Well one could deduce, that if the BP's record was 16-29 (i am actually surprised it wasnt worse), then as a team they had 45 ND. The BP can not get the decision if the starter does, so by definition if the BP is on the hook, one way or another, there is a starter's ND.
29 losses is way too many for the pen, and as I said before, if they could cut it to 20 that should lead to a season closer to .500 for the Mets, of not slightly over.
>>With revamped BP you think Mets can win at least 8 of those 20 ND's in 2013?<<
Unfortunately, we've seen posts like yours each offseason. "Some of the names in the bullpen changed. We've improved the bullpen. This one and that one are gone. If we had won x amount of the games last year's bullpen blew, we would've contended or we would been a .500 club, etc. etc." And of course, looking at it that way, a definitive improved record from the previous year seems like a realistic idea. However, what this thinking doesn't take into account is that baseball isn't a static sport. By that I mean, just because one stat MAY improve (and let's remember just because we have some new names in the pen, doesn't mean they'll be better until we SEE them over the space of several months), other team stats may not. Who's to say a few key injuries don't occur? That's one of the big things which happened in 2009. We had just gotten Putz and K Rod and boom our problems were solved. As we found out, not so fast. Who's to say players who prospered last season won't have off years this season?
Another thing to consider when talking strictly about the starters and bullpen. Why else did our starters have so many no decisions? Too many games started by pitchers who didn't go deep enough into the game (which was exacerbated by an anemic offense in the second half). That caused an overuse of the bullpen. IF our starters don't go deeper, our bullpen, no matter how well they perform initially, will get fatigued by August. That will very possibly cause more no decisions, more blown saves.
How many games did we LOSE, after leading in the 7th?
Clue... Quite a bit
Yes these kind of offseason posts have been here before. But looking at BP additions & subtractions it seems unlikely Mets BP will be as bad as lat yr. Maybe not great. But somewhat improved. At least up to MLB average BP vs 2nd worst (Rockies ranked #30 -- Mets #29). Factor in improved Mets offense at C & at least 1 OF position (with say platoon of Baxter/ Cowgill vs combo of stats from Bay & Torres) & it would be hard to see how Mets could win LESS gms than 2012. And seems easier to see how Mets could convert at least 8 more NDs from losses to wins. Especially if you see ERAs from 19 of those NDs were under 3.00. Santana = 6 ND in 21 total starts / 2.45 ERA
Niese = 8 ND in 30 total starts / 2.70 ERA
Gee = 4 ND in 17 total starts / 3.55 ERA (pitching w/ a numb arm)
Harvey = 2 ND in 10 total starts / 1.38 ERA Pelfrey = 3 ND in 3 starts / 2.29 ERA
Young = 7 ND in 20 total starts / 3.38 ERA Dickey = 8 ND in 33 total starts / 5.52 ERA
Everyone keeps telling me that it's really hard to build a reliable bullpen, because relief pitchers have widely variable performance from year to year. Yet the only evidence for this I've ever heard has always been anecdotal -- J.J. Putz or Ramon Ramirez often come up in NYM conversations as examples of how "you can't predict relievers' performance."
I've always wanted to see some statistical evidence either supporting or contradicting this conclusion. Have there been, or are there now, certain teams who've been relatively successful at putting a quality bullpen together year after year? Similarly, I'd love to see some stats on relief pitchers (particularly non-closers) who've enjoyed consistent success over multiple seasons. Are they really proportionally rarer than consistently good starters or players at other positions?
Maybe I'll pitch the idea to The Hardball Times. I love their detailed longitudinal studies.