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.
No comments:
Post a Comment