Now that all three participants of the Milledge deal back in 2007 are no longer with their respective teams, I thought it was a good time to look back at a deal that at the time stirred up alot of debate and controversy. In 2005, Omar Minaya deemed Lastings Milledge as one of his “untouchable” minor league players after Milledge post up a .318 batting avg with 8 home runs and 29 stolen bases (for single A advanced and AA). In 2006, Milledge continued to show promise in AAA with a line of .277 avg, 7 home runs, 13 stolen bases and a .388 on base percentage in 84 games until being called up to the majors on May 30th.
Milledge saw very limited plate appearances in 2006 but his most memorable was in the game versus the Giants on June 4th. Milledge hit his first career home run against former Mets closer Armando Benitez to tie the game 6-6 in the bottom of the tenth. On the way back to the out field the next half inning, Milledge high-fived several Mets fans in attendance. This drew the ire of several veteran Met players, most notably Billy Wagner who posted a sign “Know your place, rook” on Milledge’s locker. In 185 plate apperances in 2006, Milledge finished with a .241 batting average with 4 home runs and one stolen base.
Milledge made the opening day roster in 2007 and played about the same amount of time he did in 2006, Milledge spent some time between the majors and minors to make room for players but finished with a .272 batting average with 7 home runs and 3 stolen bases in 206 games. However, that same year under his rap name “L-Millz”, Milledge recorded a song that included…lets just say language that gave Mets public relations personnel a headache. The “hype” of Milledge was clearly dying down from where it was in 2005 and Omar sought to cash in before it was too late.
“Not long ago, the Mets considered Lastings Milledge their top positional prospect and untouchable in trade talks. Friday they dealt him to the Washington Nationals for two veterans GM Omar Minaya called “not known names,” but who he said would be everyday players. The Mets got Brian Schneider, a solid defensive catcher who ranked fourth in the NL in throwing out base-stealers, and Ryan Church, an outfielder who hit .272 with 15 home runs and 70 RBI last season”- ROGER RUBIN DAILY
Reactions from some Metsblog members…
“…As for the Milledge for Church/Schnider deal, I would have liked it to have been expanded to get a quality reliever. Maybe Milledge and Humber for Church/Shcnider and Rauch?
We really have no idea how much Milledge’s stock had fallen. I for one am content right now with Church in RF.” - December 7, 2007 at 12:13 pm
- Milledge continued to make the same (baseball) mistakes over and over (not hustling, swinging at horrible breaking pitches) and showed little sign that he was correcting his mistakes, which made him a hard guy to root for. Church made one (non-baseball) mistake, apologized for it, and has not repeated it. IMO unless it comes to light at some point in the future that he has continued his bigoted thinking, the guy who admitted the error, apologized for it and didn’t repeat it is the easier guy to root for” – December 10, 2007 at 11:34 am
“But Church is just as likely to go .280, 20, 85, and probably play better (if less impassioned!) defense. That trade was personality driven, not talent, anyway. Other than a few hot weeks in September, LoDuca stunk most of the year, and was hurt a lot. No loss. Schneider will be an improvement overall. The key is how Omar builds the bench, and how Willie uses it. If Castro gets 50 or so starts, and plays against most lefties, then the platoon will be solid. Castro + Schneider platoon (he actually hit fairly well against righties) should be much more productive than LoDuca as a FT catcher, with occasional days off (and when he is hurt and can’t go). Same with RF. They just need that strong RH bat with some pop (Nady, Mench) so they can sit Church against the tougher lefites. Mench + CHurch should give them as much as Green + Milledge did.” - December 12, 2007 at 11:50 am
The Mets traded Lastings Milledge for Ryan Church and Brian Schneider. Those that were for the deal saw it as a way to “kill two birds with one stone” by filling two holes the Mets had going into 2008 with a defensive catcher and a serviceable right fielder. Milledge was becoming more of a headache to deal with and the Mets could not afford to keep defending or talking their way out of controversy surrounding him. A change of scenery to a team with less media hype was the only logical news. Those against it, saw Milledge at worst another Rickey Henderson personality who had incredible upside but just lacked the maturity. The sky was the limit for Milledge and some fans just saw a home grown star in the making shipped within the division for a right fielder who never played a full season and a light hitting catcher.
Fresh off the collapse of 2007 and the most controversial trade since Scott Kasmir, Ryan Church and Brian Schneider had alot to prove in 2008. Ryan got off to an extremely hot start in 2008, hitting .307 with 11 home runs and 36 RBI’s in the first half. Unfortunately, another freak concussion (Ryan suffered a grade 2 concussion in spring training) in the middle of his hot streak on May 20 against the Braves turned him ice cold when he came off the DL in June. Ryan ended the second half batting .219 with 2 home runs and 13 RBI’s. Brian was touted as a “light hitting defensive catcher” and defiantly lived up to the bill. Brian finished the year hitting .257 with 9 home runs and 38 RBI’s. While his CS% was better than Paul Loduca in 2007, Brian did not improve much from his 2007 percentage and finished with a 34% CS%. The pitching staff under Brian Schneider were charged with 37 wild pitches, just about the same he had in 2007 with 38.
Lastings Milledge had some parting words for the Mets on the way out in 2008:
“A lot of veterans didn’t like the way I play the game. They thought I didn’t respect it, but the vets here(Nationals) have no problem with me. They know I respect it. They know I work hard. I can’t go through anything worse than I went through in New York. It only gets better from here. I don’t have anything to prove to nobody but my manager, my front office and my family. I don’t have anything to prove to them. Everyone knows what I can do.”
This did not rub to well with the Mets, including the usually quiet David Wright who had this to say:
“Enough is enough. You’re a Washington National now. Don’t worry about what happened last year or the year before that. Just go out there and try to help the Nationals win. It makes no sense to bash your former team. He just needs to turn the page and worry about helping the Washington Nationals. Forget about what we’re doing over here. Forget about the New York Mets.â€
Lastings took Wrights advice to heart and entered 2008 as the Nationals starting center fielder. He was doing well, hitting .245 with 9 home runs and 32 RBI’s until he strained his groin in late June. Lastings came off the DL in late July and went 2-18 until the month of August where he batted .336 with 6 HR and 16 RBI. Lastings finished out 2008 with a .268 batting avg, 14 home runs and 61 RBI’s.
Unfortunately, 2009 was not a kind year for any of these players. Mets fans were hoping for Ryan to repeat his 2008 early season success and he did in April by hitting .313 with a homer and 8 RBI’s. Ryan however went ice cold in May, hitting .224 and costing the Mets a go ahead run in a game against the Dodgers with the infamous “missing third base” incident. While increasing tension between Mets manager Jerry Manuel and Ryan Church were debatable, Church was ultimately traded for Jeff Francoeur in July. Ryan finished the year hitting .260 with 2 home runs and 18 RBI’s for the Braves and was later non-tendered, making him a free agent.
Brian would not face any better luck. Brian spent most of the year injured and a spectator to a “breakout” year from Omir Santos. Brian only played in 59 games in 2009, hitting .218 with 3 home runs and 24 RBI’s. Brian’s CS% was a percent better than 2008 but there were much less base runners for Brian that year. The Mets did not resign Brian after 2009 but the Philadelphia Phillies did for 2 years.
Milledge started 2009 hitting .167 with 0 home run and 1 RBI in April, which lead to a demotion to AAA. Milledge suffered through various injuries and was ultimately traded to the Pittsburgh Pirates on June 30th. Lastings spent most of the year in AAA for the Pirates as well but managed to play 58 games for them to finish the year hitting .290 with 4 home runs and 20 RBI’s.
Im sure with reading this, you can remember your position with respect to this deal. Do you think its too early to judge the winners of this deal or if you can choose a winner, who would you say won out? The Mets or the Nationals?
152 comments
Kingman 26
1/7/2010-8:44am at 8:44 am (UTC -4)
As of today, we clearly won out as we have Frenchy. This may dramatically change of course, but LMilz at this point seems to be destined to join the proud and long line of highly touted Met outfield prospects who have done zilch—Shawn Abner, Al Shirley, Robert Stratton, Alex Ochoa, Alex Escobar, Ryan Thompson…
As for Schneider, I would argue that he was a highly OFFENSIVE light-hitting catcher…I found myself pretty offended at most of the guy’s game, especially the notion of his being so good defensively.
I was pro-LMilz, but where does one go from the Nats and the Pirates?
prismo
1/7/2010-8:58am at 8:58 am (UTC -4)
Agreed. Though Milledge is still very young (24!) and will have a couple more opportunities in the bigs.
mets62fan
1/7/2010-11:01am at 11:01 am (UTC -4)
Kingman, I believe u missed listing Leroy Stanton(dealt w/Ryan for Frigosi, or Frig…osi as my dearlu departed mother referred to him as…lol
trs86
1/7/2010-11:05am at 11:05 am (UTC -4)
Welcome Mets62fan. Great to have another new commenter.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-8:55am at 8:55 am (UTC -4)
The Nats won out with Nyjer Morgan so far.
But I still think Milledge will put it all together. He’s played well when he’s been healthy and had a chance. He’s finished each of the last two seasons strong.
The Mets can win with Franceour but I just don’t see it happening given his long track record despite his age. At the very least, he seems like the highest quality person among he, Milledge and Church and the easiest to root far. He’s a tools guy who needs to learn the game. But he’s young enough to hopefully do it.
mets62fan
1/7/2010-11:10am at 11:10 am (UTC -4)
Perhaps u’ve forgotten, how it was Milledge fell into our laps? He’d been accused of sexual assault in HS leading to many questions regarding his CHARACTER/MATURITY. Questions that are still awaiting answers all these many years later. However, he’s Pittsburg’s issue now, one truism, if he actually does finally fulfill that promised ability, he won’t be there very long, then he’ll likely be a NYY headache, LMAO! Along with Death & Taxes, Lstings ability to disappoint is another sure thing in my opinion.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-11:30am at 11:30 am (UTC -4)
I think he was accused of fooling around with a girl two years younger than him or something like that. He was barely of age and she was just under.
While Milledge might have some character issues that is not one I would be too concerned about.
trs86
1/7/2010-8:58am at 8:58 am (UTC -4)
I think it’s too early to tell for Milledge. He could mature.
As for Schneider he was not as good as advertised for sure. However, he was also injured most of the time which I am sure played a role. His .700+ OPS for 2008 was terrible but for a catcher not the bottom of the barrel. We are just spoiled from the spot.
udontmesswthejohan
1/7/2010-9:11am at 9:11 am (UTC -4)
If we are just looking at the principals involved in the original deal and are not extending them to guys like Morgan and Francouer, then I think you have to say it was a push. Neither team made out here. All of the players mentioned dissapointed.
I still can’t think of Brian Schneider without getting mad.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-9:20am at 9:20 am (UTC -4)
then just think of this:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/O/htmlO/onedayata/onedayataIMAGE/onedayata.jpg
udontmesswthejohan
1/7/2010-9:36am at 9:36 am (UTC -4)
Ha – to be honest, that Schneider always gave me the creeps. B. Schneider just couldn’t hit…or catch, but I never got a chester the molester vibe off of him.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-9:40am at 9:40 am (UTC -4)
LOL.
And knowing what we know about Mackenzie Phillips now…
njstuckintx
1/7/2010-9:25am at 9:25 am (UTC -4)
I agree. Schneider was billed as a defensive wizard, and time after time I’d see him running to the backstop to get yet another ball that got by him. So frustrating.
udontmesswthejohan
1/7/2010-9:38am at 9:38 am (UTC -4)
Yeah, I think that was what was most disappointing. I mean the guy would just flat out drop balls. Not exactly an admirable trait in a catcher.
He was also pathetic offensively. Weak ground out to 2B over and over and over again. Even then, I could have lived with it if he had produced defensively.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-9:47am at 9:47 am (UTC -4)
3 years would be November 30, 2010. (Sorry to nitpick). Otherwise an excellent article dirty.
I still like the deal, and if Jerry wasn’t such a moron and a jerk, Church and Frenchy would be a great RF platoon.
I also remember how everyone thought this trade would stop the Mets from being able to trade for a pitcher like Santana.
trs86
1/7/2010-10:03am at 10:03 am (UTC -4)
I disagree with one part. The Church Frenchy platoon. Atlanta got Church for the platoon role and even needing an OF still released him.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-10:17am at 10:17 am (UTC -4)
That probably had more to do with the $3M+ Church was due to receive in arbitration. Plus, the Braves made the move to make room for Rafael Soriano after he accepted arbitration.
Considering they have McLouth, were going to trade a SP and likely get back an OFer (Melky), and have Jordan Schafer ready to go, Church was out of a job at his price.
Church’s lifetime .813 OPS versus right-handed pitching should make him an attractive option as a left-handed hitter off the bench/forth outfielder.
fongy2
1/7/2010-10:30am at 10:30 am (UTC -4)
Not many teams beating down the door for
Church’s services there
chief!
And say what you will about
L-Millz BUT at
least he “keeps it real”!
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-10:43am at 10:43 am (UTC -4)
Didn’t know you were Church’s agent, Chief. Fact is tons of guys better than Church are still available.
Doesn’t diminish the fact that Church is a plus defender in RF and hits righties well. So a RH OF platoon job doesn’t seem too far fetched.
Or do you think Church isn’t even good enough for that job?
fongy2
1/7/2010-10:48am at 10:48 am (UTC -4)
Jeez, again with the building up of Ryan Church.
Case,forgetaboutit. He ain’t coming
back.
And he’s a “plus”defender??Okay.The guy’s in his 30s and has had a couple real good months in his career.
Big deal.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-11:14am at 11:14 am (UTC -4)
fongy, I know he’s not coming back, and w/ Jerry running the circus I wouldn’t want Church back.
He’s a plus defender because he has a great arm and gets to the ball pretty good.
So, you don’t think 30 year olds with a couple of good months are good enough for a ML bench. Sounds like most bench players to me.
All I freakin said was he’d be a good platoon guy. How is that so controversial.
trs86
1/7/2010-11:20am at 11:20 am (UTC -4)
Using UZR I can’t see how he is a plus defender. He was barely above average.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-11:39am at 11:39 am (UTC -4)
Really?
His career UZR/150 in RF is 14.2 and was 19.4 last season.
That’s quite a bit plus.
His numbers as a CFer were bad last year but Case suggested he is a plus defender in RF.
Anyway, I thought you didn’t like UZR?
trs86
1/7/2010-12:01pm at 12:01 pm (UTC -4)
How can you guys add those numbers together? I don’t get it?
It does not average the numbers it adds them together. Thus if you play 5 years of plus 3 RF then your total score is 15 not your average.
trs86
1/7/2010-12:03pm at 12:03 pm (UTC -4)
I think it’s one of the tools we can use Wanny. We have had that discussion. I mostly used it because if Case said he was a plus defender I would assume he used UZR.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:07pm at 12:07 pm (UTC -4)
What the heck are you talking about?
Ryan Church’s UZR/150 in RF for each season are: 19.4, 6.9, 23.0, 20.8 and 14.7.
What’s not good about that?
You use the 150 number for comparison purposes because UZR is a rate state. His 8.4 UZR shows what he did in 86 games. That exrapolates to 14.7 over 150 games.
Over the course of 150 games 8.4 would make him a very good fielder. But 14.7 makes him an excellent fielder. So you need to put the UZR number in the context of the number of games and understand that it is a rate state that would presumably increase with more playing time.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:09pm at 12:09 pm (UTC -4)
And you’re wrong. The career UZR number is not an addition of each season’s score. The career number includes all the data together.
If you add his RF scores together you get a number closer to 100 than 18.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-12:11pm at 12:11 pm (UTC -4)
actually, I just used my eyes from watching him play and all the accolades he got from GKR during the season. I looked up the stats after you mentioned it.
trs86
1/7/2010-12:15pm at 12:15 pm (UTC -4)
Wanny, even Case warns about the use of UZR/150 it is strange to say the least. However, even using just rate they add the categories together to get the entire year. Thus Church was 3.8 with the Mets and 4.7 with the Braves. I don’t get how that makes him 8.4. Also before the Mets he had played less than 50 games in RF. In his only year of playing even a half of a season in RF he was at 3.9.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:17pm at 12:17 pm (UTC -4)
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=rf&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=n&type=0&season=2009&month=0
trs86
1/7/2010-12:17pm at 12:17 pm (UTC -4)
Speaking of UZR not UZR/150
UZR total adds all of them up to a total of 16.7 for RF.
trs86
1/7/2010-12:22pm at 12:22 pm (UTC -4)
Poor Church, he was twice as good of a defender in 2009 as he was in 2008. Finished 23rd in RF in 2008 and top 10 in 2009.
Not only that, it had to be the Mets holding him back.
His UZR/150 with the Mets was 11.5 but just by moving to the Braves it increased to 45.6. Sure makes that UZR/150 stat seem useful.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:25pm at 12:25 pm (UTC -4)
TRS — you’re arguing two different things right now. And your third point is easy to clarify.
The first point you brought up was that Church was not a good RFer according to UZR. You are flat undeniably wrong about that.
Your second point, I think, is with the methodology of UZR. If you don’t like the methodology that’s fine. But you brought it up as the measurement of Church’s defense.
Third, the 8.4 number is easy to come up with. Again, UZR is a rate stat. In his games with the Braves he saved 4.7 runs. With the mets he saved 3.8 runs. So for the season in RF he saved 8.4 runs, 4.7 + 3.8 (one of these numbers were rounded up.) It makes perfect sense to add these numbers as they are subtotals of runs he saved.
Lastly, your point about his only season in RF at 3.9 is also wrong. He played a half season this season in RF and was at 8.4. His career UZR in RF of 16.8 is based on over 200 games.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-12:26pm at 12:26 pm (UTC -4)
trs, I see what you are saying about adding the 3.9 w/ Mets and 4.7 w/ Braves. It should be averaged.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-12:28pm at 12:28 pm (UTC -4)
ok, so now wanny is right.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:29pm at 12:29 pm (UTC -4)
Case — it shouldn’t be averaged. The UZR runs are runs that were calculated to have been actual runs saved. The whole season is a running total of them.
It would make no sense to average something that is essentially an ongoing tally.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:30pm at 12:30 pm (UTC -4)
Dammit. I wasted breath!
trs86
1/7/2010-12:42pm at 12:42 pm (UTC -4)
I see what you guys are saying about how it is an ongoing tally. However, using their combined stat instead of taking all of years and averaging them seems strange. To me that would be how you find out what he produces. In the 2 years that he had really any sample size of playing RF he was 3.9 in 724 innings and 8.4 in 642 innings. Thus to me his average is in between those two not adding them together. I also get that UZR/150 is supposed to give us what they would be expected to get. But I have found it to be too easy fluctuate with the example of Church factoring out to over 40 with the Braves.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:53pm at 12:53 pm (UTC -4)
When you go to the bottom of a baseball card and you see their career batting average, it is based on their total number of hits and their total number of at bats.
If you want to determine their mean UZR, as you suggest, that is something different.
I have no idea, though, what you are referring to as the “combined stat.” If you are referring to his career UZR then it makes sense to add up all of the runs saved in his career the same way you would add up his hit total or HR total.
This is why UZR/150 is useful in the career total sense. It averages out from his career data what he would do in one full season.
But no matter how you look at it, Church’s UZR scores in RF are good — whether they are with the Mets in 80 games, with the Braves in 30 games or for his career.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:57pm at 12:57 pm (UTC -4)
But it certainly makes sense to use a mean UZR to get a sense of his average season.
You just have to realize in Church’s case, you would be getting his average half season since he’s never played a full season in RF (again, the reason why UZR/150 is used to make comparisons).
The other risk you run with a mean UZR is that will account for a 20 games season with the same strength as a 120 game season.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-12:59pm at 12:59 pm (UTC -4)
I agree with your statement just above here Wanny, that UZR/150 becomes a much more useful tool when using it to evaluate a veteran player with lots of playing time at the specific position in question.
Where I have learned to run away from it is in the situations such as TRS mentions about Church playing 40 games, then extrapolating it.
But using it to discuss say Jermaine Dye and his entire body of work seems more reasonable to me.
trs86
1/7/2010-1:05pm at 1:05 pm (UTC -4)
True but the risk with using UZR/150 is it will have the same player with 11.5 with one team and 45.6 with the other.
Also seriously guys help me with this one. Frenchy.
His season totals for UZR/150
+30.1, 7.4, 16.9, -4.9, -5.9.
While with the Braves last year 6.2, while with the Mets -18.2.
Anyone got a clue based on these stats if Frenchy is a good defender?
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-1:07pm at 1:07 pm (UTC -4)
Wanny in your subsequent comment in your last paragraph that starts with “The other risk…” you get at something I’m still trying to understand, and maybe I’ve misunderstood it so far.
Together maybe you all can help me figure this out:
Last year, using UZR for “all players” who played LF in the majors, Carl Crawford played 154 games (1282.2 innings) and had a league leading UZR of 17.6, which if I understand it correctly means he saved 17.6 more runs than the average LF for 2009.
Nyjer Morgan played 63 games (530.2 innings) and had the 4th best UZR in the major leagues of 12.4, which to me means in 89 fewer games than Crawford, Morgan saved “merely” 5.2 fewer runs than Crawford did.
So if I’m understanding correctly, Crawford saved more runs than any other left fielder overall, but Morgan in his limited amount of work saved runs at a much better rate than Crawford did. Whether he could sustain that pace is debatable I suppose but in his time out there, for whatever reasons, he was a defensive demon.
Does this seem accurate/make sense/help the discussion at all?
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-1:08pm at 1:08 pm (UTC -4)
Right. I am just cautioning not to compare Church’s 3.9 to someone else’s 4.5 in twice the games.
But as far as the mean goes, you could really only get an effective mean for Church in 2008 and 2009 because he played a similar numbr of games in those seasons.
(we should also remember that Church played a good part of his 2008 season after his brain was mashed in and when he probably wasn’t fully healthy)
But certainly it makes sense to compare players UZR runs rather than 150s when they are of an equal sample size.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-1:11pm at 1:11 pm (UTC -4)
My previous post was in reference to Grave’s of 12:59.
Regarding Grave’s 1:07 post, you are spot on. That’s why when comparing two players who played different numbers of innings, it is necessary to extrapolate unless you are keen enough to realize that Morgan was a run saving machine (according to these metrics anyway).
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-1:15pm at 1:15 pm (UTC -4)
TRS –
You can’t use UZR/150 the way you are suggesting by breaking it down between two teams like that.
If he had two UZR/150 in the same year that would mean you averaged out 300 games worth of defense.
He played slightly better when he got to Atlanta. But the season’s total is still the season’s total.
trs86
1/7/2010-1:19pm at 1:19 pm (UTC -4)
But my point is that small difference makes a huge difference when carried out over an entire season. Do we really feel like Church was that much better with Atlanta? It shows up as marginal on UZR but using UZR/150 it shows up as 11 to 40.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-1:19pm at 1:19 pm (UTC -4)
So what I glean from all of this is that whether one is discussing UZR or UZR/150, one needs to include the number of games played (or innings) at the position in the discussion, or at worst have some casual awareness of those things, to avoid potentially gross misinterpretation of facts.
trs86
1/7/2010-1:22pm at 1:22 pm (UTC -4)
Grave that is kind of my point too I guess. Imagine if Church had not played with the Mets last year and we just looked at his numbers while with the Braves and then said well if you look at his UZR/150 he would have been good for a +40.
I still don’t get why certain players fluctuate so much.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-1:33pm at 1:33 pm (UTC -4)
Well first of all I want to thank everyone who participated for having this discussion. It is what I hoped to foster with my New Year’s Resolution post. That it happened 6 days later and that we hijacked Dirty’s Milledge thread are unfortunate side effects.
As far as why these metrics might fluctuate, my best guess is it relates to how well a player converts balls hit in their zones into outs. That requires a lot of things to happen, perhaps the most important of which is people have to hit balls to those zones in the first place. Secondly, the fielder there needs to handle them “well,” or more accurately needs to have his part in handling them result in outs being made, and runs not scoring.
That is why Eric Byrnes, in a mere 49 games, can be 5th in the major leagues in UZR with an 11.5, it simply suggests (to me) that during those 49 games a lot of balls were hit to LF and Byrnes played a significant number of them into outs, preventing runs.
Had he played another 100 games, who can say how many balls would’ve been hit to LF and how well or poorly he would’ve converted them into outs, preventing runs? I can’t. UZR/150 is simply a projection of how he might’ve done if all those other factors continued. Byrnes’ UZR/150 was 43.4.
But to actually achieve that 43.4 as an UZR a lot of things, some in Byrnes’ control and some not, would have to happen. Just like someone with 10 home runs in 60 at bats won’t necessarily replicate all the pitches he receives and all the swings he takes at them over 600 at bats, resulting in 100 home runs.
trs86
1/7/2010-1:37pm at 1:37 pm (UTC -4)
Another big time issue I have is that a player’s “ability” according to UZR can change based on another player doing better or worse or changing positions.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-1:45pm at 1:45 pm (UTC -4)
In the infancy of our understanding of complicated metrics that “ability” thing you suggest TRS could be an unfortunate side effect.
But months into developing greater understanding of UZR I have come to understand that, and I’ve said this a number of times, it is not a measure of the players “ability” in a vacuum. It is a measure of how a player has done fielding balls hit to or near him converting them into outs, preventing runs, compared to all the other guys at his position.
If you continue to focus on it as if it were a stand alone measure of the player alone you will continue to be frustrated and disappointed by it.
If you decide you’d like instead to use it as a number that compares player X to everyone else at his position in any given year, you may be less irritated with it.
I initially didn’t understand that it was relative to everyone else at the player’s same position and therefore found it terribly confusing and frustrating.
But through reading I learned that every season it is specific too the total groups of fielders at the same position in that season.
This is where I sense your “trouble with the force” comes from. You don’t like the concept that the baseline moves annually. I can appreciate your distaste for that. But as long as you harbor it, UZR will be useless for you. That part is up to you.
trs86
1/7/2010-1:57pm at 1:57 pm (UTC -4)
It’s not just that. It’s that so many use it to determine if a player is a good fielder or not and I am not sure it even tells us that. It tells us if there were players better than him for that season but each season fluctuates not only based on their ability but things they can’t control.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-2:08pm at 2:08 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t disagree with any of that. I know you’re a teacher and want everyone to be smart and use tools wisely, and I sincerely applaud that (my mother is a teacher) but you are not responsible for other people mis-using statistics.
If people approach you and suggest that Fernando Perez is the best LF in baseball because in 5 games he had an UZR/150 of 141.8, you understand enough about the stat already to know that’s absurd and call them out on it. Other people’s ignorance and their ill-informed statements will simply have to be rebutted.
As far as worry about it fluctuating because of things outside the player’s control, that’s fair, but I would submit that things like batting average, on base percentage, slugging percentage, and perhaps more appropriately fielding percentage also fluctuate in part because of things outside the player’s control.
I can’t get a hit if a pitcher won’t throw me a hittable pitch. I can’t have a perfect fielding percentage if an official scorer thinks that my throw should’ve been higher and gives me an error even though I think it was the 1B fault for not scooping the easy bounce I gave him.
All stats rely in someway on more than just the person to whom that stat applies.
The big difference to me comes back to the baseline issue which is one you’ve expressed concern with before. If you don’t like the “moving baseline” aspect that’s your prerogative and I can’t argue with that. I believe that’s a matter of opinion and I can’t force you to share mine or anyone else’s, and I respect your right to dislike it.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-3:52pm at 3:52 pm (UTC -4)
First off, I don’t think the fluctuations are all that great. If the difference is between 4 runs saved and 7 runs saved it can easily be explained by about 12 plays in which injury or other circumstances led a player to be a step slower at times than others.
You also have to consider that the numbers themselves are numbers over average. If the average changes, so too will the players’ results. If in one season there is exceptional defensive play in RF for whatever reason, UZRs will be lower all around.
Also, the numbers are based on opportunity. A player may have more opportunity in the outfield playing behind Ollie Perez than Mike Pelfrey.
Lastly, TRS’s point about Francoeur’s “jump” in Atlanta is based on a 27 game (I think) sample in RF for Atlanta. So it’s not really fair to use UZR/150 on such a small sample. That’s why you can’t use UZR/150 to compare to halves of a season.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-11:39am at 11:39 am (UTC -4)
You are using UZR?
how is 3.9 and 8.4 UZR in RF for 08 and 09 “barely above average”?
how is 12.3 UZR for the past 3 years “barely above average”?
In the same time, Frenchy has 6.4 UZR, Markakis 8.4, and Ichiro 13.4.
Church wasn’t a Werth or Gutierrez, but he wasn’t “barely” above average.
Maybe “plus defender” means something different to you than it does me. To me it means above avg.
trs86
1/7/2010-12:00pm at 12:00 pm (UTC -4)
Plus to me means he would be obtained for his defense. Assuming 0 is average then 3.9 barely above average.
Also that adding UZR is VERY loopy. You can’t add those 3 years together to get anything useful. If he had a 3.9 and a 3.8 while with the Mets I can’t see how it goes up to a 12.3.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-12:20pm at 12:20 pm (UTC -4)
I got it now, you are using his poorer 08 numbers and dismissing his 09 numbers o say he’s barely above average. I always try to use the past 3 seasons.
The math adds up. 3.9 (08) + 8.4 (09) = 12.3
You then compare that number to other RFers in the same time span to see how he compared, which I did above.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:27pm at 12:27 pm (UTC -4)
Not to mention his career total of more than 200 games bring him to a 14.2 average over 150 games and 16.8 total.
The problem here is that TRS has no understanding of how this stat works and doesn’t like it but then offered an erroneous interpretation because he thought it supported his premise.
trs86
1/7/2010-12:31pm at 12:31 pm (UTC -4)
Thing is I don’t think you can add up those stats to get an accurate total. His UZR while with the METS as I said was 3.9 and 3.8. Suddenly with the Braves in a limited sample it goes out the roof. To me he is a 3.9 RF which would put him slightly above average. His place in RF stats in 2008 was 23rd, it seems as though when a player plays for multiple teams it gets loopy. Take Frenchy for example. While with the Braves he was a positive defender, while with the Mets he was -8.8. Played basically the same amount of games. However, in 2007 he 17.1.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-12:31pm at 12:31 pm (UTC -4)
Wanny, your objection is sustained.
trs86
1/7/2010-12:32pm at 12:32 pm (UTC -4)
Wanny I am interpreting it the best I know how and am pointing out that using UZR/150, as pointed out by other authors, seems dangerous.
However, if you would like to make it an agenda and call me out so be it.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-12:38pm at 12:38 pm (UTC -4)
Having sustained Wanny’s objection, I will add the caveat that in my limited understanding I do subscribe to the theory that wanton use of the UZR/150 stat is dangerous.
When used, I believe it needs to be used with the understanding by all parties that (as I understand it, which could be wrong) it is a projection, therefore should be treated as such.
If player X hits 10 home runs in 60 at bats, we would “project” him to hit 100 home runs in 600 at bats, and I think we all understand how unlikely that is.
I don’t claim to know how truly valid that comparison is, I use it to express my wariness of the use of UZR/150 to extrapolate a small sample and give the fielder credit for more than he has actually done.
That is why I fall back on the plain UZR stat, because (again, in my limited understanding) it is not a projection but rather an actual number, based on a formula one may or may not think valid, of how many runs a player saved or allowed, compared to his fellow fielders at his position in any given year.
By just plain UZR, in my opinion, any player with a “positive” number in their UZR column is therefore a “positive” fielder because he is better than the average fielder at his position. How in that context could he not be “positive?”
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:39pm at 12:39 pm (UTC -4)
TRS –
The numbers did not go through the roof when he reached the Braves.
The 3.8 UZR he had with the Mets in 2009 means he saved 3.8 runs in those games he played with the Mets. He then saved 4.7 runs in the games he played with the Braves. That’s not a drastic change.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:40pm at 12:40 pm (UTC -4)
Grave — I don’t disagree with anything you said.
Just note that the numbers TRS is using are the UZR numbers, not the UZR/150 numbers.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-12:42pm at 12:42 pm (UTC -4)
Duly noted.
trs86
1/7/2010-12:46pm at 12:46 pm (UTC -4)
Well according to UZR/150 that difference Wanny accounts out to be 30 points over the course of a season.
trs86
1/7/2010-11:07am at 11:07 am (UTC -4)
He is good enough to catch that job for say the Marlins? I guess if he was willing to be just a 4th OF (not a platoon) and sign for say 2M or less a team like even the Redsox might be interested.
fongy2
1/7/2010-11:11am at 11:11 am (UTC -4)
Good luck to him!
I do think The RedSox have more than enough OF help right now though.
trs86
1/7/2010-11:23am at 11:23 am (UTC -4)
Yeah but you know they always bring in a guy like Rocco or Gathright, Kotsay, etc.
fongy2
1/7/2010-11:26am at 11:26 am (UTC -4)
I think having Baldelli and Church on the same bench would make for some interesting conversations b/t the two…Think about it.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-11:36am at 11:36 am (UTC -4)
Baldelli is not on the Sox roster.
But Jeremy Hermida is, which likely means no Church for them.
trs86
1/7/2010-11:37am at 11:37 am (UTC -4)
True, just saying a team like them might take a chance on him as just a 4th OF. he would have to agree to little playing time and little cash.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-11:41am at 11:41 am (UTC -4)
As I see it right now, Hermida is pegged as their 4th outfielder behind Cameron, Ellsbury and Paper Drew.
I suppose they can have them compete but Hermida is guaranteed $2.25m next season.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-11:42am at 11:42 am (UTC -4)
I am a little curious to see where Church ends up, what his role will be, and will he even be in the major leagues.
trs86
1/7/2010-11:36am at 11:36 am (UTC -4)
Yeah but I think Rocco is gone right?
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-11:41am at 11:41 am (UTC -4)
He’s on Cot’s list of free agents so unless I missed a signing, you’re correct.
njstuckintx
1/7/2010-9:48am at 9:48 am (UTC -4)
I always thought the whole “know your place, rook” was a bunch of crap. Yeah, I’m sure the L-Milz portion tweaked a couple people and being so highly touted didn’t help, but at the time, with Randolph’s stiffling I-wish-I-could-make-the-Mets-just-like-the-Yanks demeanor, I thought it was a nice infusion of energy.
Mr North Jersey
1/7/2010-10:02am at 10:02 am (UTC -4)
Who won? well neither team benefited from the trade. If I am gonna look at what the teas did after the trade ie Frenchy, Morgan then you can’t say who won but rather who is winning because we may end up trading frenchy for a great player or Washington may trade Morgan for a great player.
I will say that if you asked me who i want Frenchy or Morgan I would want Morgan because I love his defense but his bat scares me so I have to say Frenchy is the better of the 2.
fongy2
1/7/2010-10:27am at 10:27 am (UTC -4)
Agreed! I had just checked into a hotel in West Virginia where I was working a multiple
day surveillance,put on the TV
and within seconds saw on ESPN
“Mets trade Milledge for Scheider and Church” I remember
thinking, “And……”.
Never thought Church was more than a platoon/4th OFer..BUT
did think Scheider was a better
Catcher,at least defensively
than what we all saw.
I do agree with Brock though,
that in the end we got Frenchy
out of the deal, So…..
This deal also furthers my feelings about FMart.
If a deal was i/f/o Omar where
he could get an Arroyo type
#2/3, I think I’d make the move before the kids value
con’ts to go down and the next GM ends up moving him for
another back-up OFer and/or Catcher.
trs86
1/7/2010-10:30am at 10:30 am (UTC -4)
True on Fmart but I think his value has not went down as quickly as we think. I think he is still viewed as valuable IF he can get healthy. Milledge the attitude killed his value more than performance.
fongy2
1/7/2010-10:40am at 10:40 am (UTC -4)
Yeah, I don’t disagree.
I didn’t think
L-Millz couldn’t be moved,it just seemed like
we should have
gotten more.
I know we’ve been over it before BUT,same
winter Delmon Young(another headache) for
Garza??
Mr North Jersey
1/7/2010-11:00am at 11:00 am (UTC -4)
Baseball sure is something Church was on his way in 2008 he was having a great year. You have to wonder what the future would of held for him had he never gotten hurt. An ALL-Star selection? A Post season birth? Where is that DeLorean when you need one?
trs86
1/7/2010-11:13am at 11:13 am (UTC -4)
But I think Young was much more highly regarded than Millz at the time.
fongy2
1/7/2010-11:23am at 11:23 am (UTC -4)
I guess. Not sure about “much more” BUT more.
Also, I didn’t mean to that we could have/should have p.u. Garza(and Bartlett) BUT something more along those lines.
trs86
1/7/2010-11:24am at 11:24 am (UTC -4)
I am not sure any other team was that stupid. That was a bad trade.
fongy2
1/7/2010-11:27am at 11:27 am (UTC -4)
Yeah, unusual for The Twinkies.
fongy2
1/7/2010-11:10am at 11:10 am (UTC -4)
Indeed North Jersey!
I couldn’t understand how Omar didn’t
get back a RP from The Nats in the
Milledge deal AND for two years have wondered how much different 2008
may have ended if Rauch,Hanrahan or
Saul Rivera had been in the pen.
Just to save a game or two while
we were sliding in September.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-11:12am at 11:12 am (UTC -4)
I think that any trades need to be judged in the context of what teams are looking for when they make the deal. That makes it very hard to do because that information is not always available to us as outsiders, so we have to make an educated guess.
My educated guess is the Nationals were looking for a young player with talent to either grow into a key member of their team or use as an asset to fill a need later on. History shows us they did the latter, so in my opinion the Nationals got what they wanted out of it.
My educated guess is the Mets were looking to rebound from their epic collapse and rejuvenate themselves for another run at the post season. They had a catcher in Paul LoDuca who was 35 (that’s for you Fongy) and coming off what was the worst statistical full season of his playing career offensively (OPS+ of 79), and who was becoming more widely known for his associations with teenage girls and horse betting than with his baseball performance.
They also had a RF in Shawn Green who was 34, whose contract had just ended, and who in similar playing time had put up offensive numbers worse than Church, 28 years old at that time, had in 2007 (Green – OPS+ 103, .291/.352/.430 with 10 HR and 40 RBI in 490 PA; Church – OPS+ 114, .272/.349/.464 with 15 HR and 70 RBI in 530 PA).
So trying to overcome a collapse, needing a starting catcher and starting RF, Omar seemingly decided to narrow it to two choices: go with the untested Milledge in RF and find a catcher elsewhere, or use Milledge as a chip to acquire both my starting RF and my starting catcher. It’s certainly reasonable to suggest that he had other choices but faced with those two he made the choice he did, trading Milledge for Church and Schneider.
At this point it becomes more subjective than ever. Either one believes Church was going to be that RF or not. Multiple concussions later it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that he was not, but prior to those it is my opinion that he provided enough offense and defense as to be a fine complimentary player as the starting RF on the star laden Mets (Delgado, Reyes, Wright, Beltran) who were counting on him to at best be their 5th “best” player in the lineup.
Schneider was unquestionably a disappointment up close defensively when compared to the accolades he had received coming in (as Met fans we can hope that Jason Bay’s defensive deficiencies are as exaggerated as Schneider’s prowess was). Offensively in 2008, by the measure of OPS+ Schneider had the 2nd best season of his career (considering only seasons in which he played at least 100 games) so his offense was at least as good as we could’ve expected it to be if not better. 2009 was injury plagued and one of the two worst seasons of his career offensively, however few games he played.
So in my opinion, having laid it out this way, the Nationals “won” this trade because they got a player that they were able to use as a chip to acquire a player they seem content to start daily as their leadoff hitter and CF. The Mets wanted to get a starting RF and C for the subsequent few years after the trade who would help them return to the post season, and for whatever reasons, they didn’t.
trs86
1/7/2010-11:15am at 11:15 am (UTC -4)
Great novel and explanation. I said it at the time that the Mets traded future potential for 2 guys they believed could start and be role players on a winning team. They did not feel Milledge could do that.
fongy2
1/7/2010-11:20am at 11:20 am (UTC -4)
Very good post,as usual Heb.
I think it’s pretty much a wash but can see the point
of giving either us or The Nats a slight edge.
Again, the most surprising
think to me was that we didn’t
get one of Rauch,Hanrahan or
Saul Rivera in the deal.
The only other positive for
The Nats was saving salary
for a couple yrs..
Not that it was much but….
trs86
1/7/2010-11:24am at 11:24 am (UTC -4)
Agreed on the reliever part.
njstuckintx
1/7/2010-11:26am at 11:26 am (UTC -4)
Well put. I guess if you extrapolate this out, it comes down to Morgan vs. Francouer. Where they are today, I’d prefer Morgan, but I’m not crying about having Francouer.
fongy2
1/7/2010-11:31am at 11:31 am (UTC -4)
agreed. I do think however Morgan would
be a better fit for this team, this season. Two-hole hitter(Hey…Wait!…
THAT didn’t sound right), Leftfielder,
Move Bay to Right.
trs86
1/7/2010-11:35am at 11:35 am (UTC -4)
Oh god don’t move Bay to RF.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-11:37am at 11:37 am (UTC -4)
I can’t argue with and in fact agree with your comment here.
My only quibble would be, and this is just my subjective opinion, I don’t think the Mets were making that Milledge trade with the thought of 1 1/2 seasons later admitting that Church for a number of reasons didn’t work out and spinning him off for Francoeur.
But back to your point, yes if you extrapolate it out, Morgan and Francoeur provide different things and Francoeur, who turns just 26 tomorrow, still has a lot of potential if it breaks right, and can help the Mets in a lot of quantifiable ways as well as some ways that there are no statistics for.
trs86
1/7/2010-11:40am at 11:40 am (UTC -4)
Yeah, if we did not need a potential power rbi man and did not already have Castillo then Morgan would be more attractive.
njstuckintx
1/7/2010-11:47am at 11:47 am (UTC -4)
Speaking of your quibble (what a fun word)… Wouldn’t you say that the Nats weren’t thinking they would be shipping Milz off in roughly the same time period?
Taking everything into consideration, I give this a slight edge to the Nats, based solely on money saved. Basis everything else, Mets and Nats both got what they were looking for at the time, filling needs that they had.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-11:55am at 11:55 am (UTC -4)
Quibbles and bits! Yes I think it’s very fair to suggest that the Nats were not expecting and certainly not hoping to be trading Milledge away.
It was part of my supposition in my lengthy thesis above that I left out because I had already gone way too long that the Nats were at the time an organization far away from any sort of realistic contention and therefore had more options on the table for how that trade could work out successfully for them. But that’s purely guesswork on my part and what you say makes a ton of sense. At best in my opinion trading away Milledge so soon was a distant second option for the Nats. Ideally they must’ve wanted him to develop into a keeper stud.
fongy2
1/7/2010-11:53am at 11:53 am (UTC -4)
This was par of my argument FOR
The Frenchy/Church
move,for which
I was hammered
by many Church
lovers here.
Frenchy has already had productive MLB
seasons as a
regular while
Church has shown himself to be,pretty much a platoon/
4th OF who’s injury history
has continued to
build. Taking those factors in
with the age factor, like I
said six months
ago”Good move by Omar,a no-brainer”.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-11:52am at 11:52 am (UTC -4)
re: Church, I could see him landing in several places. Two that come to mind are Tampa (keeping a seat warm for Desmond Jennings) and Toronto, who may have to go with veteran rookie and Monroe HS grad, Randy Ruiz, in RF.
Toronto hasn’t a guy who can play any defense in the corners right now.
fongy2
1/7/2010-11:55am at 11:55 am (UTC -4)
Got to be rough being a Blue
Jay fan! What’s the future there?
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-11:59am at 11:59 am (UTC -4)
Well, they have some young guys who can really rake: Snider, Lind and Wallace. But none of them can play a position very well.
They must like someone enough in RF to have traded Michael Taylor for Wallace.
They also have lots of good young pitchers, most of whom have injury histories, including Drabek, Marcum and McGowan (I believe Romero and Cecil are the exceptions to the injury history).
Tough to try and rebuild like that in the AL East, that’s for sure. Aaron Hill is a nice player but he shouldn’t be your best (maybe he will get too expensive for them…. hmmm).
fongy2
1/7/2010-12:02pm at 12:02 pm (UTC -4)
No, I know.
I just mean
with all Tampa’s young
talent and The Yanks&Sox willing to spend
anything to Win,
Where’s the hope
for them to ever
finish higher than 4th or to
be better than
.500?
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:12pm at 12:12 pm (UTC -4)
Lady luck, I suppose.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-11:57am at 11:57 am (UTC -4)
Wanny are you referring to Lind, Snider, both or other?
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:00pm at 12:00 pm (UTC -4)
Both and other (Ruiz too). Snider plays defense well enough to get by in LF from what I’ve read.
fongy2
1/7/2010-12:07pm at 12:07 pm (UTC -4)
Lind is a very
good young hitter and while
a small sample
I saw him,I believe 3 summers ago against our Senators in a three game series,didn’t look bad in the OF! Funny that
Fonzie was on that New Hamp.
team trying to
make it back to the majors. I think he got like one hit in the series and LOOKED OLD.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-11:56am at 11:56 am (UTC -4)
Eric Hinske signed with the Braves. He’d have been a reasonable guy for the Tatis role, albeit from the left side of the plate.
Clay Condrey is now out of the division after signing with Minny, who cut former Mets farmhand and high draft pick, Bobby Keppel. I know we can all sleep better now.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-12:01pm at 12:01 pm (UTC -4)
Former Met property Keppel won the “play in” game for Minny vs. Detroit in October. Carlos Gomez scored the winning run. Ron Gardenhire managed the game, Rick Anderson was the pitching coach coaxing Keppel along. Justin Huber, Luis Ayala, Kevin Mulvey and Phil Humber all pitched in (however little) during the season en route to that game. Sigh.
fongy2
1/7/2010-12:09pm at 12:09 pm (UTC -4)
Jeez,talk about a bunch
of guys who went from
prospects to suspects real fast.
fongy2
1/7/2010-12:13pm at 12:13 pm (UTC -4)
I know they really couldn’t afford to
pay him BUT looking back, The Twins
would have been alot better off holding onto Johan and Garza for
the 2008 season than moving them.Considering what they got back.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-12:33pm at 12:33 pm (UTC -4)
Bill Smith was hoping to get back Cliff Lee, Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips, and Lee Stevens.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-12:40pm at 12:40 pm (UTC -4)
Nelson Muntz says “Ha Ha” to Bill Smith.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-12:42pm at 12:42 pm (UTC -4)
Bill Smith is convinced Deolis Guerra is the next Cliff Lee.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-12:46pm at 12:46 pm (UTC -4)
He still has some time for that wish to come true.
Any chance Omar Minaya could convince Bill Lee that Josh Thole is the next Johnny Bench and trade him along with the 2010 versions of Kevin Mulvey, Carlos Gomez and Phil Humber for Joe Mauer?
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-2:08pm at 2:08 pm (UTC -4)
According to Baseball America’s 08 rankings, Guerra ranked 2, Gomez – 3, Mulvey – 4, and Humber 7.
The 2010 rankins lists Flores 2, F-Mart 3, Davis 4 and Havens 7.
I’d do that in a NY minute.
Do the twinkies have a need for two future corner outfielders, a 1B and 2B?
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-12:54pm at 12:54 pm (UTC -4)
As a guy who favors pitching and defense over offense, I find this article warms the cockles of my heart:
http://fonzieforever.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-allowing-less-runs-is-better-than.html
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-1:11pm at 1:11 pm (UTC -4)
nice.
Like I said b4, Mets Need Defense, Mets need Pitching, and then Mets Need Hitting.
Oh well, Rome wasn’t built in a day.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-1:17pm at 1:17 pm (UTC -4)
It hadn’t occurred to me that your order of articles was also your ranking of the needs. Very subtle, well played sir. That there was so much more time that passed between article number 2 and article number 3 is also a subtle editorial comment of sorts I suppose.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-2:00pm at 2:00 pm (UTC -4)
well that and finals
So does that mean that Omar is working in reverse and his next move will be a pitcher and then a defender?
Omar did get Escobar. Pitchers left on my list are Myers, Smoltz, Arroyo, Harang and Webb.
I’d be happy with Myers.
“Hopefully I’ll be playing against the Phillies and when I do I want the roughest treatment the fans can give me – when I’m pitching. I’m an opposing player – you have to give it to me.”
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/phillies/69392207.html
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-2:12pm at 2:12 pm (UTC -4)
I can understand and respect why lots of people would rather not see Brett Myers here. In the interest of full disclosure, there are some players I just don’t like and for my own reasons don’t want them to become Mets. Barry Bonds as an example, I never wanted anything to do with him.
On my personal, subjective list, Myers is a guy I am open to becoming a Met. I think he could help the team in a number of ways, not the least of which is some division rival revenge.
trs86
1/7/2010-2:17pm at 2:17 pm (UTC -4)
Agreed, that is why if I were the Mets I would be big time into what happens with Werth as well.
trs86
1/7/2010-1:24pm at 1:24 pm (UTC -4)
Also seriously guys help me with this one. Frenchy.
His season totals for UZR/150
+30.1, 7.4, 16.9, -4.9, -5.9.
While with the Braves last year 6.2, while with the Mets -18.2.
Anyone got a clue based on these stats if Frenchy is a good defender?
trs86
1/7/2010-1:25pm at 1:25 pm (UTC -4)
Using UZR alone: 13.2, 8.2, 17.1, -4.7, -6.1, 2.7/-8.8.
fongy2
1/7/2010-1:27pm at 1:27 pm (UTC -4)
Maybe….proving my point
that fielding stats,much more
than hitting or pitching stats
are greatly flawed????
Maybe????
trs86
1/7/2010-1:29pm at 1:29 pm (UTC -4)
Good or Bad?
David Wright:
4.1, -5, -9.4, 4.9, 3.4, -10.4
trs86
1/7/2010-1:34pm at 1:34 pm (UTC -4)
Beltran while with the Mets
-6.5, 5.3, 1.2, 8.8, -4.8
Beltran a good defender or not?
Obviously we all know the answer to that one but for some reason UZR just does not like him at all.
trs86
1/7/2010-2:02pm at 2:02 pm (UTC -4)
How about this one? Can you use UZR to tell if Beltran is good or not?
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-1:56pm at 1:56 pm (UTC -4)
4.1, good compared to all other 3B that year
-5, bad compared to all other 3B that year
-9.4, bad compared to all other 3B that year
4.9, good compared to all other 3B that year
3.4, good compared to all other 3B that year
-10.4, bad compared to all other 3B that year
As you lay it out here it’s a tool to use to compare him to all other 3B in each individual season, and each individual season is different.
Subjectively, based on your 6 year period here in which he was never exactly average compared to his peers, but was in 3 separate years above average compared to his peers, and was in 3 separate years below average compared to his peers, I’m going to add them up.
4.1 + 4.9 + 3.4 = 12.4
-5 + -9.4 + -10.4 = -24.8
12.4 + -24.8 = -12.4, which is below average. Case’s “last 3 years” ranking list below, which shows Wright to be ranked 12th out of 17 seems to support “below average” as well.
trs86
1/7/2010-2:00pm at 2:00 pm (UTC -4)
But again those 3 seasons change based on who played that season. I don’t see how you can use it over a period of time if every year the baseline changes.
trs86
1/7/2010-2:01pm at 2:01 pm (UTC -4)
My point is that you just can’t use it to tell if a fielder is good or not. Especially over time.
To me the fact that he has had 3 seasons of above average and 3 seasons of below average would mean that he is most likely…. average.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-2:28pm at 2:28 pm (UTC -4)
If that’s what you want UZR to do, to tell you “he’s a good fielder,” I guess it will fail you.
As my understanding of it grows I simply try to use it to compare a fielder to his peers in a given season. After many seasons, I am more open to using it as a tool in the tool box, among other tools, to determine if a guy is “a good fielder” or not.
As Case has mentioned, the Seattle Mariners and the Tampa Bay Rays made significant improvement in their won-loss records by using defensive metrics along with traditional scouting methods to do so, their GMs are quoted as saying so.
Anyone among us who throws out an UZR number and makes a declarative statement based solely on it should be subject to challenge. But while it is not a “be all, end all” stat, nor is it useless. A few years ago I never heard of OPS. Now it’s a fairly accepted number thrown around to make statements, but it alone doesn’t tell us everything. What part of someone’s OPS is the O and what part is the S? I have to know that too. With UZR, I can use it as one part of a point, and so can you and everyone else.
All of us who have relied solely on UZR to make statements have not done our best work. But it is useful and it’s not going away. I believe in it enough to use it to draw conclusions about any given player. Then, to determine if those conclusions are accurate, I should do more work, dig deeper, find other supporting evidence. Much the same way I shouldn’t say Adam Dunn is a good hitter because his OPS is .903. Does that really mean he’s “a good hitter?” What does “a good hitter” mean to me. Someon could certainly retort to me “how can you call a guy with a BA of .249 a
good hitter?” I would have to appreciate their different weight of the different items we use to apply to define for ourselves what a “good hitter” is. Same as “good fielder.” Different aspects of offense and defense are weighed differently by each of us.
trs86
1/7/2010-2:38pm at 2:38 pm (UTC -4)
Agree but saying this: “As my understanding of it grows I simply try to use it to compare a fielder to his peers in a given season.”
Is different from using it over the course of time. I am having a hard time using it over a course of time because it has a changing baseline.
As I mentioned with Case a player good play the exact same defense for 3 years and have -9, 0, 8 as his numbers. To me if I had to predict what he would be the next year I would go with 4 which would be above average but UZR would say -1.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-2:44pm at 2:44 pm (UTC -4)
Completely reasonable stance. The moving baseline is at best problematic. But it is how it works. I would like to believe that if it were possible to establish a firm baseline that all these mathematicians would’ve done so by now, but in my ignorance I have no idea how complex a problem that may be.
For all I know, they’re in the lab in their white coats and dust-free, temperature controlled environment working on it right now. Unfortunately, some lab mice are better shortstops than others
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-1:46pm at 1:46 pm (UTC -4)
Rankings for past 3 seasons:
Ryan Zimmerman
Pedro Feliz
Scott Rolen
Adrian Beltre
Brandon Inge
Chone Figgins
Kevin Kouzmanoff
Mike Lowell
Alex Gordon
Aramis Ramirez
Melvin Mora
David Wright
Casey Blake
Chipper Jones
Mark Reynolds
Alex Rodriguez
Edwin Encarnacion
trs86
1/7/2010-2:06pm at 2:06 pm (UTC -4)
Lowell positive 11 2008, -11 2009. So based on your list he is a better defender than Wright.
Mora -8.1, 1.8, -9.9, 3.8, -5.3, 1.8 Again what the hell does that even mean? Is -5.3 an outlier for the last 3 years? Can’t be because he was also -8.1 and -9.9 in in the previous 3 years.
trs86
1/7/2010-2:09pm at 2:09 pm (UTC -4)
Gordon’s had one positive season in the last 3 and he is also ahead of Wright.
Ramirez has had one positive season in his ENTIRE career and he is ahead of Wright.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-2:22pm at 2:22 pm (UTC -4)
why can’t a player have a poor season followed by a bad season?
The past 3 seasons will likely better tell you how a player has played or will play. What use is it to know how a player did 4, 5 or 6 years ago?
You continue to mention that if a good player is gone for the season, it’ll improve another player’s numbers. That’s true, but it also improves everyone else’s numbers. So when you compare them, everyone got that boost.
Lowell, also had a 7.3 UZR in 07. If I recall correctly, Lowell was injured in 09 which explains his poor UZR.
Also, if you look at the list as the top 1/3 being above average, the middle being average, and the bottom being below average, I don’t see a much of a problem with the rankings.
trs86
1/7/2010-2:34pm at 2:34 pm (UTC -4)
Because based on the way it is computed Case that player could have played the EXACT same defense all 3 years.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-2:44pm at 2:44 pm (UTC -4)
And we’re saying it’s comparative. I could perform the EXACT way on my finals, but unfortunately there’s a graded curve.
UZR helps us answer how does a player compare to other players.
If you look at the formula, it looks at how many outs were made in a certain range by that player compared to other players in the same position.
It’ll never be a baseline because it’s impossible for the number of outs made in a certain range to be the same. That’d be an anomaly.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-2:36pm at 2:36 pm (UTC -4)
If in a hitter’s 3 year career he had an OPS of .700, then .900, then .800. His career OPS would be .800. Is he an average, good or great hitter?
trs86
1/7/2010-2:39pm at 2:39 pm (UTC -4)
Show me players that had that? I have found a bunch of defensive players. Now think about this was his .700 changed by other hitters?
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-3:00pm at 3:00 pm (UTC -4)
Beltran:
05 .744
06 .982
07 .878
It’s not changed by other hitters. But, those numbers only mean something if you compare them to how other players did that same year.
If in 06, the avg OPS was high for some reason, Beltran’s OPS that year would mean less.
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-3:05pm at 3:05 pm (UTC -4)
Also, depending how far one wants to go, it is absolutely affected by other players and less so but still affected by other hitters.
In any given at bat, the pitcher has to throw you a hittable pitch, whether it’s a strike or not, and you have to swing at it or not. He may be more or less likely to do throw that hittable pitch depending on what the hitter before you has done, or who the hitter after you is, so it is perfectly reasonable to me to suggest that any one player’s hitting statistics are related to those of other hitters.
CaseStreet
1/7/2010-3:13pm at 3:13 pm (UTC -4)
If you look at a player’s splits in any given year, his place in the lineup will affect his OPS
GravediggerHebner
1/7/2010-3:27pm at 3:27 pm (UTC -4)
There you go. So to me the idea that UZR should be less regarded because it is affected by players around you while OPS or other batting stats are not is a faulty one, because they are too.
I am repeating myself terribly in this thread but the issue with UZR comes down to the baseline, and the fact that for UZR it moves, which makes it more difficult (but not impossible) to work with.
As long as one knows that (which I didn’t until literally days ago) one can use the stat in the proverbial toolbox.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-4:06pm at 4:06 pm (UTC -4)
Grave — your last thought is the best of them all today.
UZR is useful in the toolbox. You can utilize your own eye, other stats and then come to your own conclusion.
When you see Gutierrez in the OF you know he is a good outfielder. UZR verifies that.
A guy like Beltran might suffer in UZR because he plays so damn deep he misses quite a few balls a guy like Victorino might get. It’s not a novel idea and guys like Francessa have been killing Beltran for years over it. Beltran might look better than he is because nothing gets over his head.
Beltran is still a good defender.
But the stats are useful because not everything is as it appears.
That’s why all the tools are useful.
Mr North Jersey
1/7/2010-4:11pm at 4:11 pm (UTC -4)
I must just have selective memory because all I can recall is Francesa saying Beltran is one of the best centerfielders in baseball time and time again.
wannybackstra
1/7/2010-4:01pm at 4:01 pm (UTC -4)
Mike Lowell was barely able to walk (hip) in 2009 and had a bad finger.
Is it shocking that his defensive performance slid?
So too did Arod’s after his hip surgery.
Player fluctuations will always occur. If the stats did not show fluctuations I would worry more about them than if they didn’t.
gregfrombrooklyn
1/7/2010-2:09pm at 2:09 pm (UTC -4)
I would have loved to see David Wright answer Jimmy Rollins comments about the Mets like he did Lastings Milledge’s comments.
trs86
1/7/2010-2:10pm at 2:10 pm (UTC -4)
Welcome Gregfrombrooklyn.