The Mets are at least pondering a less-than-standard approach to filling their fifth starter’s spot, per Joel Sherman of the New York Post. It’s possible that neither Steven Matz nor Michael Wacha will simply win the job in camp.
[RELATED: Camp Battles: Mets Rotation]
Other organizations have already acted effectively upon the fundamental premise. The Mets would shed typical forms in favor of a flexible arrangement that maximizes the abilities of the players on hand.
It’s certainly an intriguing concept, at least in some of its forms. There are several possibilities, per Sherman: Matz and Wacha could essentially tag in and out of the rotation depending upon matchups. The team might also utilize an opener. While the premise isn’t specifically contemplated in Sherman’s piece, it stands to reason that those two starters could also be utilized in a piggyback arrangement at times.
This all obviously depends upon health. Most contending organizations strive to have more arms available than is needed on paper, since it’s rare that all can be called upon at a given time. In this case, especially, that’s a major factor since both Matz and Wacha have dealt with fairly significant health limitations in recent years.
As Sherman explains, there are other factors to be considered as well. It’s tempting to imagine a game opened by Seth Lugo, carried by multi-inning stints from Matz and/or Wacha, and then closed down by power relievers Jeurys Familia, Dellin Betances, Justin Wilson, and Edwin Diaz. But the realities of day-to-day pitching management likely won’t allow such a clean progression on a regular basis. And the fact is, for all their individual and collective upside, every one of those hurlers enters the season with a significant downside scenario.
All of that isn’t to say this concept isn’t worth exploring. To the contrary, this seems like a logical application of shifts we’ve witnessed in recent years. Perhaps some starters shouldn’t be tasked with quite so many innings, while some relievers can handle more. The Mets’ own array of talent does seem to suit an adaptable methodology.
Mixing and matching and generally acting flexibly can have obvious advantages. There’ll also be some potential pitfalls to be navigated. Taken as a whole, the idea only makes the already interesting Mets more fun to watch.
As a Mets fan I like the idea because it would keep both wacha and matz fresh and limit both of their defects. But health is going to be the key to if it works
It sounds fine on paper but if either player finds success in that role, they’re going to want to be the starter.
“they’re going to want to be the starter.”
They already want to the be the starter.
Wacha has larger incentives in his contract for starting and Matz is in arbitration. If they didn’t wanna be the starter for competitive reasons they certainly do for financial.
Personally, I love the idea. On weeks that Porcello is starting, Wacha can work long relief and vice versa. Matz will defiantly be the 4th starter though.
Mets did this back in 1990 with Ojeda and Darling I wouldn’t have a big issue with it these days even though imo Matz>>> Wacha
How about a 6-man rotation?
Giving deGrom less starts? No thanks
A really interesting idea would be to keep deGrom pitching every fifth day while still keeping a six man rotation.
Theoretically, instead of the typical 1-2-3-4-5 alignment, the Mets could do a rotating alignment of 1-2-3-4-5-1-6-2-3-4, etc.
They could pitch deGrom and the next four guys, then pitch deGrom again and then the guy who got skipped the previous time. It’s kind of convoluted (and Syndergaard and Stroman would lose a handful of starts), but they could still do a six man rotation while keeping deGrom on regular rest if they really wanted to.
Or they could just take the best 5 pitchers and have the 6th be a long reliever. I know that concept is considered archaic and teams should really just have something like 9 guys pitch one inning a day in the modern game, but that is what Spring Training is for. Have two guys battle for the spot and take the best one. If he doesn’t work out, then swap them out in May.
Why would any Mets fan – or manager, or FO – want fewer starts from any of their three best starters:? A rotation of deGrom, Syndergaard, Stroman and any combination of Porcello/Matz/Wacha on the back end, even if it’s a rotating combination of all three, is much better than skipping Thor or Stroman to work a far less competent pitcher into the rotation.
The last spot will be up for grabs. The first three are spoken for.
I agree, but my comment was a response to the comment that a six man rotation would give deGrom fewer starts. I just meant that it’s still possible to have it both ways.
Mets did it with Darling and Ojeda thirty years ago and while I think Matz>>>> Wacha I’d be open minded to this setup
I think this will work out nicely if the pitchers are willing to do it. This is a deep rotation, and while I don’t really expect much out of either 5th starter, using them in this way gives you options. One can even come in for long relief in emergencies which will help improve a questionable bullpen. Pitching depth is an obvious strength for the Mets this year and may be what sets them apart from their NL East rivals.
no reason not to have tandem starters such as Seattle might. your 5th starters can each pitch ~4 innings.
Never thought about that I love that concept because although it will limit there inning’s it will save the bullpen arms
it might be good to limit the innings of Matz and Wacha too, given they have both had injury issues in recent years. (though moreso in Wacha’s case) saving the bullpen arms also allows them to be used more during the other 4 guys’ starts, which could help Thor and his injury issues on specific. a few extra innings off may make a difference.
I would like the idea of one pitching 2 times through the order or 1.5(like 15 hitters.) then the other one come in and do the same.
I would like the idea of one pitching 2 times through the order or 1.5(like 15 hitters.) then the other one come in and do the same.
All this article tells us is Maybe this or that scenario. No substance. Mets should be open to different scenarios depending upon the health of their pitchers, but traditional methods have worked the best if all are healthy!
the news is that the team is not really commiting to anything yet, which is notable because typically define it as a battle between thes two players for the last starter spot. the team is leaving things up in the air.
You just said the exact same thing the article stated, yet you criticize it..??
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize people came to MLB Trade RUMORS to receive irrefutable facts. Maybe you should start your own blog and call it MLB Trade Facts.
Big things coming for the Mets this year!
Said every Met fan every year, but I do agree. There’s reason to be optimistic for sure.
Yeah I’m not saying we will win division but I see a lot of fun games this year lol
All Teams should do stuff like this. Stretch out one or two of their power relievers to go 2 innings, to serve as openers and then have another two starter capable guys that are cable of going 3-4 innings after the opener goes 2… it improves the chances that the first time through the lineup that offenses are shut down if matchups are taken in to account.
Reminds me of midweek college baseball. Long relief and bullpen games.
I’ve been wanting my Cubs to use Chatwood and Alzolay or Mills like this. Mike Montgomery and Chatwood are the two pitchers that I first would succeed I. This type of piggyback. But one that can switch or swap. These guys usually only pitch 4/5 innings at a time. The other pitcher is usually the “Long reliever”. And he only pitches once a week anyways. So I think it works for most 5th starter spots. I think the game will evolve to this type of arrangement, every pitcher except your #1 and #2 top of the rotation guys can throw 1-4 innings to maximize everyone’s potential. The premise where most starters make better relievers.
Was half expecting their creative approach to be naming Jacob deGrom their “fifth starter.”
Maybe they should get through Spring Training first. Fun to talk about but one injury or sore arm blows the whole thing to pieces.
Cubs should consider same scenario with there 5 spot.
Another important factor to consider too is that since deGrom is the ace, he theoretically would be pitching the next day after the opener/creative fifth starter spot, and can, if effective, give you 7-8 innings every start and minimize the workload on the bullpen. That way you can play around with matchups more in that fifth slot. I also like the idea of sliding things around to see if you can use that fifth swing slot on Sundays or days before off days. Between that and the fact that there’s 26 guys on the roster this year, no sense in rolling out Matz or Wacha for 5+ innings if a combination of sabermetically favored pitchers can give you a better chance to win, and have your reliable ace pitch the next time out when guys need rest.
This is essentially what the Angels should be doing with Ohtani to keep him on a regular schedule, except based on days of the week. Ohtani on Sundays regardless of the week’s schedule and all the other starting pitchers the other games.
If this opener nonsense catches on in major markets I’m going to stop watching baseball. There’s absolutely no reason a team in a market like NYC can’t afford to pay five competent, major-league-caliber starters to be exactly that. Starters.
I don’t have a problem with a revolving rotation to limit innings for certain guys who could benefit from it, but to run a guy out there for two innings as a method of beating your opponent with cheapness in a market like this is insulting to the entire fanbase.
I hated when the Yankees did it last year, but the injury bug kind of forced the issue a bit. I’m hoping they’re able to run out five solid starters this year.
“I’m hoping they’re able to run out five solid starters this year.”
Yeah that’s looking less likely now.
The Wiiiiiiiiiilpons are the reason the NY Mets could not afford 5 legit starters. They should have signed Wheeler and then Matz as 5. Done.
I still don’t understand why Matz is still considered a durability risk more than any other pitcher in baseball. He has two consecutive 30 start seasons with 150+ innings. He’s also clearly better than Wacha, who has one decent, and BABIP aided, season in his last four. If you want to do the matchup thing, fine, but let’s finally drop the spring training battle BS here because the best five traditional SPs for the Mets are clear and we don’t need a practice month to figure it out… Jd, NS, MS, SM, RP.
Matz is the textbook definition of soft, but he’s also typical of what’s become of starting pitching in the Age of Manfred.
I’ve always wonder why teams don’t have a system where they designate 2 starters for a single game to let the bullpen rest. Have 1 start and go 4-5 innings and then the next one finish the game.
I’ve been wondering the same thing for years. The opener goes through the lineup twice followed by an opposite handed pitcher to force the other team into lineup changes. Let either pitcher go a little longer if he’s getting the job done and maybe let the second guy try to finish it. Two arms instead of 7.
Curious if NYM would contemplate negotiating a trade with the NYY for whoever doesn’t win the 5th starter job. Yanks could use a Matz or Wacha right now.
Or you could go back to four man rotations like they did from 1876-1985.
Was going to say… and pitch the innings. Today’s pitchers are too arm violent and focus on speed as opposed to ‘pitching.’
Whatever they do, it’ll be a train wreck. The Metropolitans are tragicomedy gift that keeps on giving. Thank you Wilson-Madoffs!
Oops, Wilpon-Madoffs. My bad.
Ten games above .500 last year, 3 out of the last 5 above .500 including two playoff appearances and a World Series appearance. Half of baseball would kill for that. But yeah, sure, a ‘trainwreck’ and a ‘tragicomedy’. Proof that you don’t need a shred of baseball intelligence to post here.
4 innings each every 5th day.
Mets are stupid Wacha is the reliever and Matz is the fifth starter
So, according to the end of the article, the writer thinks using 7 pitchers for the 5th starter’s day is a good idea? How about just start teaching guys how to effectively go 7+ again?