1631 replies to this topic

[NJDevs4978]

We're way overdue to end the 2009 thread, it's no longer the offseason, it's no longer 2009 and there was way too much bad juju last year anyway

First Spring Training game is in four days on SNY, which coincidentally is the first day that the Devils return from the Olympics as well Hopefully this year is less about doctors' visits and PR disasters and more about winning.

The team has so many questions to sort out it might perversely make the spring games more interesting...how will the pen shape up after K-Rod and Feliciano? What happens at first base between Murphy, Jacobs and Ike Davis? How will the AB's at CF and C be divvied up? And will we be able to get bounceback years from the #2-4 starters?

Edited by NJDevs4978, 25 April 2011 - 06:47 AM.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

The Mets ALWAYS enter spring training with a lot of questions. That seems to be the Wilpons' and Omar's MO: stock up on a lot of "ifs" and hope for the best. It's hard to expect much from a team that's built that way, but nmig had them at about 84 wins (88 if everything goes perfectly)...I'd say they look like about a .500 team right now.

Yeah, I'm hoping for a lot more stories (GOOD ONES!) being written on the field as opposed to in the owners' suite, GM's office, or medical facilities. I think this is a make-or-break year...not from a win-loss standpoint (I don't see this team being playoff-bound), but from a fan standpoint...I think a vast majority of Met fans want assurance that this team is being run competently, and that the many embarrassing moments from the last few seasons will not make repeat appearances in the years going forward.

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976, 26 February 2010 - 09:09 AM.

[NJDevs4978]

Yeah, problem with the Mets is they could be anywhere from 74-85 wins as presently constituted, but it'll probably tick to the lower end of it with how tough the division is and the specific question marks with the starting pitching (you can't count on Pelfrey and Ollie to be consistent or Maine to stay healthy).

Not only do you have the Phillies in the division, who look like a mortal lock to win it again with Halladay for a full season but you have a decent Braves team as well despite their giving away Vazquez. Plus the Nationals will be improved and the Marlins are always a pain in the neck.

The best we can hope for is to enjoy the first 145 games then bite our nails, fingers and hands off the last 17 again Or the even more cynical half-full approach, we get off to a slow start with no Beltran, Omar, Jerry and Warthen get canned and we pick it up after when Beltran gets back.

Edited by Hasan4978, 26 February 2010 - 09:35 AM.

[Devils Pride 26]

may god have mercy on this thread

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Yeah, problem with the Mets is they could be anywhere from 74-85 wins as presently constituted, but it'll probably tick to the lower end of it with how tough the division is and the specific question marks with the starting pitching (you can't count on Pelfrey and Ollie to be consistent or Maine to stay healthy).

Not only do you have the Phillies in the division, who look like a mortal lock to win it again with Halladay for a full season but you have a decent Braves team as well despite their giving away Vazquez. Plus the Nationals will be improved and the Marlins are always a pain in the neck.

The best we can hope for is to enjoy the first 145 games then bite our nails, fingers and hands off the last 17 again Or the even more cynical half-full approach, we get off to a slow start with no Beltran, Omar, Jerry and Warthen get canned and we pick it up after when Beltran gets back.

Agree with all of this, especially the win range. 74 to 85 wins seems dead on.

[nmigliore]

The team has so many questions to sort out it might perversely make the spring games more interesting...how will the pen shape up after K-Rod and Feliciano? What happens at first base between Murphy, Jacobs and Ike Davis? How will the AB's at CF and C be divvied up? And will we be able to get bounceback years from the #2-4 starters?

My guesses on these things..

Bullpen:
K-Rod
Igarashi
Escobar*
Feliciano
Green
Parnell
Nieve

* = Escobar might not be ready by Opening Day, so the Mets could carry an extra reliever in his place until hes ready to go. I'm going to guess Fernando Nieve makes the roster by default considering hes out of options and I'm pretty sure the Mets would like to keep him and not run the risk of trying to pass him through waivers. The Mets could opt to carry a 2nd lefty in the absence of Escobar (not Takahashi), and I would keep my eye on Eric Niesen this spring - he might have a legit shot at making the bullpen as the 2nd lefty. He worked as a starter last year in high-A and AA and he was pretty impressive vs lefties: 3.17 FIP, 34 IP, 26 hits, 1.11 WHIP, 43 K, 50% GB rate.

1B: Murphy will be the Opening Day starter with either Catalanotto, Carter, or Jacobs as the final guy on the bench. As for Ike Davis, he'll likely start out in AAA, but I wouldn't bet against him coming up by mid-season and taking over the job, especially if Murphy is doing pretty mediocre and the Mets are looking for some pop. But giving him the job right from the get-go would be a mistake, he needs to improve vs breaking pitches and left handed pitching, no need to rush him.

CF: I'm hoping Jerry and Co. use some brains here. Angel Pagan is by far the superior player. Gary Matthews Jr. should be on the bench serving as the team cheerleader, occasionally getting some pinch hit chances, and then hopefully he'll be released when Beltran returns (though this probably won't happen). So lets hope Jerry pulls a Nick Evans with Matthews Jr!

Rotation: Its definitely an iffy one. I'm going to assume the rotation will look like this: Santana, Pelfrey, Maine, Perez, Niese, so yeah, the onus is going to be on the Pelf-Maine-Ollie trio. I think Pelfrey will rebound actually, and hopefully he'll get some better defense in front of him too. John Maine, when healthy (key phrase), is a pretty solid starter. In 2007 he pitched 191 innings and was worth +2.7 wins. Injuries really derailed his last 2 seasons (despite pitching for a good portion of the season, he was pitching hurt in 2008, and 2009 was a lost season due to injury as well). But again, if healthy, I'm fairly confident in John Maine's abilities; his peripherals have always been pretty solid (career .235 average against, 7.47 K/9). As for Ollie, jeez who knows. All reports have been hes looking good in spring, though I wouldn't take that as gospel. I'd be satisfied with a year somewhere between what he did in 2007 and 2008, so something like a 4.40 tERA over 170+ innings, anything else is gravy. I might be the only one who feels this way, but I really think Jon Niese is going to have a surprisingly good year for us. Ever since he incorporated the cutter more into his repertoire (around late-May of last year) he put up dominant numbers in AAA and looked very good in his 2nd stint last year with the Mets (albeit only 3 starts). But I think he'll have a really strong rookie year, and won't be just a run of the mill #5 starter.

I should also mention its going to be a fun here to follow some of our upper-echelon prospects. Jenrry Mejia, Kirk Nieuwenhuis, Brad Holt, and Reese Havens will all likely be in AA from the get-go, with F-Mart, Ike Davis, Josh Thole, and maybe even Ruben Tejada in AAA from the start.

I'm glad its baseball season again, and I'm glad we can put 2009 behind us. Lets Go Mets.

Edited by nmigliore, 26 February 2010 - 12:01 PM.

[MadDog2020]

We're way overdue to end the 2009 thread, it's no longer the offseason, it's no longer 2009 and there was way too much bad juju last year anyway

First Spring Training game is in four days on SNY, which coincidentally is the first day that the Devils return from the Olympics as well Hopefully this year is less about doctors' visits and PR disasters and more about winning.

The team has so many questions to sort out it might perversely make the spring games more interesting...how will the pen shape up after K-Rod and Feliciano? What happens at first base between Murphy, Jacobs and Ike Davis? How will the AB's at CF and C be divvied up? And will we be able to get bounceback years from the #2-4 starters?

This is the Mets. It's never about winning.

[nmigliore]

Biggest crime of the offseason:

Alex Cora, coming off of a below replacement level year, gets $2M guaranteed with an additional $1M in incentives, plus a $2M vesting option for 2011.

Felipe Lopez, coming off a +4.6 WAR year, gets $1M guaranteed with an additional $1.2M in incentives.

/doh

[Devils Pride 26]

whats WAR? sorry, ive just been seeing it a lot 'round here lately.

[nmigliore]

whats WAR? sorry, ive just been seeing it a lot 'round here lately.

Wins Above Replacement. Its basically the amount of wins a player would contribute over what a replacement level player (AAA-level, think Anderson Hernandez) would produce. I mainly use Fangraphs' WAR, and I know for hitters they add up 4 categories to get it: batting runs above average, fielding runs above average, replacement runs, and positional adjustment. But instead of trying to explain it myself, I'll point you in the direction of a great explanation of it at Cardinals' blog (warning - its long), this one is about hitters: http://www.vivaelbir...-part-1-hitters

There is also a series of Dave Cameron articles (from Fangraphs*) about it, broken up into 7 parts each for hitters and pitchers: http://www.fangraphs...sary/#winvalues

* - Fangraphs is the primary sabermetric site I go to, and its where I get the win values from. You'll notice other websites will differentiate on some stats (such as WAR - Fangraphs had Wright at a +3.4 WAR last year, Baseball Projection had him at +2.4); this is due to different tools/stats they use to calculate it; for instance, Baseball Projection uses the defensive metric Total Zone to calculate defense while Fangraphs uses Ultimate Zone Rating. The way offense is measured, among other things, can be different too (Fangraphs uses park-adjusted runs above average, taken from weighted on-base average, aka wOBA), but if I remember correctly, this is all explained in the Viva El Birdos' article.

Overall, its really a terrific stat to use, though I would warn you about the defense - UZR can be a little wild (see Mark Teixeira, who was a +10.6 fielder in 2008 yet he dropped to -3.7 last year .. or Nyjer Morgan, who was a ridiculous +27.8 fielder last year according to UZR, while Total Zone had him only +5). I was going to throw in Franklin Gutierrez to this list but UZR and TZ seem to agree he was insane fielder last year. Again, I think this is mentioned in the Vival El Birdos article, but for defense its probably best to use an assortment of defensive metrics to come up with the 'fielding runs' output.

Edited by nmigliore, 27 February 2010 - 04:02 PM.

[Devils Pride 26]

thanks man im not really a stat guy, just too many for me. i try to watch the game and enjoy it. old school i guess

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

thanks man im not really a stat guy, just too many for me. i try to watch the game and enjoy it. old school i guess

There's actually a difference (in my eyes) between stats and sabermetrics. To me stats like OB%, HR, RBI, etc. represent a more conventional may of measuring a player's contributions. Sabermetrics represent more of the "outside the box, look deeper, try to see something beyond the numbers approach". I think there's room for both methods, though I find that hardcore sabermetricians tend to rely on sabermetrics almost to fault, and will almost try to convince you that what you see happening on the field isn't really happening...sometimes it comes off as more stat-twisting as anything else. I think sabermetrics also have a way of alienating a number of fans who might ordinarily love talking baseball, as many sabermetricians throw out their acronyms as though everyone must be familiar with them, when it's still kind of a niche thing. That's why I always explain what the acronym means whenever I use one to make a point.

I'll fully embrace sabermetrics when they find an acronym that measures heart and desire...noted sabermetrician embracer Triumph was sure that Lastings Milledge was going to be a sure thing based on his data and that the Mets had dealt away a future star, while I countered that with Milledge's questionable attitude and poor work ethic, the Mets had legitimate reasons to trade him away (though the return was not great). But like I said, I don't discount sabermetrics entirely...I just don't think they're as sure-fire as some of the more adrent sabermetricians would have you believe.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

This is the Mets. It's never about winning.

This is a simplistic approach, but it's clearly one that this organization has brought on themselves...I think a lot of fans are entering this season feeling like it's already over or with complete indifference (I'm tending toward the latter, though I WANT to get excited). This is why I feel it's such a make-or-break season...if the Mets fall flat on their faces in April a lot of fans are going to tune right out. Good luck getting them back.

[nmigliore]

I'll fully embrace sabermetrics when they find an acronym that measures heart and desire...noted sabermetrician embracer Triumph was sure that Lastings Milledge was going to be a sure thing based on his data and that the Mets had dealt away a future star, while I countered that with Milledge's questionable attitude and poor work ethic, the Mets had legitimate reasons to trade him away (though the return was not great). But like I said, I don't discount sabermetrics entirely...I just don't think they're as sure-fire as some of the more adrent sabermetricians would have you believe.

I wouldn't say sabermetrics are to blame for Milledge.

He put up strong results at every level he was at (except maybe his Kingsport debut in 2003), and he was pretty young for each level, particularly AA and AAA when he was only 20 and 21 years of age. The problem was he never really developed the plate discipline; he did show glimpses of possibly 'figuring it out' when he reached AAA in 2006 where he put up a 11.7 BB% and an IsoD over .100, but it never translated to the big league level (see his career 6.1 BB%, .60 IsoD in the majors). The hitting for high average and power hasn't translated that well either. But still, when he was in the minors hitting for average and showing good power at his young age, while also having the pedigree of a #12 draft pick, it would have been hard not to get excited about his future. He was also coming off of a decent .787 OPS year in 2007 as a 22 year old.

Edited by nmigliore, 01 March 2010 - 11:19 AM.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I wouldn't say sabermetrics are to blame for Milledge.

He put up strong results at every level he was at (except maybe his Kingsport debut in 2003), and he was pretty young for each level, particularly AA and AAA when he was only 20 and 21 years of age. The problem was he never really developed the plate discipline; he did show glimpses of possibly 'figuring it out' when he reached AAA in 2006 where he put up a 11.7 BB% and an IsoD over .100, but it never translated to the big league level (see his career 6.1 BB%, .60 IsoD in the majors). The hitting for high average and power hasn't translated that well either. But still, when he was in the minors hitting for average and showing good power at his young age, while also having the pedigree of a #12 draft pick, it would have been hard not to get excited about his future. He was also coming off of a decent .787 OPS year in 2007 as a 22 year old.

I didn't say that sabermetrics were to blame for Milledge. I just felt that they didn't tell the whole story, especially regarding his makeup from an attitude standpoint.

[nmigliore]

I didn't say that sabermetrics were to blame for Milledge. I just felt that they didn't tell the whole story, especially regarding his makeup from an attitude standpoint.

I would say questioning Milledge's attitude is fair, but I guess my point is I don't necessarily believe that its a great reason why he hasn't done much at the major league level - its far more likely its because the plate discipline just never really developed and the power/high average didn't translated to the big league level. Its also probably worth noting Milledge's K% in the minors was ~21%, so its more likely his high batting averages were from good fortune rather than being a great contact hitter.

So I guess, all in all, another point I'm trying to make is that while there were reasons to be excited - youth, power, etc. - there were also signs to be cautious of, such as the plate discipline (which, given his age, one would reasonably expect to develop with experience, but it hasn't) and the 'suspect' high batting averages he posted in the minors.

Edit: On a side note, I'm really excited to watch some baseball, even though its just spring training games. Mets-Braves will be at 1pm tomorrow on SNY and MLB Network, Figgy is starting, and the lineup is:

Matthews Jr. - CF
Castillo - 2B
Reyes - SS
Wright - 3B
Bay - LF
Jacobs - DH
Francoeur - RF
Davis - 1B
Coste - C

I'm really excited to watch Davis.

Edited by nmigliore, 01 March 2010 - 12:32 PM.

[Prucenterrules]

Thank you very much for making this thread. I made it last year and that season sucked! Hopefully you'll bring the Mets better luck. Lets Go Mets!!!

[Derek21]

Your great genius is on with Francesa now. Sure has changed his tune on Murphy.

[Devils731]

I didn't say that sabermetrics were to blame for Milledge. I just felt that they didn't tell the whole story, especially regarding his makeup from an attitude standpoint.

Sabermetrics isn't a crystal ball to the future, but it's proven to be a much better way at predicting the future than scouting alone. When the A's were focusing on more unconventional ways of looking at players, through stats and sabermetrics they were able to do much less scouting and still find really undervalued players. Now that most teams are using Sabermetrics this advantage has mostly gone away and it's the teams that can have the best sabermetricians and scouts that will have the best player scouting again.

To try and make what will probably be a poor analogy, if looking into the future used to be a 50/50 coin flip, sabermetrics let the early adopter teams turn their coins flips into 60/40. It didn't guarentee you'd get the correct, or better, result but it did tilt things in your favor compared to other people.

I think the proof is in the pudding for Sabermetrics, it's spreading throughout baseball front offices and the teams that started using them early showed rapid and impressive results compared to the teams without.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Sabermetrics isn't a crystal ball to the future, but it's proven to be a much better way at predicting the future than scouting alone. When the A's were focusing on more unconventional ways of looking at players, through stats and sabermetrics they were able to do much less scouting and still find really undervalued players. Now that most teams are using Sabermetrics this advantage has mostly gone away and it's the teams that can have the best sabermetricians and scouts that will have the best player scouting again.

To try and make what will probably be a poor analogy, if looking into the future used to be a 50/50 coin flip, sabermetrics let the early adopter teams turn their coins flips into 60/40. It didn't guarentee you'd get the correct, or better, result but it did tilt things in your favor compared to other people.

I think the proof is in the pudding for Sabermetrics, it's spreading throughout baseball front offices and the teams that started using them early showed rapid and impressive results compared to the teams without.

55/45 or 60/40 seems about fair, in how mediocre to good sabermetricians might be able to predict the futures of professional athletes. Like I said, I don't discount the value of sabermetric science. Triumph (who I like and respect) actually turned me off initially to the whole sabermetric practice, because for a while he would come off as though "I know sabermetrics and all these fancy acronyms so that makes me smarter than everyone, and correct by default whenever I debate with a non-sabermetrician." He couldn't tell me enough about how Lastings Milledge was going to be this great player, and used the word "projects" over and over and over again, as though Milledge performing at a high level in the years to come was all but guaranteed. I think my problem with sabermetrics lies with amateur sabermetricians acting like they're actual scouts somehow. We can speculate on the future of prospects as fans of course, but at the end of the day that's all we are...just fans...sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong.

But I pretty much agree with your post here. Obviously they have a place.

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976, 02 March 2010 - 07:47 AM.