Dibble seemingly agreed, noting that the Braves' signing wasn't a desperation move...
Living in Atlanta and occasionally listening to local sports talk, I can defiantly disagree with that opinion. Frank Wren's move to get Lowe by offering much more than the Mets with an additional year and demanding the decision be made quickly right after reports of John Smoltz signing with the Red Sox ran in the A-block on the news. (For all non-media major, that means it was before the first commercial break). I heard at least one caller renounce his season tickets and the few local radio guys I can stand admitted that the Lowe signing would curb their anger slightly...
Regardless of that, I was calling to say that while the Mets could have done well in signing Lowe it will be OK. That last year's major problem was the bullpen and they'll be fine with Santana, a continued improvement from Mike Pelfrey, Perez and a healthy John Maine. In fact, I was going to add that if they offer Oli P $10 million a year there would be enough to get at least two more quality arms (Randy Wolf, Jon Garland, Pedro???) for the same $5 million that the Braves are going to pay Lowe.
On a side note, I listened to Baseball This Morning the next day and heard Joel Sherman of the NY Post (having studios in New York City can do wonders for accessing talent!) and he put forth the opinion that the Mets were done spending, something Adam Rubin of the Daily News had said yesterday on The Show. Nevertheless, it wouldn't take much to sign Ben Sheets, Wolf and Garland. Maybe $10 for all three and now you've got a surplus of arms in the rotation that will provide innings and likely serve as a stopgap for a season or two while young pitching (Jon Niese, Bobby Parnell) develop.
Obviously I wasn't going to be able to make all these points in my phone call with Dibble, especially since one of them was made by someone else a day later. But none of that would matter because when I started my call with the fact that the Mets main and major problem last year was the bullpen, that the starters weren't that bad, I was cut off.
I was told I was completely wrong, that John Maine failed to improve, that Oli Perez was horrible and that generally the staff was terrible.
I don't know what else was said on that point because I was cut off and since I didn't have my radio on anymore, I didn't get a chance to hear what was said next. I can only assume it wasn't anything nice. I'm sure it was the continued perception of how the Mets failed to catch, then hold off, then catch the Phillies thanks in part to a starting staff that forced the pen to pitch countless innings and wore them down, that they only had five complete games as a staff and other such bollock of non-essential importance.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Perception is defined as a way of regarding something or a mental impression and it's easy to remember Pedro not making it out of the fifth inning or John Maine's pitch count racing towards 100 before the end of the fourth. It's easy to think of Perez walking the world or the parade of fifth starters used like Nelson Figueroa and Claudio Vargas and the sight of any number of relievers coming into a game late and losing a lead.
But the reality of the 2008 Mets tells a simple story - The bullpen blew it.
That point made by a fan, regardless of the information, doesn't hold weight. So how about an article from Jayson Stark from the winter meetings in Vegas after they locked up K-Rod and Putz?
* The Mets were 13th in the league in ERA from the seventh inning on and 13th in bullpen ERA overall.
* They blew 29 saves -- second most in the National League, behind St. Louis.
* They gave up 61 home runs from the seventh inning on, tied with the Giants for the most in the league.
And those aren't even the most devastating numbers that defined the Mets' season...
Speaking of numbers, that's why we all love baseball and Nick Bakay. The numbers never lie and once again reality says that regardless of whatever image you have the starters in Blue and Orange were pretty decent, if not downright good. While the previous numbers were from Stark, I found these myself.
- They had three guys with 30+ starts and two (Santana and Pelfrey) with 200 innings pitched.
- Mets starters ERA with Pedro’s 5.61 was 3.98, but it was still 4.07 which placed them sixth in the National League, nearly a quarter run lower than the league average.
- The 971 innings pitched was eighth in the league, ahead of Boston and the world champion Phillies and their 45 losses to starters were the fewest behind only the 100-win Angels and Cubs.
- The Mets, as a team, finished seventh in league with 86 quality starts, only two behind Phillies and third best in the National League.
- Yes, as a staff they walked 388, which was led by Oli’s 105 but their .253 Batting Average Against was fourth best in the league
- And their 29 blown saves was second behind Seattle and St. Louis and only 60 percent of games were saved, below both NL and MLB average.
All those numbers would lead any reasonable person to accept the reality that the Mets major problem last year was the bullpen, that it's not much to ask or expect similar performances from the main starters in 2009 and if that's the case then maybe this part of Stark's post would come true...
* If all games had ended after six innings this season, the Mets would have finished the year 11 games ahead of the Phillies (aka, the team that won the World Series).
* If all games had ended after seven innings, the Mets would have finished six games ahead of the Phillies.
* And if all games had even been just eight innings long instead of nine, the Mets would have finished five games ahead of the Phillies.
1 comment:
The Mets major problem is fans like you who convince yourself eveyr year that you have a legit shot at the Series. You are the Mets, relegated to second class status, all your life!!
Post a Comment