Game Notes: Mets vs Cardinals (05/17/2006)

by Eric Simon on May 18, 2006 10:12 AM EDT

Game 2: Cardinals 1, Mets 0

(Source: fangraphs.com - what's this?)

Steve Trachsel's line from Game 2:

 IP   H   R  ER  BB  SO  HR   PC-ST   GS
7.0   4   1   1   3   2   0  112-70   64

Losing a game as the Mets did last night is infinitely more frustrating than a 10-0 blowout. I suppose it's the opportunity lost that infuriates me the most; that the Mets were on the cusp of winning, only to be undone by their biggest flaw to this point in the season. Namely, their inability to produce in high leverage situations. The data from a hundred years of baseball tells us that these things tend to regress (or progress) towards the mean over the course of 162 games; that good players (and teams) hit well in the clutch and that bad players (and teams) hit poorly in the clutch. This isn't much solace to me right now.

The Mets could have clinched a series win last night, but instead they may have booked a one-way ticket to their third straight series loss with Lima Time! taking the hill this afternoon. Steve Trachsel pitched a whale of a ballgame against a tough offensive club, but came up on the short end of another Mets offensive brownout. You have to give credit to Mark Mulder (for eight innings) and Jason Isringhausen, who pitched the Mets really tough and kept them at bay for most of the night.

It's a quick turnaround, as the teams go back at it at 1pm this afternoon.

Game balls go to:

Steve Trachsel, 23.7% WPA
Jose Reyes, 12.5% WPA

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

M & MD

Will call the game NEXT thurs @ home against the Phils

by Pitt4Brains on May 18, 2006 10:32 AM EDT reply actions

Hmm

You're right. My mistake.

by Eric Simon on May 18, 2006 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions

Mr. Regret

Cliff Floyd with a whopping -30.7

To put that in perspective, he was so bad last night, that he was the inverse of Mark Mulder, a man who pitched 8 1/3 of shutout ball.

by future on May 18, 2006 12:09 PM EDT reply actions

correct me if I'm wrong,

but the whole WPA thing is highly situation-dependent. I think Mulder's 8+ shutout innings would get a much higher WPA score if it hadn't been a scoreless or 1-0 game he was pitching in. (Is that right?)

I like "Mr. Met"/"Mr. Regret", but if the best scores are the "game balls," does that make the worst ones the "game bollocks"?

by anonymous on May 18, 2006 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions

The WPA thing

is situational, but man, Cliff was not good at all last night.

I'm just surprised that his contribution last night was that negative.

by future on May 18, 2006 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Cliffy

His negative WPA was almost entirely due to his groundout to end the game. It was one of the three highest leverage at-bats of the game (Wright's and Delgado's ABs in the 9th being the other two). Floyd had an opportunityt to either tie the game or give the Mets a lead and he did neither, and ended the game (reduced the Mets' win expectancy to 0) in the process. It's hard to do worse than that.

by Eric Simon on May 18, 2006 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions

WPA

WPA is very situation-dependent, but Mulder's WPA would only have improved dramatically had he not allowed those batters on in the 9th inning. He was essentially pitching in high leverage innings throughout the game, as the score was close throughout the contest (either 0-0 or 1-0). If the Cardinals had a bigger lead their offense would have contributed more to the "W" and Mulder's contribution would have been lower. Had the Mets scored more runs Mulder's WPA would have also deteriorated.

by Eric Simon on May 18, 2006 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions