Should Dillon Gee Pitch One More Inning?
Going into the final two games of the season, the biggest Mets story may be Dillon Gee falling one frame short of 200 innings.
Per Gee’s regular throwing schedule, Sunday would be a “throw day” / bullpen session. Should he be given the ball for one inning against the Brewers in game 162 to achieve his goal?
Here’s what loyal MetsToday visitor and commenter “argonbunnies” had this to say:
… Even if it doesn’t actually matter when it comes to winning baseball games, players are more proud of hitting .300 than .299. Round numbers are satisfying, and that’s that’s not just to the athlete, but also to the athlete’s entire culture — fans, friends, teammates, agents, etc.
Collins would have to be deaf, blind and dumb not to realize this. So I guess he just doesn’t care.
This would be okay if he always operated that way, but he hasn’t. He’s allowed stars like Wright, Reyes and Santana to dictate what they do, he’s always had an anointed closer who gets every save chance, etc. Do you think Collins would have pulled Santana at 199 innings in a marginal situation? Of course not. Zero chance. Zero. But because Gee has no clout and is a mild-mannered good soldier, Collins feels free to pinch-hit when he feels like it, no matter how small the advantage, no matter how large the cost to Gee. I don’t like this at all.
I agree with argonbunnies — regardless of the logic, round numbers like 200, .300, 20, 30, etc., help athletes feel better about themselves, increase motivation, and improve their confidence. Dillon Gee wanted very badly to pitch 200 innings in 2013, and falling short by one lousy inning will put a bitter taste in his mouth all winter. He could go one of two ways — either use it as extra motivation for 2014, or, be so disgusted that he chooses not to have a round numerical goal. Certainly, there is argument that an innings goal is not a great one for a pitcher, because attaining it is not completely within the pitcher’s control — even if he’s pitching well, particularly in the NL, he could be pulled out of a game earlier due to the score. On the other hand, maybe it IS a good goal with which to continue, because a National League pitcher can, after all, contribute offensively. Maybe falling short of 200 innings will motivate Gee to not only pitch effectively, but also to become a standout bunter and a strong hitter.
How about the idea of giving Gee the ball for one inning on Saturday or Sunday? There are a few ways to look at it.
1. He’d gain the satisfaction of getting to that round number.
2. He’d get to 200, but it might feel “cheapened” because he didn’t get all 200 as a starter (this was suggested by Ron Darling).
3. Getting that one extra inning may very well help his future contract negotiations. As illogical as it is to an athlete to have the intrinsic need to reach round numbers, it’s equally illogical that round numbers can result in significantly more money.
Then there is the Terry Collins side of this debate, and I agree with argonbunnies. How can Collins do the “favor” of pulling Jose Reyes out of the final game of a meaningless season to secure the batting title, yet not give Gee the ball for a 200th inning in the 162nd game of an equally meaningless season? Particularly when Collins was pretty sure Reyes wasn’t returning the next season, and, he’s pretty sure Gee will be part of his rotation in 2014? What good did it do for Collins to help Reyes? Will stopping Gee short of 200 create a bit of ill will with his most durable and reliable starter going into next year?
Now, the conspiracy theory: were both of these individual achievements controlled by someone above Collins? In other words, was there someone in upper management “recommending” to Collins that he make sure Reyes gets the batting title? And, was it also “recommended” that Gee fall just short of an innings total that might make him more expensive?
What’s your thought? Should Gee get the ball for three more outs this weekend? Why or why not? Sound off in the comments.
Gee getting 200 is also good for the fans. A likable underdog coming back from injury to post a good season, capped by reaching a personal milestone? That sort of nice story is pretty much all we Mets fans have to feel good about right now.
Smacking down Gee’s near-achievement also smacks down the fans’ chance to see something good happen for one of our guys.
It was an awful move by Collins. I don’t know if it can be fixed by a Sunday cameo or not, but I would at least want Gee to be offered the option.
Either way we feel good about him, he was off to a rocky start and turned it into a nice season. Throwing him out there for one inning diminishes that in my opinion and makes it into a circus.
If by pitching an extra inning he could somehow win a cy young award (makes more sense with a batting title) then I could understand it…but what the heck is 200 innnings??
I’m surprised to see Joe take this position that a round number will “help athletes feel better about themselves, increase motivation, and improve their confidence.” Going back to trade deadline talk, if you believe this, then do you think it was beneficial to hold onto a player like Byrd rather than trading him for “anything” (anything being better than letting him walk at the end of the year). Would having such a player on the team to help boost his teammates performance actually do more good for the team in the long run?
Maybe that doesn’t do it for you as a fan, but for me it’s better than nothing. I like Gee, and thought it would have been nice.
As for giving athletes arbitrary numbers to feel happy about, it may seem silly at first, but pick a number that matters to you, and then imagine being forced to fall one short. It stings, right? Now imagine you’re still working with the guys who cut you off. Do you expect a fair shot in the future? Do you feel like they value you and believe in you? Are you pumped to go back out and try it again? I’m not saying it’s a huge deal — if you’re a pro, you do your job — but the scenario isn’t exactly ideal.
Perhaps I am just a numbers nerd, though. I am sad that Rivera is retiring one out shy of a perfect 1:1 baserunners:innings ratio.
I don’t understand how you take an individual’s personal motivation to reach a round number and apply it to trading / not trading Marlon Byrd. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
“I am optimistic that Terry will do what is best. Dillon has been a valuable asset, and we hope he continues to be an effective contributing member of our team.”
I’m not entirely certain that he answered the question, but I think you’ll agree it reads really nice.
I think Dan Murphy has always wanted to wear an eye patch, if only for one inning.
But I don’t care about round numbers anymore. Had Dickey won 19 games, he would still have been the best pitcher, and story, in the NL last year. He wanted 20 wins, the Cy Young, and to start the All Star Game, so I’m glad for his competitive self that he accomplished his goals in part. But had Collins pitched him in short relief to pick up win #20, would anyone in baseball have respected that? And isn’t respect a more valued aspect?
(Yeah, I know, Fangraphs hasn’t come up with a Respect Measurement, or one for “will to win” or “spark” or “grit.” The “Fire Joe Morgan” blog was years ahead of its time in skewering this nonsense).
The Reyes moment – and I was there – ranks pretty low on my list of 21st century Mets lowlights, though in retrospect I’m fine that he beat out Braun. But we’re progressing in valuing ballplayers for what they do well, while losing the attachment to meaningless/less valuable numbers, as we should.
Or maybe we could start referring to 199 innings as the “Gee Line”! Then he could achieve a legacy just the way he is.
If it would be important in Gee’s mind then let him do it. But, somehow I can’t help thinking that somewhere in the lower recesses of what passes for little jeffy’s mentality is the feeling that Gee reaching 200 will cost the Mets money down the line.
Joe Janish, as others have done, I applaud you for putting in the great effort in a lost season. Thank you.
Thank you, Izzy, and everyone else for keeping the conversation going. We made it!