In an article by Jayson Stark of ESPN he asked Dan Szymborski of ESPN Insider using his ZiPS projection system, Vegas odds makers and a half-dozen big league executives which 5 teams have most improved and which 5 teams have least improved.
Among the least improved was the Mets.
- Dan Szymborski had the Mets winning 66 games.
- Vegas had the Mets 75/1 odds on winning it all.
- The baseball execs had the following to say about the Mets.
“If you’re asking are they going to be improved down the road, I’d say yes,” said one AL executive. “But if you’re asking are they improved next year, the answer is obviously no. I mean, you’ve lost your No. 1 starter, a guy who won the Cy Young Award. The bullpen looks kind of shaky right now. They haven’t re-signed [Scott] Hairston, so what’s their outfield? And I’ll go back to this: You’re taking away your No. 1 [starter], a guy who really impacts your club. That’s a big hit.”
You can read the article in it’s entirety here.
25 comments
Prismo
12/20/2012-12:19pm at 12:19 pm (UTC -4)
Why are they doing this before the offseason ends? I mean, I understand changing the odds (because Vegas always has the odds) – but why the interviews?
Anyway, we have to see how things shape up, but I do think the Mets will win more than 66 games.
I’ll actually take the 75-1 odds. Hey, we have a tangible shot!
greggofboken
12/20/2012-1:16pm at 1:16 pm (UTC -4)
Well….I nailed last season at 74….and have been doing a running tally on this end using the same methodology….My number’s currently at 71.
Which, like Stark’s number, doesn’t really mean anything. Just a finger in the air…..
TRS86
12/20/2012-1:18pm at 1:18 pm (UTC -4)
Just too early for me. I need to see who the starting OF is and who the # 5 starter is. Oh and if we have a pen.
srt
12/20/2012-8:07pm at 8:07 pm (UTC -4)
Agree with this.
Prismo
12/20/2012-1:22pm at 1:22 pm (UTC -4)
Apparently the Mets are the only team yet to sign a major league free agent. *slow clap*
kingman 26
12/20/2012-2:20pm at 2:20 pm (UTC -4)
PATIENCE!
What the hell’s the rush??
kingman 26
12/20/2012-2:28pm at 2:28 pm (UTC -4)
I think the above is utterly reasonable, except the 66 wins is a tad low I think.
But sure, d’Arnaud/Wheeler/Syndergaard are a great trio; probably among the game’s best–but none will be playing opening day.
The team is utterly non-improved, but I think a full season of Harvey and hopefully Gee and possibly continued improvement from Niese could combine, hopefully with continued improvement from Parnell and some nice contributions from 1-2 of Mejia/Familia/Carson/Edgin to make the team good enough to equal last year’s win total.
The offense will stink, especially if $t. Dimple$ the Truly Magnificent puts up a year like 2011 or July/Aug/Sept 2012, but if he plays like 2012′s 1st half Dimple$, Ike recovers pre-Valley injury form, Murph and Tejada stay the same, and we get anything from the OF, I think 75–78 wins is easily attainable.
And let’s not forget, by mid-season, we may have Wheeler and d’Arnaud on the team as well.
Not improved? Agreed.
75-1 to win it all? Sounds fair.
66 wins? I will take the over big time.
And PS–the way people are talking about Hairston is absolutely hilarious. Truly atrocious OBP, bad fielder, horrific BB/K ratio and 20 mostly meaningless HR for a bad team. The cycle–in an 18-9 loss IN DENVER was the classic Hairston game—has anyone achieved so much that meant so little?
Stick
12/20/2012-2:51pm at 2:51 pm (UTC -4)
Glad I am not the only one that feels that way about hairston. It ain’t all about the # of HRs.
and they were never really worried about making 2013 better. it was always about 2014+ as being when the “new” team really starts. This year is about getting more of the future young nucleus up and settled in.
Hank
12/20/2012-9:25pm at 9:25 pm (UTC -4)
You had me at Dimples the Magnificent.
That said, they will win more than 66 because goodness gracious, we cannot be that bad can we?? That’s basically all I got. We have not gotten better and every team in the division has arguably gotten better. I also would like the 2014 argument a whole lot better if Wright was traded for a Dickey-like package and his money and the other $20-25 that Sandy wants us to ignore that he could spend just to reach our mid-market $100MM payroll…if that were to happen and we signed some two starting MLB OFers, then I’d be all about 2014.
But all we got in 2014 is hope.
You mentioned Wheeler, d’Arnaud, Syndergaard. Well the Marlins like Stanton, Fernandez, Marisnick.
Ceetar
12/20/2012-2:30pm at 2:30 pm (UTC -4)
This is like deciding on the best picture Oscar based on who finishes making their movie first.
Django Unchained would’ve looked like a longshot back in February, but once every movie is actually created and released and shown, that’s when things actually matter. And offseason rankings matter not until 4/1.
Also, Django was awesome.
kingman 26
12/20/2012-2:45pm at 2:45 pm (UTC -4)
No, it’s not like that at all.
The Angels started out good and have made huge moves.
The Jays have added Reyes, Johnson, Dickey and others.
The Mets started out bad and have definitely acquired a couple of minor leaguers, but the MLB product is most definitely not improved.
It’s most definitely too early to make final judgments, but it is also most definitely not too early to judge which teams have thus far improved and which have not.
Most offseason rankings are not going to significantly change between now and opening day.
Stick
12/20/2012-2:55pm at 2:55 pm (UTC -4)
the changres are just part of the picture. how a season turns out also has a lot to do with how the existing guys perform/develop. And that is much harder to predict.
oh, and of course, staying healthy.
and don’t forget, the consensus most improved team last off season was the marlins!
kingman 26
12/20/2012-5:31pm at 5:31 pm (UTC -4)
Well, yes, but not everyone bought into the Marlins.
And the players they added, while good, were not exactly all very young players in their prime, nor did they have a healthy, solid base.
Yes, they were a huge flop, but sometimes that sort of spending does work–as it did once before for the Marlins.
Ceetar
12/20/2012-3:34pm at 3:34 pm (UTC -4)
you’re right of course, you clearly have to factor in the games the Angels and such are winning right now by making the moves first.
It’s similar in golf. Whichever player gets the ball onto the green first is the best. it doesn’t matter if it takes him 15 swings as long as he’s there before the guy that gets there in two.
kingman 26
12/20/2012-5:28pm at 5:28 pm (UTC -4)
Hahaha!
Ceetar I hope you and yours have the most wonderful holiday season where I am SURE you will be visited by Santa, flying reindeer, unicorns, five-leaf clovers, and many, many mermaids, yetis, centaurs, and offspring of the Loch Ness Monster.
And you surely will receive a DVD entitled “Highlights of Mets World Series Wins 2009–2012–Special Collector’s 4-DVD Set.”
Stick
12/20/2012-2:48pm at 2:48 pm (UTC -4)
yes, this seems premature. at least wait until ST starts, and even then, there will be changes before the season.
The other problem I have with this viewpoint is it essentially thinks players are static. That is, it only looks at new bodies (and honestly usually underplays departures). So Atlanta is a big + for adding Upton, but almost ignoring they lost Bourne.
for the Mets, they have a lot of players in different situations. Ike not coming back from the dead for 3 months. Harvey from Day 1. Etc. And all that has to get factored in when predicting what they will do. Not just “they lost dickey so they will suck”
greggofboken
12/20/2012-3:28pm at 3:28 pm (UTC -4)
Absolutely it’s all got to get factored in. Along with overperformers likelihood of coming closer to earth (Wright, Parnell and — IMO – Niese, ) as well as underperformers hewing closer to their baseline (Santana, Frankie Frank, Ike). The returns from injuries, and the call-ups contributions. The players heading towards an apex or a decline.
Reality will throw a monkey wrench in and a good variety of reasonable assumptions will end in the trash….but at least you’ll have had a thoughtful baseline before all the deviations kick in.
(And frankly, I think the Braves have made themselves worse.)
I don’t see much of a point in putting too much stock into an assesment halfway through. For instance, if your primary mission this off-season was to solidify your bench and buck up your bullpen and back end of the rotation — it would likely look like you’d done zip at this point. The markets for those changes largely haven’t happened yet.
wanny
12/20/2012-3:04pm at 3:04 pm (UTC -4)
If the Mets are better next year it will be because of organic growth. And there is plenty of room for that to happen. The following players could reasonably be expected to get better to varying degrees (that doesnt mean any of it will happen): Tejada, Murphy, Duda, Kirk, Davis, Harvey (by virtue of more innings which will mean more impact), Gee (see Harvey), Mejia, Francisco, Familia.
If all of these guys play to their potential, the Mets can surprise. If some do, the Mets could be as good or better than last year. If more flop than prosper, it will be a long year.
There is really no deal to be made right now with a free agent or a trade candidate that will improve the Mets on paper. It simply requires too much money, even in a trade, than the Mets have to spend. Cody Ross and Scott Hairston are not difference makers.
Really no one on the Mets other than Hairston had an aberration season last way (in a good sense). If anything, most of the team did not play as well as they could have.
I expect a similar record this year with the losses of Dickey and Hairston to be compensated for by improvement from some of the above players. I really expect better seasons from Murph, Tejada and Davis.
darknova306
12/20/2012-3:52pm at 3:52 pm (UTC -4)
I’ll save the prognostication of 2013 Mets futility for Spring Training, thanks.
Hazmet
12/20/2012-5:00pm at 5:00 pm (UTC -4)
Like I need Vegas to tell me we suck.
Stick
12/20/2012-5:31pm at 5:31 pm (UTC -4)
well, the As fans who bet on them to win the division last year appreciated it. I think it ended up being $10 bet won $35,000
gategem
12/21/2012-1:05am at 1:05 am (UTC -4)
And Vegas loves that as it entices a steady supply of suckers hoping to catch lightening in a bottle.
srt
12/20/2012-8:21pm at 8:21 pm (UTC -4)
Do they make these predictions ever mid season?
If not, what’s the point?
Come back 1 April and give us the predictions.
I’m sure not much will change for the Mets – we’ll probably still be around the same odds. Might be worth a $20 bet….
darknova306
12/20/2012-8:45pm at 8:45 pm (UTC -4)
They make these kinds of predictions when news is slow and they have a specific fanbase they feel they can troll for clicks.
That being said… 66 wins is probably a safer bet than a playoff birth (though I think they win 70+)… Way too many things have to go extremely right for the Mets to even fringe-contend in 2013.
gategem
12/21/2012-1:08am at 1:08 am (UTC -4)
Vegas makes those odds because presently there are people betting on the season. Those numbers are fluid and will change.