pitchers instead of good ones, and the Mets have none of those here - the good pitchers aren't hurt, they pitch worse on longer rest (not better), the Mets are playing their closest pursuer now - so pitching Gonzalez now makes no sense. I'm not saying to never give Pedro rest, I'm saying to not do it now.

Br4dw4y5ux

05-24-2006, 11:44 AM

I don't know that I ever said a game in May means nothing. But if giving our ace, who has a history of wearing down by the end of the season, an extra day of rest in May has him fresh in September than will be a better off because of it..

There is only one event that could happen right now that would just destroy the Met's chances: an injury to Pedro Martinez.

Given that fact I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on the decisions they make about how to use him.

This is not exactly the rock we're talking about here. His injury history is real. He had a problem in spring training that made the Mets nervous. And he hasn't pitched more than low 200's innings in a long time.

The Mets are 27-17 with a 4 game lead before June 1st. I'm going to enjoy that fact and not spend too much time wondering why Willie's errors have kept us from being 32-12. I've never seen a 32-12 team with so many people having trouble getting on base and getting people out. 27-17 is actually pretty remarkable when you consider who is actually going out to the mound every day and who is leading off...

3rdAnd15Draw

05-24-2006, 11:56 AM

There is only one event that could happen right now that would just destroy the Met's chances: an injury to Pedro Martinez.

Given that fact I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on the decisions they make about how to use him.

This is not exactly the rock we're talking about here. His injury history is real. He had a problem in spring training that made the Mets nervous. And he hasn't pitched more than low 200's innings in a long time.

The Mets are 27-17 with a 4 game lead before June 1st. I'm going to enjoy that fact and not spend too much time wondering why Willie's errors have kept us from being 32-12. I've never seen a 32-12 team with so many people having trouble getting on base and getting people out. 27-17 is actually pretty remarkable when you consider who is actually going out to the mound every day and who is leading off...

Over the course of the season I think losing one of the "big 3" would be as disastrous as losing Pedro. We all saw how much the offense struggled when Beltran was out of the lineup.

Even if durability is a serious issue with Pedro, I'm not sure how this really helps. Last year using the "plan" the Mets had mapped out giving Pedro an extra day off whenever possible(17 starts on long rest) he started 31 games, 2 less then he would have if the Mets had used a strict 5 man rotation all season long.

The only reason to do this(IMO) is if you see some compelling statisical evidence that it helps him. We haven't seen that. If Pedro "breaks down" every year after 27 starts or 180 innings, giving him extra days between starts really has no effect.

Br4dw4y5ux

05-24-2006, 12:28 PM

Over the course of the season I think losing one of the "big 3" would be as disastrous as losing Pedro. We all saw how much the offense struggled when Beltran was out of the lineup.

Even if durability is a serious issue with Pedro, I'm not sure how this really helps. Last year using the "plan" the Mets had mapped out giving Pedro an extra day off whenever possible(17 starts on long rest) he started 31 games, 2 less then he would have if the Mets had used a strict 5 man rotation all season long.

The only reason to do this(IMO) is if you see some compelling statisical evidence that it helps him. We haven't seen that. If Pedro "breaks down" every year after 27 starts or 180 innings, giving him extra days between starts really has no effect.

Well this is not necessarily either here nor there but Pedro's workload does seem to have some effect on how he pitches. He has started more than 31 games 3 times in his career. 1996 with Montreal for 33 starts, 13-10 and 3.70, 1998 with Boston for 33 starts, 19-7 and 2.89 and finally 2004 with Boston for 33 starts, 16-9 and 3.90. The three full season ERA's include the two highest ERA's of his career and also the two seasons when he had trouble keeping the ball in the park.

I think there's pretty good evidence at this point that you want to keep Pedro to 29 to 31 starts. Those are the seasons in which he has done the best over the course of his career.

Obviously with the Met's injury issues right now if you start pitching Pedro more often to cover the holes you are going to have a really hard time keeping him in the 31 or less start range.

3rdAnd15Draw

05-24-2006, 12:44 PM

Well this is not necessarily either here nor there but Pedro's workload does seem to have some effect on how he pitches. He has started more than 31 games 3 times in his career. 1996 with Montreal for 33 starts, 13-10 and 3.70, 1998 with Boston for 33 starts, 19-7 and 2.89 and finally 2004 with Boston for 33 starts, 16-9 and 3.90. The three full season ERA's include the two highest ERA's of his career and also the two seasons when he had trouble keeping the ball in the park.

I think there's pretty good evidence at this point that you want to keep Pedro to 29 to 31 starts. Those are the seasons in which he has done the best over the course of his career.

Obviously with the Met's injury issues right now if you start pitching Pedro more often to cover the holes you are going to have a really hard time keeping him in the 31 or less start range.

I don't disagree, and I don't think you would see the Mets running Pedro out there for 35 starts this year either. But you can pick your spots. With the choice of throwing Pedro against the Phillies or the Marlins I think you would rather see him go against the Phillies.

I also don't think it would really be "covering the holes" either, teams routinely skip their 5th starter in favor of their ace, especially when they want to use him against a division rival.

Over the course of the season whether Pedro pitches Thursday or Friday is going to have almost zero effect on his overall number of starts.

Br4dw4y5ux

05-24-2006, 12:56 PM

I don't disagree, and I don't think you would see the Mets running Pedro out there for 35 starts this year either. But you can pick your spots. With the choice of throwing Pedro against the Phillies or the Marlins I think you would rather see him go against the Phillies.

I also don't think it would really be "covering the holes" either, teams routinely skip their 5th starter in favor of their ace, especially when they want to use him against a division rival.

Over the course of the season whether Pedro pitches Thursday or Friday is going to have almost zero effect on his overall number of starts.

35 starts is not the point at which I would start to worry. 32 is. It's really hard to keep a pitcher below 32 starts unless you make a concerted effort early on to do so. You think the Philly games this week are important? Wait until the Braves and Phillies games in August and September.

If the Mets start covering with Pedro now they will wind up doing it several times more this season and he'll get the 33-35 starts that will likely cause him to wear down late. Then even if they make the playoffs they'll be flying on one cylinder.

Editing to say:

I should have responded to the 4 days vs 5 days rest argument a bit differently last night. It's true that Pedro pitched better on 4 days rest last year than on 5. It's also true that he became a much less efficient pitcher after August 1st, losing 5 of his last 8 decisions and averaging less than 7 innings a start. He was finally shut down in mid to late September because the Mets weren't going to make the playoffs anyway and they had stretched him about as far as they could by overusing him on 4 days rest earlier in the season.

All of the evidence that we have about Pedro at this point in his career suggests that he is a brilliant pitcher in a 5 man rotation but that he frequently breaks down from mid-season on when he is asked to do more than that. The Redsox looked at him long and hard after they won their first world series in 80+ years, a world series triumph that he contributed mightily to, and they concluded that they could not fit him and Schilling into the same rotation given their widely differing needs. They had tried to fit Pedro and Schilling by giving Pedro more starts on short rest than he had had in any season in his career. The results were not to their satisfaction. I think history will judge that the Redsox kept the wrong guy, but that remains to be seen.

3rdAnd15Draw

05-24-2006, 01:19 PM

35 starts is not the point at which I would start to worry. 32 is. It's really hard to keep a pitcher below 32 starts unless you make a concerted effort early on to do so. You think the Philly games this week are important? Wait until the Braves and Phillies games in August and September.

If the Mets start covering with Pedro now they will wind up doing it several times more this season and he'll get the 33-35 starts that will likely cause him to wear down late. Then even if they make the playoffs they'll be flying on one cylinder.

Every game is important. It would be nice to increase our lead on the Phillies this series and get a little streak going again in terms of winning series.

Again, I've got to dispute that they would be "covering" with Pedro. At this point in the season in your standard 5 man rotation you'd expect a pitcher to have 9 starts. Pedro has 9 starts. It's not that difficult to arrange it so that he misses a start or two and is right on target for that 30-31 number.

With 17 of their last 20 games against the Marlins, Nationals and Pirates I'm confident that if the Mets can make it to early September with a fair sized lead they can cruise to the division title.

Br4dw4y5ux

05-24-2006, 02:14 PM

Every game is important. It would be nice to increase our lead on the Phillies this series and get a little streak going again in terms of winning series.

Again, I've got to dispute that they would be "covering" with Pedro. At this point in the season in your standard 5 man rotation you'd expect a pitcher to have 9 starts. Pedro has 9 starts. It's not that difficult to arrange it so that he misses a start or two and is right on target for that 30-31 number.

With 17 of their last 20 games against the Marlins, Nationals and Pirates I'm confident that if the Mets can make it to early September with a fair sized lead they can cruise to the division title.

Again, if you use Pedro now then you have no reason not to stretch him a bit later on in an equally important game. And then you stretch him in August because it's August, the Mets month of horrors and they've lost a few in a row, and the next thing you know it's September 23rd and Pedro is shut down for the year again after losing 5 of his last 8 decisions.

This isn't supposition on my part. This is Pedro's history.

3rdAnd15Draw

05-24-2006, 02:28 PM

Again, if you use Pedro now then you have no reason not to stretch him a bit later on in an equally important game. And then you stretch him in August because it's August, the Mets month of horrors and they've lost a few in a row, and the next thing you know it's September 23rd and Pedro is shut down for the year again after losing 5 of his last 8 decisions.

This isn't supposition on my part. This is Pedro's history.

There are external factors other then how Pedro pitches which determine if he picks up the W or not, as we've seen lately. Not to mention that 2 out of the last 3 years Pedro has posted his best ERA in the month of September. Pedro struggled in August last year for the Mets, but with the way he finished up the season I think it's unfair to say he "broke down" from overuse.
Even with his horrific 04 September for the Red Sox September is still the month he has performed best in over the past 3 years, both in terms of ERA and Wins.

Br4dw4y5ux

05-24-2006, 03:37 PM

There are external factors other then how Pedro pitches which determine if he picks up the W or not, as we've seen lately. Not to mention that 2 out of the last 3 years Pedro has posted his best ERA in the month of September. Pedro struggled in August last year for the Mets, but with the way he finished up the season I think it's unfair to say he "broke down" from overuse.
Even with his horrific 04 September for the Red Sox September is still the month he has performed best in over the past 3 years, both in terms of ERA and Wins.

Yes, but you can't count 2003 in this argument because Pedro was shut down for a month in the middle of the season with a non-arm injury/illness (fatigue related to an extended bout with the flu) as a result he went into September with only 24 starts and 153 innings pitched. Both of those are very low figures for a regular starting pitcher.

If you add 2002 in however you wind up with the more normal story. Pedro entered September in 2002 with 27 starts for 180 innings (more appropriate territory for a regular starter) and wound up with just 3 starts for 17 innings, again shutting down for the season with 2 weeks to go.

3rdAnd15Draw

05-24-2006, 04:07 PM

Yes, but you can't count 2003 in this argument because Pedro was shut down for a month in the middle of the season with a non-arm injury/illness (fatigue related to an extended bout with the flu) as a result he went into September with only 24 starts and 153 innings pitched. Both of those are very low figures for a regular starting pitcher.

If you add 2002 in however you wind up with the more normal story. Pedro entered September in 2002 with 27 starts for 180 innings (more appropriate territory for a regular starter) and wound up with just 3 starts for 17 innings, again shutting down for the season with 2 weeks to go.

For the sake of argument I'll accept your premise that Pedro has some kind of threshold whereafter he is not nearly as effective, let's say 200 IP and 30 starts. Barring an injury that required time on the DL, or the Mets just shutting him down for a month, he is going to reach these levels before the playoffs anyway.

Given that the "skipping" of the 5th starter would have to occur 5 times before you saw Pedro actually "gain" an extra start we'd probably be looking at Pedro breaking down a week or 10 days earlier if he was used to skip the 5th starter at every possible opportunity during the season. So again it comes back to why not use him in the more "imporant" game against a divisional rival?

Br4dw4y5ux

05-24-2006, 04:18 PM

For the sake of argument I'll accept your premise that Pedro has some kind of threshold whereafter he is not nearly as effective, let's say 200 IP and 30 starts. Barring an injury that required time on the DL, or the Mets just shutting him down for a month, he is going to reach these levels before the playoffs anyway.

Given that the "skipping" of the 5th starter would have to occur 5 times before you saw Pedro actually "gain" an extra start we'd probably be looking at Pedro breaking down a week or 10 days earlier if he was used to skip the 5th starter at every possible opportunity during the season. So again it comes back to why not use him in the more "imporant" game against a divisional rival?

If Pedro is used to start every 5th game he gets 32 starts, barring a sudden outbreak of double-headers that I do not currently see on the Met's schedule.

The issue is not whether or not the Mets should skip the 5th starter periodically to give Pedro an extra start. The issue is that they have to find some way to skip HIM periodically to avoid reaching a number of starts/innings in which Pedro is no longer able to pitch well in September and the playoffs.

Moving Pedro up to pitch this week would just be the start of a possibly catastrophic chain of events for the 2006 Mets, who otherwise appear to be on a good trajectory.

statjeff22

05-24-2006, 05:43 PM

Moving Pedro up to pitch this week would just be the start of a possibly catastrophic chain of events for the 2006 Mets, who otherwise appear to be on a good trajectory.

Perhaps this is part of the lack of agreement? They wouldn't be moving Pedro up to pitch him tomorrow, they would be pitching him on the standard four days rest. How that can possibly lead to a "catastrophic chain of events" is beyond me - it's exactly one day different, so that he pitches against a good team rather than a bad one.