Is Zack Wheeler Overrated?

On my way to bed tonight, I took a quick look over at Metsblog to see is there were any interesting stories I missed today while in the midst of work and riveting debt-ceiling talk. Turns out that this afternoon they posted a link to the new Baseball America Top 10 Prospects list, which considers the state of the farm system as it is today post-trade and post-draft. Here's the list:



Zack Wheeler ascends to the top spot on the list, surpassing even Matt Harvey, the Mets highly-touted draft pick from last season. And for what reason, you may ask? Well, apparently, Wheeler has a really high ceiling. People like him a lot. Some of the good stuff?

--Project Prospect said that his curveball "has elite, two-plane break and is a no-doubt swing-and-miss offering."
--Baseball America in 2011 ranked him as the Giants #2 prospect and said that he "threw an easy 94-97 mph fastball" and called his changeup "functional."
--Here is a clip of Wheeler pitching this season which has been linked a few times, but may be worth another look:



But so far, none of this has translated to professional success for young Mr. Wheeler. So far this year, despite a decent enough 3.99 ERA, he has posted a 1.37 WHIP and walked 4.8 batters per nine innings for High Class-A San Jose in the California League. He's striking out a lot of batters as well, with 10.0 K/9, but for reference, he's walking the same amount of batters per nine innings as Oliver Perez did in 2008, when he was making everybody into a mental patient. His 3.99 ERA also checks in as the fourth highest ERA among regular starters on that team although, once again, his strikeout rate is elite.

But at this point, all the scouting accolades have not manifested in his actual pitching. And for those of you who would point to the fact that being drafted by the Giants portends success, Tim Lincecum dominated at San Jose (1.95 ERA, 0.90 WHIP) as did Matt Cain (1.86 ERA, 1.03 WHIP), as did Madison Bumgarner (1.48 ERA, 0.98 WHIP). All those pitchers were kept, while Wheeler was traded.

Does Wheeler stand a chance to be great? Sure, I hope so. And of course, I am no professional scout. However, you heard a number of similarly glowing things about other Mets farmhands, yet the hype machine doesn't care about them because they were not involved in a big trade.

How about Matt Harvey? His fastball "sits in the 92-96 mph range and touches 98," similar to Wheeler (link). He's 6-foot-4 with a "power curve" and flashes of above average breaking stuff. Just as importantly, Harvey dominated at High Class-A this season when Wheeler struggled, posting a 2.37 ERA and 1.19 WHIP with 10.9 K/9 and only 2.8 BB/9. Harvey has struggled somewhat in Double-A, but his fantastic strikeout to walk ratio has remained the same and he is only 29 innings into his stay there. So far, Harvey has been a tremendous success.

How about Jeurys Familia, who was a forgotten man after his struggles in 2010? He is seven months older than Wheeler, but he is putting up almost identical stats to Wheeler but is doing so in Double-A rather than Single-A. Familia has put up a 3.38 ERA, which is good, but his secondary stuff is a little rougher, with a 1.36 WHIP, 4.0 BB/9 and 10.3 K/9. When he was in High Class-A to begin the year, he dominated with a 1.49 ERA and a strikeout per inning.

Here is a clip of Jeurys Familia striking out ten batters in a minor league start on June 18th of this year.



I don't mean to lose you with all the numbers, but Familia, who also throws 92-96 with the fastball (link) has been projected by some as a "bullpen guy" while Wheeler has been touted as a potential ace. I certainly hope that Wheeler does well, but until he shows me something in the minor leagues, or until the scouting reports of his actual pitches improves -- rather than forecasts of future improvement -- I don't think he deserves the #1 spot in any Mets prospect ranking.

Fonzie Forever's 2009 Non-Tender Candidates Review

Before I start taking a look at the 2010 non-tendered players and trying to decide who might be a good fit for this season's Met squad, I figured it would be instructive to look at a couple of posts from last year to see who I liked and didn't like from that year's scrap heap. Without further introduction:

INTERESTED:

Matt Capps

He was coming off injury last year, and there are a lot of reasons to believe that he was just unlucky. His fastball last year was the best it has ever been... He allowed only 18.7% of hits against him to be line drives... he may have been a little unlucky with home runs...The Mets should scoop this guy up quick.

Matt Capps was an enormously successful pickup for the Nationals last season. Capps signed for $3.5M, with bonuses that could bump it to $3.95M. He had a fantastic season, posting a 2.47 ERA and 42 saves and made the all star team. To add injury to another injury, when the Nationals fell out of contention, they were able to trade Capps to Minnesota for top catching prospect Wilson Ramos.

Ryan Church

He is a great defensive outfielder. His UZR/150 for his career as a left fielder is +3.7, and as a right fielder is a phenomenal +14.2... His average value from 2006-2008, per year, was around $7 million. I think Church... would make an *excellent* fourth outfielder...

Ryan Church took a pay cut to $1.5M last season but absolutely collapsed, hitting only .201 and posting a .265 OBP. He was an minor asset defensively, but was overall worth -0.2 WAR. Man, what happened to Ryan Church?

Jack Cust

Cust is another guy who would be helpful if he could be had cheaply. He could provide late power off the bench, and might want to come to New York to be part of a contender after spending his career in Arizona, Baltimore, San Diego and Oakland on bad teams.

Cust was great last season! He earned $2.8M for his work and batted .272 with a .395 OBP and 13 home runs in only 113 games. According to fangraphs he was worth $9.6M. You may be surprised to know that defensively he graded out as basically even, but only played 105 innings in the field. For his career, he was a negative fielder. Either way, Cust had a great, cheap season.

Ryan Garko: I'm confused about Ryan Garko - he was terrible last season in AAA. There's got to be something we don't know about that story. He earned just above the minimum salary.
Andrew Miller: The former first round draft pick was also a disaster last season.
Neal Cotts: Cotts signed a minor league deal this year but did not pitch anywhere because of injuries. Source.
Jonny Gomes: Jonny Gomes actually had an entire post devoted to him here at Fonzie last offseason:

The Mets absolutely NEED to be in on Jonny Gomes right now, as he is still a free agent. Gomes hit a great .267/.338/.541 for the Reds last season... his career marks are good for a 109 OPS+... he CRUSHES lefties - hitting .307/.369/.545 against them last season... His best offer on the table now is a minor league deal from the Reds. How come nobody will give this guy a major league contract or guaranteed money?

He plays a poor outfield, but did post a +2.2 UZR/150 in left field last season over 253 innings. Maybe we can slap a first baseman's mitt on him and have him back up 1B, and LF. Either way, he would be a strong option to pinch hit off the bench late in games, could grab an occasional start against lefties, and occupy the last spot on our roster.

He actually had an interesting season, did Gomes, as he got to play almost every day for the first time and posted 86 RBI with a 758 OPS. He had a down year offensively - probably a result of playing every day despite his platoon split - but was atrocious with the glove. Who knows, with these things?

Anyway, he was worth -0.1 WAR, which I believe could have been a decent sized positive WAR had he been used properly -- he actually had a 856 OPS vs lefties last year and a 709 OPS vs righties. He probably has a future career as a part-time DH as a Marcus Thames type. He earned 800K last season.


NOT INTERESTED
Garrett Atkins

For what it's worth, I think Atkins is done. Atkins' OPS has decreased steadily over the last four years, from 965 to 853, to 780, and then bottomed out at 650 last year. His career statistics away from Coors Field have been terrible. He is only 30 years old, but he was never the most physically fit player. Finally, he experienced a drastic jump in walks last season (from 40 in 664 ab to 41 in 339 ab) -- which is usually a bad sign for players at the end of their careers.

Get this - Atkins was the highest paid player on this entire list and was absolutely awful last year. He earned $4M for the Orioles to post a 562 OPS, hit .214, and butcher the ball defensively. He was actually worth NEGATIVE $4.4M.

You may remember that Atkins was a Metsblog obsession for a while -- good thing we dodged that one. And as for the Orioles, well, that's why they're the Orioles. It's interesting to note, however, that Fangraphs actually endorsed the move and that the fans were also wrong, projecting Atkins at $5.8M in value.

-----------

So where does that leave us? Certainly, I'd say there were more hits than misses, and especially big hits on Capps, Cust, and Atkins. Another lesson, if there is any, is that projecting a bounce-back for a hitter who is in a pattern of decline wasn't a good bet last year. Garko, Atkins, and Church were all bad. And those with big platoon splits, which would include Gomes, might not be as valuable as they appear to be on paper before they are exposed as every day players.

All in all, it appears that Capps, Cust, and Gomes, were worth their investments, while Church, Atkins, Cotts, Miller, and Garko were not. All in all, there are some big dividends to be reaped in the non-tender market with relatively little risk. I hope the 2010 Mets take a few chances.

Tune in soon for my review of the 2010 non-tender candidates!

Bobby Parnell Has Suddenly Become Very Important

Bobby Parnell was very impressive last night. As Gary Cohen noted during the broadcast, Parnell threw over a dozen pitches at 100 mph or faster, as well as a couple at 102. I didn't see it, but the NY Times claims that he threw a pitch at 103 as well.

Putting aside the issue of whether the gun was fast (it was), Parnell was throwing some serious heat last night. The fastball was darting and tailing, and the slider was a wipeout pitch. If Parnell can continue to pitch like that, he is going to be very very good. Very.

Talk About Mismanagement

I don't know why Michael Baron is writing for Metsblog because, seriously, this guy has all the answers! He is seriously like way more smart than anyone in the Mets ownership, or the management, or their confidants, friends, wives, husbands, sisters, brothers, or dogs. Take a look at how simply he explains everything to us!!

But here we are, in August, 2010, and not only have the Mets become irrelevant once again, but the fans AND the media continue to talk about the past, and harp on the past as well.

It’s not either the media’s or the fans’ fault, as the Mets themselves have not given anyone a reason to forget about what has happened – to the contrary, we continue to get beaten up by the losing, and the distractions, and the bad attitudes – all of which seem to stem from Beltran’s strikeout almost four years ago and serve as constant reminders of what this organization has been through and put us through over recent years.

The simple fact is this – it’s up to the Mets, and ONLY the Mets to make the past the past. Right now, the past is very much a part of the present, ranging from their productivity on the field, to their collective attitudes in the front office, dugout and clubhouse. The only cure for that is to not rely on history and to not rely on hope for success, because those two elements are haunting them and killing them at this very hour, as McCarron clearly points out.

The Mets have to find a way to re-discover what made this franchise so promising in 2005 and 2006, and bring in the necessary people to restore that promise – whether it’s a manager, General Manager, coach or player, or all of those combined. And even if they do that, I don’t think it stops there – it’s a change in team building philosophy from the depths of the minor leagues all the way to Citi Field, developing a plan for success, and applying that plan to each and every employee they hire into the organization, and ultimately just put the pedal to the metal and win.

Until the Mets acknowledge this problem and stick those two parts together, the past will always be attached to the present.

Like duh! See everbody?! It's not that the Mets suck, it's their attitudes!! It's not that the other teams SCORES MORE RUNS THAN US MOST OF THE TIME. Let's just fix those attitudes.

Then, we have to discover whatever it was that made us successful in 2005 and 2006, and just DO IT AGAIN. Why didn't we think of that? Why didn't the Mets just repeat the formula of those successful seasons? We must be SO DUMB. To think, all this time, the Mets brass had no interest in putting those parts together, and instead chose to be stupid and suck!

...

Sarcasm aside, is this for real? I don't know whether I should just ignore it or feel insulted that - of all the really good, insightful research and writing that there is online - this is the stuff which is considered content on the most widely read baseball blog in the universe.

According to their counter, Metsblog had EIGHTY THOUSAND VISITORS YESTERDAY. Eighty thousand. To put it in perspective, that's the approximate attendance of 2.5 actual real life Mets games. The influence that Metsblog wields among the fanbase is enormous.

Do you think it's a coincidence that Mets fans over the last five years have become a caricature of themselves? That everyone, both baseball fans and otherwise, see the Mets as a snake-bitten, whiny, neurotic, dysfunctional, second-rate organization? The content of the official sanctioned home of the Mets would indicate as much.

Listen, I think everyone has as much right as anyone else to write, to be read, to get feedback, and to contribute to an interesting discussion on the team that we all collectively enjoy to watch play baseball. But the above linked article is just ... the opinion of one dude. It amounts to nothing more than speculation from a source with exactly as much credibility as any nice guy you might meet in a bar or who might call into WFAN at 3 in the morning.

With sites out there like Amazin Avenue, Metstradamus, Hot Foot, and otherwise, all churning out excellent insightful content day after day -- why is the above article the one which gets posted in a place of such influence?

And what is that impact of it as far as local and national media -- is it that far out to think it might even affect the team directly? Remember, one link to an article about the Mets payroll scenario for 2011 seems to have resulted in an avalanche of articles in the last few days about the future.

What responsibility does Metsblog have, knowing the breadth of its readership, to ensure that its own content doesn't make matters worse? Should it report the news in an unbiased fashion like a media outlet? Should it function as a wholly-owned subsidiary of SNY and perhaps paint a rosier picture? Does it as an entity owe anything to anyone at all?

---------------
UPDATE: August 16th, 1:20PM:

Based on some reader response, I just want to be clear here: I don't hate Metsblog. I actually like Metsblog. I think it's a great source of information, I think Matt works very hard on it, and I think they do a great service by linking to things that people might not otherwise see. I think they do a good job and that Matt in particular does his best to educate himself as he goes along.

With that said, I stand by what I wrote above. Metsblog is great, but it occupies a very interesting and unique niche -- it's a very widely read blog. Is it as influential as I think it is? Does it have a responsibility to report fairly and accurately as opposed to with an angle? Does it have a responsibility to provide quality content rather than speculation?

By all accounts, Michael Baron is a good guy. I love his pictures. I know he's a fan. I just find myself wondering whether content like the above-linked post belongs in such a prominent place in media.

Who is Mike Pelfrey?

Metsblog had an entry today asking the above question, and I can understand their frustration. Many Mets fans are confused about Pelf, not knowing who he really is as a pitcher:

Is he the guy who was 9–1 with a 2.39 ERA in his first 14 starts of the season?

Or, is he the guy who is 2–6 with a 7.98 ERA in his last eight starts?

I don’t know the answer. I do know he’s getting roughly the same level of strikes he was getting in the start of the season. However, the opposition is hitting more line drives and less ground balls, and more of those line drives are falling in for hits, compared to the start of the year.

So, it would seem he is making more ‘mistakes,’ be it with command or location… and when he does, he’s paying for it.

Sadly, I think the answer is simpler than people make it out to be.

According to fangraphs, Pelfrey has been almost identially the same pitcher over the last three seasons. His xFIP, by season:

2008: 4.49
2009: 4.52
2010: 4.50

Why am I looking at xFIP? And what is it? According to Matthew Carruth of Fangraphs:

One of the more difficult puzzles to crack has been evaluating pitchers due to how entangled their performance is with that of their defenders. Accepting the move from ERA to Fielding Independent Pitching is probably the single biggest step one can take on the right path of separating the two, and Simmons has made that leap.

Home Runs allowed, an important input to the FIP formula, are not as skill-based as had been thought throughout history. ... xFIP exists to correct those home run rates. It is simply the FIP formula with an expected home run rate based on fly
ball totals, rather than actual home run rate.

xFIP is just a slightly more advanced form of FIP, which is an improvement on ERA because it corrects for luck and the influence of defense, and evaluates pitchers solely on things they can control.

According to FIP and xFIP, Pelfrey has been basically the same pitcher for the last three seasons, with flucutations based somewhat, if not mostly, on random variation. For a guy who allows so many balls to be put in play, this is to be expected.

Is he as good as he was early this year? Is he as bad as he has been recently? Probably neither. A realistic view of the numbers shoudl have indicated all along that his early season improvement was an outlier.

For what it is worth, I believe that part of Pelfrey's early success this year can be attributed to his additional confidence and the addition of the splitter. Because of this, I don't think he's necessarily a 4.50 xFIP pitcher permanently. He's still young, and will improve and learn, but he's certainly way closer to a 4.50 pitcher than a 3.00 pitcher right now.

-----------
[1] Also worth noting, we first discussed Pelfrey, xFIP and tRA back in December right here on Fonzie Forever:

The thing about Mike Pelfrey that confuses me, is why everyone expects him to be good. He's never shown us anything. His best stretch ever was in 2006 in AA, when he posted a 2.71 ERA. The next year, in AAA, he was getting hit around at a 4.01 ERA and 1.35 WHIP pace. There was room for growth, but as a 23-year-old, he didn't have the makings of an ace.

I was glad when [Pelfrey] broke through in 2008, but I wasn't really expecting it. The truth is, he was a little lucky in 2008 and a little unlucky in 2009. His tRA (a metric which is available on fangraphs and is explained here) has his tRA as 4.49 in '08 and 4.52 in '09. And all things considered -- like, with what we saw with our naked eyes -- Pelfrey was very much the same guy. The real difference between that year and this one was that more hits made it through the infield and less guys got stranded on base - his fastball was the same speed, he walked and struck out about exactly the same number of batters.

I see Pelfrey's luck turning again this year, at least back to average.

David Wright's Ever-Increasing Swings-and-Misses

Interesting little thought-provoker on Metsblog today that I wanted to touch on. Perhaps in response to my post from yesterday, Metsblog published a little thoughtful blurb about D-Wright's struggles. In pertinent part, it said:

Yes, he is striking out WAY too much. But, if he puts the ball in play, it tends to fall for a hit – especially against left-handed pitching, and at the same rate from seasons past. I mean, despite all the criticism, the kid is batting .293 and already has nearly as many home runs as he had all of last season.

So yes, good. I agree wholeheartedly. Later on, however, he mentions kind of off-handedly something pretty interesting:

The difference is the swing and misses, which could be because he is getting more pitches outside of the strike zone – evident by his increase in walks, as Ted Berg pointed out to me on Instant Messenger.

Makes sense! The theory jives with what has been happening in real life. However, it takes only a two minute glance at fangraphs to confirm and expand on that little nugget of observation.

This year David Wright is 1) swinging at more pitches out of the zone, 2) swinging at less pitches in the zone, 3) getting less pitches in the strike zone 4) and making less contact on ALL of them. That's.... not good.

So yes, he's getting more pitches out of the zone. In fact, his zone% has decreased from 48.8% to 43.5% (his career rate is over half). But that's not the whole story. His swing and miss percentage has gone from last year's 8.4% and career mark of around 7% to an epic 11.1% this year. He's making worse contact on each and every kind of pitch he is thrown -- and the numbers are at by far the worst rates of his career.

This matches the eye test. He's getting less strikes, he's swinging at more stuff, and he's missing more often. He's missed what seems like dozens of fat fastballs in the strike zone over the last week -- perhaps a side effect of expanding his zone? Who really knows? But Metsblog provided me a little food for thought, and I think it deserved expanding on. David Wright is our best player and these numbers should be cause for concern for everyone, even if he is going well so far this year.

A Rotation Rotation and Musings on Velocity

Per Metsblog:

According to Marty Noble of MLB.com, a person with knowledge of the Mets pitching plans says they might move Jon Niese to the third spot in the rotation, with Maine and Perez to follow.

…if this were the case, then it looks like Pelfrey would remain in the number two spot in the rotation…either way, it appears the Mets are at least recognizing the problems behind Johan Santana in the rotation…

Original Post, 6:41 pm:

Adam Rubin of ESPN New York says Mike Pelfrey will not be starting the second game of the season against the Marlins at Citi Field.

…interesting…i wonder if John Maine will get the start over Pelfrey, and what this means for the rest of the rotation…

Pelfrey is expected to start on Friday night against the Rays at Tropicana Field, followed by Oliver Perez and Jon Niese on Saturday against the Orioles in Sarasota.

In addition, Rubin says both Omir Santos and Fernando Martinez will start the season at Triple-A Buffalo.

To follow Rubin at his new Twitter account for ESPN New York, click here.

As far as I can tell this is a non-story. It just looks to me that Manuel wanted to break up the lefties in the rotation. If the original rotation was Santana-Pelfrey-Maine-Perez-Niese, you'd have three lefties in a row. Now, it alternates. You'll still have two lefties in a row later in the year when you stop skipping the #5 spot in the rotation, but at least the second lefty will be Santana.

However, the blurb about the order of the rotation got me thinking. Provided Santana, Pelfrey, Maine, Ollie, and Niese are the five starters - is this the hardest throwing group of Mets starters we've ever seen? I decided to take a look at some average fastball velocities by year. Thank you as always, fangraphs.

Last year we had Livan Hernandez in the rotation instead of Niese, so they automatically lose to the 2010 version. In 2007 the staff was anchored by Glavine and included Orlando Hernandez in addition to the Pelfrey-Maine-Perez triumvirate. The 2006 team featured Pedro, Glavine, Trachsel, Orlando Hernandez and Maine as their top five. A quick inspection turns up no challenger in the recent years.

You might actually have to reach back a whole decade, or more (if ever) to find a Mets staff with more prodigious fastballs than this one. The 2005 team has a chance, if you remember Kris Benson or Victor Zambrano throwing particularly hard. I didn't. Benson averaged 90.2 in 2005 to my surprise, but Zambrano averaged 89.6. With Glavine, Pedro, and Kaz Ishii making up the rest of the starting five, you know they didn't bring as much heat at this year's edition.


I thought the 2002 team maybe had a chance to challenge with a bunch of one-and-done Mets in Pedro Astacio, Jeff D'Amico and Shawn Estes supplementing Trachsel and Al Leiter... but Astacio (89.6), D'Amico (87.6), and Trachsel (87) were all below my expectations. For some reason I remembered Astacio being a hard thrower - but memories fade, especially in an era of Met irrelevance.

So, with fangraphs pitch data ending at 2002, that brings us back to this year's squad. With Maine averaging 92.1 on his fastball in 2008 and 91.3 last year, he'll be around there again. Even the injured version of Oliver Perez averaged 90.0. For his career it is a robust 91.2. Although much has been made of the decline of Johan Santana, his heater averaged 90.5 last year after a season of 91.2 before that. Pelfrey leads the way at 92.6, while Niese brings up the rear at 89.6 last season.

Not that this necessarily portends a good year - throwing harder means nothing on its own - but it's something that stood out to me upon review.

------------
Note 1: I realize that injuries to intended starters might skew this - comparing our projected top five to the actual top five of previous years. But with Nelson Figueroa (88.2) and Fernando Nieve (92.2) the likely replacements, it doesn't really matter.

Note 2: I think the 2000 rotation might have had a chance if Leiter and Hampton threw a couple of miles per hour harder in their primes than they did by the time 2002 rolled around. The 1999 team with Orel Hershiser and Rick Reed taking 40% of the starts likely didn't have a chance either.

I would love for someone who has been around a little longer to take a shot at identifying a Mets' starting rotation who may have thrown as hard as this one. Maybe one of the historians over at Faith and Fear? Could Doc and Darling and El Sid bring the heat?

The Talent Is On The Doorstep

Two days ago the Times ran a great piece on the Mets farm system entitled "The Mets Future Suddenly Feels Far From Barren." The piece was written by David Waldstein, who Metsblog recently gave props to, calling him "smart" and that he is "doing a terrific job." I'd tend to agree.

Here are some snips:

Manager Jerry Manuel has been raving about the prospects who he thinks could help the Mets this season — like 20-year-old Jenrry Mejia, who has drawn comparisons of sorts from Manuel and Dan Warthen, the pitching coach, to both Mariano Rivera and Dwight Gooden...

The promising first baseman Ike Davis already has 12 total bases in 13 at-bats, including one towering blast that Manuel said was hit as far as any ball he has seen at Port St. Lucie. Manuel said Davis could also prompt him to rethink plans to send him down to Class AAA Buffalo if he continues to hit the way he has...

If Josh Thole, a young hitter with a sweet swing and a burning desire to improve, continues to learn his position, he is likely to be the Mets’ catcher of the future.

* * *

And finally, Fernando Martinez, who may be the best of the team’s prospects, hit two solo home runs and had four hits in four at-bats.

* * *

Only six games have been played, and this is the time for the young players to take the field. As spring training progresses, more at-bats and innings will be taken up by the veterans as they prepare for the regular season. But with Mejia, Davis, Thole and Martinez, the Mets’ future may not be as bleak as it appeared a year ago.

It's a short - but very good - read. Waldstein seems to take a good objective look at things, especially in the way he referred to Fernando Martinez. It's easy to forget about F-Mart this year, with all the hype around Davis and Mejia, and maybe that's a good thing.

For the spring, in case you are wondering, Martinez is hitting .588/.556/1.176 and leads the team in total bases.

And even if you don't think that any of these players are going to be world-beaters and all-stars, it's hard not to agree with Manuel's assessment when he says:

“What happened last year is that those guys were, like, a year away,” Manuel said. “And now if anything were to go wrong in terms of questions of depth, we’re seeing some young players come up and play extremely well...

“The talent is on the doorstep,” Manuel said. “It’s not in the living room, but it’s right there waiting.”

And although I think I join a majority of sabermetrically inclined Mets fans when I say I'd prefer to see Mejia starting in Binghamton rather than setting up in Queens - it is undeniable that these prospects all seem to be blossoming at the same time.

From the blue-chippers who have a chance to become stars someday (Mejia, Martinez) to players who have a decent chance of being good regulars (Davis, Thole, Havens, Niese) there is opportunity. And just as importantly, there is a whole crop of players who could be useful parts and cheap - including guys like Parnell, Kunz, Takahashi, Figueroa, and Gee.

The talent is on the doorstep, and it will be interesting to see how much is there.

-----------

[1] Ok, I didn't really look hard. Or at all.

Thole Starting? Not So Fast...

Via Metsblog:

According to Brian Costa of the Star Ledger, Mets GM Omar Minaya has said Henry Blanco will be the team’s back-up catcher, “We don’t see him as a full-time guy.”

So, in terms of the starting catcher, Minaya said, “It’s going to be between Omir Santos and Josh Thole.”

The 23–year-old Thole hit .321 with three extra base hits in 17 games for the Mets last season.

My how things change. It was only a few weeks ago that the Mets were dead-set on bringing in a veteran catcher and pushing Thole to AAA for at least the early part of 2010. Now, all of a sudden, he is being considered an option to start?

We have been on the Thole Bandwagon here for a while. In fact, we may be DRIVING the Thole bandwagon:

I just want to put it out there right now. Josh Thole could be a stud. He could be up with the Mets THIS SEASON. He's hitting .352/.447/.451 with AA Binghamton as a 22 year old. He's had more walks than strikeouts the last three seasons... I know this is a long shot, but... keep your eye on Thole. - May 7, 2009

However, he should not be considered for the starting role at this time. In November, we wrote an article here saying that the Mets should avoid free agent catchers and give Thole a chance to take the starting job.

I don't think that Thole is ready to dominate the National League. In fact, I think Thole might end up being a better baseball player over his career if he had more time in AAA to learn and maybe hit for a little power. However - if there ever was a time to throw a rookie into the fire, it is now.

My justification for letting Thole start was two-fold. First, there didn't appear to be any backup plan behind Santos. Second, I thought the Mets were going to be fielding a better team and having a legitimate chance to win in 2010.

Oliver Perez Loss In Fastball Velocity

I am working up a big post on Oliver, but since his drop in velocity was in the news today, I figured I would excerpt the relevant portion today.

Metsblog relayed an article by Matthew Carruth over at fangraphs today pointing out that Oliver Perez was among the "leaders" in velocity lost off their fastball between 2008 in 2009. Oliver's fastball was 1.2 mph slower in 2009, which was the 15th biggest loss in baseball.

Matt Cerrone had this to say about that finding:

…i have to think that is mostly because of his knee, and not being able to get the right pivot off his front leg…

I could not agree more with this.

Can John Maine's Struggles Be Explained By Calling Him a "Thrower" Instead of a Pitcher?

Metsblog forwarded an article on to us from Metsmerized Online where they say that that John Maine's struggles can be blamed on his inability to mature as a pitcher. I'll let the article speak for itself:

It takes time to learn the game and learn the hitters. One has to become a ‘pitcher’ and not a ‘thrower.’ However, John Maine has shown none of this. And he needs to!
* * *
...over time, John has not really improved. He is still a thrower, not a pitcher. He has not grown at all in 4 seasons and is no more of a force now then he was as a rookie, maybe even less. Not only have his numbers not improved but they have actually gotten worse.

His ERA has risen each year from 3.60 to 3.91 to 4.18 to 4.43. His K/9 has decreased from 7.1 in 06 to 6.1 in 09. He is walking more batters now then he used to, going from 3.3 in his rookie season to 4.2 last year. He also needs to learn how to conserve pitches. One of his big shortcomings has been his inability to pitch deep into games.
* * *
But if Maine continues to flounder yet again, to not reach back for something extra, I see us spending a long summer counting down between Johan’s starts.

Is that really a fair assessment?

In a word? No.

In Defense of Marty Noble

For some reason, earlier today, Metsblog and Amazin Avenue (and perhaps others) linked to a blog called Fire Jerry Manuel and their article criticizing Marty Noble's recent defense of his Hall of Fame ballot. The blog post was insulting, crude, poorly-written, impetuous, and I think casts all bloggers in a very negative, very stereotypical light.

Sure, Marty Noble can at times be condescending. Sure, I don't agree with every word out of his mouth. But all things considered, I think Marty Noble has a good grasp of the game, works hard, and does a decent job of covering the Mets. It's no secret that the man comes from a different generation -- but make no mistake, he is not Murray Chass, Part 2. He is far from the worst beat writer out there.

And for him to be attacked, sometimes nastily, as he was by the Fire Jerry Manuel blog post, and for that blog post to be linked by two of the most influential Mets fan sites on the internet, is a shame. Considering the already-existing rift between "old school" writers and the sabermetric community, garbage like that post post should never have been written, much less linked.

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:

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.

DeRosa Not Worth The Cost

Metsblog.com relayed a report by the Boston Globe saying that Mark DeRosa's asking price may have come down to $10 million. They opined:

…i like DeRosa in a platoon situation with Daniel Murphy, and i also can envision him in a part time role in the outfield…i would not look for him to be an everyday solution right now, but his versatility is something i feel the Mets could use, especially with all of the health issues that has plagued this team in recent years…

I respectfully disagree. Daniel Murphy had a rough season last year, hitting only .266/.313/.427. Mark DeRosa, on the other hand, was almost EXACTLY the same hitter, batting .250/.319/.433. They were nearly identical.

However, DeRosa is expensive and older. DeRosa is going to play this season at age 35. His career batting line is .275/.343/.424, although he had a nice little stretch from 2006-2008. The point is, he is old and getting older, and his absolute ceiling is that of a hitter with an 800 OPS.

Metsblog mentions DeRosa's versatility as a plus, but it is common knowledge that baseball players defensive value falls off a cliff in their 30's. Just because a guy PLAYS several positions, does not mean he plays them well. He went from a peak defensive value of +7 in 2006, to 1.7, to -0.9 and then finally down to -2.7 last season. He had a -8.7 UZR at third base last season and he was atrocious at second base the last time he played there - although his stats in the outfield were great in limited action. The stats back up what common sense and personal observation would imply - that DeRosa is a not one of those useful swiss-army-knife players anymore.

Basically, DeRosa would be relegated to the outfield or to first base, and he does not hit NEARLY well enough to justify a contract at either of those spots.

If the Mets want to bring in a platoon partner for Murphy, who struggled against lefties last year, there are other options, including many non-tendered players. Jack Cust has a career 864 OPS against righties and 58 home runs in the last two seasons. Ryan Garko has a .313 career average and 887 OPS against lefties. Another site speculated that Troy Glaus, a career .277/.399/.558 hitter against lefties, could be an option as well. All would be infinitely cheaper and more useful than DeRosa.