Metsblog and Omir Santos, Part 2

Just to follow up on an earlier post. Here is a copy and paste from Metsblog.com. The first part is the news item, the italicized part is his "opinion":

In the Daily News, Adam Rubin writes, “Brian Schneider could return to the Mets from the DL within a week.”

… a few weeks ago, the talk was that santos would get sent down when schneider returns… now, i see no way the Mets can let this happen… castro has to go, unless the Mets again plan to carry three catchers… however, given all the injuries, and playing short handed, how is that justified… sorry, ramon…

Sorry, what?? For the record, here are their lines from this season:

Omir Santos: .270/.306/.444, 63 ab, 2 hr, 15 rbi
Ramon Castro: .253/.340/.425, 75 ab, 3 hr, 13 rbi (he homered and doubled today, so I'm guessing on the obp and slg).

Even if we were looking ONLY at this year and ONLY at a tiny sample size of about 70 at bats, Santos has NOT been better than Castro. But we're not.

Fact is, Omir Santos is a career minor leaguer with a line of .258/.304/.348. Ramon Castro has been putting up better numbers than that in the major leagues for years. Last year, struggling with injuries, Castro hit .245/.312/.441 for the Mets. The year before, he exploded for a .285/.331/.556 line for the Mets, hitting huge home runs down the stretch.

I don't love Castro. He's a decent player. But the idea that Omir Santos should be on the roster ahead of him is silly.

Metsblog and Omir Santos, Part 1

Matt Cerrone, after reporting a news article on his site Metsblog.com, then proceeded to add the following opinion:

"…i still believe santos is sent to triple-a regardless of how he does, or how castro behaves… unfortunately, it's not like the Mets to cut a player like castro, in favor of a younger, potentially-better player, like santos… at least not yet…of course, this is all meaningless right now, if schneider is unable to return any time soon…"

This is the kind of crap that makes me crazy. I love Metsblog. Love it. But a blog like that isn't a responsible place for an opinion stated like fact.

This isn't saying that he isn't entitled to his own opinion. That's' the great thing about blogs and the internet - you can get information out there, you can express your opinion - its a free open forum through which information can flow and people can learn. It's great.

But it's not great in this context. The owner of Metsblog is no longer a blogger having fun - he's been endorsed by SNY. His site is one of a handful of most-trafficked sports blogs on the internet. The power that this guy wields to influence the opinion of other Mets fans is huge. And with great power comes great responsibility. Metsblog, like it or not, is the mouthpiece of the organization on the internet. I hear people parroting the stuff that Matt Cerrone says all the time, almost line for line. It is irresponsible given the context he is now in. Three years ago, it was fine.

This above post is a perfect example of this problem. In one fell swoop he disparages the organization and makes a pretty silly comment comparing Castro and Santos. You wonder why people are turning against the Mets? Because opinions like this are no longer confined to bar stools and private conversations - now, they are blasted all over the internet and given the credibility of the organization's endorsement.

And for what its worth, there is no chance Omir Santos is anywhere even close to the player Ramon Castro is. Castro is an INCREDIBLE second catcher, and if it weren't for his fragility, he'd be a starter. Maybe he's got a conditioning problem or something, but the indisputable fact is that the Mets are better with Castro behind the dish than with Schneider or Santos. Why?

#1: Castro is an infinitely better defensive catcher than Schneider: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/mets/2009/01/whats-the-catch.html

"These numbers are so stunning it suggests that the unfortunate Schneider was somehow tipping off pitches:

SANCHEZ caught by CASTRO 65 ABs, allows 0 HRs and OPP SLUG%=292 SCHNEIDER 108 ABs, allows 6 HRs and OPP SLUG%=454

HEILMAN caught by CASTRO 50 ABs , allows 0 HRs and OPP SLUG%=340 SCHNEIDER 195 ABs, allows 9 HRs and OPP SLUG%=456

FELICIANO caught by CASTRO 36 ABs, allows 0 HRs and OPP SLUG%=306 SCHNEIDER 134 ABs, allows 6 HRs and OPP SLUG%=455

WAGNER caught by CASTRO 49 ABs, allows 0 HRs and OPP SLUG%=204 SCHNEIDER 99 ABs, allows 3 HRs and OPP SLUG%=313

SANTANA caught by CASTRO 333 ABs, allows 6 HRs and OPP SLUG%=297 SCHNEIDER 524 ABs, allows 15 HRs and OP SLUG%=401

PEDRO M caught by CASTRO 138 ABs, allows 2 HRs and OPP SLUG%=377 SCHNEIDER 185 ABs, allows 15 HRs and OPP SLUG%=600!!!!!

Same phenomena holds with John Maine, Claudio Vargas and Nelson Figueroa. Fascinating, isn't it?"

Of course, that doesn't help the comparison to Santos, who I know nothing about defensively. But its a good data point to suggest that Castro is a good defensive catcher (this aside from what we already know by watching him).

#2: Castro is a better hitter than Santos, and it isn't even close.

Here is Omir Santos' age, level, and OPS for the last two years.

2007 - 26 years old - AAA: 613 OPS 2008 - 27 years old - AAA: 651 OPS

His career minor league batting line is .258/.304/.348. The guy can't hit. At all. He CAN NOT HIT. The guy has 4 home runs TOTAL since 2007. He hits one this week and people start to think he's a better option than Castro. In his time with the Mets, Ramon Castro has posted a 770 OPS. That is a damned good number.

Barring injury or something like that, there is no universe in which Santos is "potentially better" than Castro.

Mets Bullpen Construction

Metsblog reports:

According to the New York Times, "The Mets have discussed keeping the veteran right-hander Elmer Dessens as a long reliever."

Dessens has thrown just one inning in two appearances since returning from the World Baseball Classic.

…it appears that dessens, Brian Stokes, Darren O'Day and Fernando Nieve are essentially competing for the final two spots in the bullpen, to be teamed with Bobby Parnell, J.J. Putz, Sean Green, Pedro Feliciano and Francisco Rodriguez…

…i still rank them as o'day, then stokes and dessens, and then nieve… o'day gives a different look and pitch to both lefties and righties, plus he's a Rule 5 pick, so i see him as being pretty close to a lock…

--------------------------------------------------

For the record, here...

I don't understand the logic here. If options is going to be a factor, then Parnell should be the man out of the picture. For what its worth, I don't think Parnell is ready. His spring stats have been pretty weak, a lot of walks, and I don't think he's ready. I don't buy the hype.

As for the rest of the pen, I rank them like this: K-Rod, Putz, and Feliciano as locks. I think Stokes and O'Day should be locks too, considering we lose them if we waive them. That would leave Parnell, Dessens, Green, and Nieve competing for two spots.

I don't want Nieve within a mile of my roster. So he is out. Then I think Green makes the team as we traded for him and he can get righties out and has potential. Then between Parnell and Dessens, I guess it depends what you think of Dessens and if he has anything left. I don't think so, but I don't watch him pitch.

I just think the logic above is all messed up. If you don't want to lose a guy, you option Parnell down. Personally, I think Stokes today is what Parnell could be -- considering losing him is silly.

Poor Aaron Heilman

Here's the news:

"Lou Piniella announced Thursday that Sean Marshall will be the Cubs'
fifth starter to begin the year, getting the nod over Aaron Heilman,
who'll be in the team's bullpen. The big lefty posted a 3.86 ERA and a
1.27 WHIP mostly out of Chicago's bullpen last season."

Wow.  Aaron Heilman just can't catch a break.  Forced into the bullpen
for three years with the Mets, despite proving (to me) that he can
start.  IN 2006, he actually got the chance to compete for a starting
role, against Brian Bannister.  He posted a sick 1.59 ERA, striking
out 14 and walking only one.  He lost.

This year, competing against Sean Marshall, he has compiled a 1.32
ERA, with 16 strikeouts and 4 walks in 13 innings.  He lost.  Someone,
please tell me what this guy has to do to win a freaking starting job.
 The Mets will take him back!!!  We're stuck with Livan Hernandez!!!
WHYYY

Oliver Perez Signs

This ought to be a fun one. Opinions on Oliver Perez are easy to find and, given his past performance, probably pretty easy to argue. I'm sure that a lot of people with a lot better credentials and a lot more time will tackle this -- but given his level of potential, the size of the contract, and the fact that I will have to watch him pitch to about 2,500 batters, I would like to take a crack at it.

The reports are three years, $36 million. So $12 million per year for his age 27, 28, and 29 seasons. What does $36 million dollars buy you nowadays?

The Good:

Oliver had his career season at the tender age of 22. While pitching for the Pirates, Ollie posted a 2.98 ERA and struck out a phenomenal 239 batters in 196 innings, for a K/9 rate which I believe was second in MLB that year. Great year.

The Bad:

The rest of his career with the Pirates was tumultuous. In 2005 he collapsed to a 5.85 ERA, walking batters at almost twice the rate at the year before. In 2006, he regressed even further, going 3-13 with a 6.55 ERA before being traded to the Mets.

Mets Career:

As we all know by now, Oliver came over and showed just how volatile he can be in his final few starts. After getting shellacked twice, he SHUT OUT the Braves in a brilliant start in Atlanta. He then proceeded to get his around down the stretch before coming back in the playoffs and pitching decently in the Endy Chavez game. Say what you will about his erratic nature, but he had already proved he was not afraid of the spotlight.

In 2007 he took what appeared to be a great step forward for the Mets, notching his second best full season. He struck out 174 batters in 177 innings, lowered his walk rate (which had been above 5.5/9 the previous three seasons) to 4.02 batters per nine innings, and posted an ERA of 3.56. He wasn't quite that good, as he allowed a ton of earned runs, but it was a big step forward.

In 2008 his overall numbers regressed -- and what you make of that will go a long way toward what you think of Oliver. Oh, and remember that big game reputation? In his career, here are his ERA's against some select teams which might be of interest to the Mets and some which could be considered bottom feeders:

Atlanta (3.46), Philadelphia (3.15), Yankees (2.61)
Washington (6.53), San Francisco (7.07), Arizona (5.01)

What Happened in 2008?

As I mentioned, he regressed in 2008. His walks went up, his strikeouts went down, his ERA went up. Why? A cursory glance at the numbers doesn't reveal much -- his fastball was the same speed (actually faster), his pitch selection remained the same, he got basically the same number of swings and misses. You can speculate if you like, but for my money, I think Oliver was basically the same pitcher with a little different luck.

Firstly, he allowed 90 runs in 177 innings for a RA of 4.57. This year, he allowed 100 runs but in 194 innings. That's an RA of 4.63 --- nearly identical. A metric called Fielding Independent Pitching (which looks at a pitchers secondary statistics to make a rough estimate of what their ERA should have been if not for fielding and luck) has Oliver at 4.35 in 2007 and 4.68 in 2008.

So is that what we have? A pitcher who sits somewhere in the 4.3 to 4.6 range?

Projections

Perhaps. The projection systems which have published their data so far, Bill James, CHONE, and Marcel, have Oliver right in that zone. Of course, these projections are what they are and cannot be taken too seriously, but they project him to post an ERA between 4.22 (Marcel) and 4.72 (CHONE). Everyone likes him to keep striking batters out and to keep walking too many guys.

I would be skeptical of the projections for a number of reasons. As mathematical models, they are not going to be able to take into account of what we know about Oliver. Looking at his numbers, they are going to weigh heavily his poorer recent performance in 2006 and won't weigh his 2004. They don't know that he's got great raw "stuff" -- a good fastball and a killer slider. They are helpful, but one data point of many.

Analysis/Hunch

A couple of years ago, none of us knew what to expect of Oliver Perez. Was he the wunderkind who struck out 240 batters and posted a sub 3 ERA? Was he the headcase who posted an ERA over 6? As we've seen him more, I think we've all realized that his band of expected outcomes has narrowed. Whereas a few years ago we didn't know if he'd be C.C. Sabathia or out of baseball, we now know that Oliver will have value to a team somewhere (well, as much as we know anything in this silly game).

I think there is reason for optimism, though, on Perez, that is not based on homerism. Although I no longer hold my breath that he could eventually turn into an ace, I think he can still be Oliver of 2007 rather than 2008. Why?

Stuff and Health
He's got great raw talent. His fastball has not lost any speed since 2005, the first year we have data from. That year his average fastball was 91.3, in 2008 is was 91.2. In the years between, it was down to 90.2 and 90.5. His slider, as we all know, is filthy, and stayed filthy last year.

Although he is entering his age 27 season, he already has 999 ML innings on his arm. Although that sounds like a lot of innings, I think that it is a manageable workload for someone who has been in the majors for 7 years. He also had, by accident or not, a reasonable progression of innings for a youngster. In 2002, he pitched about 155 innings; in 2003, about 173; in 2004 he pitched 196. This gradual progression avoided something called the Verducci effect (which is a commonsense proposition that adding too many innings in a single year could hurt your arm). Furthermore, the fact that he sucked in 2005 and 2006 kept his innings down big time.

Its obviously an impossible thing to predict, but Oliver looks like a better bet than most to stay healthy, which is great. He increased his innings by only 13 last year and looks like he could be poised to make another leap this year, provided that he stays effective.

Comparisons

There is plenty of precedent, as well, for pitchers like Oliver Perez, who has control issues as younger pitchers, to put it all together down the road. The obvious comparison would be to Randy Johnson -- who as a left handed fastball/slider machine failed to get his walks below 100 in a full season for four full years before starting to put it together. Johnson was 29 before his first truly dominant year with the Mariners -- and even then he took another year to become the Randy Johnson we all know. Of course, Randy Johnson is a freak of nature -- he's enormous and throws much harder than Oliver. But in terms of repertoire and issues, they are very similar.

More realistically, Baseball-Reference.com sees Oliver Perez as most similar to three very successful pitchers: Mark Langston, Bobby Witt, and Frank Viola.

Langston, another Mariner lefty, won 179 games and made four all star teams. He succeeded despite not harnessing his control problems until the age of 31. He posted an ERA consistently better than average (four of five years of ERA+ above 125) while walking more than 4 batters per nine innings.

Bobby Witt was a useful but unspectacular righty for the Rangers (mostly) who makes the comparison list because of his walks, but was never as good as Oliver. Witt has a 3.36 ERA in his best season, striking out a batter per inning, at the age of 26, but was never good before or after. Oliver already has two seasons better than Witt's best.

Finally, former Met Frank Viola. Viola left the Mets before I was old enough to truly appreciate him, but he did some good stuff while here. In his career, Viola won one Cy Young and received votes in three other years. As for his comparison to Oliver Perez, Viola is another better-case-scenario pitcher. Viola has much better control than Ollie, but also didn't strike out as many guys -- he is probably on the list because of their similar K/BB and handedness (they also had the same exact WHIP for their age 25 and 26 seasons). Either way, Viola was a very good pitcher -- he has his breakthrough at the age of 24, after cutting his walks from 3.9 per 9 to 2.5 per 9.

Interestingly enough, Perez seems to split the difference between Viola and Langston on a variety of metrics. For K/BB, Oliver has the best ratio for the age 22 season, was tied with Viola (behind Langston) for their age 23 year, beat them both in their age 25 years. Both men, Viola and Langston, both saw their careers progress from there and posted great ratios for ages 26-31, just as you would expect them to. Hopefully, Perez sees the same kind of incremental improvement. Link to Fangraphs Images

Obviously, baseball-reference comparisons are far from an exact science, but it reminds us of some important things. (Lower ranked comps included Livan Hernandez, Sidney Ponson, Randy Wolf, Ryan Dempster, Melido Perez). Young pitchers with the success of Oliver Perez, even if they do not go on to become Cy Young winners, can at least hang around this league (barring the worst case Ponson scenario, which looks physically impossible). Just as importantly, pitchers like Perez can, but don't always, harness their control. Harnessing their control may not be make or break for them to be average, but IS necessary for them to emerge as aces.

Putting it Together

It took us a long time to get here, so I apologize for the long-windedness. I think Oliver Perez is a very, very safe bet to - at the very least - maintain the performance he has had so far as Met. I think most people agree with that assessment -- Oliver can post an ERA around 4.3 or 4.5, just like the last two years and the computer projections say. According to Fangraphs, his performance last year saved 13 runs and was worth $5.8 million dollars (following a formula which turns runs into wins, and then calculates the value of a win in free agency). For reference, his 2004 season would have been worth $14.1 million and his 2007 season worth $8.8 million.

So did the Mets just commit $12 million a year to a pitcher who will be worth $7 million dollars on average? I'd say no.

As discussed above, I think there are reasons to be optimistic about Oliver Perez. I'm hesitant to put a number on it, I think he has the potential to outperform the FIP he's posted the last couple of years of 4.3 and 4.8. He's a young lefthander with a great fastball and a team who is committed to him and to managing him through his troubles. MOST IMPORTANTLY, we are not simply banking on potential -- he has done this before. Oliver dominated in 2004. He was good in 2007. And that 2008 season that we never talked about? Let's take a look at one very important split:

134 innings, 62 walks, 130 strikeouts -- 3.56 ERA, 1.29 WHIP.

Those are his stats last season from June 7th to the end of the year. That's not one start, or one month -- that is the majority of the season. Obviously, it would be foolish to completely disregard his slow start to the season, but once again, Oliver has shown stretches where he actually DOES dominate how we expect him to.

Another interesting split? From June 29 to September 3, a stretch of 13 starts, he never pitched less than 6 innings. That's 84 innings, 1387 pitches, and two and a half months. I'm not saying that Oliver is an ace, but he is certainly capable of more than what Joe Talkshow realizes.

In order to justify a contract paying him $12 million a year, Perez would need to post an ERA between 3.30 and 3.50. I don't think he will do that, not in 2009. I am optimistic, however, that he can come close to that. While he will never be a world beater, Perez is likely to provide durability and stability to the Mets rotation and there is a significant chance that he can be come pretty darn good.

As we all know, it will come down to walks. Can he walk less batters without giving up more hard hits or sacrificing strikeouts? In his best season, he walked 3.72 batters per 9 innings. Last year in his good stretch, he still walked 4.16 and was VERY effective. He can still pitch WELL while walking a lot of guys. The true issue is can he lower the walks beneath 4.15 per 9 ever again? Can he lower than to 3.72 again?

Well -- baseball-reference's comparables think so. Common knowledge that a pitcher will improve his control throughout his prime would indicate so (the league average for walks per nine innings is about 3.5 for a 25 year old and decreasing, finally crossing 3.0 for a 38 year old). So, let's use a combination of mathematics, scouting, and intuition and make an educated guess.

Fearless Forecast

Knowing that pitchers with electric stuff will often beat their forecasts (as Oliver has done ever year with the Mets so far) and that he will be pitching in a ballpark which everyone expects to decrease home runs, and that he will have a man named Carlos Beltran shagging flies for him...

2009: 13-8, 3.70 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 200 IP, 89 BB, 180 K

That ought to put him in the neighborhood of deserving a $10 million dollar contract. My initial instinct after hearing about the deal was that I thought the Mets overpaid slightly. That impression hasn't changed. But I do NOT think its a disaster, I do not think it was stupid. I think the Mets needed a starter in the worst way, and I would rather have Oliver Perez than Randy Wolf or someone off the scrap heap. He probably won't earn the full amount of his contract but he is unlikely to flame out entirely and there is a slight chance, let's say 10%, that he can grow into himself and become an ace to the tune of an ERA between 3.00 and 3.30.


Edit -- October 5, 2009
He was ineffective, then he was hurt. He may have been hurt all year. Either way, he sucked... and I don't think you can judge the signing on an injury plagued year.

For The Record - January 2009

I love the K-Rod signing at 3 years and 37 million.

I love the J.J. Putz trade, even though I think Heilman will be a valuable pitcher and could still succeed as a starter.

I think the Braves vastly overpaid for Derek Lowe, and will regret the contract. He won't be terrible but he won't earn 15 million a year either. He'll probably post a 4.00 ERA this year and get progressively worse.

I was always against the federal bailout.

I always wondered why families which had more than one car didn't have one tiny car instead of a second, standard sized car. I understand people like to have a van or SUV or wagon for moving the kids back and forth from college or something, but two big cars? My family has always had two sedans and I never understood it. This was before gas prices went through the roof. I also thought they they would someday be able to make a car which ran on Pepsi or Coke but that hasn't developed yet. I think that the future of big family automotion will probably be in the one regular car one small car model.

People are saying that the Mets have about $10 million left to spend but I don't understand why that is. Why would you spend money to a ceiling only to guarantee yourself to be in the thick of the race when that next $10 million carries so much more utility? Spending money to go from 80 to 85 wins doesn't help much, but from 95 to 100 wins you are guaranteeing yourself a playoff spot and a dominant squad with a chance to go far. Why have a hard payroll ceiling that you keep the same each year? That being said, I think that the Mets should jump all over the depressed market.

I'd like Oliver Perez at 3 years and 11 million a piece, or 4 years and 9.5 million apiece. If he wants the additional year, he gets less AAV. If he wants to play for money and get a new contract, he should take the 3/11. More than that begins to look like an overpay.

I'd also like the Mets to get Adam Dunn. I would love it. With Burrell signing at a pittance, and a ton of outfielders available, I think this is our chance. It looks like a no brainer to me, despite his lefthandedness. Sign Dunn and then move him to 1B next year when Delgado moves on. I really think this is a no brainer.

Reyes, Church, Wright, Delgado, Beltran, Dunn, Tatis/Murphy, Castillo would form a dominant offense. It splits up the lefties and righties, and its deep... with a perennial 40 home run hitter batting 6th. It would also help us avoid throwing money at a loser like Hudson.

I liked Obama starting in January of 2008, so I was on the bandwagon early. Furthermore, I think its time for everyone to get off his junk and let him do his job. I will not buy a single piece of Obama merchandise, and whenever CNN shows a special on him I fight the urge to vomit. He hasn't done anything yet. (edit: well, now he's issued some executive orders but still).

I think that we need to switch to a simpler tax structure. Not necessarily more or less, but we should tax more on income and stop taxing every little thing. Maybe we abolish the sales tax to try and stimulate spending. We've got to close the loopholes available only to the rich.

Mets Acquire Santana!

Today the Mets acquired Johan Santana. I decided early on that I was going to delay talking about Santana until he was officially a Met... I didn't want to get my hopes up only to have them crushed yet again.

But now we have him. It's a small miracle. Pending the physical and contract extension (which, knowing the Mets, might be more of an obstacle than we think) well have obtained Johan for a package of four prospects. I'll take another look at those prospects in another post.

What I want to do here is take a look at Santana. We all know he's good. Sure, he's great. But just how good is he?

Santana
Career: 93-44 record (.679 win pct)
1308 2/3 IP
3.22 ERA
1.094 WHIP

Two Cy Young Awards, one third place finish, one fifth, and one seventh.

His career had a slow start, as for some reason the Twins were very conservative with him at the beginning. He made the majors in 2000 at the age of 21, then had an even shorter stint in 2001 before logging some major innings in 2002. In '02 he started 14 games and relieved in 13, posting great numbers: 2.99 ERA and 1.22 WHIP and about 11 k/9.

He wasn't in the rotation to start the year in 2003 either - logging only 158 innings in 18 starts and 27 relief appearances. This may have been an accidental blessing. By the end of his age 24 year, he had only logged 342 minor league and less than 400 major league innings in his six years as a pro. The innings had increased to 160 when he was 20, before the Twins brought him up and mixed him in as a reliever and spot starter in 2000-2003.

Santana's Value to the Mets
In 2004, he became JOHAN! for real. It was the first season in a four year stretch (dating to today) where he posted at least 219 innings and an ERA of 3.33 or lower. In those four years, he has struck out 265, 238, 245, and 238 batters. In their history, the Mets have only had 22 seasons where a pitcher has struck out 200 batters or more. They have had ten seasons where a player struck out 230 or more, the vast majority of which came back when pitchers - such as Seaver - pitched nearly 300 innings.

To narrow it down even further, the Mets have only had FOUR seasons where a starter has managed to strike out more than 9.5 batters per nine innings... and that is Santana's career AVERAGE. Yeah. Think Dwight Gooden. Think Tom Seaver.

Strikeouts don't win games though - preventing runners and preventing runs do. This is the last stat I'm going to bore you with. Over the last four years, Johan Santana has posted the following WHIP averages (walks plus hits divided by innings pitched - basically, the average # of runners they allow per inning):

2004: 0.92
2005: 0.97
2006: 1.00
2007: 1.07

Over the course of their history, Mets starters have only had SIX seasons where a pitcher has allowed a WHIP of 1.00 or less. Santana has already done it three times in the explosive American League. Speaking of which, Pedro had one of those seasons back in 2005.

Statistical Nuggets
Nate Silver projects Santana to have a 2.98 ERA and strike out 239 hitters next season. (Keep in mind that these computer projections are always somewhat conservative - there is a regression to the mean evident in all of them. The stars are likely to exceed the stats projected simply because there are so few players like them.)
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=738

These are Santana's career inter-league stats: 182.2 IP, 16-4, 191 K, 2.27 ERA, 0.91 WHIP.

Overall
We know Santana is good. But how good is he? Well, to put it gently... he's entering his age 29 season. He's won two of the last four AL Cy Youngs. He's first in strikeouts and wins in the last four seasons, and there are no signs of let up. He has good natural stuff. He knows how to pitch. He's athletic, had limited innings when he was younger, and handled this whole trade situation with tact and aplomb. His most conservative projections have him at a 2.98 ERA.

I think Santana is going to come here and post approximately a 2.70 ERA. Shea is a pitcher's park, and so are the parks in Atlanta and Florida. Philadelphia plays in a bandbox and we're not sure yet about the new Washington stadium... but overall, park factors should play a slight factor.

He is exactly the kind of acquisition that transforms your franchise. A dominant ace - the best pitcher in baseball - changes EVERYTHING.

#3 Oliver Perez, 3.56 ERA in 2007
#4 John Maine, 3.91 ERA
#5 El Duque, 3.72 ERA

That rotation, fronted by Pedro and Santana, can be historically good. Aside from El Duque, none of these pitchers project to be an above-average injury risk. By getting Santana, each of these guys slides down a slot and the only weakness, the #5 spot, is now occupied by Santana instead of Mike Pelfrey or some other unknown quantity.

This isn't some blind homerism - Santana could win 20 games. With the Mets offense, Santana could win even more than that. He instantly becomes the front runner for the Cy Young award, and is going to be in the prime of his career for the next five years. The future is bright indeed.

p.s. If I have any time (which I won't) I'm going to take a look at the potential 1-2 combo of Santana and Pedro to see if it is one of the best ever.

Mike Jacobs Traded to KC

I've always been a big Mike Jacobs fan. Not necessarily because I thought he'd be the next big thing, but because... well... Mets prospects usually suck and he looked like he had a shot to become a useful major leaguer. And he has.

Back before the 2006 season, we traded Mike Jacobs for Carlos Delgado. At the time, I acknowledged Jacobs' future averageness -- but make no mistake, averageness is an asset. Young players who are not eligible for free agency who can hit and field well enough to be useful are a huge asset. So what has Jacobs gone on to do?

Year - Age- ba / obp / slg
2006 - 25 - 262 / 325 / 473
2007 - 26 - 265 / 317 / 458
2008 - 27 - 247 / 299 / 514

A really interesting career path, thus far. In 2007 he was injured, and in 2008 he underachieved what people expected of him. Why? Well, I believe there are two distinct factors working against him. First, I think he was a little injured. Second, I think that he sucks at cavernous Dolphin Stadium, and that he would do well to leave Florida (where everyone swings for the fences).

As to the injury, the first half of his season stunk. He may have been recovering from the injury, whatever, I do not know. But this is his split for the second half of the year.

195 at bats, 13 home runs, 41 rbi, 20 bb, 46 k, .255/.326/.531 -- 857 OPS

It's not good to cherry pick stats, but I think this is useful. 200 at bats is a worthy sample size, and its not like Mike Jacobs doesn't have the track record to project to that kind of production. In fact, given that he hit approximately that line (with less power) as a 25 year old, there is no reason to think that his actual talent level is somewhere near that as a 27 year old... or better.

Here's the other split.
Home: .238/.273/.484
Away: .258/.325/.547

Dolphin Stadium kills this guy. Once again, splits can be deceiving, but this is a very, very distinct split. Using baseball-reference to normalize Mike Jacobs' stats to a 750 run environment (that's the average amount of runs a team should expect to score) his line ups noticeably -- 33 hr, .253/.304/.524.

Now listen, this isn't a guy I expect to set the world on fire here. But there is plenty of reason for optimism. As a 22 year old, he posted a 924 OPS in Double-A. The next year, he was injured. As a 24 year old, he finally broke through, posting a 965 OPS in Double-A before being called up directly to the major leagues. In 100 at bats with the Mets, he hit a freakish 11 home runs and slugged .710.

Nobody expects him to repeat that, but he can definitely improve. He's 6-2, 200 pounds. He's got a sweet lefthanded swing. He was great in the second half last year and has a great minor league pedigree. His batting average on balls in play last season (which had never been below .294) dipped to .260 last season, indicating that he may have been unlucky.

Although his OBP was atrocious this year (as was pointed out by nearly everyone who analyzed the trade) there is reason to believe that it will improve. It was .298 last year but for his career is .318 and he is just now entering his prime.

Team context matters too. As a team, the Marlins were 20th in on-base percentage last year but THIRD in home runs. You never know what will happen when Jacobs gets out of that environment -- and it is worth taking a chance on. He's 28, he's healthy, and he's already hit 32 home runs in a season and slugged over .500. That's enough for me.

Out of Miami, different league, different park, different coach, no injuries, entering his prime, minor league skills, an age-25 season where he had a .325 obp, coming off his worst year as a pro, and given neutral luck? Steal for the Royals.

Mike Jacobs 2008: 27 2b, 32 hr, 93 rbi, .247/.299/.514
Fearless Prediction: 33 2b, 29 hr, 103 rbi, .269/.338/.490


Edit -- October 5, 2009
I was WAYYYYY wrong on this one. For some reason, Mike Jacobs went on to post BY FAR his worst season as a professional. He hit 19 home runs, but hit only .228. He posted a pathetic 84 OPS+. Why? I have no idea. After almost 1500 professional at bats, he fell off a cliff.

Mets Prospect Questions

Having been completely devastated by the Mets trade of Lastings Milledge, I look to what remains of the farm system for consolation. Some players you might not know about who are close to The Show.

Carlos Muniz - P - 26
Not sure why he has been buried for so long. Muniz posted a 0.45 ERA and struck out a guy per inning at Brooklyn in 2003 in his professional debut. He then spent all of 2004 and most of 2005 toiling at A-ball or lower. When he finally made it to High-A St Lucie, he posted a very nice line of:

3.14 ERA
48 IP, 44K
1.15 WHIP

Given his lower minors performance, this should have been predictable. But now, he's 25 and still at A. Why? He spent 2007 closing for AA Binghamton, posting another great line of:

2.45 ERA
58.2 IP, 62K
1.02 WHIP

Still, great. He also collected 54 saves in those two seasons. Upon his callup to AAA, he went unscored-upon in 5.2 innings, with a WHIP of 0.88. He also had a two-inning cup of coffee in the majors which I watched. He didn't look spectacular, but he looked decent. He looks like the type of guy who could really help the back end of the bullpen if he was ever given the chance.

I think he sticks with the big club for 2008. He has a career minor league line of 3.32 ERA and 1.15 WHIP, despite being a little old for each level (good job). He should help this year. According to ZiPS projection, he will post a 4.92 ERA and 1.42 WHIP. I think that's a little pessimistic, but if he posts a 4.5 ERA he'll be an asset.

Adam Bostick - P - 24

One of the acquisitions in the Henry Owens/Matt Lindstrom trade, Bostick has been underwhelming. He posted a 5.66 ERA this year for AAA along with an ugly 1.56 WHIP. Encouragingly enough, he allowed only 106 hits in 97 innings while striking out 91 in a hitter-friendly league, but he walked 45 guys. He seems to have had control problems his whole career, with a minor league average of 4.5 walks per nine innings.

Maybe a switch to the bullpen might help. His strikeout numbers are good and he is lefthanded - guys like that pitch forever. He's having a nice offseason in the AFL with an ERA 1.42 and 17 strikeouts in 18 innings. He's the kind of guy you keep an eye on and hope he gets a little better grip on his control. He's not too old to do so, but its unlikely he amounts to anything as a starter.


Phil Humber - 24 - P

Speaking of hitter-friendly AAA, did you know that Phil Humber, just one year off Tommy John surgery, was in the top ten in ERA, fifth in strikeouts, and FIRST in WHIP in his league last year? He allowed only 1.24 walks+hits per inning and struck out almost a batter per inning in the most hitter-friendly league in all of baseball.

I expect big things from Humber this year. Pelfrey, not so much.

Mets Trade Lastings Milledge

Mets Trade Lastings Milledge

World ends.

We traded 22-year old Lastings Milledge for a 31-year old catcher who can’t hit and for a 28-year old right-fielder worse than him. We traded him within the division. This is a nightmare scenario.

Why?

Unless there is something that I don’t know about him behind the scenes, this is a horrible trade. There is literally no way around that.

Comparison to the Kazmir deal

This is not as bad for a couple reasons. Kazmir’s deal was made for even dumber reasons than this – the Mets thought they were in the playoff hunt when they were not. Kazmir was a better prospect than Milledge, and we got less in return. Zambrano was worthless. Church and Schneider are at least okay.

Schneider

Is going to start every day. This isn’t awful. He’s supposedly a great game-caller and will allow Castro to be a super-sup. However, he can’t hit. He really can’t hit, even for catchers. He also is old, will deteriorate defensively, and due $10 million dollars in the next two seasons. We already had a player just like him – Johnny Estrada. I liked the Estrada deal – no, I loved it. Estrada isn’t the best, but he isn’t the worst either. He’s younger and has some upside. Schneider is more expensive and done.

Church

He’s alright. Unfortunately, he’s older than Milledge and not as good. Certainly, he’s not even as good as Milledge today, and Milledge has serious upside. He’s got doubles power, and plays decent defense. He also bats left handed.

Milledge

Even if Milledge is a failure and does not progress one inch beyond where he is today, the trade is bad. But… that’s ridiculous. This is a kid who hit .300 in his minor league career despite being two to five years younger than everyone at his level. He was the top prep talent in the country and the best position player available in his draft year. Best case scenario the trade is bad – worst case scenario its an absolute disaster.

I don’t think Milledge is the next coming of Gary Sheffield – but he’s a good player. He’s a natural centerfielder and he hit .275 as a 22-year old. He made huge strides in between 2006 and 2007, despite missing a huge chunk of time with a broken foot bone. As I said before, I see Lastings’ upside as an above-average centerfielder who can hit .330 with 20 home runs a year. I see him as a Tony Gwynn with more power and less walks. Like Andruw Jones with less power. Like a miniature Sheffield with good defense. He’s not a Hall of Famer, but he might be the best player on the Nationals as soon as next year.

It's a bad trade, there's no other way to cut it. It is a clear indication of our organizational philosophy and of Omar Minaya's thinking. Just because you have two other highly-regarded outfielders coming up, doesn't mean that you should get eighty cents on the dollar for the one who is already established.