Silver lining

This hardly merits a whole blog post, but here it is anyway: Though last night’s rainout complicates things for the Mets’ starting rotation, it’s definitely good that the entire bullpen got a night off.

The team will have to work double-duty tomorrow, so this doesn’t change the fact that the Mets will need some better efforts from their starters to take some of the burden off their relievers. But since they used five relievers both Sunday and Monday, the bullpen could use a day of rest.

As for the starters: Adam Rubin points out that Dillon Gee is on turn Sunday, and the Mets could send Ryota Igarashi to Triple-A and call up Gee for a spot start. That plan seems a whole lot better to me than handing a spot start to DJ Carrasco, the other likely option. Gee is better stretched out and more likely than Carrasco to pitch deep into a game, and using Carrasco takes an arm out of the bullpen for a couple days prior to and a couple days following the start.

Well this is weird

Zach passes along this bit of weirdness from a rain delay during a college baseball game:

The especially strange part is that some of these seem like they had to have been rehearsed. The only explanation I can come up with is that college baseball teams — these ones, at least — participate in the age-old football-camp tradition of performing sketches to build chemistry. (By “age-old” I mean we did it in high school and I’ve spoken to a few people from other high schools that did the same thing.)

My high-school football team went away to some camp in Pennsylvania for a week before every season, and the last night there each bunk would put on some sort of short show for the rest of the camp. The catch was that the bunk with the best performance (as determined by the coaches) got to sleep in and skip the next morning’s 3.5-mile run. So every year the bunk with mostly linemen in it — my bunk — just put in way, way more work on the sketch than everyone else. Junior year I wrote a full musical number that culminated in a kickline.

The annual thorn in our side was my friend Bill, a quarterback, who did such astounding impressions of every coach that his bunk didn’t even really need to script anything to produce a hilarious sketch.

On second thought

Before Tuesday night’s rainout, Daniel Murphy was penciled into the lineup for a second straight game at second base over the struggling Brad Emaus.

“We’ve got to create some offense,” Collins said. “I thought Murph played very well (Monday) night so I wanted to get him back in there. I thought his energy that he brings is infectious so I’d like to get him back out there. I thought he earned the right.”

But Collins said he has not settled into a platoon at second base just yet.

New York Daily News.

It’s way too soon to give up on Emaus, but it doesn’t seem like there’s much harm in giving Murphy some starts against right-handers either.

We had questions about both players’ defense entering the season, but both have looked pretty good at second base in their few chances there. Murphy, notably, made a play on Monday night that there’s almost no chance Luis Castillo would have gotten to. Not that being better than Luis Castillo at second base is a huge accomplishment, of course.

Murphy seems a better bet to produce offensively against right-handers, so until he proves he actually can’t handle the position defensively he should see more time there — especially when Chris Capuano and Chris Young are on the mound, since neither yields a ton of ground balls.

Obviously Emaus’ struggles have come over only 28 plate appearances, so he deserves a little more time to prove himself in the Majors. But Murph is still proving himself in the Majors too, and given the way the Mets’ reserves have hit so far this season there should be plenty of at-bats available for both young players.

Duff McKagan recognizes the whims of small-sample size

Yeah, that’s right, Duff McKagan from Guns N’ Roses. Turns out he writes a column for ESPN.com, and thinks it’s important to keep the first 10 games of the baseball season in perspective. I would imagine you need a good deal of patience to put up with Axl Rose for as long as McKagan did. Also: McKagan is a Mariners fan, and you better believe I’m going to try to get him on the phone for to preview the next Yankees-Mariners series on the Baseball Show. Both of these are ridiculous pipedreams, but we’re also hoping to land Geddy Lee to chat Blue Jays. The Bass-ball Show?

The predictive value of the first ten games

It’s clear from the chart that there is some correlation between a team’s first 10 games and the rest of the season. Out of the 39 teams that won three or fewer of their first ten games, only the 2002 Angels finished the season with 90 or more wins. (After starting the season 3-7, that Angels team won 99 games and the World Series!) Two others (the 2006 Padres and the 2007 Phillies) managed to make the playoffs despite slow starts. Though it wouldn’t be an unprecedented comeback, the Red Sox and Rays have a lot of work to do to catch up to preseason expectations.

John Dewan, ACTA Sports.

Dewan looks at teams’ records after the first 10 games of every season since 2002 to determine what percentage of slow-starting and fast-starting squads win 90 games and/or make the playoffs. Fear not, Mets fans: 21% of teams that started out 4-6 still managed to make the postseason, so 2011 is far from over. But you knew that.

What I would love to see — and as I asked at the Baseball Think Factory thread where I found this — is the same chart made up for the some arbitrary other ten games of the season, like the first ten games of August or something.

It seems reasonably intuitive that if you stopped a season at any given point and looked at every team’s last ten games, those that won seven or more would more likely (not certainly, just more likely) be good teams that would go on to win 90 games and make the playoffs, and the teams that won three or fewer would more likely be bad teams unlikely to reach the postseason.

So what I’m wondering is if the first ten games of a season are any more predictive than any other ten games of a season. I tend to doubt it, but I have been surprised before.

Commence hand-wringing

That’s two in a row the Mets have lost now, and like a billion straight in which the bullpen looked awful. Forget that it’s 10 games into the year, that they have more wins than the Red Sox and Rays combined, that Yunel Escobar has a .458 batting average, that Willie Bloomquist has a 138 OPS+. Ignore that the Mets lost last night’s game mostly due to fluky errors, broken-bat hits and seeing-eye singles. The season might as well be over.

Wring your hands! Clasp them together and wring like you’ve never wrung before!

The bullpen is a problem and small-market Sandy Alderson stubbornly refused to spend money on the bullpen this offseason. Nevermind that it’s the second-most expensive bullpen in the division (to the wildly overpaid Phillies’ crew) and that spending a lot of resources on relief pitchers — see 2009 for details — is a blisteringly dumb way to go about building a bullpen. Forget that you know those things. Ignore them so you can be really angry because the Mets bullpen sucks and it’s not just a few rough nights it’s a damn pattern and everything is falling down all around us and, oh my goodness, we’re all going to die someday and we will have spent too many of our waking hours watching Bobby Parnell throwing the ball in the general direction of but not actually near the catcher.

And now that it’s out of your system, take a deep breath and think about the Mets’ bad bullpen for a moment. Its members have taken turns serving as goats, with only Tim Byrdak and the now-departed Blaine Boyer pitching consistently poorly, and really only Pedro Beato pitching consistently well — at least in that four outings can constitute consistency.

If I had to guess, I’d say — again — the main problem with the bullpen is not the personnel but the overuse thereof, since nearly every guy has been up and warming nearly every night. It’s no one’s Plan A to carry 13 relievers and a short bench, but the Mets have been forced to by early-season ineffectiveness throughout the pitching staff. I can’t imagine the roster will remain this way any longer than it needs to, and once the Mets can get a few decent starts in a row (and, ideally, their starting left fielder) they’ll shuffle things around and settle on a decent bullpen mix.

Last night’s outing notwithstanding, Parnell will probably be part of that mix when the dust clears. Yes, he’s off to a bad start. He also has over 100 outings before these four to show he’s a decent, if unspectacular, Major League reliever. Maybe he gets better from here, maybe he doesn’t. But entirely dismissing a 26-year-old with heavy 98 mph fastball because of a couple of rough — and they were definitely rough — outings in the first week and a half of the season is crazy talk. Settle down with that.

Settle down with everything. Seriously. Maybe the Mets suck, maybe they don’t, but 10 games is just way too few to assess anything meaningful. And I get that when I say, “It’s early, it’s early, it’s early” all the time I sound like a broken record. But it is early. I’m not about to tell you any of this is anything more than small samples in isolation when I don’t believe that’s the case.

Oh and the other thing: “Mike Pelfrey is not a No. 1 but the Mets need him to pitch like one.” No they don’t. No they absolutely don’t. They need him to pitch more like a legitimate Major Leaguer and less like he did in his first two starts, but there’s no rule anywhere that says the only way the Mets will be good is if Mike Pelfrey pitches like Johan Santana.

That’s good because there’s no way Pelfrey is going to pitch like Santana. Pelfrey is a durable league-average pitcher without swing-and-miss stuff. He’s a fine guy to have in a rotation but he’s unlikely to ever pitch like an ace for any sustained period of time because he yields too much contact. People seem to be off the “Mike Pelfrey is crazy” talk now that he threw a not-terrible game last night, but the “Mike Pelfrey needs to be an ace” discussion seems just as silly. Don’t get me wrong: The Mets do legitimately need their starting pitchers to pitch well and besides Chris Young they haven’t so far.

But… gahh it’s not even worth it. Let’s all just wring our hands until they bleed, or until the Mets win two games in a row and we all decide they’re surefire World Series champions again.

Yankees right about everything

Here are some select quotes from a Daily News Yankees feature. Joe Girardi:

You see that early in the season a lot of times. Guys don’t have a lot of at-bats, so you can have three days where you don’t get any hits and all of a sudden you go from swinging the bat really well to being under .200. You have a couple good days and you’re back above .300.

Mark Teixeira:

The first nine games, you’re going to have some funky stats – you have guys who you’ll say he’s going to be the next MVP and he’s sent down a month later. You’ll have guys who are hitting .050 and then he wins the MVP. It’s such a small, small portion of the season and it’s raining and it’s cold and you can’t get into a rhythm sometimes. I’d love to be able to hit .300 from day one, but that’s just the way baseball is.

Kevin Long:

Almost every team in baseball probably has a few guys hitting under .200. It’s common this time of year. We have a couple guys that need to get on track, but I’m not worried about any one of them. Things are always magnified at the beginning.