Thanks for the good times Carlos!
There have been recent reports that the Mets are very interested in bringing back Carlos Delgado to play 1B. Matt Cerrone of MetsBlog believes it’ll take $5M guaranteed with $5M to $8M in incentives for a guy who hardly played in 2009 and should be a DH.
If the Mets are indeed looking to upgrade at 1B, I prefer the Mets sign Adam LaRoche to a two year $17M deal. Buster Olney tweeted that LaRoche turned down a 2 year $17M deal with the Giants. With the Mariners acquiring Casey Kotchman, and the Giants discussing alternatives, Olney believes the Orioles are LaRoche’s only option. I’d imagine LaRoche would prefer to play for a contender, which may have something to do with turning down the Giants offer.
With Delgado, you are hoping he has a good year and makes his incentives. If he does, it’ll cost $10M to $13M. If Delgado doesn’t reach his incentives, the Mets are out $5M that could’ve been spent elsewhere and they get no improvement at 1B.
Â
LaRoche wants to be wanted too!
With LaRoche, there aren’t any injury concerns and he is an average defender at 1B. LaRoche would be less expensive than Delgado, and give you decent production. LaRoche’s OPS for the past 3 seasons is .803, .841 and .843.
Some may argue that LaRoche would block Ike Davis, but that’s not enough of a reason not to sign LaRoche. Can anyone here honestly tell me, that they think Davis would be ready to be the Opening Day starter next year after only one good year in the minors? Wouldn’t you be more confident if Davis had 3 solid seasons in the minors (2009-2011). Even if Davis does great in the minors in 2010, how would it hurt him to spend part of 2011 in the minors? Plus, if necessary it wouldn’t be impossible to trade LaRoche in 2011.
Opening Day First Baseman?
Personally, I think Daniel Murphy is a serviceable 1B and may surprise many given a chance to play a full season at 1B with an opportunity to continue his 2nd half surge. However, if the Mets are looking to improve over Murphy, they should sign Adam LaRoche and not Carlos Delgado.
Update: One of the great things about TRDMB, is that there is always an opportunity to learn. Prismo points us to this FanGraphs article, which suggests that LaRoche will not be worth the offer the Giants made, and that “Ryan Garko projects as a superior hitter to LaRoche and should come much cheaper.” Signing Garko would seem to be the better move for the Mets. He would provide added 1B depth should Murphy have troubles, he could be the RH 1B if Murphy struggles against lefties, he would come cheaper than LaRoche or Delgado, and there wouldn’t be any worries about “blocking” Ike Davis.
Murphy says, "Garko, you complete me!"
Fongy says, “Sign Garko!”
} – 
208 comments
Mr North Jersey
1/6/2010-11:09am at 11:09 am (UTC -4)
Minaya needs to move on Delgado may just end up being 2010′s version of Tatis in 2009.
If he signs Delgado what does that say about what they think about Murphy then? They might as well trade Murphy or bury him back down at AAA. This after all the hype Minaya spewed about him at this time last year.
Delgado may catch everything he can get to but call me crazy I think Murphy has greater range and has more chance of making that big game changing stop than Delgado ever could.
The problem is he may end up being a poor man’s version of Dave Magaden with the glove but not the bat at 1st.
saltygary
1/6/2010-11:13am at 11:13 am (UTC -4)
On the same page man, Delgado has got to go. Loved him while he was here but it’s time to go in a different direction.
I would be very fine with LaRoche but that would effectively say that Murphy has no place on this team.
Again would rather see that money go to pitching.
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-11:15am at 11:15 am (UTC -4)
with the addition of Bay and Molina, the need for Delgado’s bat dwindles more and more
trs86
1/6/2010-11:47am at 11:47 am (UTC -4)
Or increases depending on what we can get done with pitching.
prismo
1/6/2010-11:13am at 11:13 am (UTC -4)
Once again, I’ll be playing the role of Mr.Buzzkill!
I doubt that LaRoche is worth more than $8MM per year more than Murphy.
I realize people are going to say this logic is faulty, but for me it’s easiest just to look at Wins Above Replacement. Last season LaRoche’s WAR was 2.4, which is slightly above his career average. Murphy’s WAR last season was just 0.6, BUT his second half included much improved fielding (thanks to the switch to 1B) and an OPS more than .100 higher than in his first half of the season.
If the market pays around $4MM on average per Win Above Replacement, then Murphy would need to have a 2010 WAR between 0.0 and 0.5 to likely make LaRoche a worthwhile investment. So, hey, if you think Murphy will play in 2010 just like he *averaged* in 2009, this is actually a good deal. But if you think he’ll play more like the second half Murphy, or that he’ll improve at all…it’s not worth it. Better to spend the money on pitching.
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-11:18am at 11:18 am (UTC -4)
i agree Mr. Buzzkill, which is why I’d go w/ Murph. But, I’d rather LaRoche then Delgado.
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-11:19am at 11:19 am (UTC -4)
LaRoche instead of Delgado
trs86
1/6/2010-11:44am at 11:44 am (UTC -4)
The problem with that is that even though Murphy’s 2nd half was “better” his OBP was the same. A terrible .313 (actually a point lower than his 1st half). Yet amazingly his BA went up almost 40 points. He had 15 more hits in the 2nd half than first half (in 24 more PA) but the unusual thing is that all of a sudden those hits were doubles instead of singles. One other interesting note is that most of his numbers improvements came in September. Is that because he was finally locking in or is it because of the talent he faced.
.290 .308 .580 .888: in September
July and August he was still in the low to mid .700′s.
fongy2
1/6/2010-11:55am at 11:55 am (UTC -4)
Maybe BOTH!
Along with Beltran
coming back and Wright recoverd.
prismo
1/6/2010-11:55am at 11:55 am (UTC -4)
I can explain his batting average going up 40 points.
His BAbip the first half of the year was only .261, which is **extremely** below league average.
The second half of the year it was .306, which is much much much closer to league average.
This would suggest that bad luck had a large part to play in his poor first half at the plate.
trs86
1/6/2010-12:04pm at 12:04 pm (UTC -4)
So evidently assuming that he was just unlucky in the 1st half all of the hits he was unlucky on turned into doubles in the 2nd half. So not only were the “robbing” him of hits but they were robbing him of doubles.
Look Murphy might turn out to be fine but I prefer not to have 1 guy with a question mark at 1B when we have so many others in our lineup because of injury and poor performance. Even if you sign Delgado at least you have 2 guys.
prismo
1/6/2010-12:08pm at 12:08 pm (UTC -4)
It’s not that he got robbed, it’s just luck-of-the-draw ball placement.
Additionally, is it really hard for you to believe that Murphy may have improved as a player throughout the course of a full major league season?
trs86
1/6/2010-12:19pm at 12:19 pm (UTC -4)
Nope, I just don’t trust it.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-12:15pm at 12:15 pm (UTC -4)
Well, why push out one of the few guys who stayed healthy?
The pitching staff has 4 question marks out of 5. I personally am far more concerned about that than Murphy.
trs86
1/6/2010-12:20pm at 12:20 pm (UTC -4)
As am I but it’s not like they can’t do both.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-12:19pm at 12:19 pm (UTC -4)
If so many of the other positions are question marks because of injury or poor performance, why don’t we sign players to play those positions instead?
trs86
1/6/2010-12:20pm at 12:20 pm (UTC -4)
Because those spots on offense are filled by better players?
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-12:24pm at 12:24 pm (UTC -4)
Which would make them bigger question marks in greater need of having someone signed to play their positions because their loss would be greater?
trs86
1/6/2010-12:25pm at 12:25 pm (UTC -4)
HUH?
OK lets put names in.
Beltran, Wright, Reyes, Frenchy, Castillo
Those guys most likely are going no where. So if you want to take a question mark out I would think it would have to be Murphy.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-12:37pm at 12:37 pm (UTC -4)
We are referring to the players you referenced when you said:
“when we have so many others in our lineup because of injury and poor performance”
shouldn’t we be concentrating on filling those holes or protecting against those injuries rather than finding multiple players to play the position where one of our few healthy players reside?
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-12:44pm at 12:44 pm (UTC -4)
To use hip internet parlance, in response to Wanny above I say:
“This.”
manicmcreynolds
1/6/2010-2:03pm at 2:03 pm (UTC -4)
I think his low K total projects well. I think OBP will go up when he learns to lay off the “pitchers’ pitches,” the pitches a hitter can put in play but can’t do anything with.
Also think some of those 2Bs will become HRs in his 2nd full year.
dirtysanchez
1/6/2010-11:14am at 11:14 am (UTC -4)
The mets STRONGLY believe davis will be ready to go by 2011. Laroche on a two year deal will not be a good idea for them with that kind of money. Ya gotta think in 2011, murphy and davis will be splitting time at 1b which gives the mets a bench player that can cover 1b in 2011. Gado on a one year deal will be gone the next year thus averting a problem you would have with laroche who only plays 1b and the mets getting stuck with two 1b bench options. You know the mets affinity to promote talent that is not ready for prime time, so expect davis to start in 2011 and most likely delgado at 1b in 2010.
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-11:22am at 11:22 am (UTC -4)
I don’t understand the sense of urgency.
njstuckintx
1/6/2010-11:25am at 11:25 am (UTC -4)
Think Laroche would take a 1 yr deal?
Personally, I’m content with Murph, even with him playing every day. His splits aren’t drastic at all. Just want someone on the bench who can spell Murph and fill in should the injury bug bite.
trs86
1/6/2010-11:45am at 11:45 am (UTC -4)
I think LaRoche at 2/18 is very tradeable if indeed Davis pushes him out.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-11:33am at 11:33 am (UTC -4)
In the past I have expressed the idea that Case disdains here, about signing one player who then “blocks” a player in your minor league system. But I have now come around to the idea that too much is better than too little.
I always have felt that way about starting pitching, I don’t know what took me so long to embrace the concept for the rest of the team, but I now have.
If the Mets have Davis clearly ready to go Opening Day 2011, and LaRoche under contract for 1 more year, what is bad about that? It gives the Mets flexibility to trade from depth. Case, you’ve convinced me in general not to worry about “blocking” minor leaguers any more. Given that, LaRoche here for 2 years (in the context of being unsure what Murphy is going to provide and looking for more certainty) poses no problem for me.
Having said that, I repeat what others have stated above, I am fine with Murphy and would prefer that the Mets sign neither Delgado or LaRoche, and use the money elsewhere.
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-11:44am at 11:44 am (UTC -4)
welcome to the dark, i mean depth side
trs86
1/6/2010-11:46am at 11:46 am (UTC -4)
It really depends on how much money they have left. In my opinion they are better off giving LaRoche 2/18 and signing Barjas than giving Molina 2/12 and signing Garko for say 2-3.
prismo
1/6/2010-11:50am at 11:50 am (UTC -4)
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/laroches-offer
prismo
1/6/2010-11:52am at 11:52 am (UTC -4)
For the record, I totally agree (if you couldn’t tell from my post above, which I said before this fangraphs article was posted).
LaRoche isn’t worth 9MM a year, especially not to a team that already has a servicable 1B.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-11:55am at 11:55 am (UTC -4)
Given that he’s still out there and fits as a RH platoon 1B nicely with Murphy, I find the part that says:
“…Ryan Garko, who projects as a superior hitter to LaRoche and should come much cheaper.”
quite interesting.
fongy2
1/6/2010-12:01pm at 12:01 pm (UTC -4)
Sign Garko!!!!!!
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-12:03pm at 12:03 pm (UTC -4)
Can NYC handle having both Garko and Darko at the same time?
fongy2
1/6/2010-12:06pm at 12:06 pm (UTC -4)
As long as neither
is named Donnie!
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-12:06pm at 12:06 pm (UTC -4)
thanks for the linkie
Looks like signing Garko would solve all problems:
1. add depth in case of injury to Murph
2. RH platoon partner if Murphy can’t hit lefties
3. much cheaper than Delgado or LaRoche
4. won’t “block” Davis
I’m sold.
prismo
1/6/2010-12:10pm at 12:10 pm (UTC -4)
I’d be fine with that too.
fongy2
1/6/2010-12:11pm at 12:11 pm (UTC -4)
I’m with you on this Case. I don’t see the NEED for LaRoche or
Delgado.
And if Davis continues to improve and a Wiggington/Wright situation is created with Murphy, then so be
it. It’s a good situation to be in NOT
a bad one.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-12:12pm at 12:12 pm (UTC -4)
Sold too.
trs86
1/6/2010-12:17pm at 12:17 pm (UTC -4)
Depends on how much Garko gets. Rumor (yes Wanny I know that means nothing) is that he would be looking for 2/6. Not sure how much cheaper that is than Delgado?
fongy2
1/6/2010-12:22pm at 12:22 pm (UTC -4)
Time to move on from Delgado.
Who knows at going on 37 what
he comes back as. And if so, for how long?
I like the guy as a play and although I completely disagree with his politics,
feel he’s a classy guy BUT
again, time to move on.
trs86
1/6/2010-12:24pm at 12:24 pm (UTC -4)
Why if he is cheap? What does it hurt? Murphy can go play in AAA until Delgado “inevitably” gets injured. It’s not like you are making a trade. If Delgado is signed 1 year for cheap on an incentive contract knowing that if he does not perform he will have to go how does that hurt the team?
fongy2
1/6/2010-12:30pm at 12:30 pm (UTC -4)
Oh let me count the ways,money wasted which might be used for something else,he gets ST ABs guys like Murphy,Davis,etc should,he immediately becomes one of the main “voices” in the clubhouse,because of his status as a borderline HOF and leading clubhouse Lawyer(no offense Wanny),Jerry’s not so quick to make a move on him even if hes stuggling in April,May,we’ll hear “he’s rusty and needs more ABS etc,Likely is now a worse fielder at first with less range than even Murphy..That’ll make Castillo look all the worse. What else? Should I go on?? Again, I’m a big fan of his for 15 yrs now BUT Its time to move on!
trs86
1/6/2010-12:34pm at 12:34 pm (UTC -4)
I disagree with about everything stated but LOL go figure.
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-12:36pm at 12:36 pm (UTC -4)
if Mattsblog’s numbers are correct, Garko would be $7M to $10M cheaper than Delgado.
fongy2
1/6/2010-12:40pm at 12:40 pm (UTC -4)
So basically TRS,
you just wanna sign Delgado
because the numbers prior to last season on the back of baseball card are great?
Okay.
Strong argument
there.
Too bad that real life ain’t
like MLB’10 for XBox.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-12:53pm at 12:53 pm (UTC -4)
I’m not in favor of bringing back Delgado but in defense of the idea, Delgado’s numbers last season were pretty good too before the injury.
And I’m not sure his career’s work is a bad tool to use as part of his evaluation. No one has a crystal ball.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-1:01pm at 1:01 pm (UTC -4)
I agree. To me the idea of bringing him back is not ridiculous or absurd, I’d simply prefer to go any number of different ways with 1B.
One way I look at bringing back Delgado is, it’s similar to signing Ben Sheets. Both guys if healthy are capable of providing excellent production at their respective jobs.
I just think the team needs to take that sort of gamble with a SP more than a 1B, because the lineup has more proven commodities (while still being ?) than the rotation does. I think the rotation needs that “oomph” more than the lineup does.
And before anyone types “why can’t they do both?” if one considers the team already laden with too many question marks, why add two more when one of them is so less necessary than the other?
trs86
1/6/2010-1:08pm at 1:08 pm (UTC -4)
But I don’t understand why, at that cost for Delgado, we can’t do both?
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-1:15pm at 1:15 pm (UTC -4)
I’m not saying they “can’t” do both.
I’m expressing my two-part preference which is:
1). I would prefer to go any number of different directions with 1B than adding Delgado to the mix;
2). If we are approaching the topic already very concerned with the number of question marks the team has (which if I understand correctly is your premise above) then why are we going to attempt to answer question marks with more question marks?
I’m making it my personal preference to move on from Delgado and a pleasant side-effect of that (for me) is that I am adding one less question mark, especially considering it’s in an area of less need (IMO).
trs86
1/6/2010-1:19pm at 1:19 pm (UTC -4)
Because in my opinion besides LaRoche there are no other 1B out there that have less question marks for the price than Delgado.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-1:34pm at 1:34 pm (UTC -4)
I can’t possibly get into a ratio of question mark to dollar discussion with you.
I will add that the Mets (and somewhat you as well) have been asking me to have hope and faith in the starting pitchers and I have been reluctant to for reasons stated for months that I won’t rehash here.
I apparently have more hope and faith in Murphy than you do. Is that irony? I don’t know, but I think that’s how we can boil down this particular 1B need discussion.
I’m totally fine with Murphy alone, and would be equally fine if the team decided to add a RH 1B such as Garko as a potential platoon mate, backup, starter if Murphy should flop, which I don’t believe he will.
trs86
1/6/2010-12:57pm at 12:57 pm (UTC -4)
IF Delgado reached his incentives, which ideally if he did that he would have been productive enough to warrant it.
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-1:13pm at 1:13 pm (UTC -4)
incentives are usually based on plate appearances or games played, not production.
Even if he does reach his incentives, would it be worth the extra $7M to $10M?
There’s also a great chance that he doesn’t reach those incentives yet still get’s paid $5M for doing nothing. $5M that could go towards a SP, bullpen, or anywhere else.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-1:16pm at 1:16 pm (UTC -4)
This.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:20pm at 1:20 pm (UTC -4)
Obviously it can’t be based on production (they can get bonuses for MVP, AS etc) but games played. The premise would be that because of the low Salary the Mets would not be afraid to release or sit him.
I have seen really no point in Delgado’s career that if he played 100+ games that he did not produce.
Also, who are those guys that we would have spent the 5 million on? Who’s to say they even spend it?
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-2:25pm at 2:25 pm (UTC -4)
Any of the other question marks like SP, LHP, bench.
We aren’t the Yankees. $5M does matter.
Delgado is coming off a season where he only played a couple of months and you don’t see how he may not produce?
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-2:29pm at 2:29 pm (UTC -4)
And he turns 38 in June. Do you really want a 38 yr old 1B?
trs86
1/6/2010-12:15pm at 12:15 pm (UTC -4)
I think Fangraphs is a great site, but it also seems as though lately we are treating it as the baseball bible.
I did see some issues with the article. The writer compares a 30 year old LaRoche to a 35 year old DH and a 33 year old guy who played 14 games last year. No doubt that when healthy Matsui and Glaus are better hitters.
Also they had him at 2.1 wins but then used the lowest of all the projections to base their 2010 value (1.2 from CHONE). CHONE had him at an OPS more than 40 points lower than the other 2 and 50 points lower than last year. Considering his OPS has never been below .800 I can’t see how CHONE predicts the decline. Seems as though they are cherry picking their stats and basing it on the idea that he will have a major drop off from his career averages next season.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-12:40pm at 12:40 pm (UTC -4)
Speaking of, I’ve been trying to find a definition of baseball prospectus’s Rate 2 stat since you mentioned it as your new favorite defensive stat. Do you know where I can find it?
The BP glossary is not very explicit.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-12:53pm at 12:53 pm (UTC -4)
On that note I have been unable so far to find a definition of “UZR runs” and how they do or don’t differ from plain old “runs.” Any help would be appreciated with a smiley face.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-1:06pm at 1:06 pm (UTC -4)
Alas, the conversion of the data to runs saved is one of life’s great mysteries.
I think runs saved is not necessarily the number of runs saved by the player’s defense but rather is a way to express the results of the data in some applicable way.
In other words, I’m not sure. But it is fair to assume that the players who cover more ground, throw betterm ake fewer errors and turn more double plays have the better scores.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-1:14pm at 1:14 pm (UTC -4)
Bingo:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2003-03-14_0/
After reading this, I don’t see how rate can be more useful than UZR runs.
Note that since this was published, UZR on fangraphs now includes arm and doubleplays.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-1:17pm at 1:17 pm (UTC -4)
Thank you. As promised –
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-1:23pm at 1:23 pm (UTC -4)
Ahh maybe a premature smiley from me.
I have read that multiple times, and I have read the “UZR runs” section even more times. But it still is not clear to me, how do these “UZR runs” relate, if at all, to actual runs? Is it a literal 1-1 ratio, or not at all?
I do get and really appreciate and enjoy the whole concept of the field being broken into different zones and all the aspects about how many balls are hit to each of them and who gets to them and who doesn’t, and I even understand how the calculate the “UZR runs” but I am either missing or it’s not there how they relate to “run” runs.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:42pm at 1:42 pm (UTC -4)
Again, my point is Pagan gets to a lot of balls but that does not make him a good fielder. His 11.3 UZR/150 last year would put him as a better fielder than Cameron.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-1:55pm at 1:55 pm (UTC -4)
And as I stated in the New Year’s Resolution thread, I am not a big fan of UZR/150 because it is projection based, I’m much more intrigued (while still learning and potentially becoming less intrigued) by straight UZR, which whether one likes or dislikes the formula is at least “actual” not “projected.”
trs86
1/6/2010-1:59pm at 1:59 pm (UTC -4)
But even it is projected as to where they think a fielder should be able to get to which as I said could change based on positioning and coaches decisions. Perhaps even player decisions. Example Beltran not diving for a ball to keep it in front of him with 2 outs and a runner on 2nd. Hurts his UZR but makes him a better OF.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:02pm at 2:02 pm (UTC -4)
Even using straight UZR it has Pagan as an above average fielder. Is he?
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:04pm at 2:04 pm (UTC -4)
player performance fluctuates too.
and also remember that UZR is based on comparisons. if the average is set low, the good numbers will look better and vice versa.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-1:56pm at 1:56 pm (UTC -4)
Grave — the runs are based on another figure that has mystical qualities… the run values of outs. You’ll see a reference to the 2002 run value of outs in the AL (I think it was .47 but I’m not sure) multiplied by the number of balls a player fields over the threshold for average.
Those outs above average equate to runs.
If the value of an out is .5 and Larkin fielded 10 more balls in the zone (which are presumed to be outs), his UZR would be 5.
That’s my understanding.
How outs are equated with runs is another question. But it sounds as if that is a standardized number not developed by Lichtman.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:00pm at 2:00 pm (UTC -4)
How do you measure the great SS that knocks the ball down to keep the run from scoring but eats the ball because it was not worth the chance?
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:05pm at 2:05 pm (UTC -4)
I think that type of infrequent occurrence is not necessary for a general evaluation.
Statistics are not perfect in baseball.
And I’m sure your favorite defensive stats does not account for that freak occurrence either.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-2:35pm at 2:35 pm (UTC -4)
Sorry to be dense but does their suggestion that “outs above average equate to runs” refer, at least in their opinion and by their measures, to literal runs crossing the plate?
Am I to take, right or wrong aside for the moment, that a guy with an UZR of 7 is considered to have prevented 7 more runs from crossing the plate than the average defender at his position over the course of his actual playing time?
Or is it more of a “point value system?”
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:45pm at 2:45 pm (UTC -4)
Grave — I think its intention is to make that claim but it, of course, can’t predict that the next two guys might have struck out.
So in applying a run value per out and multiplying it by the number of plays the player made over the average fileder at his position it generates a number of estimated runs crossing the plate saved.
I can’t speak for them but I think they would agree that the number is an estimate of runs across the plate but more accurately serves as a value to be used a ranking reference.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-2:55pm at 2:55 pm (UTC -4)
Wanny-
Thank you for bearing with me and guiding me through with some layman’s terms (at least compared to their description).
I appreciate your patience.
This is what I have been terribly unclear on and sought to understand. I will leave it for other discussions whether it is valid or not, but thank you for helping me to understand what their idea is, I appreciate it. Being so unsure about that point I was unsure how to speak about, let alone use, UZR.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:29pm at 1:29 pm (UTC -4)
I skimmed it but perhaps you can help me out. How does this make it better than Baseball Prospectus’s rate?
To me my biggest issue is that it still gives too much credit to range which while important is not the only stat. I know it incorporates arm but what about basic positioning based on player or manager decision for each play? I am also not sure it take enough points off for errors as treating them as just another ball they did not reach based on what I read.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:03pm at 2:03 pm (UTC -4)
According to this article UZR Rate is only a measure of the number of opportunities and the number of plays made. In that sense, it’s name summarizes what it is: a ratio. It also incorporates the zones.
UZR runs compares the UZR data with other players to place a value on the plays made. It also takes a step further (which is necessary) to determine whether the play should have resulted in an out (for example, if the 1B dropped the throw, the SS should not be penalized).
UZR rate does not appear to compare the data to other players (though I could be wrong).
UZR runs are more comprehensive in terms of comparing players.
I have no idea if BP’s rate is the same as UZR rate. Neither BP nor anyone else has explained what it is. I’m assuming it is the same.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:08pm at 2:08 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t think it’s the same based on the definition.
Rate
A way to look at the fielder’s rate of production, equal to 100 plus the number of runs above or below average this fielder is per 100 games. A player with a rate of 110 is 10 runs above average per 100 games, a player with an 87 is 13 runs below average per 100 games, etc.
Rate2
See Rate. Rate2 incorporates adjustments for league difficulty and normalizes defensive statistics over time.
I know you have already read them, just posting for others.
My impression was that Rate measured more than just range but overall defensive production.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:13pm at 2:13 pm (UTC -4)
These definitions tell us nothing.
I sure don’t see enough there to influence me to favor it over another stat.
It may very well be great. But what the hell is it?
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:11pm at 2:11 pm (UTC -4)
There’s a lot of inaccuracies in your post.
1. UZR does discredit for errors, presumably on the mystical run value of errors. They are not merely discredited in the form of balls not fielded. Part of the equation is a stat they call “error runs.”
2. In light of the above, and the fact that it also measures throwing arm and double play abilities, among others, I don’t see how you can say it is too heavily based on range.
3. If anything, UZR rate focuses primarily, if not solely on range.
4. I don’t think there is a stat in the world that can measure a manager’s positioning of a player. Generally speaking, and theoretically, however, if a player is positioned properly he will field more balls which will pad the stats. So this “loophole” is accounted for.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:37pm at 2:37 pm (UTC -4)
Would it be accounted for? Say the manager moves a guy in right behind SS because Castillo is up. Would that then increase his range for that play dramatically if Castillo indeed hits it there?
What if on that same play, Castillo then hits it to where the OF should have been does that decrease his range?
I am still under the presumption that UZR rate and Rate1 and 2 are different for Baseball prospectus never mentions UZR.
Also, I am having a hard time here. Looking at stats from Soriano and Bay last year and determining how Bay is worse.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:41pm at 2:41 pm (UTC -4)
And does BA contemplate when a batter is forced to hit with two strikes because the manager had the steal sign on for two straight pitches?
What is your point here? That there is a human effect on the game? Of course, there is. But humans effect all baseball stats.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:41pm at 2:41 pm (UTC -4)
And UZR rate incorporates the same range zone values as UZR runs.
The manager can’t screw one without screwing the other.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:47pm at 2:47 pm (UTC -4)
I’m dying to know how the BP stat is your favorite without any knowledge of what it is measuring.
At least with UZR runs (and UZR rate) we have a general idea of what it is.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:48pm at 2:48 pm (UTC -4)
Again, that is still assuming that UZR Rate and Rate 1 and 2 from prospectus are the same. Also, not saying that those measure that as it is not likely. Just saying that is my problem with defensive stats like this in general and why sometimes with defense you just have to go with scouts instead. I just can’t see how Franklin Gutierrez is 3 times as good as Mike Cameron and put up a 29.1 this year but Beltran’s highest ever was 9.5. To me that makes the stat seem hard to use.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:54pm at 2:54 pm (UTC -4)
Because looking at it, assuming they are creditable, it does not vary as much as UZR. LOL saying it was my favorite is kind of tongue in cheek because you guys know my reservations on UZR but it appears I have reservations with all of them…
At least Rate looks better when looking at Gutierrez and Beltran. Obviously I have looked at a few more including Bay and Holliday but I don’t have time right now to discuss my findings.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:03pm at 1:03 pm (UTC -4)
Not yet, but I have not found a good explanation of how UZR is calculated either. Thus I am using RATE as a good stat to go with it, however, I do like the premise that it uses a baseline instead of completely relying on others.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-1:19pm at 1:19 pm (UTC -4)
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
They all use baselines. And all of the baselines are established by league averages.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:33pm at 1:33 pm (UTC -4)
I have found that UZR fluctuates a lot year to year. I have looked at Rate and that does not seem to be the case as much. Although I have not studied it as often.
I still would like something, and perhaps Rate is not it either, that measures a defender’s ability based on HIS ability and not someone else. I don’t think that having a guy’s UZR, or even Rate if that is indeed the case, fluctuate because another player gets injured, retires or has a better year. Example, Beltran plays less games last year and Vicki becomes a better fielder playing the same defense he did the year before.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:35pm at 1:35 pm (UTC -4)
I think what got me was this in the definition:
“Rate2 incorporates adjustments for league difficulty and normalizes defensive statistics over time. ”
The normalizes defensive stats over time part intrigues me.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:06pm at 2:06 pm (UTC -4)
But what the hell is it normalizing and how?
trs86
1/6/2010-2:10pm at 2:10 pm (UTC -4)
Don’t know. But considering it says that, LOL and they are respected, I am looking at it. LOL. Again, I have yet to use it to say a fielder is good or bad, not there yet. Although they are a respected group just like fangraphs.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:14pm at 2:14 pm (UTC -4)
BP is highly respected.
But they’re not very good at ‘splainin’ themselves, as Rickey Ricardo might say.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-12:49pm at 12:49 pm (UTC -4)
Have you read the bible? Lots of incest, murder and sexism. I seldom find any of those things at fangraphs. I do find opinion pieces based in facts that may be subjective and that are at worst open to discussion, which I thought was something we embraced here.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:01pm at 1:01 pm (UTC -4)
No, again I think that fangraphs is a great site. But it appears as though it is now the end all be all.
Also, notice I did not say Bible but bible.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-1:03pm at 1:03 pm (UTC -4)
FWIW, so did I.
As far as it being an “end all” I think it’s reasonable to say that their authors have more experience and credibility with these topics than any of us, so why wouldn’t we lean on them? They’ve been compiling and producing metrics and opinions for almost a decade. None of us can claim that.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:10pm at 1:10 pm (UTC -4)
Right and being that there are 1,000′s of bibles and only 1 Bible (obviously debatable as well) it would be hard to classify all of them as having: “Lots of incest, murder and sexism”
LOL.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-1:26pm at 1:26 pm (UTC -4)
I was making more of a statement about my feelings on “the” bible than anything else.
At various times we here express our opinions on things outside of the realm of baseball, that was me doing so there. I was trying to just do so in a subtle way but then you made a follow up statement and now the cat (Cat?) is out of the bag (Bag?).
trs86
1/6/2010-1:47pm at 1:47 pm (UTC -4)
I knew you were but I guess I was calling you out on it because it well not very Christian of you. LOL. Better to leave religion alone on here. Remember I still live in the Bible belt.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-2:01pm at 2:01 pm (UTC -4)
I agree but sometimes these Bill O’Reilly/Keith Olbermann discussions slip in and I usually steer clear. Politics, religion, sports, they’re all hot button issues to some.
I just couldn’t resist this topic today because recently I’ve been very introspective about my “spirituality.”
I was born and raised “RC” which I like to refer to as “Recovering Catholic.” Like many things, it’s a process. But enough about me and my soul or lack thereof…
fongy2
1/6/2010-11:53am at 11:53 am (UTC -4)
Why sign Laroche when Ike Davis is
his clone??
And TRS, the problem with knocking Murphy is that he was trying to learn TWO new positions on the MLB level while having to hit in the MIDDLE of a line-up with NO HELP,
as a young kid trying to get used to
NYC during what was an absolute disaster of a season.
I see no reason why he can’t be a decent Firstbaseman who could easily
go .280/290-15-70/80 w/40doubles
this season.
darknova306
1/6/2010-12:11pm at 12:11 pm (UTC -4)
Don’t forget that he also only played something like 95 games in AA and just one in AAA. This should have been a full year in Buffalo for him, but he was thrust into a full MLB season. That along with a lineup that was decimated around him and his bouncing around positions, and he didn’t really look that bad.
Either way, I think Murphy should get a full season of playing whether that be AAA or MLB. We should try to not kill his development anymore than we already have.
fongy2
1/6/2010-12:14pm at 12:14 pm (UTC -4)
He’ll be in the Majors,
either with us or someone else(if included in a deal for
a SP). Frankly, we’re not talented enough to
have a prospect who
had a decent first full
season in the league,
be sent down to start
the season in AAA.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-12:06pm at 12:06 pm (UTC -4)
Aren’t the Giants just as likely to contend this season as the Mets?
fongy2
1/6/2010-12:07pm at 12:07 pm (UTC -4)
We’re better if healthy.
They still have no hitters!
Kingman 26
1/6/2010-12:09pm at 12:09 pm (UTC -4)
And without Molina, Lincecum and Cain clearly both go about 8–14 each.
fongy2
1/6/2010-12:16pm at 12:16 pm (UTC -4)
Ha,ha,ha…
Funny.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-12:10pm at 12:10 pm (UTC -4)
If you consider yourself a “pitching wins championships” guy the Giants are perhaps more likely.
fongy2
1/6/2010-12:19pm at 12:19 pm (UTC -4)
My friend, I like Lincecum and Cain
BUT they ain’t exactly
Koufax&Drysdale or even
Johnson&Schilling.
And those guys had far superior teams behind
them.
The Giants have had guys like Winn,Molina
and Rowand hitting
in the middle of the order the past couple yrs and haven’t improved upon that.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-12:25pm at 12:25 pm (UTC -4)
Lincecum just won back-to-back Cy Youngs (and deservedly so). Seems like a silly time to be downplaying his ability.
Anyway, they added Mark DeRosa, one of your heros, to their lineup and are probably not done yet. Buster Posey (if he winds up starting) is supposed to be a big time player, Sandoval has another year of experience and Freddy Sanchez is there for a full year.
It may not be huge improvement but there should be some improvement. And perhaps they still do something else. (Johnny Damon might work)
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-12:28pm at 12:28 pm (UTC -4)
All reasonable points but we’re speaking specifically about “likely to contend” and I think in the NL West Lincecum and Cain are more “likely to contend” than Santana and ? in the NL East.
trs86
1/6/2010-12:33pm at 12:33 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t think that just SP gives you the right to contend for a playoff spot. However, once you get there…
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-12:37pm at 12:37 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t either but that’s not exactly what I’m saying.
I’m saying that with two quality front end starting pitchers going for you every rotation turn, when you’re in a division with the Padres and the unsteady divorce-proceeding Dodgers, your path to the post season is better paved than if you have one quality starting pitcher every rotation turn trying to beat out the Phillies, Marlins and Braves for a playoff spot, when all three of those teams have two.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:12pm at 1:12 pm (UTC -4)
That part I agree with. I would assume, however, that right now we are both competing for the wild card thus I would give us both similar chances.
fongy2
1/6/2010-12:36pm at 12:36 pm (UTC -4)
Maybe “as likely”
if both
teams are healthy
and their young players con’t to get
better,
But not “more likely”
And Wanny,no one’s downplaying Lincecum
but I think you get my point.He
and Cain aren’t(yet)All-timers.
And while I like DeRosa,if he’s hitting anywhere above the 7hole in your line-up,you don’t have much hitting.
And Posey??
Big prospect BUT hasn’t advanced
as much as even Thole and aren’t you one of those who want him to spend another yr in the Minors?
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-12:47pm at 12:47 pm (UTC -4)
1. Thole never played at AAA and Posey had 151 at bats there. Also, they’re about the about same age and Posey has already hit .327 .421 .538 in the minors compared to Thole’s powerless 291 .379 .375. So I’m not sure Posey is not as advanced as Thole. And I’m not sure the two should be compared in any event.
2. I could care less where Posey begins this season. But I probably wouldn’t hesitate to start him in the big leagues if his defense is up to it (by most accounts I’ve read it most likely is — another reason Thole shouldn’t be compared to Posey is because Posey has plus defense potential).
3. Lincecum and Cain don’t have to be all-timers. But if they are as good as they have been so far, they give the Giants a much better front of the rotation than Santana and ______.
trs86
1/6/2010-12:18pm at 12:18 pm (UTC -4)
Yeah I laughed at that too.
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-12:42pm at 12:42 pm (UTC -4)
I know we all think the Mets are a 4th place team, but do you really see the Giants going anywhere? I may not be in the know, but it seems to me the Giants lineup will be as weak as ever.
Mr North Jersey
1/6/2010-12:43pm at 12:43 pm (UTC -4)
Here is a thought I will leave you with as I have to run some errands.
Are the Mets a better team with Lincecum and Cain or Santana and whoever you wish to add of the remaining starters?
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-12:50pm at 12:50 pm (UTC -4)
Lincecum, Cain and the rest of the Mets v. Santana, free agent and the rest of the Mets?
That’s easy.
mikemattone
1/6/2010-1:08pm at 1:08 pm (UTC -4)
Any multi-year option at 1B should be out of the question, since we need to invest in pitching. Although I would laugh pretty hard if Adam LaRoche is the next big announcement from Mike “2-Liter of Diet Coke” Francesca.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:11pm at 1:11 pm (UTC -4)
So we sign LaRoche to 2/18, who did that take us out of the running for in pitching again?
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-1:18pm at 1:18 pm (UTC -4)
Perhaps a later trade for Bronson Arroyo or some other pitcher who becomes available by trade.
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-1:25pm at 1:25 pm (UTC -4)
that’s a great point, though considering they are trying to bring back Delgado, it doesn’t seem they are too concerned about not having money left for a trade.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:48pm at 1:48 pm (UTC -4)
True but it looks like that if that trade occurs the Mets are insisting on that team taking Castillo thus reducing the overall impact. But again, the Mets have still given us no clear budget.
njstuckintx
1/6/2010-1:29pm at 1:29 pm (UTC -4)
I think a Garko signing shouldn’t limit you severely to who you sign FA wise, but tt most likely would scratch off Sheets from the list. Not that he’s on Omar’s list to begin with.
A LaRoche signing limits you to only a trade to upgrade the SP, based on what’s out there.
This is assuming they stick to a similar payroll.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:49pm at 1:49 pm (UTC -4)
How does a LaRoche signing keep you from getting Garland, Davis or Pineiro?
njstuckintx
1/6/2010-2:02pm at 2:02 pm (UTC -4)
Unless he comes in for lower than what the Giants offer, and factoring in the inevitable Molina signing, what’s left to throw at SP?
Davis, possibly, but that’s not really a help. He’s a meh pitcher who throws alot of innings. meh innings.
And sure, if they dump Castillo and free up money and those free agents prices drop considerably… I just don’t see Castillo not starting 2B for the Mets in 2010 and I don’t think the asking prices will drop to far before someone signs those FA SPs.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:05pm at 2:05 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t know how much is left?
How much more will Garland or Pineiro be than Davis? So much that we could not afford the difference at 1B? I doubt it.
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-1:21pm at 1:21 pm (UTC -4)
It’s highly doubtful that the Mets will bring in 2 SPers. Signing LaRoche or any other 1B won’t prevent us from “investing in pitching”.
The Mets won’t bring in 2 SP because:
- they haven’t given up on Maine, and would be foolish to trade him after an injury season
- Pelf is young, cheap, and may be our #2 of the future
- no one would want Ollie unless we pick up most of his contract
- the Mets likely believe Niese is ready for the Majors
- the pitching market is very weak
njstuckintx
1/6/2010-1:31pm at 1:31 pm (UTC -4)
Well put.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:50pm at 1:50 pm (UTC -4)
Agreed, I disagree in the idea but I would assume the Mets feel this way.
But because of this, I think it is also why they will not consider Bedard or Sheets.
DNDJohan aka kistics
1/6/2010-1:25pm at 1:25 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t like the idea of signing multi-year at 1B position. Not only because of Ike Davis, but who’ll be on the FA market next off season. If Davis isn’t ready and Murphy project doesn’t work, here are available 1Bs next off season.
First basemen
Garrett Atkins (31) – $8.5MM club option with a $500K buyout
Lance Berkman (35) – $15MM club option with a $2MM buyout
Wilson Betemit (29)
Jorge Cantu (29)
Adam Dunn (31)
Troy Glaus (34)
Wes Helms (35)
Eric Hinske (33)
Nick Johnson (32) – $5.5MM mutual option
Paul Konerko (35)
Derrek Lee (35)
Doug Mientkiewicz (37)
Lyle Overbay (34)
Carlos Pena (33)
Albert Pujols (31) – $16MM club option with a $5MM buyout
Ty Wigginton (33)
This is a pretty respectful lineup of FAs. Being tied downed to LaRoche is not a good idea. Garko on the other hand seems like a good/cheaper option. Having Delgado in the lineup would be a luxury to have, but I’d rather spend that money to get better SP.
DNDJohan aka kistics
1/6/2010-1:28pm at 1:28 pm (UTC -4)
But then imagine a lineup of
Reyes
Castillo
Wright
Beltran
Bay
Delgado
Frenchy
Molina
That’s a very strong lineup and could have better offensive production than the Phillie Phucs…
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-1:34pm at 1:34 pm (UTC -4)
or you wasted $5M guaranteed on Delgado when he gets injured in the first two months
DNDJohan aka kistics
1/6/2010-1:38pm at 1:38 pm (UTC -4)
I agree which is why I think Omar will scrutinize every body hair on Delgado’s body before bringing him back.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:51pm at 1:51 pm (UTC -4)
OK so you wasted 5 million (although I am not sure he even gets that much). ?
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-1:32pm at 1:32 pm (UTC -4)
Not impressive. Most are old. Pujols won’t hit FA.
Pena and Dunn are the only names that seem like an option, and even they have question marks.
DNDJohan aka kistics
1/6/2010-1:36pm at 1:36 pm (UTC -4)
But they would be better options over LaRoche.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-1:42pm at 1:42 pm (UTC -4)
I won’t even debate whether they’d be better options than LaRoche or not. To me that’s not the issue so much.
To me it is, the Mets with their payroll need desperately to plug in some cheap homegrown talent somewhere into the starting lineup to remain viable and flexible financially.
Murphy does that. And if he flops, the Mets have more financial flexibility to take on salary through trade than they do if they sign Delgado or LaRoche or any other free agent of any particular note.
The organization needs to start producing it’s own cheap talent. They MAY have something along those lines in Murphy. Let’s find out.
DNDJohan aka kistics
1/6/2010-1:47pm at 1:47 pm (UTC -4)
I keep on getting confused between you and Case… your icons look somewhat similar…
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-1:52pm at 1:52 pm (UTC -4)
That’s because we have Mets caps on.
I’m the bald one with the gray beard. Case is the dark haired one with the Zorro the Gay Blade facial hair
DNDJohan aka kistics
1/6/2010-2:08pm at 2:08 pm (UTC -4)
LOL
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-2:11pm at 2:11 pm (UTC -4)
Zorro is my hero.
To be your friend I would have to be more than clumsy. I would have to be stupid.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-2:20pm at 2:20 pm (UTC -4)
Is your blade as sharp as your tongue?
trs86
1/6/2010-1:57pm at 1:57 pm (UTC -4)
Agreed, I would take Pena but he also will want much more than the one more year it may take Davis.
Dunn has no chance of ever being our 1B in my opinion.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:52pm at 1:52 pm (UTC -4)
Who are you rushing to sign over LaRoche on that list? Some won’t even be there and others would require a long-term commitment. LaRoche at 2/18 is very tradable anyway.
fongy2
1/6/2010-1:38pm at 1:38 pm (UTC -4)
Can someone please explain to me how
anyone can be sure that if we gamble
and sign Sheets coming off a serious arm operation and a full missed season
we can be sure about anything we get
back from him? I just looked at mattsblog and many over there feel it
would be wiser to sign him,even if he
missed his first ten or so starts because then we could have two potential Cy Youngers at the top of our rotation.
Now, isn’t that a hellofa leap of faith?? First year back on the mound,
after not Pitching for a year and a half, with his history of assorted
injuries? Do any of you really, truely
believe he’d come back in June and
Pitch like Carpenter did last year?
C’mon! This is folly! Hopes and dreams
nonsense.
Similar to the situation with Delgado.
Entering his late 30s,starting to get
hurt(before the hip injury),already
losing what little range he had @1B…
And coming off the hip operation?
Anyone else notice how much range ARod
lost last year despite being younger,
a better athlete and who knows how much/how many years of steroid assistance.
Do you advocates of Delgado really
think he returns to 30/35HRs-100/110RBIs??
And how bad will the Right side of
the infield defense be with him and
Castillo gimping around out there?
DNDJohan aka kistics
1/6/2010-1:42pm at 1:42 pm (UTC -4)
Well… defensively, I don’t know if Murphy/Garko or Murphy/LaRoche combo would be much better than Murphy/Delgado.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-1:49pm at 1:49 pm (UTC -4)
With a handful of exceptions, each season with each player is some level of hopes and dreams Fongy.
We hope and dream that Beltran & Reyes return from injury to a semblance of their previous selves. We hope and dream that David Wright re-discovers his power stroke. We hope and dream that Oliver Perez, John Maine and Mike Pelfrey pitch more consistently like they’ve shown in glimpses past, and/or reach a potential forecast for them based in part on statistical performance and in part on hopes and dreams.
I am NOT advocating Delgado because I believe the offense has enough players with enough of a track record that my hopes and dreams for it as it is constituted today will be realized.
I AM advocating for Sheets because I don’t believe the starting pitching staff has enough of a track record that my hopes and dreams for it as it is constituted today will be realized.
Outside of getting Halladay and Pujols, or any of the other handful of players out there who don’t require lots of hopes and dreams (and because of that, probably aren’t going to be acquired anytime soon) all we can do is hope and dream.
DNDJohan aka kistics
1/6/2010-1:52pm at 1:52 pm (UTC -4)
very well written… i am moved….
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-2:13pm at 2:13 pm (UTC -4)
Pretty good prose coming from a guy with no soul huh?
trs86
1/6/2010-1:55pm at 1:55 pm (UTC -4)
True Grave. I still contend that from now to September Garland is more important than a maybe Sheets.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-2:06pm at 2:06 pm (UTC -4)
A fair point which I agree with and if I thought I could I would get them both.
I don’t think Omar is going to get 2 pitchers though, I think some of you agreed with that he won’t do that just above here, and my preference if I can only have 1 is to go for the high ceiling.
It’s subjective. I believe the argument for the healthy consistent guy is a strong one too.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:12pm at 2:12 pm (UTC -4)
But my thought is go with the safe guy now and then there will be more available in July than just Sheets or Bedard with huge question marks. At that point at least the question marks will have decreased. IF I was SURE Sheets was healthy it would be a different story.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-2:17pm at 2:17 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t even consider Bedard in the mix, for me it’s “Sheets or bust” among the current remaining injury cases.
I realize you have a life and responsibilities, but if possible could you give some examples of who these July front end acquisitions might be? This list might sway me to your side of the argument (no pressure).
trs86
1/6/2010-2:22pm at 2:22 pm (UTC -4)
Sheets, Bedard, Webb, Lowe, Sanchez, Johnson, Arroyo, Bonderman, Cain, Francis, Harden, Harang, Penny, Webb, Young.
Some of them surely will have doubts and some will not be there. I am sure there are countless others as well.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-2:44pm at 2:44 pm (UTC -4)
OK I better comprehend your position than I did previously, but I would say personally that I don’t consider Lowe, Sanchez, Arroyo, Bonderman, Francis, Harang, Penny or Young good enough to be the true high end rotation guy I am seeking (ace potential, solid distinct # 2 at worst), the guy I believe Sheets if healthy can be, so therefore I’m less inclined to wait ’til July for this person because I see fewer of them than you do.
IMO except for Sheets, Bedard, Webb (who you named twice) and Harden, these guys are not close enough to aces for my taste.
So I would be eschewing signing one guy now to hope I could choose from 4 guys who may or may not be healthy or even if they are, available later.
Mr North Jersey
1/6/2010-2:25pm at 2:25 pm (UTC -4)
You want to win you can’t be afraid to reach for the stars.
Garland may be great in Citi Fields I don’t know but if I can only have 1 starter I want the one that can shift the balance in the NL if he gets his legs back under him.
A Sheets that can start pitching like his old self entering the 2nd half of 2010 is a scary thought for other teams to have to deal with rather than a Garland will ever be.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:26pm at 2:26 pm (UTC -4)
Again, what if he goes down in May? Who picks up those innings and keeps the bullpen from falling apart?
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-2:41pm at 2:41 pm (UTC -4)
this
fongy2
1/6/2010-2:06pm at 2:06 pm (UTC -4)
Just about everything
in life is a gamble,
no doubt. BUT what type of gamble? What are the odds, risk, reward, likelyhoods,
etc?
AGAIN, I ask, given the seriousness of his operation, his past history of injuries AND the fact that he hasn’t pitched in a year,
what can you really expect to get out of Ben Sheets in 2010???
Now, if Omar makes a few other positive moves including bringing in even a 3rd/4th Starter who
you should pretty much be able to count on for 200+ quality
innings AND Sheets doesn’t have a home come ST AND is willing to take a league min contract…Well..then,
thats a gamble worth
making. Anything else,
given what this teams been through the past
three,four years with
contracts and injuries would be simply foolish.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:13pm at 2:13 pm (UTC -4)
I would even say that IF they could trade for an innings guy that was cheap then I would risk signing Sheets now. It’s not really the money as much as the fact that we have to have sure innings.
fongy2
1/6/2010-2:15pm at 2:15 pm (UTC -4)
Dude, I thought you were the budget man?
trs86
1/6/2010-2:19pm at 2:19 pm (UTC -4)
Cheap….
LOL.
I have not done the calculations on how much we have left if indeed we did have 28-32. A lot depends on how Bay’s bonus is paid. If it does not count we still have plenty of money I think.
trs86
1/6/2010-1:54pm at 1:54 pm (UTC -4)
Not going to speak on Delgado here as we have already been there.
However, as for Sheets I agree. To me IF we were getting Garland THEN Sheets becomes attractive. For now if we can only get one, I get Garland and then look for the #2 in July.
manicmcreynolds
1/6/2010-2:06pm at 2:06 pm (UTC -4)
I’m for the Murphy-Garko semi-platoon.
I think you give Murphy a chance to develop into a homegrown commodity. Then if you want Davis in 2011, you can trade Murph at a small salary and with arbitration-eligible years intact to a small market team that might need a 1B and have a surplus of something you need, e.g. relief pitching.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-2:11pm at 2:11 pm (UTC -4)
This is what I’m in favor of as well. To me it’s a fine compromise between simply handing the job to Murphy versus bringing in someone who, if healthy, is clearly the starter relegating Murphy to the bench/minors.
As I said somewhere in this thread, it’s my opinion that the Mets need to start incorporating more home grown cheap talent into starting positions. Signing LaRoche or Delgado or players of their ilk flies in the face of that.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:14pm at 2:14 pm (UTC -4)
Just depends on how much LaRoche, Delgado, Garko will cost and if a guy like Wiggy is available.
CaseStreet
1/6/2010-2:45pm at 2:45 pm (UTC -4)
Wiggy?
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-2:08pm at 2:08 pm (UTC -4)
Andre Dawson the only new HOF’er.
prismo
1/6/2010-2:19pm at 2:19 pm (UTC -4)
So a lifetime OPS of .806 gets you in the HOF these days, huh?
trs86
1/6/2010-2:24pm at 2:24 pm (UTC -4)
Stayed about 5 years too long and that can take it’s toll.
prismo
1/6/2010-2:27pm at 2:27 pm (UTC -4)
Take out his final 5 seasons…it was still only .816
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:30pm at 2:30 pm (UTC -4)
If you take out his last 5 years his OPS goes up to 816 and he falls below 400 HRs, has just 1335 RBI.
So those last 5 years helped him get to 438 HRs and almost 1600 RBI. They probably helped his candidacy more than hurt it because the writers obviously pay more attention to those totals than they do to anything else.
Hard to imagine how Dawson is considered a better hitter than Fred McGriff (though he was clearly the better fielder in his prime).
And if Jim Rice, not a glove to speak of, can get in as a “power” hitter with under 400 HR ( .298 .352 .502) how does Edgar Martinez and his 312 .418 .515 line get penalized just because he was a DH?
fongy2
1/6/2010-2:42pm at 2:42 pm (UTC -4)
Yes to your Edgar
question BUT more so
because
Edgar wasn’t the dominant player on his team or one of the
3 or so
most dominant players in his league as Rice
and Dawson
were for a decade.
My friend,I liked
Paul Molitor
and Wade Boggs but neither
was close to being the player
Rice or Dawson
we’re and theyre in the Hall.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:56pm at 2:56 pm (UTC -4)
You’re too much today.
First of all, Boggs was an infinitely better player than Dawson or Rice. You’re talking about two power hitters who hit less than 400 HRs and one of whom got on base at about the same rate as Bengie Molina.
Edgar’s numbers were not just dominant in his league — but of all time. Again, how many 300/400/500 hitters have their been in ML history? He’s 34th All time in OPS.
And your argument that he was not the best player on his team may be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. Then we must remove Lou Gehrig from the Hall of Fame, Don Drysdale, and Roy Campanella and probably about 100 others.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:43pm at 2:43 pm (UTC -4)
Edgar should not, was not his choice not to play the field I am guessing.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:50pm at 2:50 pm (UTC -4)
There are dozens, if not more, HOFers who had negative value as fielders who made the Hall based on dominant offensive numbers.
You won’t find many players ever with career lines of 300/400/500 — just a handful, all HOFers.
fongy2
1/6/2010-2:25pm at 2:25 pm (UTC -4)
Prismo, did you see any baseball b/t the
mid 70s and 80s???
prismo
1/6/2010-2:29pm at 2:29 pm (UTC -4)
Yeah man! I was totally watching baseball when I was -10 years old.
I think Andre Dawson was a very good ballplayer, but I think the HOF is sometimes too easy to get into. It’s supposed to be for the best of the best. Dawson was not the best of the best. The best he has going for him is that he was a good-very good ballplayer for around 20 years, which is quite a long time. But he was rarely great during that span.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:34pm at 2:34 pm (UTC -4)
Maybe when you were watching you didn’t notice that Andre Dawson wasn’t very good at reaching 1B?
I’m not outraged that Dawson made it in. I probably wouldn’t have voted for him. But there are several other much more deserving candidates, including his former Tim Raines.
fongy2
1/6/2010-2:38pm at 2:38 pm (UTC -4)
No disrespect Wanny,
but you’re lost here.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-4:30pm at 4:30 pm (UTC -4)
Sorry to have a different view on this, Mr. All-knowing baseball TV watcher.
I guess if I had the ability to watch every pitch of every baseball game and analyze the results of each then I wouldn’t need OBP to tell me that Andre Dawson was pretty bad at reaching base safely and pretty good at making outs.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:20pm at 2:20 pm (UTC -4)
ridiculous.
I can’t imagine how Alomar wasn’t automatic.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-2:22pm at 2:22 pm (UTC -4)
I can only guess that, while John Hirshbeck has forgiven him, some HOF voters have not. Either that or they’re Met fans.
fongy2
1/6/2010-2:29pm at 2:29 pm (UTC -4)
Or they’ll wait until after he dies,
so he doesn’t
show up looking
like an Auschwitz survivor….
if ya know what
I’m sayin’.
Relax,relax,
I keed,I keed!
fongy2
1/6/2010-2:26pm at 2:26 pm (UTC -4)
he’ll get in in a year
or two. Many still
feel “first ballot”
should be reserved for
guys like Ruth, Aaron
and Mays.
Mr North Jersey
1/6/2010-2:11pm at 2:11 pm (UTC -4)
It’s obvious that Minaya is seriously entertaining bringing back Delgado. If Delgado can show he is healthy enough Minaya will make him an offer. Barring another team coming in with a better offer Delgado will be at the Mets Spring Training facility in 2010.
It is not an idea that I am happy about but everything coming out of Minaya’s mouth leads in that direction so might as well come to grips with it.
Personally I feel bad for Murphy because even though the jury is still out on what type of player he will ever be he has always done everything that was asked of him to the best of his ability and it would of been nice to see the Mets have a little more faith in him after all the hype they had to say about him a year ago.
There is still time to find an adequate 1st baseman but once they do you can add Murphy to that list of Met minor league players that was over hyped by the organization.
GravediggerHebner
1/6/2010-2:12pm at 2:12 pm (UTC -4)
I’m still hopeful the Orioles will swoop in. This has been rumored and their 1B/DH position is open I believe.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:17pm at 2:17 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t feel bad for Murphy. If he ends up back in the minors and produces he will push his way somewhere. The guy has done well considering how it was not valued as a top prospect but if we are to compete with the Phillies and we have a chance to upgrade a position (that does not keep us from upgrading others) to me we have to do it. If we had the chance to upgrade Frenchy and not hurt the rest of the team would we not do it?
Mr North Jersey
1/6/2010-2:31pm at 2:31 pm (UTC -4)
It is like Grave said “Mets need to start incorporating more home grown cheap talent into starting positions” don’t get me wrong I am the 1st to say spend whatever it takes to get better but if what we are talking about getting better is a Delgado I will always side with letting the kids play. Especially when we are talking about a team that is lately so concerned on managing their budget. SAVE our money if Delgado is what we are talking about but I know Minaya will not act accordingly.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:41pm at 2:41 pm (UTC -4)
Eh, seems ify to me. To me if 5 million will give you the chance to vastly improve your team do it.
Mr North Jersey
1/6/2010-2:46pm at 2:46 pm (UTC -4)
lol, vastly
Mr North Jersey
1/6/2010-2:54pm at 2:54 pm (UTC -4)
It is obvious that you have a much higher view on Delgado than I. He may be good time will tell and I am sure Minaya will sign him if he can show he is healthy. I think eventually you reach a crossroads and you have to say it is time to move on.
I guess you feel Delgado’s time to move on is not yet upon us and maybe he will be the comeback player of 2010.
I won’t hold my breath on that one because even if he is what many continue to overlook is a much more pressing need to improve our starting rotation.
The clock is ticking Opening Day is around the corner Let’s hope Minaya can answer the call.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:58pm at 2:58 pm (UTC -4)
Delgado’s OPS last year before going out. .914. Career .929. Can you say that if Delgado came back and was healthy he would not out produce Murphy? Delgado’s worst year he had a .781.
Mr North Jersey
1/6/2010-3:03pm at 3:03 pm (UTC -4)
Sure he can possibly out produce Murphy he has a longer track record I am sure that is what Minaya is saying also.
Do I want a 38 year old 1st baseman coming off of surgery that as soon as he tries to stretch a double into a triple we have to hold our breath in hopes he doesn’t reinjure himself? -No
I’d rather risk my money on a 29 year old Sheets instead.
fongy2
1/6/2010-2:17pm at 2:17 pm (UTC -4)
Congrats to “The Hawk” on the Hall!
It was past due.
Still no Jack Morris though.
Hard to understand.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:24pm at 2:24 pm (UTC -4)
His 3.90 ERA might have something to do with it.
fongy2
1/6/2010-2:32pm at 2:32 pm (UTC -4)
Yeah, he wasn’t any
good Wanny.
Him or Jim Rice!
Ryan Church however,
pretty good…Right?
You are one funny
lawyer!
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:37pm at 2:37 pm (UTC -4)
Did I say he wasn’t any good? I said his 3.90 ERA is not HOF worthy.
Yeah, I know you watched every pitch he threw and in your romanticized memories he was somehow better than his contemporaries like Roger Clemens, Dwight Gooden, Steve Carlton, Bert Blyleven, Nolan Ryan, JR Richard, Fernando Valenzuela, etc. because he pitched a lot of innings and won a big world series game. Bottom line is that he pitched well forever, but also gave up a lot more runs than HOF caliber pitchers typically do. In fact, he would have the highest ERA of any HOF starter.
What do Jim Rice and Ryan Church have to do with this? Did I say Ryan Church was a HOFer?
fongy2
1/6/2010-3:01pm at 3:01 pm (UTC -4)
Funny thing about lawyers is that they really will veer in
any direction to argue.
Personal attacks,parsing the words of others
and looking
at facts myopicly.
Sad really.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-4:34pm at 4:34 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t know why you have repeatedly resorted to trying to insult my profession every time I have presented you with a fact.
You either tell me I don’t watch baseball (incredibly untrue) or put words into my mouth that weren’t ever muttered, i.e. Jack Morris isn’t any good.
Instead, why don’t you make some argument about his ERA being misleading or that it was better than it seemed or that it was good relative to his peers.
Don’t just dismiss it as me not having watched baseball.
Go screw the high horse you rode in on.
trs86
1/6/2010-2:40pm at 2:40 pm (UTC -4)
But we know that ERA is not the end all be all. He did have 254 wins, 175 complete games, and for a stretch had a very impressive WHIP as well as a much lower ERA.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-2:59pm at 2:59 pm (UTC -4)
We also know that Wins are largely team reliant and that plenty of guys with more wins are not Hall of Famers, including Jaime Moyer, Jim Kaat, Mike Mussina, Bert Blyeleven and Tommy John, all of whom (except Moyer) have better peripherals.
fongy2
1/6/2010-3:03pm at 3:03 pm (UTC -4)
And if you really knew what you think you know about baseball,you’d know that none of those pitchers were as good
as Jack Morris.
wannybackstra
1/6/2010-4:36pm at 4:36 pm (UTC -4)
Once again you offer no reasoning other than that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
As I said above, here I presented facts and you just dismiss them and claim flatly that I have no idea what I’m talking about.
You’re a real high intellect and have added so much to this discussion: “Morris is a HOFer because Fongy had a television in 1982 (and apparently the MLB Extra Innings package too).
Get over yourself.