Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 1119202122 LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 318
  1. #301
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    60ft 6in away
    Posts
    8,135
    I don't know if I like the idea of a closer by committee. I think the idea of the 9th inning being the focus isn't correct; putting in your best reliever at the highest leverage spot of the game is a much more "progressive" thought process. This doesn't seem like that, though, since they're not conceding that the best reliever should pitch in that situation. Unless I'm reading this wrong.

    This feels a lot like what a head coach in football says when they don't have a quarterback.

    And for as much props as Mickey is getting, he's also considering batting Frazier lead-off and putting Flores and Reyes in the outfield. So...ya know, he might just be nuts instead of smart.

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    28,634
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeGamer81 View Post
    I don't know if I like the idea of a closer by committee. I think the idea of the 9th inning being the focus isn't correct; putting in your best reliever at the highest leverage spot of the game is a much more "progressive" thought process. This doesn't seem like that, though, since they're not conceding that the best reliever should pitch in that situation. Unless I'm reading this wrong.

    This feels a lot like what a head coach in football says when they don't have a quarterback.

    And for as much props as Mickey is getting, he's also considering batting Frazier lead-off and putting Flores and Reyes in the outfield. So...ya know, he might just be nuts instead of smart.
    I doubt its a closer by committee situation all season. That would be way too progressive for MLB fans. Their heads would explode. I think he's talking about that in the context of which reliever looks the most dominant and that guy will probably get the nod to be the closer as long as he is effective. If that guy fails, they move on to someone else.

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    13,202
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    I doubt its a closer by committee situation all season. That would be way too progressive for MLB fans. Their heads would explode. I think he's talking about that in the context of which reliever looks the most dominant and that guy will probably get the nod to be the closer as long as he is effective. If that guy fails, they move on to someone else.
    I'm hoping that's not what he means.

    I think the "closer by committee" term is misleading since it uses the word "closer." As in, guy that comes into the game with a three run lead or less to get the final outs. What you described above is the "closer by committee" that teams traditionally use when they don't have an obvious "closer" in the bullpen.

    Mickey, from what I can gather, wants to employ the "fireman" model. One of our relievers will emerge as the most dominant. Probably Familia, maybe Swarzak, maybe Ramos. If we're up by one and the bases are loaded with one out in the 7th with Rhys Hoskins coming to the plate, Mickey will go to our most dominant reliever. That's the Andrew Miller type, the guy that'll put out the fire.

    Now some say that this isn't sustainable. I disagree. Because for everyone of those situations, you'll have games in which we lead by three in the ninth, and we won't need to use our best reliever just because there's a "save opportunity" available.

    This is what I think Mickey is going to do, and it's very progressive, but other teams (that haven't already) will eventually follow suite.
    "We're snakebitten, baby." --Fred Wilpon

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    13,202
    Quote Originally Posted by GottaBelieve View Post
    Baseball would be a much better game if they simply did away with the "Save" stat.

    All of a sudden, late game managing would probably make sense.
    The good news: free agents are no longer getting rewarded for meaningless stats like saves and wins. The only reason relievers care about closing and racking up saves is compensation. Take that away, and you won't have as many Huston Street types running around whining about "defined roles."
    "We're snakebitten, baby." --Fred Wilpon

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31,801
    Baseball would be a much better game if they simply did away with the "Save" stat.

    All of a sudden, late game managing would probably make sense.

    Don't worry. He's got this.

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31,801
    Quote Originally Posted by SJ5382 View Post
    The good news: free agents are no longer getting rewarded for meaningless stats like saves and wins. The only reason relievers care about closing and racking up saves is compensation. Take that away, and you won't have as many Huston Street types running around whining about "defined roles."
    That's what I'm saying. Get rid of the stupid stat and the stupid bonus incentives associated with the stat. Then maybe, just maybe, managers will start paying attention to the game in front of them instead of planning everything around "the closer coming in the 9th."

    Don't worry. He's got this.

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Boogie Down
    Posts
    91,988
    Yeah, that save stat has to go, but it wonít.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    28,634
    Quote Originally Posted by SJ5382 View Post
    I'm hoping that's not what he means.

    I think the "closer by committee" term is misleading since it uses the word "closer." As in, guy that comes into the game with a three run lead or less to get the final outs. What you described above is the "closer by committee" that teams traditionally use when they don't have an obvious "closer" in the bullpen.

    Mickey, from what I can gather, wants to employ the "fireman" model. One of our relievers will emerge as the most dominant. Probably Familia, maybe Swarzak, maybe Ramos. If we're up by one and the bases are loaded with one out in the 7th with Rhys Hoskins coming to the plate, Mickey will go to our most dominant reliever. That's the Andrew Miller type, the guy that'll put out the fire.

    Now some say that this isn't sustainable. I disagree. Because for everyone of those situations, you'll have games in which we lead by three in the ninth, and we won't need to use our best reliever just because there's a "save opportunity" available.

    This is what I think Mickey is going to do, and it's very progressive, but other teams (that haven't already) will eventually follow suite.
    I don't get the impression he'll use the most dominant relievers in the highest leverage situations because he doesn't have an Andrew Miller type and the Mets bullpen is not as deep as the Indians was. Not to mention, the Indians had a closer even when going to the fireman model (Cody Allen), which was mostly used during the playoffs and not the regular season.

    I think he'll have different guys close to start the season based on situational match ups. If a dominant reliever arises out of that bunch, that guy will be the closer. If they make the postseason, all roles go out the window.
    Last edited by metswon69; 02-13-2018 at 10:55 PM.

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    13,202
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    I don't get the impression he'll use the most dominant relievers in the highest leverage situations because he doesn't have an Andrew Miller type and the Mets bullpen is not as deep as the Indians was. Not to mention, the Indians had a closer even when going to the fireman model (Cody Allen), which was mostly used during the playoffs and not the regular season.

    I think he'll have different guys close to start the season based on situational match ups. If a dominant reliever arises out of that bunch, that guy will be the closer. If they make the postseason, all roles go out the window.
    I mean, that is what he's saying he's gonna do, unless I'm misunderstanding him. Agreed we don't have an Andrew Miller type, but regardless, the best reliever should be used when the game is on the line. Whether that's Luis Ayala in the 2008 Mets bullpen or Jeurys Familia now.
    "We're snakebitten, baby." --Fred Wilpon

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    28,634
    Quote Originally Posted by SJ5382 View Post
    I mean, that is what he's saying he's gonna do, unless I'm misunderstanding him. Agreed we don't have an Andrew Miller type, but regardless, the best reliever should be used when the game is on the line. Whether that's Luis Ayala in the 2008 Mets bullpen or Jeurys Familia now.
    Fangraphs would love that but I don't think ML teams are there yet. I think they're still going to have a traditional closer at the end of the day. Who that is depends on performance.

  11. #311
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    60ft 6in away
    Posts
    8,135
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    I doubt its a closer by committee situation all season. That would be way too progressive for MLB fans. Their heads would explode. I think he's talking about that in the context of which reliever looks the most dominant and that guy will probably get the nod to be the closer as long as he is effective. If that guy fails, they move on to someone else.
    Yeah, that's the impression I got. Rather than using Familia in the toughest spots (even in the 7th inning, for example) this seems to be a very diplomatic way of saying "We don't believe in Jeurys". Which is fine by me, because I don't believe in him either. But I think fans are getting the idea that he's this super progressive-minded stats guy when he might just be saying we don't have a real closer on the roster.

  12. #312
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    13,202
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Fangraphs would love that but I don't think ML teams are there yet. I think they're still going to have a traditional closer at the end of the day. Who that is depends on performance.
    I really donít see Mickey having his best reliever pitch to the Marlinsí 7-8-9 hitters in a 5-2 ballgame. But maybe Iím giving him too much credit prematurely.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "We're snakebitten, baby." --Fred Wilpon

  13. #313
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    28,634
    Quote Originally Posted by SJ5382 View Post
    I really donít see Mickey having his best reliever pitch to the Marlinsí 7-8-9 hitters in a 5-2 ballgame. But maybe Iím giving him too much credit prematurely.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I do if its the 9th inning and that guy has been deemed their closer. As progressive thinking as Francona was, he had a closer and Dave Eiland has used closers throughout his time as a pitching coach.

  14. #314
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,191
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeGamer81 View Post
    And for as much props as Mickey is getting, he's also considering batting Frazier lead-off and putting Flores and Reyes in the outfield. So...ya know, he might just be nuts instead of smart.
    I think Reyes probably belongs in the outfield.

    As for Flores, well maybe seeing him try to play OF will help to give Jose more confidence out there, lol.

  15. #315
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    60ft 6in away
    Posts
    8,135
    Quote Originally Posted by acerimusdux View Post
    I think Reyes probably belongs in the outfield.

    As for Flores, well maybe seeing him try to play OF will help to give Jose more confidence out there, lol.
    I've got no interest in a 34 year old career infielder playing center frikkin field. No thanks.

Page 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 1119202122 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •