Game 3: Mets 9 Marlins 2
Dickey vs Vazquez
I'm not gonna give a recap of this game but let's instead take a look at what we've learned about Terry Collins' 2011 Mets before they head on over for some Philly Cheesesteaks:
K-Rod may be going to anger management but he's still rocking the goggles and he's still having an extreme difficult time saving games. Okay it was just one game so far but he looked awful against Florida. But again it was one game, and even that Mariano Rivera messes up from time to time so I'm not turning on Frankie just yet.
Isaac Benjamin Davis got off to a rocky start with a few hiccups at first base which was and is shocking since he was the man last year that would make incredible plays diving into the stands. But since that first not so hot game he appears to have his hitting and defensive prowess back. He definitely has the potential to hit 20 homers (perhaps 30), bat .300 and rack up 100 ribeye steaks.
RA Dickey probably is our ace with Johan on the DL. No matter how many times he gets into trouble, he's the one Metsies pitcher I can watch without half covering my eyes when the bases are loaded. He has no trouble keeping his cool and he gets out of jams. Plus his post game locker room interviews are always worth watching. This man is brilliant and it's always just nice to hear his take on a game.
Beltran is hitting. That is what counts. Plus he's Duda's Yoda. According to Burkhardt, Carlos keeps an eye on Lucas and gives him advice to improve his hitting. They also have had dinner dates!
Eamus or Murphy at second?! The biggest fear with Daniel Murphy at second is the fact that he won't be able to turn double plays. He really didn't get a chance to do that yet during his one start but he looked absolutely fine at second. Eamus got his first hit in game 2 and he's looked pretty great defensively. It's a tough call.
Reyes and Pagan are still fast as can be and defensive badasses.
David Wright is looking like pre-getting hit in the head Davey. He's hitting, okay his defense hasn't been perfect but his swing is looking marvelous. I am thinking this could be a season where Wright doesn't strike out in consecutive games, gasp.
Willie Harris is proving to be a great pickup. So far he's pinch hit successfully, he's homered, he's played great defense and he's proven he can actually help the Mets and not just rob them of victories like he did as a National.
Jonathan Niese has had the tendency in the past to pitch great but to start out a little rusty. He does give up first inning runs but he also can then bounce back and give the Mets 6 scoreless innings.
Big Pelf looks like he is just picking up where he left off last season and that's no good. If he can get himself centered and back into his early 2010 form we really could have a pretty good pitching staff that could give a lot of teams trouble.
The Mets as a team have proven so far that just like last year they can fight back. They don't give up and that's great to see. Even when K-Rod blew the save game 2 they bounced right back in that top of the 10th and regained the lead. Does that mean we might see another 20 inning game, perhaps?!
Run support has been an issue with the Metsies. So many games last year we saw great pitching outings but the squad couldn't hit. Dickey for some reason was the one pitcher who seemed to always get run support and that has continued thus far.
In general Florida just kicks the Mets asses. Last year it was no picnic playing the fish so taking a series on the road from them is a great start.
On the road the Mets just couldn't win and they already have one road series under their belts so that's pretty neat and promising.
SNY still is all about the Geico and Fiberama commercials....
Keith hasn't fallen asleep or made that many funny comments yet but he has said "Cheese" so I think there's no reason to fear he's lost his unpredictable/very entertaining booth mojo. Just for now he seems very professional and that's great but we need some random tangents about authors or musicians or Sag Harbor just in case this season gets really ugly.
I know we don't have big expectations for the Metsies but you know what maybe they'll surprise us. A 2-1 start is not that shabby at all and I guess the real test is coming up. Philadelphia and that ridiculous pitching staff will be quite hard to defeat but you know what anything is possible in the world of sports. So for now let's just take it game by game and hope Collins' Metsies surprise us this year!
Showing posts with label Carlos Beltran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carlos Beltran. Show all posts
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Reyes, Beltran, and the One Month Grace Period
When it comes to baseball, I am a strong believer that there is nothing better for you than playing the game. Getting reps, taking swings, making throws, seeing pitches, doing your regular routine - in my opinion, all of those things help more than any amount of working out or mental preparation could ever could. You just need to be near the game and to play.
With that said, I usually like to give players a week or two when returning from an injury before I really start evaluating them. With baseball being a game of milliseconds and millimeters, even the most imperceptible delay can be the difference between a home run and a harmless fly out.
In the cases of Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran, I was willing to give them longer than that. Not that I didn't hope or expect them to perform well - but I decided before the season that I would not make any conclusions about their future performance based on anything I saw from them in the first MONTH of play. Offensively and on the basepaths, that is. I think that defensively, it's a different kind of evaluation.
I did that for Beltran and Reyes this year the same way I did it for Wright last year. The same way I do that for a player on an opposing team. The same way I do it in fantasy baseball. It's not homerism - it's just an acknowledgement that baseball is a peculiar game and that it's silly to expect someone to come back to playing the game at its highest level on the planet without a delay.
Without any further adieu, I present to you the statistics for Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran, sans first month of play:
Carlos Beltran: .244/.360/.390, 750 OPS, .254 BABIP, 16 bb, 11 K
Jose Reyes: .301/.333/.461, 795 OPS, .313 BABIP, 19 bb, 36 K
Remember, of course, that the above line for Beltran does not include his double and home run from tonight. For both players, these present significant improvements over their season slash lines.
In addition, Beltran might be a victim of some bad luck -- his career BABIP is .301 and he's been hitting the ball at roughly the same rates as before, if with slightly less authority. Another 30 points of average, and that line is more like .274/.390/.430, which is something I'd sign up for.
As we turn our eyes to 2011, it is important that we do a good job - a smart job - taking inventory of what we have. Particularly of players like Reyes and Beltran, who are under Met control for 2011 but not for 2012.
Everyone who reads here will know where I fall on this topic, and I think it would behoove Mets management to take a good hard look at how Beltran and Reyes finish up this season, rather than how they started it, in making their evaluations going forward.
With that said, I usually like to give players a week or two when returning from an injury before I really start evaluating them. With baseball being a game of milliseconds and millimeters, even the most imperceptible delay can be the difference between a home run and a harmless fly out.
In the cases of Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran, I was willing to give them longer than that. Not that I didn't hope or expect them to perform well - but I decided before the season that I would not make any conclusions about their future performance based on anything I saw from them in the first MONTH of play. Offensively and on the basepaths, that is. I think that defensively, it's a different kind of evaluation.
I did that for Beltran and Reyes this year the same way I did it for Wright last year. The same way I do that for a player on an opposing team. The same way I do it in fantasy baseball. It's not homerism - it's just an acknowledgement that baseball is a peculiar game and that it's silly to expect someone to come back to playing the game at its highest level on the planet without a delay.
Without any further adieu, I present to you the statistics for Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran, sans first month of play:
Carlos Beltran: .244/.360/.390, 750 OPS, .254 BABIP, 16 bb, 11 K
Jose Reyes: .301/.333/.461, 795 OPS, .313 BABIP, 19 bb, 36 K
Remember, of course, that the above line for Beltran does not include his double and home run from tonight. For both players, these present significant improvements over their season slash lines.
In addition, Beltran might be a victim of some bad luck -- his career BABIP is .301 and he's been hitting the ball at roughly the same rates as before, if with slightly less authority. Another 30 points of average, and that line is more like .274/.390/.430, which is something I'd sign up for.
As we turn our eyes to 2011, it is important that we do a good job - a smart job - taking inventory of what we have. Particularly of players like Reyes and Beltran, who are under Met control for 2011 but not for 2012.
Everyone who reads here will know where I fall on this topic, and I think it would behoove Mets management to take a good hard look at how Beltran and Reyes finish up this season, rather than how they started it, in making their evaluations going forward.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Walter Reed and Confirmation Bias
A quick aside, if I may, on the whole Walter Reed Medical Hospital issue.
It is fitting that the three players who missed the event were Carlos Beltran, Oliver Perez, and Luis Castillo, three of the most universally disliked Mets. Public opinion of these guys ranges from indifferent (for Beltran) to reviled (the others). So how wonderful for the headline writers, that it happened to be those three.
Andy Martino over at the Daily News had an interesting blog the other day where he pointed out what a perfect storm this situation has been for those who would try to sell newspapers or try to run those player out of town. As he mentions, it brings up issues of conformity, the military, performance, and ethnicity.
I have said this before and I will say it many more times - baseball provides an incredible window for us as a society, and individuals, in so many ways. Baseball provides an amazing opportunity for us to view experimentation. To instantly observe the impact of our decisions. To be able to evaluate, immediately and with mathematical precision, the inputs and outcomes surrounding every move. If you're interested in that, these is a phenomenal blog called Management By Baseball, which is one of my favorites, which discusses that kind of thing in every post.
In this case, however, baseball allows us an incredible opportunity to view the phenomenon known as confirmation bias. A quick definition, per wikipedia:
When you first heard that Beltran, Castillo, and Perez were the only Mets to miss the trip to Walter Reed, what did you think? What was the FIRST thing you thought? And would it have been the same thing you would have thought if it was David Wright, Mike Pelfrey, and Jeff Francoeur? What if it was a mixed bag of heroes and villians? What if the group was Jon Niese, Francisco Rodriguez, and Josh Thole?
My guess is that your reactions to each of those were drastically different. Even as a guy who openly admits to loving Carlos Beltran, and thinking Oliver Perez is not a super-villian, my first thoughts were not friendly ones. I did not immediately think that maybe they had good reasons for missing it -- but I did, upon hearing it, think "man, there is no way this story is as bad as it sounds, right?"
It turns out, of course, that it is not. But it is the kind of thing that someone - if they were lazy, or uncritical - could use to confirm what they already believe. Others, of course, may simply enjoy an opportunity to take their frustration at those players ineffectiveness on the ballfield and turn it into something personal, something which would allow them to focus their anger.
One more interesting take on this whole debacle before I go. I did not realize that this gentleman was a veteran before now, but a writer named Dave Singer over at NY Sports Dog had a very thoughtful take on things:
But baseball is a great sport, in the multitude of ways in which is parallels life. It happens every day, it requires determination as much as talent, sometimes it is slow, sometimes it is fast, and sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. And only baseball can teach things in this special way.
Next time, let's try not to have a knee-jerk reaction to news like this. Let's be aware of the fact that we may be trying to confirm a bias which already exists. Let's realize that there are dozens upon dozens of explanations and factors and influences operating behind the scenes that we have no idea about. And perhaps, next time, if we do all of this, those same people won't have been made to feel like jerks because they jumped to conclusions.
It is fitting that the three players who missed the event were Carlos Beltran, Oliver Perez, and Luis Castillo, three of the most universally disliked Mets. Public opinion of these guys ranges from indifferent (for Beltran) to reviled (the others). So how wonderful for the headline writers, that it happened to be those three.
Andy Martino over at the Daily News had an interesting blog the other day where he pointed out what a perfect storm this situation has been for those who would try to sell newspapers or try to run those player out of town. As he mentions, it brings up issues of conformity, the military, performance, and ethnicity.
I have said this before and I will say it many more times - baseball provides an incredible window for us as a society, and individuals, in so many ways. Baseball provides an amazing opportunity for us to view experimentation. To instantly observe the impact of our decisions. To be able to evaluate, immediately and with mathematical precision, the inputs and outcomes surrounding every move. If you're interested in that, these is a phenomenal blog called Management By Baseball, which is one of my favorites, which discusses that kind of thing in every post.
In this case, however, baseball allows us an incredible opportunity to view the phenomenon known as confirmation bias. A quick definition, per wikipedia:
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs
When you first heard that Beltran, Castillo, and Perez were the only Mets to miss the trip to Walter Reed, what did you think? What was the FIRST thing you thought? And would it have been the same thing you would have thought if it was David Wright, Mike Pelfrey, and Jeff Francoeur? What if it was a mixed bag of heroes and villians? What if the group was Jon Niese, Francisco Rodriguez, and Josh Thole?
My guess is that your reactions to each of those were drastically different. Even as a guy who openly admits to loving Carlos Beltran, and thinking Oliver Perez is not a super-villian, my first thoughts were not friendly ones. I did not immediately think that maybe they had good reasons for missing it -- but I did, upon hearing it, think "man, there is no way this story is as bad as it sounds, right?"
It turns out, of course, that it is not. But it is the kind of thing that someone - if they were lazy, or uncritical - could use to confirm what they already believe. Others, of course, may simply enjoy an opportunity to take their frustration at those players ineffectiveness on the ballfield and turn it into something personal, something which would allow them to focus their anger.
One more interesting take on this whole debacle before I go. I did not realize that this gentleman was a veteran before now, but a writer named Dave Singer over at NY Sports Dog had a very thoughtful take on things:
The fact of the matter is that this wasn't a visit to the zoo, it wasn't some mandatory fun, it was a visit to Walter Reed to pay tribute to fighting men. Why on Earth should someone be forced to do it? If it was voluntary, then why make a fuss over anyone who didn't attend?He's absolutely right. As always, it is instructive to get the opinion of someone way, way, way closer to the situation before jumping to conclusions. I appreciate the opinion of a veteran on this, the same way that I would value the opinion of a doctor or construction worker in their particular field, and the same way that I am annoyed by non-lawyers who make gross and stupid assumptions about the practice of law.
* * *
Here's something you may or may not care about--those guys at Walter Reed get visits all the time. It's not like this was a once in a lifetime opportunity to meet their hero.
But baseball is a great sport, in the multitude of ways in which is parallels life. It happens every day, it requires determination as much as talent, sometimes it is slow, sometimes it is fast, and sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. And only baseball can teach things in this special way.
Next time, let's try not to have a knee-jerk reaction to news like this. Let's be aware of the fact that we may be trying to confirm a bias which already exists. Let's realize that there are dozens upon dozens of explanations and factors and influences operating behind the scenes that we have no idea about. And perhaps, next time, if we do all of this, those same people won't have been made to feel like jerks because they jumped to conclusions.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Ted Berg on the #BlameBeltran Phenomenon
Excellent article again by Ted. I'll let it speak for itself:
I just don’t think there’s any strong evidence to believe that Beltran is in any way a negative presence in the clubhouse, nor that it would mean much if he were, if he were producing.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
I'm Not Waving the White Flag Yet
But one thing that needs to be pointed out is that -- I mean, wow -- so many things have gone the Mets way this season. Almost all of the 'coin flips' heading into the season turned out in our favor, yet here we still are staring up at the Braves.
- Jose Reyes came back healthy. Not amazing out of the gate, but healthy. And contributing.
- Angel Pagan proved he could play every day.
- Carlos Beltran came back later than we had hoped, but here he is, pushing Francoeur out of the lineup.
- Wright's power returned.
- Santana's elbow is ok, and he's pitching great.
- Josh Thole and Jon Niese both are playing at the very very top end of what could have been projected for them at the start of the year.
- RA Dickey came out of nowhere to pitch like -- and it's time to say it -- a legitimate #2 starter or ace (thus far)
- Pelfrey has pitched more like 2008 than 2009.
- The Phillies have suffered a ton of injuries.
All of these things, have broken in our favor, yet here we are. Our ace and our perennial all-star third baseman have each overcome adversity. Our two other all-star position players have returned from various career-threatening injuries. What more could you ask for?
I'm not throwing in the towel yet, but it is hard, very hard, not to wonder if the Mets have already given their all and fallen short. Eventually, not all the breaks will go our way.
Could it be better? Well... we do have a pythagorean W-L record of 50-43, one game worse than our actual record entering tonight. We have an 11-16 record in one run games, which is to some degree affected by luck. But for the most part? No.
We've gotten our breaks, and here we are in second place. Maybe Dickey and Niese will continue to dominate the National League. Maybe Santana will continue to outperform his peripherals. Maybe Pelfrey will recapture his early season dominance. Maybe Reyes and Beltran will round into the form they showed in their peak seasons. Maybe we will continue to avoid major injury.
It's still early, and as a Mets fan, dreaming is in your DNA. But it's getting late pretty early.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
How Can The Mets Possibly Consider Benching Pagan?
A lot of better news outlets than Fonzie Forever have already reported the recent news that Carlos Beltran is beginning a rehab assignment and may soon be back in the Mets lineup, so let's skip to the analysis:
As great as this news is, it is accompanied with a sense of foreboding -- it appears that the Mets may be prepared to play Carlos Beltran in center field at the expense of Angel Pagan, while letting Jeff Francoeur play every day in right field. The Mets blogosphere is probably unanimous in hating this idea.
Dave Cameron at fangraphs recently did a great job pointing out how valuable Pagan has been over the last couple of seasons:
Angel Pagan has been great again this year, so it would stink if he was benched in favor of Francoeur. The strange thing about all of this, however, is that it appears the Mets know this. Pagan has played every day and is batting second. He recieves high praise from Jerry Manuel and the front office. Jeff Francoeur hits at the bottom half of the lineup and has been the subject of much consternation. So why the talk of making Pagan the odd man out?
I think Pat Andriola over at the Hardball Times got it right when he said the following:
My gut feeling is that the Mets are simply posturing on this one. If Carlos Beltran does indeed come back from his injury (dubious at best) and plays center field instead of right field (also dubious) then I believe the Mets are going to be forced to push Francoeur to the bench as the short side of a platoon.
How couldn't they? Francoeur is dead last among Mets outfielders in wOBA:
Bay: .357
Pagan: .349
Francoeur: .317
Among the three, Francoeur is also last in hits, OBP, and runs. Hell, he's even last in steals (Bay somehow has 9). The only meaningful stat where he doesn't grade out as last among Mets outfielders, aside from RBI, is ultimate zone rating. There, Bay lags behind the field by a sizeable gap:
Pagan: 10.1 UZR/150
Francoeur: -0.9 UZR/150
Bay: -6.5 UZR/150
Long story short is that, in sum, the only outfielder who should be safe from criticism, beyond reproach, and safe from benching, is Angel Pagan. Here's a look by WAR (wins above replacement)
Pagan: 2.2 wins
Bay: 1.1 wins
Francoeur: 0.6 wins
In the end, the smartest arrangement will probably involve a Pagan and Francoeur platoon in right field, with Angel Pagan taking over in center field on the plentiful off days that Carlos Beltran will recieve. This arrangement is actually perfect -- giving Pagan a start almost every day, letting Beltran rest, and having Francoeur as a great pinch-hit option in late innings against lefties.
We discussed a platoon between Pagan and Francoeur at length in January. Pagan has an 848 OPS against righties this season. Francoeur has an 898 OPS against lefties this season (684 vs. righties).
Let's make this happen. Please. I just complimented Mets management on all the intelligent decisions they've made this year (and was subsequently ridiculed for it) -- so please do something smart and help me out here.
As great as this news is, it is accompanied with a sense of foreboding -- it appears that the Mets may be prepared to play Carlos Beltran in center field at the expense of Angel Pagan, while letting Jeff Francoeur play every day in right field. The Mets blogosphere is probably unanimous in hating this idea.
Dave Cameron at fangraphs recently did a great job pointing out how valuable Pagan has been over the last couple of seasons:
Since the start of the 2008 season, Pagan has received 585 plate appearances, or just about one full season’s worth of playing time. In that time span, he’s posted a .355 wOBA and a +14.4 UZR while playing primarily in center field. That performance adds up to a total value of +4.9 wins, the sixth most of any center fielder in baseball during that time frame.
Angel Pagan has been great again this year, so it would stink if he was benched in favor of Francoeur. The strange thing about all of this, however, is that it appears the Mets know this. Pagan has played every day and is batting second. He recieves high praise from Jerry Manuel and the front office. Jeff Francoeur hits at the bottom half of the lineup and has been the subject of much consternation. So why the talk of making Pagan the odd man out?
I think Pat Andriola over at the Hardball Times got it right when he said the following:
I think it'd be optimal for the Mets to bench Francoeur for good and put Carlos Beltran in right field. Beltran will be coming off serious knee issues and declined defensively last year. The Mets can mitigate his stress back in the outfield by putting him in right, leaving Pagan in center, and of course having Jason Bay in left field. Chris Carter and Jeff Francoeur can sit on the bench, and Gary Matthews Jr. can go home and buy really cool stuff with his tens of millions of dollars.
My gut feeling is that the Mets are simply posturing on this one. If Carlos Beltran does indeed come back from his injury (dubious at best) and plays center field instead of right field (also dubious) then I believe the Mets are going to be forced to push Francoeur to the bench as the short side of a platoon.
How couldn't they? Francoeur is dead last among Mets outfielders in wOBA:
Bay: .357
Pagan: .349
Francoeur: .317
Among the three, Francoeur is also last in hits, OBP, and runs. Hell, he's even last in steals (Bay somehow has 9). The only meaningful stat where he doesn't grade out as last among Mets outfielders, aside from RBI, is ultimate zone rating. There, Bay lags behind the field by a sizeable gap:
Pagan: 10.1 UZR/150
Francoeur: -0.9 UZR/150
Bay: -6.5 UZR/150
Long story short is that, in sum, the only outfielder who should be safe from criticism, beyond reproach, and safe from benching, is Angel Pagan. Here's a look by WAR (wins above replacement)
Pagan: 2.2 wins
Bay: 1.1 wins
Francoeur: 0.6 wins
In the end, the smartest arrangement will probably involve a Pagan and Francoeur platoon in right field, with Angel Pagan taking over in center field on the plentiful off days that Carlos Beltran will recieve. This arrangement is actually perfect -- giving Pagan a start almost every day, letting Beltran rest, and having Francoeur as a great pinch-hit option in late innings against lefties.
We discussed a platoon between Pagan and Francoeur at length in January. Pagan has an 848 OPS against righties this season. Francoeur has an 898 OPS against lefties this season (684 vs. righties).
Let's make this happen. Please. I just complimented Mets management on all the intelligent decisions they've made this year (and was subsequently ridiculed for it) -- so please do something smart and help me out here.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Beltran's Recovery Seeing "No Progress"
Via Will Carroll:
Bad news, kiddies. Not just for Beltran and for the Mets, but for baseball in general. Regardless of what you think of our chances for this season, having a talent like Carlos Beltran healthy and playing is good for everyone. He's a generational talent, and a joy to watch. If there has truly been no progress ... well ... one does not want to think of what happens next.
Hearing that Beltran's exam was more negative than is being let on. "No progress, none at all." Curious if Boras will comment.
Bad news, kiddies. Not just for Beltran and for the Mets, but for baseball in general. Regardless of what you think of our chances for this season, having a talent like Carlos Beltran healthy and playing is good for everyone. He's a generational talent, and a joy to watch. If there has truly been no progress ... well ... one does not want to think of what happens next.
There Has To Be a Better Way To Say This...
Something has to be done until the return of Carlos Beltran, who was in Colorado this week for a post-op checkup. - David Lennon, Newsday
No wonder it's taking so long for him to get back to baseball activities.
The linked article is worth reading, however, because of what it ACTUALLY says - namely, that Manuel is considering having Angel Pagan bat third in the lineup.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Carlos Beltran's Surgery and Moving On, Part 2
So let's say you are not like me, and you don't think that the Mets should stand pat this season and focus on 2010. Let's say that you think the Mets should still be spending money, and still be going for it. If you thought that, what would you want to do? Looking at the Mets as currently constituted, minus Beltran, what is the smartest thing you could do to improve the roster with the remaining free agents?
A few days ago, Sam Page over at Amazin Avenue (been linking to Sam a lot lately) posted a handy chart with rough estimates of how many Wins Above Replacement each of the Mets starters could be expected to provide:
You can quibble with the numbers, but generally speaking I like his estimates. So looking at that -- what do we do? What are our potential areas of improvement? If we were going to take a shot this season, where would we improve? Obviously, there are a few places you can start: First Base, Second Base, Right Field, Starters #3-#5.
As I wrote earlier this month -- not ALL improvements are created equal. In fact, a run prevented is more valuable than a run scored. That being said, if I were the Mets and I were going for it this year, there is ONE place that I would start.
Starting pitching.
If the Mets are still in it to win it, they are going to have to take some chances. Lucky for them, there are chances still out there to take. Here are my boys - the "Mets Are Still Going For It" all-star team:
1. Erik Bedard
Bedard is a huge talent, no question. As we all know, however - he is injury prone. Over the last two seasons, he has pitched 81 and 83 innings. However, he IS only 30 years old. ZiPS projects him next year to reach 106 innings, but post a phenomenal 3.12 ERA and strike out 110 guys in only 106 innings. If he can be had on a short, incentive-laden deal, the Mets should go for it. He may not be ready for opening day, but in his best seasons with the Orioles, he was worth over 5(!) WAR.
2. Ben Sheets
Sheets and Bedard (and Rich Harden) all have basically the same story - great talents with injury issues. I think Sheets will end up being a worse deal than Bedard in terms of dollars-to-risk, based on his better reputation and the fact that he's actually had 200-inning seasons. Ben Sheets has been worth over 3.7 WAR 6 out of the last 7 years he has pitched - even in injury shortened years.
3. Pedro Martinez
4. Chien-Ming Wang
Pedro was worth 2/3 of a win last season in only nine regular season starts. Chien-Ming Wang was worth over 4 WAR a year until his short campaign in 2008.
These are the risky bets. But if the Mets want to compete, they are going to have to take some chances. If the Mets could sign both Bedard and Sheets to slot in behind Santana, they would stand a chance of being vastly improved.
Projecting Bedard at 3 WAR (he posted a WAR of 1.9 last year in only 83 innings) and Sheets at 3 WAR would improve the Mets my a whopping six games. The rotation would then be Santana, Bedard, Sheets, Pelfrey, and you choice of Niese, Maine, or Perez. One of the great things about improving your rotation is that you can sometimes move a starter into the bullpen, fortifying that unit as well.
Compare those acquisitions to the acquisition of Orlando Hudson to play second base. The Mets might be better if they signed him --- but the marginal improvement he would make to the team wouldn't even make a splash. As we wrote here in November:
A few days ago, Sam Page over at Amazin Avenue (been linking to Sam a lot lately) posted a handy chart with rough estimates of how many Wins Above Replacement each of the Mets starters could be expected to provide:
You can quibble with the numbers, but generally speaking I like his estimates. So looking at that -- what do we do? What are our potential areas of improvement? If we were going to take a shot this season, where would we improve? Obviously, there are a few places you can start: First Base, Second Base, Right Field, Starters #3-#5.
As I wrote earlier this month -- not ALL improvements are created equal. In fact, a run prevented is more valuable than a run scored. That being said, if I were the Mets and I were going for it this year, there is ONE place that I would start.
Starting pitching.
If the Mets are still in it to win it, they are going to have to take some chances. Lucky for them, there are chances still out there to take. Here are my boys - the "Mets Are Still Going For It" all-star team:
1. Erik Bedard
Bedard is a huge talent, no question. As we all know, however - he is injury prone. Over the last two seasons, he has pitched 81 and 83 innings. However, he IS only 30 years old. ZiPS projects him next year to reach 106 innings, but post a phenomenal 3.12 ERA and strike out 110 guys in only 106 innings. If he can be had on a short, incentive-laden deal, the Mets should go for it. He may not be ready for opening day, but in his best seasons with the Orioles, he was worth over 5(!) WAR.
2. Ben Sheets
Sheets and Bedard (and Rich Harden) all have basically the same story - great talents with injury issues. I think Sheets will end up being a worse deal than Bedard in terms of dollars-to-risk, based on his better reputation and the fact that he's actually had 200-inning seasons. Ben Sheets has been worth over 3.7 WAR 6 out of the last 7 years he has pitched - even in injury shortened years.
3. Pedro Martinez
4. Chien-Ming Wang
Pedro was worth 2/3 of a win last season in only nine regular season starts. Chien-Ming Wang was worth over 4 WAR a year until his short campaign in 2008.
These are the risky bets. But if the Mets want to compete, they are going to have to take some chances. If the Mets could sign both Bedard and Sheets to slot in behind Santana, they would stand a chance of being vastly improved.
Projecting Bedard at 3 WAR (he posted a WAR of 1.9 last year in only 83 innings) and Sheets at 3 WAR would improve the Mets my a whopping six games. The rotation would then be Santana, Bedard, Sheets, Pelfrey, and you choice of Niese, Maine, or Perez. One of the great things about improving your rotation is that you can sometimes move a starter into the bullpen, fortifying that unit as well.
Compare those acquisitions to the acquisition of Orlando Hudson to play second base. The Mets might be better if they signed him --- but the marginal improvement he would make to the team wouldn't even make a splash. As we wrote here in November:
Orlando Hudson is not really that much of an upgrade over Castillo... His batting line last year was a paltry .283/.357/.417 with 9 home runs and 8 stolen bases. He was basically Luis Castillo with 30 less points in on-base percentage and 70 more points of slugging. A few more home runs, and a dozen less steals.We need to look NOT ONLY at what our money will buy us --- but who the new player will be replacing. Signing Hudson to replace Castillo, or signing Molina to replace Blanco/Thole would make the Mets better -- but those are moves with NO upside. They would improve us by a win at most. In the Mets current position, they need to address areas of weakness with investments which could pay BIG dividends. I hope they look long and hard at a high-reward starter.
In fairness, Hudson does tend to rank better than Castillo when it comes to defensive metrics... Therefore, even with their hitting being comparable, Hudson came out as worth $13.0 million last year compared to Castillo's $7 million.
However, we are comparing Castillo's age 32-34 seasons with Hudson's prime years of 30-32. It is probable (or definite) that Hudson's fielding is going to see a severe drop in the next couple of years.
I LIKE Orlando Hudson -- he's a nice guy, a great interview, and seemingly a good clubhouse presence. But don't be fooled -- making the swap of Castillo for Hudson most likely won't make the Mets better, and stands a chance of making them worse.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Carlos Beltran's Surgery and Moving On
I have had almost 24 hours to digest the news that my favorite player, Carlos Beltran had surgery on his knee yesterday. I'm not going to engage in the ongoing speculation about who knew what, or how this reflects on the Mets, or any of that. All that I know is that, in my eyes, the Mets just went from a fringe contender to an unbelievable long shot -- and that the Mets would probably be best served by forgetting 2010.
On November 23rd I asked, "What should the Mets offseason strategy be?" It always appeared to me that the Mets were in the most undesirable of positions -- not good enough to compete for the East, not bad enough to sell everything and start over, and with several players locked into big contracts in their prime.
It was my opinion then that the Mets should "spend the money conservatively and gear up for a serious run at the post-season in 2011." It is even more true today. It appears now, more than ever, that any Mets run toward the playoffs this year was nothing more than a complete fantasy.
Did we really expect that Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, AND Johan Santana would all return from injury and be 100%? And that David Wright would recover his power and stop striking out? And that our underachieving young starters would somehow form a competent rotation? And before you say no -- we must have. If any of them faltered, we wouldn't have had a chance at Philadelphia or Atlanta even if we DID make a big-time offseason move.
So here we are, faced with the worst of the worst. Even if Beltran was able to make a miraculous recovery AND be back before the end of April AND be able to play centerfield, is this a team that we think we can win with? Or is this just a splash of cold water to the face? Is the fact that our best player had surgery performed on him less than two weeks into a new calendar year a coincidence? Or is it a grim reminder of the reality of the situation - that the injuries of 2009 can't be wished away? That life exists objectively, regardless of our optimism?
I never thought the Mets had enough to make a run at the playoffs this year -- not unless 1) we made a big splash and went over the widely-reported budget we were on or 2) literally every lucky break went our way. Now, neither of those things are possible. I still think the Mets can be good. I think they can compete in a tough NL East (where the Marlins are now using their revenue-sharing money and the Nationals are the most improved team). But I think it is time to bite the bullet on this one.
The Mets could, of course, do what so many have suggested and now try to make up for Beltran's absence. Sam Page over at Amazin Avenue does a great job and takes a crack at a solution:
The loss of our centerfielder - a generational talent - is the LAST reason to pour more resources into the 2010 team. Now, more than ever, I think the Mets should stand pat and see what they have got. See if Reyes and others can bounce back, and see if we have a core of a contender for 2011 and beyond. And who knows? Maybe the team as currently constituted will be good or lucky enough to make a run -- and then we can make moves in-season.
But as I wrote yesterday:
The Mets just became a far worse gamble than before.
On November 23rd I asked, "What should the Mets offseason strategy be?" It always appeared to me that the Mets were in the most undesirable of positions -- not good enough to compete for the East, not bad enough to sell everything and start over, and with several players locked into big contracts in their prime.
It was my opinion then that the Mets should "spend the money conservatively and gear up for a serious run at the post-season in 2011." It is even more true today. It appears now, more than ever, that any Mets run toward the playoffs this year was nothing more than a complete fantasy.
Did we really expect that Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, AND Johan Santana would all return from injury and be 100%? And that David Wright would recover his power and stop striking out? And that our underachieving young starters would somehow form a competent rotation? And before you say no -- we must have. If any of them faltered, we wouldn't have had a chance at Philadelphia or Atlanta even if we DID make a big-time offseason move.
So here we are, faced with the worst of the worst. Even if Beltran was able to make a miraculous recovery AND be back before the end of April AND be able to play centerfield, is this a team that we think we can win with? Or is this just a splash of cold water to the face? Is the fact that our best player had surgery performed on him less than two weeks into a new calendar year a coincidence? Or is it a grim reminder of the reality of the situation - that the injuries of 2009 can't be wished away? That life exists objectively, regardless of our optimism?
I never thought the Mets had enough to make a run at the playoffs this year -- not unless 1) we made a big splash and went over the widely-reported budget we were on or 2) literally every lucky break went our way. Now, neither of those things are possible. I still think the Mets can be good. I think they can compete in a tough NL East (where the Marlins are now using their revenue-sharing money and the Nationals are the most improved team). But I think it is time to bite the bullet on this one.
The Mets could, of course, do what so many have suggested and now try to make up for Beltran's absence. Sam Page over at Amazin Avenue does a great job and takes a crack at a solution:
So, as the A's did in Moneyball with Jason Giambi, the Mets need to replace Beltran in components, looking to upgrade elsewhere, which means firstbase and secondbase, most likely. Now, Orlando Hudson at secondbase and a flyer on either Russell Branyan or Carlos Delgado seems more likely.How does the loss of a key player indicate to anyone that these is MORE reason to invest in this team? And if we didn't have the money before, how do we have it now? I'm not picking on Amazin Avenue - because I think this is the prevailing notion.
* * *
The blind hope that Beltran would be fine and his old-self really allowed me to warm up to the Bay signing. Hopefully, this whole fiasco motivates the Mets to make drastic improvements to both their run-scoring and run-prevention.
The loss of our centerfielder - a generational talent - is the LAST reason to pour more resources into the 2010 team. Now, more than ever, I think the Mets should stand pat and see what they have got. See if Reyes and others can bounce back, and see if we have a core of a contender for 2011 and beyond. And who knows? Maybe the team as currently constituted will be good or lucky enough to make a run -- and then we can make moves in-season.
But as I wrote yesterday:
An idea is either good or bad -- it doesn't matter which team it is. Ben Sheets is a good risk or a bad one, depending on the price -- not depending on which team he signs with.
* * *
Everyone has their own preference, either to gamble or be safe. But such a preference is personal -- it does not affect the OBJECTIVE truth of whether an investment is smart or not.
The Mets just became a far worse gamble than before.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Jason Bay is a Colossal Mistake: How Bay-watch became Omar-watch
The News
The Mets signed Jason Bay to a four year, $65 million dollar contract yesterday. It has an easily-attainable option which would push the contract to a staggering five years and over $80 million dollars.
This is it - the beginning of the end for Minaya. This is EXACTLY the kind of move that ends a tenure as a GM. That, while receiving lukewarm approval from the fanbase and newspapers today, will be a complete and utter disaster by the end of the contract.
You do not sign low-average, defensively-challenged sluggers to five year contracts when they are 31.
Bay is not a terrible player. We have analyzed Bay extensively at this site, and many others have done so as well elsewhere. He's been an above average player for a number of years. He is a good complementary piece. But that is NOT the way in which mega-contracts should be evaluated. In my last post on Bay, I asked:
He's' a great hitter for the six-hole on a contending team. But he's not getting paid like that. He's getting $16.5 million dollars a year UNTIL HE IS 36. He's being given one of the largest free agent contracts ever awarded by the Mets.
The Folly of Mega-Contracts
Long-term contracts usually don't work out. By definition, signing a guy for five guaranteed years is a huge risk. Five years is a very long time to forecast ANYTHING to happen, much less that an athlete will maintain his phenomenal peak performance.
You wouldn't want to buy a stock that you couldn't sell for five years. You wouldn't want to take a girl on one date and then sign a five-year contract with her --- unless of course, she was Heidi Klum. Some singular talents are worth taking a risk for. Heidi Klum, Brooklyn Decker, Gisele Bundchen, Carlos Beltran. Risks this big should be reserved for superstars.
Cot's Contracts has a list of players, sorted by highest average annual value on their contracts. Here is the list of outfielders who have EVER averaged more than $13 million dollars a year.
Vlad Guerrero: $14M - 5 years
J.D. Drew: $14M - 5 years
Magglio Ordonez: $15M - 4 years
Carlos Lee: $16.6M - 6 years
Alfonso Soriano: $17M - 7 years
Carlos Beltran: $17M - 7 years
Vernon Wells: $18M - 6 years
Ichiro Suzuki: $18M - 5 years
Torii Hunter: $18M - 5 years
Andruw Jones: $18.1M - 2 years
Manny Ramirez: $20M, $22.5M - 7 years, 2 years
This list is occupied by one type of player -- players better than Jason Bay. Above him on the list are generational talents, the guys who we will look back at this era on and remember as superstars: Manny, Andruw, Ichiro, Beltran, Soriano.
Some of the contracts on this list worked out okay. Beltran is one. Vlad Guerrero is another. But half of them did not -- and those were for players who were better than Bay. Does anyone really think that Jason Bay belongs on this list? Should his name be in the same sentence as Vlad Guerrero, Magglio Ordonez, or Alfonso Soriano? Even the Carlos Lee signing, which was broadly dismissed as a mistake, is a better signing than this.
Jason Bay is not one of those players.
If Not a Star, Then What...?
He is a clearly second-tier talent with a profile which indicates that he is a higher than average risk of collapse. So who is Bay actually comparable to? There are some players which come to mind -- here are their stats per 162 games and through their age 31 seasons:
Jason Bay: 33 home runs, 86 walks, 157 strikeouts, .280/.376/.519.
Geoff Jenkins: 29 home runs, 54 walks, 148 strikeouts, .279/.350/.499
Jeromy Burnitz: 30 home runs, 83 walks, 130 strikeouts, .259/.365/.498
Richard Hidalgo: 28 home runs, 60 walks, 120 strikeouts, .273/.350/.497 (through age 30)
Jenkins was out of baseball two years later. Hidalgo was already out of baseball. I don't have to tell you what happened to Burnitz. Jenkins and Hidalgo are high up on Bay's baseball-reference.com list of similar players. Burnitz is a Mets-related example.
Another guy who he really reminds me of is Danny Tartabull.
Jason Bay: 33 home runs, 86 walks, 157 strikeouts, .280/.376/.519.
Tartabull: 31 home runs, 90 walks, 157 strikeouts, .278/.374/.505
His next year, with the Yankees and Oakland in 1995, he hit .236. He bounced back in 1996 to hit 27 home runs while batting only .254. The next season, he was out of baseball. Two years later.
His MOST SIMILAR player -- and this is not a joke -- is Ryan Klesko. Klesko was a legitimately good hitter. He was underrated. Through age 31, Ryan Klesko hit 30 home runs per 162 games, drove in 100 runs, struck out only 103 times, and batted a robust .285/.372/.528. Klesko and Bay had identical OPS+ marks of 131 through age 30. This would seem to be the most helpful comparison Bay could ask for.
From age 32 to 36, Klesko hit only 54 more home runs. He batted .264/.366/.432, missed his age 35 season entirely, and was out of baseball the next year.[1]
The Impact
Metsblog did a great job aggregating the reactions from around the blogosphere:
I disagree. The Mets needed to use their money wisely and did not. The Mets did not need to give Vladmir Guerrero money to the next Danny Tartabull, Bobby Higginson, or Geoff Jenkins.
Shortly after the trade, my friend texted me this: "Let me know how that expensive DH in a huge NL park experiment goes." He's right. Even setting aside all the talk about Jason Bay's defense for a moment -- Jason Bay is going to need to hit just about as well as he has for the next FIVE years in order to come anywhere close to justifying his contract. And the odds of that are enormously long.
When all is said and done, Jason Bay will own the third largest contract on the Mets.[2] I believe that Jack Moore over at fangraphs nailed it on the head in his short article about Bay:
On the field, the Mets are going to be better with Jason Bay than without him. That is not the question. The question is whether they will be more well-positioned to be successful with Bay and his contract than without him, both this year and in the future. I believe that the answer to that question is no.
Mets fans were antsy for a move and they got it. The reaction today is relief. I believe Roger also nailed it when he called his post about Bay "The Sound of Settling." But when history looks back at the Minaya regime, I believe this signing is going to be one of those OBVIOUS mistakes.
I certainly hope not. I will be rooting for Bay.
-----------------
postscript: When we acquired Bobby Bonilla, he had the exact same career OPS as Jason Bay, at 131. He averaged 21 home runs per year, and struck out only half as much. He was a superior player to Bay at the time, and younger. As a Met, he almost replicated those numbers, posting OPS+ marks of 121, 132, 128 and 160.
However, he was so grossly overpaid that the fans reviled him. In fact, the Mets had to trade him in the midst of a season he was hitting .325/.385/.599, for an OPS that would have placed him fourth in the NL ... behind only Bonds, Piazza, and Larry Walker.
Mike Vaccaro actually had an excellent article equating Bonilla and Bay over at the Post a few weeks ago. He is wrong on some of it, calling Bay "a better player than Bonilla," for one ... but generally, his premise is sound. He asks the Mets this:
Bay is going to have a huge contract to live up to, and that is going to affect the way that he is perceived.
Dan over at Amazin Avenue asks whether Jason Bay is going to be the Mets' best hitting LF of all time. He may well be. I've also heard him be compared to Cliff Floyd minus the injuries. All these sound good only until you consider the price.
In fact, Cliff Floyd from age 24-31 (the ages Bay has been in the majors) hit a robust 28 home runs per 162 games, with 115 strikeouts and a .289/.370/.515 line and identical 131 OPS+! Sounds great right? Sure ... until you consider that Floyd earned only $6.5 million a year as a Met. Even the world's strongest proponent of Bay cannot come close to justifying investing $82 million guaranteed dollars.
---------------------------
[1] For anyone who worries that I am cherry-picking, others who made his list of comparables include:
Tim Salmon - 60 home runs after age 31, batted .262, out of baseball by 35
JD Drew - In the middle of his contract now but performing well
Bobby Higginson - The poster boy for inexplicable collapses, batted .235 and was out of baseball in three years
Jim Edmonds - Who is not actually comparable to Bay at all in that he was a phenomenal athlete who played center field
George Foster - Who is also not comparable because he was a vastly better hitter than Bay, had three top-six MVP finishes and a 54 home run season before he was 31... though for what it is worth, he proves our point, batting only .258/.316/.434 from age 32 to the end of his career.
Willie Stargell - Another player a universe better than Bay, with an OPS+ of 142 entering his age 32 season and with five years with MVP votes, including a second place finish.
Kevin Mitchell - Similarly to Stargell/Foster, already had an MVP win and a career OPS+ of 142. For what it is worth, the next five years of his career he only had 702 at-bats and only once played more than 65 games in a season.
[2] When they hit free agency, Wright and Reyes will surpass him, but for now, only Johan Santana and Carlos Beltran, two of the best players in the game, were awarded larger contracts. If the contract is backloaded (as is being reported by Metsblog), when 2011 rolls around, our payroll is going to look like this:
Santana $22.5M, Beltran $20M, Bay $21M, Perez $12M, K-Rod $12.1M, Wright $14.2M, Reyes $11M ... that's $113 million committed to 7 players. That is going to be VERY ugly.
The Mets signed Jason Bay to a four year, $65 million dollar contract yesterday. It has an easily-attainable option which would push the contract to a staggering five years and over $80 million dollars.
This is it - the beginning of the end for Minaya. This is EXACTLY the kind of move that ends a tenure as a GM. That, while receiving lukewarm approval from the fanbase and newspapers today, will be a complete and utter disaster by the end of the contract.
You do not sign low-average, defensively-challenged sluggers to five year contracts when they are 31.
Bay is not a terrible player. We have analyzed Bay extensively at this site, and many others have done so as well elsewhere. He's been an above average player for a number of years. He is a good complementary piece. But that is NOT the way in which mega-contracts should be evaluated. In my last post on Bay, I asked:
Is this the guy we want to occupy 10% of our payroll with? Is this the kind of player we want to shape the rest of our roster around? Is he a cornerstone for the next Mets World Series team? I don't think so.
He's' a great hitter for the six-hole on a contending team. But he's not getting paid like that. He's getting $16.5 million dollars a year UNTIL HE IS 36. He's being given one of the largest free agent contracts ever awarded by the Mets.
The Folly of Mega-Contracts
Long-term contracts usually don't work out. By definition, signing a guy for five guaranteed years is a huge risk. Five years is a very long time to forecast ANYTHING to happen, much less that an athlete will maintain his phenomenal peak performance.
You wouldn't want to buy a stock that you couldn't sell for five years. You wouldn't want to take a girl on one date and then sign a five-year contract with her --- unless of course, she was Heidi Klum. Some singular talents are worth taking a risk for. Heidi Klum, Brooklyn Decker, Gisele Bundchen, Carlos Beltran. Risks this big should be reserved for superstars.
Cot's Contracts has a list of players, sorted by highest average annual value on their contracts. Here is the list of outfielders who have EVER averaged more than $13 million dollars a year.
Vlad Guerrero: $14M - 5 years
J.D. Drew: $14M - 5 years
Magglio Ordonez: $15M - 4 years
Carlos Lee: $16.6M - 6 years
Alfonso Soriano: $17M - 7 years
Carlos Beltran: $17M - 7 years
Vernon Wells: $18M - 6 years
Ichiro Suzuki: $18M - 5 years
Torii Hunter: $18M - 5 years
Andruw Jones: $18.1M - 2 years
Manny Ramirez: $20M, $22.5M - 7 years, 2 years
This list is occupied by one type of player -- players better than Jason Bay. Above him on the list are generational talents, the guys who we will look back at this era on and remember as superstars: Manny, Andruw, Ichiro, Beltran, Soriano.
Some of the contracts on this list worked out okay. Beltran is one. Vlad Guerrero is another. But half of them did not -- and those were for players who were better than Bay. Does anyone really think that Jason Bay belongs on this list? Should his name be in the same sentence as Vlad Guerrero, Magglio Ordonez, or Alfonso Soriano? Even the Carlos Lee signing, which was broadly dismissed as a mistake, is a better signing than this.
Jason Bay is not one of those players.
If Not a Star, Then What...?
He is a clearly second-tier talent with a profile which indicates that he is a higher than average risk of collapse. So who is Bay actually comparable to? There are some players which come to mind -- here are their stats per 162 games and through their age 31 seasons:
Jason Bay: 33 home runs, 86 walks, 157 strikeouts, .280/.376/.519.
Geoff Jenkins: 29 home runs, 54 walks, 148 strikeouts, .279/.350/.499
Jeromy Burnitz: 30 home runs, 83 walks, 130 strikeouts, .259/.365/.498
Richard Hidalgo: 28 home runs, 60 walks, 120 strikeouts, .273/.350/.497 (through age 30)
Jenkins was out of baseball two years later. Hidalgo was already out of baseball. I don't have to tell you what happened to Burnitz. Jenkins and Hidalgo are high up on Bay's baseball-reference.com list of similar players. Burnitz is a Mets-related example.
Another guy who he really reminds me of is Danny Tartabull.
Jason Bay: 33 home runs, 86 walks, 157 strikeouts, .280/.376/.519.
Tartabull: 31 home runs, 90 walks, 157 strikeouts, .278/.374/.505
His next year, with the Yankees and Oakland in 1995, he hit .236. He bounced back in 1996 to hit 27 home runs while batting only .254. The next season, he was out of baseball. Two years later.
His MOST SIMILAR player -- and this is not a joke -- is Ryan Klesko. Klesko was a legitimately good hitter. He was underrated. Through age 31, Ryan Klesko hit 30 home runs per 162 games, drove in 100 runs, struck out only 103 times, and batted a robust .285/.372/.528. Klesko and Bay had identical OPS+ marks of 131 through age 30. This would seem to be the most helpful comparison Bay could ask for.
From age 32 to 36, Klesko hit only 54 more home runs. He batted .264/.366/.432, missed his age 35 season entirely, and was out of baseball the next year.[1]
The Impact
Metsblog did a great job aggregating the reactions from around the blogosphere:
Ed Ryan from Mets Fever says, “Nice job, Omar.”
According to John, from Metstradamus, “This is a good move. In a vacuum, it’s a great move.”
On the other hand, while Mets Grrl likes Bay, she explains why her reaction was just, ‘ehhh.’
Mike Silva of NY Baseball Digest explains, “When it’s all said and done, the Mets needed Bay.”
I disagree. The Mets needed to use their money wisely and did not. The Mets did not need to give Vladmir Guerrero money to the next Danny Tartabull, Bobby Higginson, or Geoff Jenkins.
Shortly after the trade, my friend texted me this: "Let me know how that expensive DH in a huge NL park experiment goes." He's right. Even setting aside all the talk about Jason Bay's defense for a moment -- Jason Bay is going to need to hit just about as well as he has for the next FIVE years in order to come anywhere close to justifying his contract. And the odds of that are enormously long.
When all is said and done, Jason Bay will own the third largest contract on the Mets.[2] I believe that Jack Moore over at fangraphs nailed it on the head in his short article about Bay:
This deal definitely improves the Mets’ offense for 2010 ... Bay’s bat combined with Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, and David Wright gives the Mets a scary top of the order for opposing pitchers. That’s about where Bay’s effectiveness ends.
***
Of course, the real interesting point of the contract is the dollar value...Given the current market, $3.5M per WAR, the Mets are expecting 4.5 wins per season out of Bay. Is Jason Bay the type of tier-2 superstar that deserves this contract?
The Mets can afford to overpay given their place on both the revenue curve and the win curve... [but] this move appears to be one of the more significant overpays of the offseason, and it by no means vaults the Mets into the playoffs. Much needs to go the Mets’ way for this contract to work out as planned[.]
On the field, the Mets are going to be better with Jason Bay than without him. That is not the question. The question is whether they will be more well-positioned to be successful with Bay and his contract than without him, both this year and in the future. I believe that the answer to that question is no.
Mets fans were antsy for a move and they got it. The reaction today is relief. I believe Roger also nailed it when he called his post about Bay "The Sound of Settling." But when history looks back at the Minaya regime, I believe this signing is going to be one of those OBVIOUS mistakes.
I certainly hope not. I will be rooting for Bay.
-----------------
postscript: When we acquired Bobby Bonilla, he had the exact same career OPS as Jason Bay, at 131. He averaged 21 home runs per year, and struck out only half as much. He was a superior player to Bay at the time, and younger. As a Met, he almost replicated those numbers, posting OPS+ marks of 121, 132, 128 and 160.
However, he was so grossly overpaid that the fans reviled him. In fact, the Mets had to trade him in the midst of a season he was hitting .325/.385/.599, for an OPS that would have placed him fourth in the NL ... behind only Bonds, Piazza, and Larry Walker.
Mike Vaccaro actually had an excellent article equating Bonilla and Bay over at the Post a few weeks ago. He is wrong on some of it, calling Bay "a better player than Bonilla," for one ... but generally, his premise is sound. He asks the Mets this:
How many times do you need to have anvils fall on your head before you take a step out of the way? How many times do you have to sign Kevin Appier and Bobby Bonilla before you recognize the difference between attracting the cream of a good free-agent class (see Sabathia, CC, and Teixeira, Mark) and the prettiest homecoming queens of Homely High?
Bay is going to have a huge contract to live up to, and that is going to affect the way that he is perceived.
Dan over at Amazin Avenue asks whether Jason Bay is going to be the Mets' best hitting LF of all time. He may well be. I've also heard him be compared to Cliff Floyd minus the injuries. All these sound good only until you consider the price.
In fact, Cliff Floyd from age 24-31 (the ages Bay has been in the majors) hit a robust 28 home runs per 162 games, with 115 strikeouts and a .289/.370/.515 line and identical 131 OPS+! Sounds great right? Sure ... until you consider that Floyd earned only $6.5 million a year as a Met. Even the world's strongest proponent of Bay cannot come close to justifying investing $82 million guaranteed dollars.
---------------------------
[1] For anyone who worries that I am cherry-picking, others who made his list of comparables include:
Tim Salmon - 60 home runs after age 31, batted .262, out of baseball by 35
JD Drew - In the middle of his contract now but performing well
Bobby Higginson - The poster boy for inexplicable collapses, batted .235 and was out of baseball in three years
Jim Edmonds - Who is not actually comparable to Bay at all in that he was a phenomenal athlete who played center field
George Foster - Who is also not comparable because he was a vastly better hitter than Bay, had three top-six MVP finishes and a 54 home run season before he was 31... though for what it is worth, he proves our point, batting only .258/.316/.434 from age 32 to the end of his career.
Willie Stargell - Another player a universe better than Bay, with an OPS+ of 142 entering his age 32 season and with five years with MVP votes, including a second place finish.
Kevin Mitchell - Similarly to Stargell/Foster, already had an MVP win and a career OPS+ of 142. For what it is worth, the next five years of his career he only had 702 at-bats and only once played more than 65 games in a season.
[2] When they hit free agency, Wright and Reyes will surpass him, but for now, only Johan Santana and Carlos Beltran, two of the best players in the game, were awarded larger contracts. If the contract is backloaded (as is being reported by Metsblog), when 2011 rolls around, our payroll is going to look like this:
Santana $22.5M, Beltran $20M, Bay $21M, Perez $12M, K-Rod $12.1M, Wright $14.2M, Reyes $11M ... that's $113 million committed to 7 players. That is going to be VERY ugly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)