Carlos Beltran is not a free-agent acquisition, nor is he playing in 2010 like an All-Star. (In fact, his offense this year has been too close to non-existent.) But if you have any belief at all in the concept of history repeating itself, you’ve got to be expecting good things from the man.
For a moment, let’s make believe you don’t know who Carlos Beltran is. Well, I’ll tell you. He’s a 33-year-old centerfielder who is seemingly somewhat past very prime. (He’s not exactly old, but he’s not 26, either.) On his resume reside a Rookie of the Year award, five All-Star games, three Gold Gloves, two Silver Sluggers and two Fielding Bible awards. He has a career .282/.359/.495 batting line (118 OPS+), has topped 25 home runs six times, and has had seven seasons with 100 runs scored and eight with 100 RBI. According to baseball-reference.com, three of his top five similar batters are Hall of Famers (Andre Dawson, Dave Winfield, Billy Williams; Shawn Green and Bobby Bonds round out the group).
Which is all to say that Carlos Beltran is really, really good. Now, granted, most of that’s history. But Babe Ruth’s career up to 33 was all history, too, and all he did to that history was add four 40 home runs seasons to it. Ted Williams’ two MVPs and two wars were history when he was 33; all he did was add two batting titles and three league leaderships in intentional walks (and OPS+ over 200 three times in rather full seasons).
Beltran is 33, not 53. He may be a shell of his former self, but I think he’s still a darn good shell. Having barely played in the last year, is Beltran rusty? Probably. But wait for the rust to wear off, and see what shines underneath. It may be a diamond.
And seriously, even if it isn’t, would your really rather see Jeff Francoeur out there?
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Taking Stock
The 2010 season is past the actual and theoretical halfway points, and a look at the baseball* world brings a lot of surprises: The Royals stink, the Giants have good pitching, the Yankees are in first place - oh, surprises? Not so much.
I mean, most people would probably have pegged the Red Sox at less than 7 games back, and I certainly didn't expect to hear this much Angel Pagan-lauding, but like a Hershey's bar and a tank of gas, the first four months of this baseball game have basically given you what you expected.**
*I'm going to congratulate myself right here for remembering that August 1 is Mike Piazza's birthday. I must say, however, that I'd probably be congratulating myself somewhat more heartily if it were actually, you know, his birthday. In fact, I'm off by more than a month, as his birthday isn't until September 12. Stay young, Mike.
**The All-Star Game notwithstanding.
The Mets, as might’ve been expected, were neither laughably bad nor haughtily good in the first 4 months of the season,* and the time period has yielded surprises both good (Mike Pelfrey can pitch) and bad (no he can’t), but the Mets when all is said and done, are – and this really feels exciting after the meaningful-game drought that was 2009 – in the hunt.
*Honestly, that’s not true. They were both laughably bad AND haughtily good. But their season thus far has been neither.
I’m not going to say that at 6.5 games back of the wild card the Mets have a real good shot at winning, but I think the current angle for any Met-minded person has got to be, “Well, we’ve got a much better shot than seven back with seventeen to play, right?”
Which they do.
I mean, most people would probably have pegged the Red Sox at less than 7 games back, and I certainly didn't expect to hear this much Angel Pagan-lauding, but like a Hershey's bar and a tank of gas, the first four months of this baseball game have basically given you what you expected.**
*I'm going to congratulate myself right here for remembering that August 1 is Mike Piazza's birthday. I must say, however, that I'd probably be congratulating myself somewhat more heartily if it were actually, you know, his birthday. In fact, I'm off by more than a month, as his birthday isn't until September 12. Stay young, Mike.
**The All-Star Game notwithstanding.
The Mets, as might’ve been expected, were neither laughably bad nor haughtily good in the first 4 months of the season,* and the time period has yielded surprises both good (Mike Pelfrey can pitch) and bad (no he can’t), but the Mets when all is said and done, are – and this really feels exciting after the meaningful-game drought that was 2009 – in the hunt.
*Honestly, that’s not true. They were both laughably bad AND haughtily good. But their season thus far has been neither.
I’m not going to say that at 6.5 games back of the wild card the Mets have a real good shot at winning, but I think the current angle for any Met-minded person has got to be, “Well, we’ve got a much better shot than seven back with seventeen to play, right?”
Which they do.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Is that really Jermaine to the Matter?
Like professionals in many industries*, performers in the field of sport often don't know when to stop. Fans of baseball are no strangers to this social fact. In his last year, Babe Ruth batted .181,** about half of his lifetime .342 average. Willie Mays hit .211 with 6 home runs in close to half a year's worth of games in 1973. Bob Gibson went 5-10 with an ERA over 5 in his last year, 1975. Christy Mathewson was 12-18 with an ERA+ of 74 in his last two years (1915-1916). The names abound. Three-Finger Brown. Lefty Gomez. Robin Roberts. Lou Gehrig. All these men were clearly overmatched before they decided to retire.***
*Think Richard Nixon.
**Though, with a 118 OPS+.
***There have certainly been exceptions. Joe Dimaggio, Hank Greenberg and Tom Seaver were notable players who defied this rule, but the exceptions illustrate the rule.
Were they trying to hold onto the fame that they'd acquired, feeling that retirement would propel them into an abyss of depression? Perhaps. Were they, realizing that their livelihood was nearing its end, desperately trying to stick around and make as much money as possible? Perhaps. Were they, like nearly every other member of the human race, unwilling to admit that age had caught up with them? Perhaps. Were they simply continuing the course of work that they had been involved in for most of their lives? Perhaps.
But when you get down to it, many athletes, many people, stick around at their trade until they embarrass themselves and those who must watch them.
Which brings me to Jermaine Dye.
Coming off a 2009 season in which he batted .250/.340/.453 (103 OPS+), Jermaine Dye found himself without whatever he deemed an "appropriate" job offer. His hitting last year was not without value. Had he made a statement in which he said something about being less than 2 years removed from a 34 home run season, well, that would be a nice marketing job. Had he said something about being less than 4 years removed from a 44 home run season, well, that would seem rather weak, if not entirely irrelevant.
But, no. According to this, Dye said (in February) “It has only been 41/2 years since I was the World Series MVP.” Which, seriously, says just about nothing.
Honestly, for a man who got some MVP consideration in 2008, is he really attempting to get a job because of a good week (4 games, by the way) he had in 2005?
I don't know about you, but if I were him, I'd be talking about the 133 homers I hit from 2006-2009, not the four-game set in Fall 2005 in which I hit one.
*Think Richard Nixon.
**Though, with a 118 OPS+.
***There have certainly been exceptions. Joe Dimaggio, Hank Greenberg and Tom Seaver were notable players who defied this rule, but the exceptions illustrate the rule.
Were they trying to hold onto the fame that they'd acquired, feeling that retirement would propel them into an abyss of depression? Perhaps. Were they, realizing that their livelihood was nearing its end, desperately trying to stick around and make as much money as possible? Perhaps. Were they, like nearly every other member of the human race, unwilling to admit that age had caught up with them? Perhaps. Were they simply continuing the course of work that they had been involved in for most of their lives? Perhaps.
But when you get down to it, many athletes, many people, stick around at their trade until they embarrass themselves and those who must watch them.
Which brings me to Jermaine Dye.
Coming off a 2009 season in which he batted .250/.340/.453 (103 OPS+), Jermaine Dye found himself without whatever he deemed an "appropriate" job offer. His hitting last year was not without value. Had he made a statement in which he said something about being less than 2 years removed from a 34 home run season, well, that would be a nice marketing job. Had he said something about being less than 4 years removed from a 44 home run season, well, that would seem rather weak, if not entirely irrelevant.
But, no. According to this, Dye said (in February) “It has only been 41/2 years since I was the World Series MVP.” Which, seriously, says just about nothing.
Honestly, for a man who got some MVP consideration in 2008, is he really attempting to get a job because of a good week (4 games, by the way) he had in 2005?
I don't know about you, but if I were him, I'd be talking about the 133 homers I hit from 2006-2009, not the four-game set in Fall 2005 in which I hit one.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
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?
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?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, March 8, 2010
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).
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).
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, January 29, 2010
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.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
"Lots of Passed Balls"
As Casey Stengel said, "If you don't have a catcher, you'll have lots of passed balls."
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.
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.
Monday, January 18, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, January 4, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
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!
Monday, December 21, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
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 10th-best (at the time, now it's 11th) P-S # single-season mark ever. Do you see the problem? He was traded halfway through that year, and played the 2nd 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.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)