Submitted by Ray, Oct 5, 2007 17:49

Although I usually agree with your articles, today, I do not by saying the bullpen was not the cause of the Mets collapse. You cite a stat that Met relievers pitched slightly more innings per game compared to the average NL. The Mets' goal was not to be average, but to win first place. A far more useful stat would be to compare the number of innings pitched by Met relievers vs. number the innings pitched by the three first place NL teams.

Also, you write that no Met reliever, other than Aaron Heilman, pitched more than 70 innings. But, I would argue that's not the barometer. A far more useful stat is the number of games in which a reliever appeared, especially when Pedro Feliciano and others only pitch 1/3 of an inning. I believe that warming up in the bullpen and then pitching only 1/3 of an inning on back to back games is more fatiguing than warming up in the bullpen and pitching two innings and taking two days off. But the Mets chose to employ the former rather than the latter. And the impact became clear in September.

In short, I believe the Mets collapse is attributable to the bullpen's being misused and overused.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.