Who's Got The Dough?

There's a time and place for everything, and considering the hour, this is not the time for blogging.

Yet, I'd just like to point out that the 6 most highly-paid players in baseball play in.........New York.*

*What were you expecting - Kansas City?

Taser

For the most part, I keep my nose (or, at least, my blog's nose) out of the realm of politics. And, for the time being, that will continue.

So, no political implications should be taken from this link. But I do urge you to read it and laugh.

Consistent Inconsistency

Do you know what it means to be busy? Good. Because now I have a lot less to explain about why I haven't been posting.

The Mets now stand at 18-16 on the season, 2.5 games out of first place (they're behind the Phillies and the Nationals). Coming after last year, it's kind of a breath of fresh air, because while the Mets are not doing all that well (and are EXTREMELY streaky) they're doing alright and hanging in there in the divisional race.

I don't know if this is good or bad, but it seems like nearly everybody's either really good or really bad. David Wright, Jeff Francoeur, and Jose Reyes headline a crew that is either doing nothing or everything right.* The rotation has seen no-one in complete command. Mike Pelfrey, who started this season in nice fashion, has now put together two far-from-quality starts out of his last three. I'm not saying there's cause for concern - though health concerns may exist - I'm just saying that (while baseball's long season almost requires inconsistency over the long haul, it seems like) the 2010 Mets are consistently inconsistent.

* I say this on an individual basis. Players are streaky, but they are not coordinating with one another.

Not good; not bad. Weird.

On the Upcoming Season

Opening Day's about a week away, and it's time to look at the upcoming season - in foresight - and make some predictions. They're going to be wrong - heck, they're always wrong, but what're you worth if you can't make mistakes on your own blog?

I'm going to go position by position, and give my ratings, both objective and subjective (as compared with the 2009 Mets).

Catcher - Rod Barajas is hardly somebody to write home about, but compared with either Brian Schneider or Bengie Molina at five times the price, his acquistion was a quite logical move by the Mets.

He should provide some pop, but his high in OBP (for a full season) is .306. Last year it was .258.

First Base - Daniel Murphy should be better this year than last year for a few reasons:

1. Age - He's about to turn 25, and is probably getting better.
2. More experience should make him a better first baseman
3. More experience should make him a better hitter.

So, yes, I think he's going to be better than he was last year. In a league with Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Adrian Gonzalez, Lance Berkman and Ryan Howard as other first basemen, I'd give Murphy a very slim chance to make the All-Star team.

Second Base - Luis Castillo's signing has been widely scoffed at by the world at large. And I'm not here to defend it. But according to fangraphs.com, Castillo was worth more than what he made last year. If he's similar to what he was in 2009, he'll be quite serviceable. But, at his age, decline is to be expected. Still, if he's close to last year, it'll be hard to keep complaining about Luis's contract.

Third Base - David Wright had (statistically) a freakishly weird season last year. A lot of people expect his power to rebound. Personally, I'd be surprised if he hits 10 (or fewer) homers in 2010, but without knowing why he hit so few home runs last year, I can't quite convince myself that he'll hit 30 this year.

The thing is, even if he loses his power stroke completeley, like last year, he's still an extremely good baseball player. His fielding, batting and baserunning are all quite good. He's just not MVP-caliber without the power, but he's still excellent.

Left Field - Jason Bay will probably (i.e. he'd better) hit better than 2009 Met left-fielders, and I think he'll field out there a lot better than Daniel Murphy, too. The guy's good.*

Center Field - Carlos Beltran will probably be back soon and have a phenomenal year. He's going to knock over 25 home runs and he's going to have over 100 RBIs. And play Gold Glove defense. He's probably the best center fielder in baseball. And in the last 12 seasons, he's been caught stealing 38 times.

Right Field - Jeff Francoeur leaves, I suppose, some room for hope. I'm probably least optimistic about his upcoming year than I am with any other Met.

*And for all those who like to point at his 36 home runs last year being in his first full year with the Red Sox, he only hit 15 home runs at Fenway Park. And only 2 were at Yankee Stadium.

That's it for the starting lineup. No guarantees, but pitchers, the bench and that ever-elusive might fast shortstop may follow in a future post.

On Fernando Martinez

Fernando Martinez is something (or, perhaps, someone) that I have spent some time thinking about. Obviously, it's way too early to know what will become of him, and I think that a lot of Mets fan were rather disappointed in the way that he performed in his tours of duty in 2009. Which is understandable. When your number one prospect is struggling to approach .200 and has an OPS+ of 38 (Johan Santana OPS+d 33 last year), discouragement is a rather natural reaction.

Here's the thing. Fernando was just 20 years old last year and was the second youngest player in the National League. (Giants pitcher Madison Bumgarnerthe youngest). He couldn't really have been expected to flourish at such a young age (and with the dearth of AAA experience that he had) at the major league level.

Also, and I thought this was very encouraging, Martinez could field quite well. Often, a player is touted as a five-tool prospect, yet he lacks the instincts to playe the field well. (Lastings Milledge is a textbook example of this .) This doesn't* seem to be the case with Martinez.

Now he just needs to hit.

* Fangraphs.com is not all that happy with Martinez's fielding, but it's a small sample size, and as such, I think we can ignore it for the time being (i.e. until the sample size grows).

Officially Psyched

It's Spring Training in Port St. Lucie, and hope is in the air. Hope for a fresh season. Hope for an about-face by those Mets. Hope for summer.

No, I'm not going there. Enough of that is written by, like, people who write that type of stuff. I'm not necessarily against the "hope"y slant, but I think it's overdone. Here's the problem - perhaps more than most previous years, I really feel it.

Reyes hitting a triple, Jon Niese saying that he's fine, a little battle for the first base position, Fernando Tatis breaking in all his gloves (it was third base yesterday, what do you think it'll be tomorrow?)...what can I say? As I sit in the snow in New York (and if you're not around here, it's A LOT of snow) things are just looking up -- way up.

And I don't care if it's too poetic. That's how I feel!


Golf Point: There's a headline on ESPN.com reading "Report: Tiger at home, getting into golf shape." Now, I don't consider myself a golf expert by any means, but isn't the whole point of golf that you don't need to be in shpae to play it?

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's kind of what I thought.

Who's on First?

Apparently, the Mets have first base up for grabs between Mike Jacobs and Daniel Murphy. Depending on his (and whoever wins the job's) production as the season wears on, Fernando Tatis figures to see a reasonable amount of playing time - at least against left-handed starting pitchers.

If you ask me, Daniel Murphy has to be given the upper hand. Mike Jacobs has had his shot - and he hasn't done much with it. People have gone from really high on Daniel Murphy to really low on him - both on offense and on defense - in the space of a relatively short period of time. Now he's hardly a fan-favorite, but you've got to remember - the guy has had less than 650 at bats. I know some people have given up on him,but I just don't get it.

On a somewhat different note, in case you're wondering just how the at-bats will be divvied, I did a little research on the primary candidates for first base.

Fernando Tatis performs slightly better against lefties than righties. The difference is rather slight, but it is there. Fernando is basically Todd Walker against righties and Kevin Millar against lefties.



Daniel Murphy has hit better, though not drastically, against righties than lefties. His power, however, is virtually the same either way (and his isolated slugging is higher against lefties). Against righties, Murphy is basically Eric Hinske, and against lefties he's pretty close to Juan Uribe.

Mike Jacobs is much, much better against right-handers than against lefties. Against righties, Jacobs is basically Alfonso Soriano; against lefties he's not (as crazy as this sounds) so much better than Rey Ordonez (he's got a lot more power, but doesn't get on base as much).

What does this mean? Well, technically, nothing - it's all history. If Mike Jacobs hits like it's 2005 again, no-one will care that he couldn't hit for beans last year or against lefties in 2010. If Daniel Murphy turns into Keith Hernandez, yeah, I think New York would be content. If Fernando Tatis hits like Bill Clinton was still president the Mets might just win the National League.

But, as occurs with any history-related findings, the past can give us a window to the future. Cats don't usually fly. Pumpkins don't turn into carriages. And the Mets depending on Fernando Tatis to hold down first base or Mike Jacobs to hit left-handed pitching is nearly the equivalent of putting a nail in that coffin labeled 2010.

Their hope just may lie in the person of Daniel Murphy.

Bases on Balls

Sky Andrechek, here, writes about the statistical revolution in baseball and how it is not really affecting the on-field play. As such, he opines, fans who would like to ignore sabermetrics can do so, even with their eyes open. 

One of the things he writes is that walks have not gone up since the publication of Moneyball in 2003. Which doesn't seem like a proof to me.

Sabermetrics attempt to find objective truth in baseball. The traditional view was that batters who "luckily" walked should not be rewarded for the pitcher's inability to throw strikes. Of course, a base on balls is not actually a construction of the pitcher. But on the other hand, it is not entirely a construction of the batter.

Andrechek (and others) have noted that walks have not gone up in the last several years. I'm not sure why you'd expect them to have done so. True, batters are now more aware of the value of the walk; organizations are telling them of it. But pitchers are now aware of the danger of the walk, and, I'm sure, are more hesitant about issuing free passes to those who'd like them.

With one group trying to increase walks and one trying to decrease them, one can hardly express surprise when the numbers don't change.

Mystifying

The Mets, as you no doubt know, traded reliever Brian Stokes to the Angels for outfielder Gary Matthews, Jr. The move was clearly in part due to the fact that Carlos Beltran, of late knee surgery, is expected to be out for around a month at the beginning of the season.

Gary Matthews is not a very good ballplayer at the Major League level. In about half a season's work last year, he had 4 home runs, a .250 batting average and OPS+d 83. In 2008, he had 8 home runs, a .242 average and a 77 OPS+.

Sabermetrics are a hot topic in baseball today, but I think it's pretty clear that all the complicated formulas (or at least most of them) have some use. Perfection may not exist*, but I think that at the very least they provide insight into baseball.

* For example, many point out that while on-base abilities and slugging abilities are not equally valuable, they are counted equally in OPS.

Fangraphs.com assigns a value to every baseball player, based on offense, defense, baserunning and defensive position. In 2009, according to their calculations Matthews was worth negative 3.8 million dollars. In 2008, negative 3.6. And he's not at an age where improvement can be expected - he's 35 years old!

Stokes, on the other hand, was (according to Fangraphs) worth 0.6 million dollars in 2008 and negative 1.0 million last year. His ERA+ were 120 and 104. At 30, he's also significantly younger than Matthews, and as such, less likely to decline in 2010.

It's hard to believe that the Mets could not acquire a backup outfielder without giving up a decent bullpen arm.

Remember, they have Angel Pagan, who should be able to play the bulk of the time until Beltran gets back. So what the Mets seemingly acquired is a backup outfielder for a month. Fernando Martinez could probably perform those duties. Heck, for a couple of games, the Mets could put Nick Evans in left and Bay in center, forfeiting nothing out of the bullpen.

Or, even further out of the box, perhaps David Wright could man center field for a spell. (There were rumors about a potential move to the outfield when Alex Rodriguez declared free agency in 2007.)

One of the few redeeming qualities about the 2009 New York Mets was its quite decent bullpen. Messing with it more than is necessary seems questionable.

"Lots of Passed Balls"

As Casey Stengel said, "If you don't have a catcher, you'll have lots of passed balls."

Bengie Molina, who nearly everyone thought the Mets were going for, is now off the market, having been re-signed by the San Francisco Giants.

As things stand, the Mets starting catcher is probably Omir Santos. Which is terrible. Or is it?

Last year, Bengie Molina threw out 23% of would-be base stealers. Santos threw out 30%. Molina OPS+d 86; Santos 82. Molina obviously has much more of track record, but Santos is at a much more favorable place, age-wise.

When you consider that Molina would have cost the Mets more (probably much more) than 4 million dollars more than Santos, I don't think it's a bad choice.

Particularly if they put that money into the pitching staff.

Because with bad hurlers, you get a lot of wild pitches.

On Mark McGwire

You may be sick of reading about Mark McGwire's confession about steroids. And I'm not writing about that (not now, anyway).

I want to talk for a moment about his non-confession in 2005 in front of a Congressional Committee. Mark famously said "I'm not here to talk about the past," for which he has been roundly bashed.

Obviously, Mark, you're not here to talk about the past. That's why you're discussing it!

And I've said similar things, myself. But honestly, what did you want him to say?

There are two other options:

1. A lie
2. The truth

Well, it's pretty clear that his statement was better than option 1, so it really comes down to option 2. I mean, he clearly didn't want to admit his steroid usage. He wasn't going to do it, so he took the only way out.

Sure he came out looking like an idiot. But this man's not being investigated for perjury.

Jack Morris - Hall of Famer?

Among the many things that inspire vociferous debates of baseball - and there are many - resides the ever-present Hall of Fame talk. Who should go in, and who shouldn't. I've given my thoughts (here) on Mark McGwire, and now I'd like to delve into a few of the other popular candidates.

Firstly, Jack Morris. 44% of voters last year believed that Jack Morris belongs in the Hall of Fame. And he's got quite a fan club among non-baseball writers, too. He is acknowledged as a gamer, a man who could give you that win when you really needed it, and is considered a great postseason pitcher.

The problem? He's just not Hall of Fame quality. I've read various things about his candidacy and have never seen this essential fact: If Jack Morris gets elected to the Hall of Fame, he will have the highest ERA of any Hall of Fame pitcher. I'm not trying to disrespect him here - obviously, with 44% of voters voting for him, he was a really good, quality, effective pitcher. But if elected to the Hall of Fame, there's no doubt that Morris would be lowering the proverbial bar.

You don't like ERA? In terms of ERA+, if elected, Morris would have the third lowest - behind only Catfish Hunter and Rube Marquard. So he wouldn't be the worst in terms of that. But, I mean, you have to see what I'm getting at. He doesn't make the cut.

Maybe if you think about his all-time numbers, you'll get my point. Among all pitchers with at least 1,000 innings, Morris is ... tied for 469th in ERA+. In ERA (also with a minimum of 1,000 innings), he's 732nd. I'm not saying that Morris is the 732nd best pitcher in baseball history. Or the 469th. Don't get me wrong - close to 4,000 innings pitched with an ERA 5% above average is quite good. I just don't think it's worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Flushing's Bay

Reportedly, the Mets have reached a deal with Jason Bay, formerly of the Boston Red Sox and the Pittsburgh Pirates.Bay has been a perennial offensive force in the National (and more recently) and American leagues. His fielding and baserunning are both subpar, but for the Mets, a team sorely lacking in the power department, Bay seems to be a part of the solution.

* * *

Here's the thing: The Mets shouldn't (nor, I think, do they) think that this is it. The starting rotation last year was weak, when healthy. Importing a pitcher seems to be a necessity if the Mets expect to contend. I thought the pitcher who made the most sense was Jason Marquis. Apparently, either the Mets disagree, or they don't find acquiring another starter necessary.

On that side of the debate stand the facts that:

1. While only winning 70 games, the Mets' pitching overall was not horrendous. They gave up the 9th most runs in the league. Nothing to write home about, but not horrible.
2. Santana is expected to be healthy all year. That should save some runs.
3. Mike Pelfrey, after showing that he has true major league capabilities in 2008 can hardly be as bad (or, really nearly as bad) as he was last year. Also, his strikeouts per nine innings were up (a
bit) and his batting average allowed on balls in play were up (a tick), which would both seem to indicate optimisim for 2010.
4. Oliver Perez is not likely to be worth the $12 million that he'll be paid in 2010. He's also not likely to have an ERA over 6.80. (Yes. He was that bad.) There's no question that the amount of walks that Perez dispenses is alarming. However, in 2008 he had a 4.22 ERA. In 2007, he had a 3.56 ERA. I'm not willing to write off this man yet.
5. Jon Niese, who is recovering from that awful hamstring tear, could turn out to be a real stud. Supposedly, he will be ready for Spring Training, and he will, presumably be competing for a spot in the rotation. His numbers in the high minors were quite good.
6. Don't write off John Maine, either. His durability is a question mark - and that may have to be addressed - but not a definite no.

Okay, a lot of things have to go right. Maybe they will. I'm not going to say that I think all the optimism will convert itself into reality - I'm saying it's possible. And, remember, it's not like the Mets can expect to be so bad, even aside from the injuries. Honestly, Mike Pelfrey and Oliver Perez almost have to be much better pitchers this year.

Nevertheless, shoring up the back end of the rotation should be a priority. Chien-Ming Wang, at the right price, is exactly what this club needs. He certainly has the track record of being a much-better-than-effective major league starter. I don't know what was wrong with him last year. Mechanics? Mindset? Whatever. This guy seems to me to be the perfect kind of risk to take.

Also, don't kid yourself - the Phillies have question marks, too. How much does 37 year old Raul Ibanez have left in the tank? Can Cole Hamels turn his game around? What's left in Jaime Moyer's left arm?

You know, there's a really good reason for them to actually play these games!

Down but not Out - Edited

Editor's Note: Now that John Lackey has been signed, this is partially dated. Partially. There is plenty of good sense in here.

The Mets have problems. Let's not beat around the bush. When the only team you finish ahead of is Washington, you know you have problems. When even Washington has two guys who put up numbers that are pretty clearly better than your best players, you know you have problems*. When your fans are getting excited by Angel Pagan, you have problems. When there are people calling in to radio stations about the Mets, and the biggest compliment they can give the 2009 team is "Luis Castillo really had a good year. He was healthy all year," it might be time to throw in the towel.

*Adam Dunn did not hit exactly 40 home runs this year for the first time since 2004.

Here's the problem with giving up on 2010: This team is too good. I know about the lack of power. I know about the inconsistent pitching. I know about the bizarre defense and the quirky injuries. But about those injuries: Did you know that in 2008 the Mets had 3 players with over 700 plate appearances. The 2009 team's leader was David Wright with 618. The entire team was injured. Even the aforementioned Luis Castillo missed a couple of games when he tripped down the dugout steps.

Jose Reyes, however, is one of the best shortstops in baseball. He played in 36 games. Carlos Beltran is probably the best center-fielder in baseball. He played in 81 games, half a year. Out of the Mets top 5 in plate appearances, two players - Fernando Tatis and Angel Pagan - were supposed to benchmen.

There is a lot of Met-brass-bashing right now on the Mets' failure to sign RHP John Lackey. The sentiment seems to be that, sure the Mets could use Jason Bay and some hitting. But what they need, what they truly require is John Lackey to shore up the tattered pitching rotation.

Which sounds like a reasonable position. Except that it doesn't make any sense.

There are various statistics with which one could measure effectiveness - both pitching-wise and hitting-wise. The one that combines simplicity and accuracy is runs. In 2009, the Mets were 12th (of 16) in the National League in runs scored, 47 runs less than league average. On the other hand, Mets pitchers were 9th in the league in runs allowed, still well below league average (by 30 runs), but closer to the pack. The Mets had weak (or at least far from great) pitching. But that hitting was even worse.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure why nobody sees this. Maybe it was masked by the excellent batting average (the Mets led the league with a .270 average), but the Mets were a dreadful, horrible hitting team this year. They were last in home runs (by a healthy margin - 37 bombs), and 13th in walks* and slugging percentage.

* Welcome to Queens, Jeff Francoeur.

Oh, well Citi Field is a terrible hitter's ballpark! That's not clear either. The Mets hit more home runs, scored more runs, and hit for a better batting average at Citi Field than on the road. Could that have been a fluke? Certainly. But there's definitely no proof that Citi Field favors the pitchers.

The pitching was so bad last year that it's hard for me to believe that it wouldn't rebound. The hitting, meanwhile, was, in some cases, better than could have been expected. Angel Pagan, Omir Santos, and Jeff Francoeur were all probably better than could have been expected.

So, it seems as though what the club really needs is hitting - even more than it needs pitching. There's another reason that Bay would probably be a better pickup than Lackey: Bay just might be the better player.

The desire to acquire Lackey was simple: We have one really reliable starter (Santana) and even he is coming off an injury. We need another good pitcher. Lackey is the best free agent pitcher out there. Let's get him.

The push that was out there to get Lackey reminds me a little bit of the push a few years ago to get Barry Zito. Barry Zito was considered the best pitcher on the market and everyone said that the Mets should get him. Boras? Who cares about overpaying - WE NEED A PITCHER. The problem with this is that giving someone a reasonable salary will often mean overpaying him (if production should drop). If you overpay in the first place, that'll just make the problem bigger.

Lackey is a very good pitcher. He had one excellent season, 2007, when he placed third in the AL Cy Young balloting, and in every other year since 2005 he has been well above average.

Bay is a really, really good hitter. Perhaps the best way to compare these two is: Bay is a three-time All Star. Lackey is a one-time All Star. Granted, Bay was a Pirate. So, his All-Star appearances don't prove anything. But I think that in this specific instance the comparison works. Bay's career OPS+ is 131. Lackey's career ERA+ is 117.

Additionally, Lackey's excellence seems to be a thing of the past. Oh, he was certainly effective - much more than that - over the past two years. But his best numbers were accumulated from 2005-2007. On the other hand, Bay does not seem to be losing any (or practically any) of his quality. His numbers may have dipped slightly, but they're almost as good as ever.

Over the past two years Lackey has been in the top 10 in the league in a few categories - mostly peripheral (winning percentage), negative (hit by pitch) or practically irrelevant (his 1 shutout this year was good for seventh in the league), though he was 8th this year in Homers per 9 innings.

Bay, in 2009, was 10th in the AL in slugging, 9th in OPS, 6th in runs scored, 2nd in RBIs, third in homers, as well as seventh in offensive winning percentage. In 2008, he split leagues, but his cumulative totals (if accumulated in just the AL) were quite good. 10th in slugging, 8th in OPS, 3rd in runs, 10th in walks, and sixth in offensive winning percentage.

Bay's numbers are probably somewhat inflated by Fenway Park. But you should know that 21 of his 36 home runs this year came away from Fenway Park.

Anyway you cut it, the guy's a darn good hitter. And I think he's the better choice for the Mets (well, at this point, between him and Lackey he's the only choice).

Note: For the life of me, I can't figure out why the Mets didn't go for Jason Marquis. Maybe more on this at some future juncture.

Just a Couple of Thoughts

- I understand that the Yankees got Curtis Granderson in part (possibly) to have leverage in contract negotiations with Johnny Damon. I understand that they probably think that Granderson will bounce back in a similar way to Nick Swisher last year. I won't be surprised if he does. I don't understand why they are willing (if they are) to let Melky Cabrera play every day. He's not much of a hitter. He's not that great in the field, at least according to UZR. And the whole team is getting older. They honestly can't expect similar production from all or most of Posada, Jeter, Rivera. Age usually shows. I know Mariano has not broken (or come close), but seriously, do you think he can do it forever.

If they really have limitations on their payroll, I understand the move and the thought that they can live without Damon. But I have trouble believing that. To me, their too complacent. And that may just hurt them in 2009

- I don't know if Daniel Murphy can be a good everyday first baseman in the big leagues. But I don't know why other people think they do. The man, my friends, will turn 25 in April. His best years should be ahead of him. His batting line of.266/.313/.427, while far from spectacular was not far from league average. And that was in his first big league season.

As a frame of reference, I'd like to bring up a different first-year player's batting line. .266/.324/.396, with an OPS+ of 91. Pretty similar. Now this chap was 21, so a straight comparison is certainly not reasonable. But this chap is Carl Yastrzemski, so if Murph can emulate him at all, that's cool.

- I don't really get Wikipedia's sales pitch. They want people to donate money to keep them going. Or do they want money to keep themselves ad-free. I'm all for ad-free. For example, I liked baseball-reference.com better without the ads. But I don't think it's worth any significant (or, perhaps, insignificant,) money to me.

Belt-Run

Q: How many times has Carlos Beltran been caught stealing in the major leagues (answer later)?

 

Power-Speed Number* could be (badly) redefined as Belting-Running Number, or Belt-Run for short. And Carlos Beltran is, in fact, one of the greats in recording that stat. Since he began playing regularly in Kansas City in 1999, Carlos has been in the top 7 in the league in P-S # every single year (except his injury-riddled 2000, 2005 and 2009 seasons).  In three of those years, he was in the top 3 in the league. He's never led a league, however, in P-S #.

 

Or has he? In 2004, Beltran put up the 10^th-best (at the time, now it's 11^th) P-S # single-season mark ever. Do you see the problem? He was traded halfway through that year, and played the 2^nd half in the NL with the Astros. Since P-S # is an accumulating (as opposed to rate) stat, it is nearly impossible for a player who gets traded in mid-season to lead a league in it. Beltran actually came in fourth in the National League – that's how phenomenal he was. But his total number was significantly higher than NL Leader Bobby Abreu and AL Leader Alex Rodriguez.**

 

* Power-Speed Number is a metric that measures a player's ability at stealing bases and hitting home runs. What you might be thinking is "just add them together," but what that gives you will be often be an utterly dominant player in of the categories who has no real skill in the other (see Wills, Maury). Power-Speed Number takes both into equal account but also gives value to having proficiency in both areas as opposed to just one of the two (i.e. 40 home runs 40 steals nets a Power-Speed Number of 40; 60 home runs and 20 steals nets a P-S # of 30).

 

** How's that for a little Yankee-bashing. And speaking of the Yankees, I don't really get this rationale about forgetting about Damon and putting Granderson in left. The economy is bad. Long-term contracts are not available to 35 year old outfielders even if they're coming of their best season. So I don't think Damon is going to require more than, say, 2 years. Does anybody really think that 2 years of Cabrera is really preferable to 2 years of Damon.

 

Melky just finished his fourth relatively full-time year in the majors. He just had what was probably his best offensive year yet. And to be honest, it (in all of its .274/.336/.416 glamour) was not all that good. I know he should be coming into his peak offensive years, but does anyone get the feeling that he's just not that good?***

 

*** Parenthetically, Melky Cabrera's Baseball-Reference's sponsor for Melky Cabrera says (in part):

"Mike Cameron? Dude, has a career .340 OBP and he's 37. Melky, maybe now that you have a ring people will back off and remember you're 24 (with a career .331 OBP). There's plenty of time for the power to come."

 

That is so wrong on so many accounts. First of all, Cameron's 36. Second of all, Melky's 25. Thirdly, though he seems to acknowledge it, his bashing of Mike Cameron is dumb because Melky's OBP is worse. And fourthly (though he doesn't deal with this directly), Cameron is much better. In the last 11 seasons Cameron's lowest OPS+ has been 104. Melky has never cracked 100.

 

What I'm trying to say, is that the guy is a really good (and really consistent) all-around player. And here's the thing: It's not just those two stats. Beltran plays Gold-Glove defense, can take a walk and…

 

Answer: 38

 

…the man never, NEVER, gets caught stealing. Beltran has played 1562 games in his career. That's essentially the equivalent of 10 seasons in which he played nearly every game. Per season, that would mean, he gets thrown out less than 4 times a season on average. His steal number per season 28.6. He has done the equivalent of 10 seasons of 28.6 steals and 3.8 caught stealings. That's phenomenal.

 

His success rate is over 88%. That's the highest in baseball history (min. 200 steals, I think).

 

I guess I'm trying to say that this guy is a phenomenal ballplayer.

 

But you knew that.

No thanks, I'll Walk

One of the interesting aspects in the game of baseball is the intentional base on balls. It is generally given to a fearsome slugger, illustrating the long-held baseball idea that "it's better to
give four balls for one base than four bases for one ball." Just as an example, Barry Bonds was intentionally walked 120 times in 2004.
Some people feel that it is a cowardly play – there are people out there who favor banning the intentional walk – but I don't really have much of a problem with it. I don't really see how it is a less legitimate part of baseball strategy than the bunt, for example. True, the pitcher is giving up on this hitter – but it's for the greater good. The bunter, similarly, is giving himself up for what he thinks will benefit his team.*
*I'm not calling into question whether or not the sacrifice bunt or the intentional walk is a good play. I'm just saying that they don't offend me with their submission of the battle in attempting to win the war.
The weird thing about the intentional walk, however, is that it is not always given to the most feared hitters out there. It's true that the league leader will usually be the best (or one of the best) hitters in the league.* But it seems that just as often (or perhaps almost as often) intentional walks are granted to the player immediately preceding a really bad one. A lot of the time, what causes an intentional walk is not so much the batter in the box as the one in the on-deck circle.
Case in point: In 2008, David Wright drew 5 intentional walks in 735 plate appearances. Brian Schneider drew 9 intentional walks in 384 plate appearances. Wright, by the way, finished seventh in the MVP voting and won the Silver Slugger. Schneider was lynched by a mob.** Did the opposing teams fear Schneider more than Wright? No. They feared Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado more than the Met pitchers.
* The league leaders in intentional walks (going back to 2000): Bonds (5 times), Vladimir Guerrero (5 times) Albert Pujols (3 times), Ichiro (3 times), Manny Ramirez (twice) Sammy Sosa, Justin Morneau and Nomar Garciaparra.
** Not really.

Eventually, after being bad for long enough, a ballplayer can accumulate a nice chunk of intentional walks. I'm still referring to Brian Schneider, of course. Schneider, in case you didn't know, is 39th in intentional walks among active players! 39th. As in tied with Pudge Rodriguez and Miguel Tejada. He's ahead of (among many others, obviously) Nomar, Alfonso Soriano, Pat Burrell. These aren't young players who haven't accumulated them yet. They're legitimate offensive stars who've been intentionally walked less than Brian Schneider. Others he's ahead of include Jermaine Dye, Johnny Damon, Jimmy Rollins, Jason Bay.
Two others: Derek Jeter, David Wright. Tell me you can't win a bet with that one.

Worth The Risk

There are some baseball deals that are no-brainers. You know:

 

Acquire: Babe Ruth

Give up: $100,000

 

Then you have those baseball deals that make you think that the people doing them have no brains. Like:

 

Acquire: $100,000

Give up: Babe Ruth

 

Now, in truth, the Babe was somewhat of a trouble child. And he was reneging on his contract with the Red Sox. But that was some sort of dumb trade.

 

Not the point at all. The point is that these (or this) kinds of trades are outliers. Nobody argues about Milt Pappas for Frank Robinson. Nobody (especially out of Met fandom) is even discussing Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano*. And the truth is that because they don't inspire any discussion, they're really kind of boring. Not entirely boring. Rob Neyer wrote a book (Rob Neyer's Big Guide Book of Baseball Blunders) which heavily consists of really bad trades. Like Nolan Ryan for Jim Fregosi. But in general, they're kind of boring. You can make some real arguments about whether trading Aaron Heilman was smart. Not so much with Nolan Ryan.

 

* Not that anybody's discussing him either, but included in that trade was Joselo Diaz, who, as I recall, was at one time a relatively highly touted Met prospect. In the 5+ years since the Mets traded him he has reached the Major Leagues. For 7.2 innings. And an ERA of 9.39. (He's got a 14.77 minor league WHIP, so I wouldn't really expect to see much of him, henceforth.)

 

Not that this has to do with anything, but the Albuquerque Isotopes, the Dodgers AAA team, had a nice collection of former Met talent. Doug Mientkiewicz, Shawn Estes**, Scott Strickland, and Claudio Vargas all played for them this year. Mientkiewicz played alright for them, and actually spent part of the year on the Dodgers' bench.

 

Shawn Estes also pitched well, 3.07 ERA in 73.1 innings. Then something happened. My understanding (and I certainly could be wrong here) is that he thought that he merited promotion to the Dodgers, the Dodgers didn't, and he said goodbye. According to his Wikipedia page, "Estes claimed that he has not retired, but that he is simply unwilling to play AAA baseball."

 

I think the Mets should get him. I'm not kidding here. That's actually the point I'm too busy to get to because I'm doing a footnote.

 

Oh yeah, Vargas pitched well in 13 innings and Scott Strickland, who, by the way, has not pitched in the majors since 2005, recorded 32 saves, with a 2.98 ERA in 48 innings.

 

Now, what's weird about Strickland, who has not had much opportunity at the Major League level (he broke in 11 seasons ago and has 240 innings), is that for the most part he's been quite effective. In every season in which he pitched more than 18 innings, he's had an ERA+ of at least 116. For his career, he's got a 131 ERA+.

 

But it gets weirder. They can't think that he's just been luck y at the big league level, because without much exception, he's been quite good in the minors, too. He has a minor league ERA of 3.32. Last year, as I said, he had a 2.98 ERA. The year before that (also in AAA, this time with the Yankees Scranton team) he pitched 66.1 innings with an ERA of 3.53. Those ballclubs, especially the 2008 Yankees could have used a good, extra relief pitcher. But for some reason, Scott Strickland didn't get the call.

 

I don't want to belabor the point, but there's one glaring ballplayer who's getting in my way. LaTroy Hawkins gave the Yankees 41 innings at an ERA of 5.71. He got paid 3.75 million. Meanwhile, Scott Strickland has a 3.53 ERA in AAA. And remember, he's got a bit of a track record, too. His 131 ERA+ is much better than Hawkins' 104. I just don't get it.

 

Oh yeah, former Mets did pretty well.

 

** It's pretty cool to go to some great ballplayer who utterly dominated the game (Wagner, Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Pujols)'s Baseball-Reference.com page and see how freaking good they were. I don't even mean intense analysis (in the 7 years from 1910-1916, Walter Johnson had a 1.56 ERA), I'm referring to just glancing at how many of their numbers are in bold (signifying being a leader in that particular category).

 

Well, you can do the same thing with some less than awesome players. Shawn Estes had led the league in earned runs, walks and wild pitches.

 

The lesser players are usually cheaper. And worse. Which makes a lot of sense. But when they're a lot cheaper than proven commodities, they just might be worth it.

 

Take the 2009 Mets. They signed Gary Sheffield, a proven, if aged, slugger, for the minimum major league salary and he led the team in home runs (or tied, anyway). They got some serious bang for their buck. Now I know he was injured a heck of a lot of the time, but he was worth well more than the (relative) pittance that they gave him.

 

So I can't, for the life of me, figure out why people are against picking up veterans. I'm not referring to the Moises Alou's of the world, who are going to cost a pretty penny (and that's besides the doctor bills). I'm referring to the Gary Sheffields of the world. I don't even remember where it was that I heard this, but it seemed as though there was a big consensus that the Mets needed to forget about the aged. Which I just don't get.

 

Shelling out money is entirely different. You don't want to give Gary Sheffield (or Julio Franco, or perhaps Alex Cora) a big-money multi-year deal in the twilight stage of his career. But these cheap pickups of proven veterans have got to be good – both for the clubhouse and the diamond.

 

If the Mets are going to lose, I'd also rather it be with Daniel Murphy than with some aged non-Met. But extending spring training invitations to Edgardo Alfonzo, Shawn Estes and other mere possibilities might just net the Mets the 2010 version of Gary Sheffield.

 

And that's a lot more good than it is bad.

Say "No" to Mac

Mark McGwire has been on the Hall of Fame ballot for three years. He has not been elected. He has not reached 25% in the voting, which is precisely 1/3 of what it takes to be elected. Mark McGwire was a great player. So why would he not not be elected to the Hall of Fame?

There are essentially three reasons that could explain why people would not vote for him:*

1. He was not great enough to merit Hall of Fame election.

2. He was not great for long enough to merit Hall of Fame election.

3. He was a freaking cheater, and as such does not merit Hall of Fame election.

Reason 1, I believe, is patently inaccurate. Or impossible. Either way. Just to run down what this guy did: He won a Rookie of the Year award, finished as high as second in MVP voting (he figured in the balloting ten times), was a 12 time All-Star, broke a 37-year old record twice (well, technically only once, but you know what I mean), won a Gold Glove (who knew?) and three Silver Sluggers.** He led the league: in RBIs once, in homers four times, in walks twice, in OBP twice, in SLG twice, in OPS twice, OPS+ four times, and in intentional walks once. Career-wise, he's tied for 12th in OPS+, ninth in  slugging, in essence ninth in home runs (he's technically tied for 8th, but it's with A-Rod, so that's kind of irrelevant), and he's in the top 40 in walks and offensive winning percentage. He leads everyone ever in at bats per homer. Nice resume.

*Actually, four, everyone could just love the other candidates more, but that's just complicating matters.

** This, to tell you the truth, stuns me. McGwire won four home run crowns, but only three Silver Sluggers? I know shortstop is not the same as first base, but do you realize that Derek Jeter has more Silver Sluggers than Mark McGwire.

*** Interestingly enough, even though his 61 home run year, 1961, came in a lower scoring era than McGwire's 70 season, Maris's OPS+ is lower, markedly lower, than Mark's. McGwire, in '98, drew 68 more walks than Maris in '61. That probably has something to do with the fact that Mickey Mantle was protecting Maris while Ray Lankford and Brian Jordan were protecting Mac. Just saying.

In terms of McGwire's not being great for long enough, well, there's a question there. Roger Maris, whose record McGwire broke in 1998, is, surprisingly to some casual baseball fans, not in the Hall of Fame. Quite simply, he had some Hall of Fame worthy seasons, but his career numbers don't reach the mark.*** The truth is that this doesn't really seem to be true. Did he have a very long career? No. He had over 2,000 fewer plate appearances than Ted Williams who lost significant time fighting in Europe and Korea. But what's important to remember with McGwire is that he does not only have great seasonal stats (70 HR) and rate stats (10.6 AB/HR, 162 OPS+), but he also accumulated some pretty serious stats (583 HR). Was McGwire essentially a one-dimensional player? Yes. Was he awesome for a rather short period of time? Yes. But when you consider that the man is 9th in career home runs (or 8th), I think it's pretty hard to trash on his longevity.

So, it seems that if you don't think he's a Hall of Famer, you believe that because "He was a freaking cheater, and as such does not merit Hall of Fame election." Personally, I think that's pretty darned logical. Rob Neyer doesn't. Neyer says:

There have been, for many years, rules prohibiting corked bats and doctored baseballs, but we know there are players in the Hall of Fame who happily violated those rules. We also know that many, and perhaps most of the great players of the 1970s routinely and illegally ingested stimulants with the express purpose of enhancing their performance.

For me, this is the heart of the matter. Like steroids, stimulants in the 1970s (and afterward) were used as performance enhancers. Like steroids, stimulants were generally against the law, but willfully ignored by the Lords of Baseball. I would absolutely love for someone to explain to me the difference between what Mark McGwire (allegedly) did, and what the superstars of the 1960s and '70s were doing.

I think there are basically two things that are up for discussion here:

1. Pre-Canseco drugs
2. corked bats and doctored balls

I'm not going to even touch upon the amphetamines of the 60s and 70s. My opinion on steroids is simple: You cheated. Period. Why should the fact that others were doing it have relevance? If the players of the 60s and 70s were doing the same type of thing, then they, too, should not be voted for.

Neyer's first argument is "corked bats and doctored baseballs," which are of course expressly against the law. I have three thoughts about this. First, simply, three of the criteria for Hall of Fame election are integrity, sportsmanship and character.* I think a clear argument could be made that known cheaters - of any type - should not be admitted to the Hall, henceforth. But Gaylord Perry is in? So what - that was someone else's mistake. Remember, Freddie Lindstrom's in the Hall, too.

Secondly, and this applies to scuffing but not corking, I think there is an intrinsic difference between scuffing a ball (or corking a bat) and juicing. Scuffing the ball is done on the field, and I think that there is a general perception that anything that is done on the field of play, under the umpire's watchful eye, is legitimate. It's kind of like the phantom double play.

Thirdly, scuffing the ball is a situational thing. So is, to a lesser extent. Sammy Sosa** corked a bat. (Assuming that you believe he used it on purpose,) Sammy Sosa is a cheater. But what did he cheat? Well, he cheated in that at bat. And he probably cheated in a bunch of other at bats. But it's a one-time, or two-time or a twenty-time transgression. He's probably playing legitimately most of the time. When a ballplayer juices, he's changing his body. You lose the whole "Man vs. Man" struggle, because that's not what it is anymore - it's man vs. HGH-man. It's essentially man vs. robot man. More, ethically, you're done. You have illegally and unethically changed your body and there is no going back. Assume with me for a moment that Sammy Sosa used a corked bat just that once and used legal materials the rest of the time. Can that be compared with a fellow who changes his chemical makeup turning him into a Superman?

I think not.

*Please. Do me a favor. Don't take those criteria to tell you that Ty Cobb doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. If you're trying to make a conclusion about a bordrline candidate, those traits should certainly be taken into account. Cobb's statistics are so staggering that I don't think there's any relevance as to the fact that he was of bad character.

That argument is akin to claiming, if the Hall of Fame were to be started right now, that there's no way you could vote Ty Cobb in because he hit fewer home runs than Ben Grieve. There's too much stuff overflowing in the other categories (batting average, a triple crown) to make an argument against his Hall of Fame legitimacy.

** I am obviously using Sammy Sosa because I consider him a good example of someone who corked his bat. Not because I consider him a good example of someone who obviously did not take steroids.

Catch the Ball

Apparently, the Mets have re-signed infielder Alex Cora and signed utility-catcher Chris Coste. Cora's job should be similar to what it was last year, backing up the middle infielders. Coste's is somewhat less clear.

Coste, who rookied with the Phillies at age 33 in 2006, will turn 37 before the start of the 2010 season. Defensively, he can catch and play first base. Though he hasn't thus far in his major league career, in his time in the minors Coste did spend significant time at third base. (He also played some games in the outfield, but that's probably irrelevant as he's a full eight years removed from his most recent outfield appearance.

In terms of his hitting, after a very fine rookie showing in 2006, Coste's offensive game has gone downhill. Never one to take a walk, Coste has shown a declining batting average and power as he moves into his later thirties. Which can hardly be a surprise.

Though he has shown proficiency against lefties and Omir Santos has against right-handers, it would be very surprising if the Mets make these two their catching tandem. His versatility does allow the possibility of him making the roster as a utility catcher - with the ability to backup the first and third basemen - but his decline in hitting over the last few years does not make that seem very likely.

More likely, Coste is being brought in with the expectation of landing
a job in AAA, where he would be just a phone call (and a flight) away
if a major league catcher went down.

On the other hand, he may be in the fray with Omir Santos for the
backup catcher job. I'm not really sure how the Mets brass feels about
Santos.

Either way, I think the pick-up is a good one. Coste is a versatile
player, and to be quite frank, the numbers he put up after being
traded to Houston last year, .204/.259/.252, while horrendous, are far
enough from his standard that I think he could bounce back.