premium blogad:
blogads:
advertisement:
sitemeter:
|
|
|
May 30, 2008
How to Fix the Back End of the Mets’ Rotation and Other Ramblings
Usually, when a team finds itself with more than five viable starters, the question arises as to which one should be moved to the bullpen. Sometimes a team will go with a six-man rotation in order to rest its older or more injury-prone starters. But I suggest the Mets do something highly unorthodox and go with a three-man rotation, using the three other starters for the game every third and fifth day. Here’s how it works: On the first day, Johan Santana pitches. On the second day, Pedro Martinez gets the start. On the third day, one of Oliver Perez, Claudio Vargas or Mike Pelfrey starts the game. When that pitcher comes to bat, instead of basically giving that plate appearance away, the Mets would pinch-hit and bring the next starter in for the following inning. When that starter comes to bat, the Mets pinch-hit and then bring in the other guy. This does a couple things. First, it emphasizes the strengths of lesser starters without exposing their weaknesses. Back-end starters are often effective early in a game but are “found out” by opposing hitters by their third time through the order. Second, it makes the offense better because instead of conceding an at-bat the Mets can bring a position player to the plate. There’s no reason to give away at-bats. On the fourth day, the Mets use John Maine. On the fifth, they go back to the many-headed approach, this time emphasizing the pitchers who got less work on the third day. I didn’t come up with this. It was suggested by the writers of The Book in the chapter on lineup optimization as a way, quite simply, to score more runs. Tango, Lichtman and Dolphin calculated that a lineup in which the pitcher never bats will score, on average, .42 more runs a game. Of course the difference between a team’s best starters and the relievers who would replace them is more than enough to erase this advantage. But for the worst starters, this is not the case. Another advantage of this arrangement is that instead of carrying five rigorously-defined starters and six relievers, a team could get along with as few as ten pitchers on its roster, as any of the three combination starters who hasn’t gotten as much work as the others could relieve for the three dedicated starters. This means that the team could carry seven bench players, enough for all the early-inning pinch-hitters with plenty left over for platoon match-ups. Which brings me to the Mets’ bench. Those who are familiar with my blog or the articles of Ted Berg and Tim Marchman have heard of Valentino Pascucci, but if you listen to the Mets or the mainstream media, it’s like he doesn’t exist. Why did the Mets sign the guy if not to fill the same roles as Nick Evans and Fernando Tatis? There are reasons why Pascucci has not had a chance in the major leagues since 2004, when he went .177/.297/.290 in 74 plate appearances with the Expos. First, he’s a first baseman, which is a high-demand offensive position. Only the best-hitting sluggers stick around as a first baseman or designated hitter in the big leagues, and Pascucci does not belong to that class. Even if there are some first basemen or designated hitters who are worse, Val’s high-strikeout, low-batting average skill set is not a highly prized one among most general managers. Pascucci does play the outfield, but he is, by most accounts, pretty terrible at it, which is why he was moved to first base in the first place. Being a first baseman with a sub-par bat who can’t play anywhere else usually means a career as a Triple-A slugger. But look at this Mets team. Nick Evans is a nice story. He was called up from Double-A and immediately inserted into the lineup against Colorado, where he went 3-4 with three doubles. Since then, however, he has gone 0-13 and looked unimpressive and overmatched. What service are the Mets doing for Evans and what benefit is Evans giving the Mets? A 22-year old who has had less than 200 plate appearances above A-ball, Evans is not a top prospect and has not been so dominant that this call-up was warranted. Is his outfield defense that much better than Pascucci’s? He’s a first baseman who has played in the outfield only 17 times in his minor league career. A player must be on a team’s 40-man roster in order to play in the major leagues, and Pacucci is not on the Mets’, while Evans is. However, it seems easy enough to put Valentino on the roster, because the Mets have only 38 players on their 40-man. What’s more, the Mets have three players on the 15-day DL who don’t figure into this season’s plans. Once every spot on the 40-man roster is filled, those players could be moved to the 60-man DL, where they don’t count against the 40-man. So what am I missing here? It’s likely that the Mets know Evans’s weaknesses and are looking for other options. One of these is Scott Hatteberg, but he’s not a good fit for the Mets, as Jessica Bader explained recently. Another is Jose Valentin, who is coming back from injury and seems to be a favorite of Omar Minaya. While “Stache” is not much of a player at this point, he might be a better bet than the Mets’ other elderly second basemen, Damion Easley and Marlon Anderson, in that he can actually play second base. Let’s not kid ourselves. Pascucci isn’t Ryan Howard; he’s not even Jack Cust. If one “translates” his current numbers with New Orleans to New York, he’s an unimpressive .229/.315/.513. Still, this is better than Carlos Delgado’s current numbers and comparable to where Delgado will probably finish the season. Why not platoon the two players and get the full benefit of both, instead of relying on Easley to give Delgado a rest? If nothing else, Pascucci would be one hell of a pinch hitter. 41 Responses to “How to Fix the Back End of the Mets’ Rotation and Other Ramblings”Leave a ReplyYou must be logged in to post a comment. |
|
Thanks for the thoughtful piece. Good luck getting anyone to listen to your rotation ideas — I have heard them before, and think them worth a try — but I’m afraid they are too radical for the current Metros. Unfortunately, “MoneyBall” and La Russa notwithstanding, this is a conceit needing a Charlie Finley or Bill Veeck, to be tested in the second division of the Nats and Royals.
Again, I lament this, as your theory bears strong statistical evidence (however unproven it may be).
Good reiteration about Hatteberg, as he would surely be Jeff Conine redux. We don’t want him. As for Pascucci, I think your logic is faulty. By comparing his current poor numbers (despite the 500 slugging) in Triple A to Delgado’s projected numbers for the season is nonsense. Triple A is Triple A. And I don’t think Delgado’s numbers will hold. Yes, I think there is some life left.
Delgado’s timing has been off since his wrist surgeries (was is the wrist?) and maybe will never come fully back. But I don’t think it should startle anyone if he ends with 250/340/480, with 28 HR and 90 RBI. Considering we’re not a third through the season until Saturday, that is very plausible. As for the platoon, I think Easley could fill in well a couple of days a week, particularly against tough lefties. (Evans had his one fine game, our Moonlight Graham; now back in the oven) But when Delgado gets into a bit of a tear, he will electrify the lineup, if only in spurts, and can intimidate any 3, 4, or 5 into corrosive caution. Just watch the walks in front of Church (or Schneider).
Looking forward to your blog in the future,
FD
Eventually there will be some brave team that comes along and tries something like that this, however it 100% sure it wont be the mets and im 100% it wont be this year lol.
I don’t mind Easley playing agst lefties. His glove will be ok at first, he has some pop and is a fairly good situational hitter, despite the whiff in the 12th on Wednesday.
I actually made a joke yesterday about platooning Perez with another pitcher. He seems to do fine until he gets to the 5th and then it’s “hold your breath.”
I agree with john. It won’t be the Mets who try this. But the concept seems worth a shot.
I sincerely hope the Mets are just “talking” when it comes to deciding between Vargas and Pelfrey. I’m hoping that it’s idle chatter to keep Pelfrey focused through his next start. If the Mets are in a “win now” mode, it makes no sense whatsoever to keep Pelfrey up….especially because he has options and Vargas doesn’t. What does worry me though is that assuming Pedro is really ready, he will take Vargas’ spot on Tuesday night. I pray the Mets don’t screw this up.
I agree Shea. It really boggles my mind in what the mets see in Pelfrey right now. He might turn into a great pitcher down the road (tho im not so sure) but right now he’s got an ERA in the mid 5’s just like he has in the two previous years. I dont see progress at all.
Now Vargas might pull a figgy and have a couple good starts then drop off but he’s still a better option then Pelfrey.
If perez pitches the way he did last year tho and u got maine, santana and pedro…..thats four good starters……then this theory that john says up above might not be as beneficial. This only works if the 4th and 5th starters arent that good.
I still love what I’m seeing from Armas and Lugo in AAA so far. I wonder if they’ll ever figure in somewhere down the road. Hopefully it won’t be because someone is injured.
Hard to make a case for pelf.
In Pelfrey’s last seven starts, the Mets are 0–7, during which he is 0–6 with a 6.70 ERA while allowing - get this - 73 base runners in 36 innings pitched.
I hate that idea by Tango. What if the guy is throwing a no-hitter with awesome stuff and command when his spot comes up? What if the offense goes for 15 runs and the pitcher’s spot comes up 5 times? What about using up so much of your bench early in the game and making the opposing team’s manager have easy decisions to make for his relief late in the game? What if 2 of your position players get hurt in a collision and you have no bench? Maybe if we go to 30-man rosters this might make some sense. If you’re on the road, the pitcher’s spot can easily come up in the top half of the second inning and you HAVEN’T scored a run yet.
All of this for “supposedly” 0.25 runs per game, if I even believe that to be accurate.
It’s not worth it. I don’t want the Mets to be the ones to try it. I’d love to see that blow up in someone else’s face.
Danny, excellent points. My guess is the team has the right to change their minds about removing the pitcher, but who knows?
Just send Pelf down and let’s not worry about this!
Then you let the guy who started go more innings lol. I mean I dont think its meant to be a rule set in stone. The theory itself seems sound……your 4th and 5th guys arent good enough to give up the at bat. Of course like u said if its 10-0 you might wanna just let him stay in because u really dont need more runs lol……or if he’s pitching a great game obviously your not going to take him out. But how often has pelfrey looked awesome and was throwing a no no? Not very often lol.
Yeah, but if the starter goes deeper into the game because you are ahead by a lot, then you can’t use them again in 2 days. These are not machines.
You have a point. Tho I wonder if the starter goes deeper whether or not you can just use the other two guys 2 days later.
Like instead of 3 pitchers going three innings, you’ll have two guys throwing maybe 4 innings a piece and then just finishing off the game with the closer if u are winning or some other reliever.
But then I guess you really cant take them out when their spot comes up?
Then again…..I mean say the 9th spot comes up in the 2nd inning…..even with three pitchers your not going to take the dude out after just 1 or 2 innings.
There’s definitely questions about it.
Thinking about a no-no in the third inning with Oliver Perez, Mike Pelfrey, or Claudio Vargas on the mound? Seems kinda premature to me.
I’m sure you wouldn’t pinch hit for the pitcher EVERY time he comes up to hit. If the guy’s only thrown 14 pitches through two innings, you let him hit. This isn’t a rule. It’s a strategy.
The points about depleting your bench are more substantial. Remember that if this strategy would be utilized properly you’d have a seven-man bench. And even if the opposing manager would have an easier time late in the game it would be harder for him earlier. Injuries would be a problem, and the only solution would be to hold a very versatile player on the bench as a safeguard.
I believe the number was .42, which is almost like replacing 2001 Edgardo Alfonzo (.259/.334/.391) with 2000 Edgardo Alfonzo (.324/.425/.542).
Personally, I don’t think it will work for the Mets. I think the pitching staffs like this are eventually going to be the future. There’s quite a bit of evidence that suggests that pitching pitchers more often but limiting the stress each time is extremely effective at keeping them healthy. Also, it’s probably easier to find nine guys who are effective once through a batting order than it is to find one guy who’s effective twice through. However, I do think you need to orient your entire staff around the principle–you’ll still need a bullpen for the three guys you trust, meaning you wouldn’t be able to diminish your bullpen by as much as you’d think.
Sooner or later though, some team short on funds is gonna give it a whirl.
heilman would be absolutely perfect in a role like this…
My point was less about the no-no and more about the pitcher having great stuff that particular day and wanting to get length out of them on the days they have it going.
I like your suggestion for fixing the back end of the rotation. It would probably work pretty well. Here’s another possibility. Make Heilman a starter. He will excel and pitch like a number 2 or number 3. And hopefully, Perez will become consistent enough to be a number 5.
Didnt we try this already?
And with the way he’s been in pen this year you would really want to give him additional responsibility?
Okay, so everyone is saying you let the pitchers bat every once in a while if they are going good or whatever. Now we are chipping away at the 0.42 runs per game number, right? And then what is the standard by which a pitcher is allowed to stay in a game and bat? And he HAS to make it to his next time around in the order, right? Or do you use a short reliever to get to that spot to save the starter’s pitch count (if he starts running it up) because you have to use him again in 2 days?
There are A LOT of holes in this proposal. A lot.
Really its not .42 runs per game between 3/5ths of the game your not employing this strategy at all.
Then as danny says you wont use it all the time the other 2/5th either.
game=time.
A more straightforward idea would be to go with your normal 1-2-3-4 Santana/Pedro/Ollie/Maine, and on the fifth day, let the two #5s share the load; Vargas goes three or four, Pelfrey goes three or four. But even that would be wayyyyy too much for Mets Brass.
Bill James was saying the same thing about some innovation (batting the pitcher eighth maybe), that game-changing notions like these are only picked up by teams with nothing to lose. They don’t get tried out by first-place teams with ironclad roster construction and no holes anywhere, like the Mets. Boop.
I’m in the camp that’s hoping the four-man rotation comes back. If guys are averaging six innings a start they should be able to handle 40 starts a year, 6 x 40 = 240 IP. But again, a team with the Mets’ outstanding rotation depth won’t be the first to go there. Beep.
Provocative article, I dare say.
Well… if you’re using it in 40% of the time that’s about 65 games a year… if you’re adding .42 runs 65 times you gain about 27 runs, which is significant — the difference between the Pirates and Cubs last year, for instance.
Therefore, the Mets will adopt this idea.
I didn’t say that. I said (essentially) let them hit when they’re on pace to exceed the expected number of at-bats for the 0.42 R/G. Specifically, when the pitcher is coming to bat earlier than anticipated (less than two or three innings, say).
The goal of this isn’t to create a rule. It’s not meant to make managing idiot-proof. The purpose is to give the manager more options by creating a pitching environment where more pitchers can be successful and healthy.
The real issue is the players and the fans. People are very fond of pitchers’ wins, just as a lot of people lament the loss of complete games. Convincing them to go along is the real challenge.
This is true. Im not sure how they arrive at this but its always consider 10 runs = 1 win. So 27 runs added would be 2.7 wins. Thats significant considering we lost the division by a game last year.
To make the strategy work, you’d have to be flexible and responsive to specific circumstances. Let’s take the following hypotheticals as examples:
Situation #1: Ollie has great stuff through 3 innings and he’s pinch-hitting in the top of the 4th with nobody on/2 outs/Mets up 6-0. You let him bat. He continues to pitch well, and you let him go 7 innings. Ollie is unavailable for use 2 days later.
Situation #2: Ollie has 6 walks and 3 ER in the first 3 innings. His spot is up with the based loaded/1 out/Mets down 3-2 in the bottom of the 3rd. You pinch-hit for him and bring in Pelfrey in the top of the 4th. Ollie is available for extended use 2 days later.
Situation #3: Ollie’s pitched well in innings 1-4. Mets are up 3-0 after 4. Ollie falls apart in the top of the 5th, the lead is down to 3-2/runners on 2nd and 3rd/1 out with a right-handed batter coming up. Ollie’s due to bat in the bottom of the 5th. You bring in Vargas and double-switch with Easley for Delgado. Ollie is available for limited use 2 days later.
Like Alex says, the point is to not to create an ironclad rule, but to give your manager more options. I’m not sure the Mets have the right personnel to carry out this strategy, but there are other organization that could take advantage of it.
Obviously this arrangement is not going to happen with the Mets, but I figured it would spark some interesting discussion. Also, pitchers would be highly reluctant to be part of a pitching platoon, as there would be little chance of earning precious “wins.”
I think that Chuck Tanner may have been the first to propose a nine man rotation where each pitcher pitched three innings. My thought is that Billy Beane would be the first to implement this or something like what you’re proposing. It would certainly save payroll dollars in that he can use middle relievers instead of higher paid starters.
Good job John.
There are two benefits here, that are huge:
1. the pitcher doesn’t hit. As noted, that’s 0.42 runs gained. Depends how good your pinch hitters are of course. If you want to be conservative, let’s call it 0.25.
2. the pitcher goes from a 90-100 pitch starter mindset to a 30 pitch relief mindset. The Book shows that this is worth around 1 run saved per 9 innings. Your 3 pitchers here would be pitching say 6 innings, so that saves you a good 0.65 runs. That is fantastically enormous.
The big drawback is the depleting of your bench. You need a good enough team of starting players to make this work.
And the other drawback is the extra innings.
Is getting 0.90 runs in 2 games out of 5 worth it? I’d think so.
However, there is one time of the year where there is no drawback and that’s starting Sept 1. You’ve got a basically unlimited bench and bullpen here. Plus, you should have a bunch of 22-yr old firethrowers out there. There is no reason for any below average pitcher to throw more than 2 innings, starting Sept 1. Turning a guy with a 5.00 ERA as a starter into a 4.00 ERA as a reliever is so enormous.
By the way, you’d have to take the guy out after 30 pitches or so, even if he’s got a perfecto going. We are asking the pitcher to no longer pace himself as a starter, but instead pitch as if he’s a reliever. You’re not going to ask a true reliever to go more than 2 innings, so that’s pretty much a hard and fast rule.
Now, on the road, he may end up just pitching in 1 inning, when his turn comes up. At that point, the manager makes the judgement call. He lets him bat, then he’s got him for at least 1 more inning. If he lets him go three fine. But, he’s gotta talk to the pitcher about possibly throwing 45 pitches as a reliever.
Otherwise, if you let him go 2 innings in all, then you’re going to need a mopup reliever-type to come in to pitch the 1 inning, so we can get back on schedule.
You could also try it just for home games as well. Or, at least start it with the first guy acting as a starter, and the other 2 as relievers, and then they rotate.
This is really not much different than when Maddux et al come in to pitch in relief in the playoffs on throw days.
I really don’t like this as a hard and fast rule. If your pitcher has a perfect game through 3 innings, doesn’t it make sense to keep him in the game and ride the hot hand? What if he’s batting with 2 outs and nobody on - surely, the value of a pinch-hitter is less than 0.42 runs?
The whole idea should be to adapt flexibly to different circumstances as they arise.
Past performance is no indication of future success.
It doesn’t have to be “a hard and fast rule,” but that’s the principle of the thing. You want your starter to be pitching like a reliever, so even if he is throwing a perfect game, he’s not going to have enough in the tank to get through five, let alone nine innings.
Right, exactly. If you just want the one benefit of the PH, fine. But, why also throw away the benefit of the reliever mindset?
And, dare I say, you are more likely to have a 3-man perfecto thrown, than a one-man perfecto.
That is, if you give each guy 30-35 pitches, it’s more likely that you will have a 100 pitch great outing by our three-headed horseman, than giving one guy 100 pitches.
As you guys say, these are people, not machine. If you are asking him to come in with the mindset of a reliever, you cannot change your mind after 30 pitches and tell him “nevermind”. This is a human being, and he’s not going to turn it on/off at the manager’s whim.
Ok, I guess that makes sense. Speaking of mindset, though, you also have to deal with the inevitable resistance you’re going get from your staff if you try to implement this idea, like the Red Sox did when they tried using a bullpen-by-commitee a few years back. Part of is that your backend starters won’t like being deprived of wins, but there’s also the general discomfort with unfamiliar ideas and playing different roles.
We’ll just have to invent a new statistic for solid two- or three-inning outings at the beginning of games. We’ll call them “stakes” or something. Like pitching a tent.
I like that, John. :)
Like I said, though, it goes beyond greed. Why is it even that even the most sabermetrically-inclined organizations limit their best relievers to save situations, even though they know it’s an inefficient use of resources? I have to think it’s because they’re afraid players won’t react well to unfamilar roles.
Yea, most definitely. Baseball players LOVE counting statistics.
Yeah, for such professionals, they sure like to be coddled like babies.
When Mark Messier was told that he was going to be on the checking line in the 1987 Canada Cup, he didn’t complain. He did what he was told.
I didn’t realize that baseball players had such fragile egos.
the problem with this is that OP’s problems are not predictable…one minute is is going along great..the next minute, before you even have time to warm up a replacement…the situation is out of hand.
I advocate leaving ollie in when he screws up. let him flounder out there and give up 20 runs, it may improve his concentration in the future.
Ronhunt, I believe Willie has (maybe not intentionally, but still) tried this. No luck.
The runs gained by pinch-hitting is exaggerated here, because as is, no one pitches complete games, and pitchers do already get pinch-hit for.
The short stints, though, is friggin’ brilliant. Give a bunch of different-throwing guys one time through the order. Vargas can throw all down-sliders and change-ups, then Ollie can buckle knees with his curve and side-slider, then Pelfrey can come in and throw 97. R-L-R. The Cuban team wins international competitions by doing this — junkballer for 4-5 innings, then flamethrower for 4-5.
Short-stint work might catch on on an aging team, it’d be a way for guys to extend their careers. Randy Johnson could pitch once through the order until he’s 60.