Mets bullpen game vs. putting the starting pitching depth to the test

In last week’s doubleheader against the St. Louis Cardinals, we saw the New York Mets win a bullpen game. The seven-inning affair worked out well and helped the team split the day.

The Mets then went into Saturday’s game against the Arizona Diamondbacks with a similar strategy. Tommy Hunter pitched the first two innings before the team turned to Joey Lucchesi, one of the guys they brought in this offseason for starting pitcher depth. Using an opener in Lucchesi’s games was an option the team considered in spring training. We saw it finally happen and the result was five no-hit innings. Better yet, the team went on to win the game.

As a non-fan of the opener and someone who doesn’t enjoy the mere idea of a bullpen game, I have to admit things have worked well thus far implementing this strategy. However, I’m still curious how things may have turned out if the Mets actually put their starting pitching depth to the test.

An argument for the Mets to continue with bullpen games

We, hopefully, won’t see these bullpen games for too long. May might have a few more of them considering Carlos Carrasco won’t be available until the very end at the absolute earliest. When the starters do begin to get healthy, the bullpen game should only be reserved for a doubleheader.

I have a tough time making a legitimate case for the bullpen game except for the fact that it has worked. The team’s bullpen has done well and to keep their heads above water, a parade of relievers may yield better results than putting players of Lucchesi’s ilk out on the mound every fifth day.

As much as we can praise the Mets starting pitching depth with names like Jordan Yamamoto, Jared Eickhoff, and Sean Reid-Foley, I’m not so sure any would be as good over the course of five or six innings as they would in three.

Putting them in as a starter or reliever won’t make too much of a difference. Personally, I would still prefer they start and the Mets can turn to another arm for the fourth inning.

The best, and possibly only argument anyone can make for a bullpen game, comes down to players firing from the mound at their best. Batters are seeing a new pitcher every time up. It keeps them off-balance.

An argument for the Mets to put their starting pitching depth to the test

It’s a lot easier for me to argue this case because it’s what I am used to and believe in. I hate to use any pitcher for multiple innings unless you have to. By starting a game with a reliever with the intention of bringing in someone else for multiple frames after, you burn a potential long-man for no reason at all.

Let’s say the Mets begin a game with Miguel Castro on the mound as they already have. What happens if he gets shelled in the first inning? The Mets could then turn to a guy like Lucchesi. They’ve already fallen behind in their plan and may end up with the need to use up even more of the multi-inning relievers than they had scheduled.

On the contrary, if Lucchesi starts and gets bombed early, the Mets can then use Robert Gsellman or anyone else capable of getting the team through some innings. When we reach the midway point of the game, maybe they’ve only used two arms instead of three.

It’s an imperfect argument and before you leave a comment I’ll never read anyway, let me share the simplest: why have these starters if they aren’t going to start?

I hate being wasteful with roster spots. As well as these two recent games worked out, I really want to see the end result of actually starting the game with a starting pitcher.