What's guts got to do with it?

by xnumberoneson on Sep 29, 2008 12:05 PM EDT

I turned on the radio after the game and learned that the biggest problem with the Mets is lack of "guts." Silly me. I thought it was the bullpen.

If you listen to the radio talkers and read the papers, then you know what the 2008 Mets were lacking: guts, fire, heart, passion, intensity and grit.

Funny. No mention at all of having a single pitcher - any pitcher - who could get people out after the 7th inning. OK, they had one guy in Johan Santana, but he can't pitch every night. The 2008 Mets lost 30 games in which they had a lead or were tied after 6 innings. The team ERA was 3.95 in the first 6 innings, good for 5th in the NL. From innings 7 and beyond the team ERA inflated to 4.30, 4th worst in the NL. The Phillies, thanks in no small part to their true MVP Brad Lidge, were first at 3.28. Even the crummy Brewers bullpen was better at 4.19. That's really all you need to know about this team. They are packing their bags today because of the bulpen, period.

What about "Clutch" hitting? Here are the numbers on the season:

                             RISP                         RISP 2-0ut                7th inning +
Mets              .253/.351/.390            .223/.363/.347          .246/.324/.361
Phillies         .263/.365/..443           .233/.373/.391          .242/.329/.410
Brewers       .245/.337/.405            .208/.327/.340          .249/.327/.438

So the Phillies were a little better in the clutch, particulary in SLG, but the numbers aren't nearly as different as you might expect given the narrative that the Phillies have "heart and guts" and the Mets don't. You also have to take into account the fact that Citizens Bank Park is going to inflate the Phillies' numbers a bit. The Brewers, who were labelled chokers in their own right, topped the NL in SLG after the 7th inning, but still scored fewer overall runs than both the Mets and the Phillies.

It's fair to make the argument that the Mets were killed by a lack of situational hitting, but the case isn't nearly as strong as the one for the bullpen. Even an average bullpen would have given this team a division title. Heck, even a slightly better than worst in the league bullpen would have put this team in the postseason. In that case we would be talking about how the Mets had the "guts" to come back from last year's collapse and this year's awful first half. We'd be talking about how Wright, Reyes, Beltran and Delgado helped this team overcome adversity. Nobody would be talking about "breaking up the core."

I don't want to hear any more about how this team needs a "Pete Rose" type of player. Sorry, but all of David Eckstein's scrappy-ness and Aaron Rowand's guts and Orlando Hudson's "sacrificing his body" can't make Aaron Heilman, Duaner Sanchez, Scott Schoeneweis, Pedro Feliciano and Luis Ayala get anybody out.

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I really like that last paragraph

by JoshNY on Sep 29, 2008 12:13 PM EDT reply actions

although, come to think of it

Orlando Hudson’s “sacrificing his body” could help our bullpen get guys out if it led to him making plays that our other second basemen wouldn’t make, but that’s besides the point, I think.

by JoshNY on Sep 29, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Three Cheers for a Calm Head!

That is exactly right. You can trade Dub for some arms, but you can’t make them perform in the middle of July and August when the team needs to get from the 7th to the 9th inning without giving up a run.

"The people of Houston are spending money like oil's selling at $40 a barrel."

by IanB in MD on Sep 29, 2008 12:39 PM EDT reply actions

A nice treatment but I have questions

Of course its the bullpen!

The question is, will this overshadow the fact that the Mets were also “killed by a lack of situational hitting” and lead Omar to fumble away more opportunities to improve the team this winter? Last off season, he focused on one big thing (one great big thing) Santana and landed him. Terrific, but this team needs holistic attention now if it didn’t last season. Is Omar learning?

I know we like to mock the masses obsession with “grit” and “intangibles” as ways to describe the key variable in the catastrophic failures here, fair enough. But how then to describe what the offensive core of the Mets is lacking? Because they do not get the job done, if the job you want done is getting into the playoffs. Braun and Fielder etc changed enough games with their heroics to overcome a shitty pen and edge their team into the playoffs. Reyes and Wright disappeared again. Three years in a row of playing below their abilities in the home stretch: are we ready to chalk this up to chance? Policy-wise (and I think most reasonable people when they calm down won’t suggest trading any of the core), is the answer adding complimentary parts around them for the bottom of the order, or getting another core part (Texiera or the like) to change the chemistry??

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on Sep 29, 2008 1:56 PM EDT reply actions

I feel you, but

When the team has three players score 100 runs, and three that drive in 100 runs, it’s hard for me to imagine that situational hitting is the problem. The big guys drove in their share of runs, and it would have been nice if they drove in 10 more per person in ‘clutch’ situations, but that may be asking for too much.

I think the Mets were hurt in the line-up by things like Church breaking his brain, and that 2B or C could not be counted on for good production on any given night.

I think it has been said on other threads – if the pen had held five more leads this year, we would not be having this dicsussion.

"The people of Houston are spending money like oil's selling at $40 a barrel."

by IanB in MD on Sep 29, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions

"situational hitting" is not a different skill from just "hitting"

The ‘08 Mets did just fine at scoring runs. Upgrades would always help, and targeting stronger-hitting 2B, C, and OF during the offseason would not be a mistake, nor would (especially) beefing up the bench. But it’s a mistake to think the variation in close-and-late or RISP hitting numbers will repeat itself from year to year — that is probably largely just random variation.

by anonymous on Sep 29, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions

i understand where you guys are coming from

“But it’s a mistake to think the variation in close-and-late or RISP hitting numbers will repeat itself from year to year — that is probably largely just random variation.”

Then… this random variation is killing me.

But methinks the sabermetrics are starting to take over and crowd out all other approaches. No one theory can explain everything, and although we’ve developed some impressive metrics lately, hanging your hat on one way of looking at things is a bigger mistake and ultimately does not embiggen analytic power. My eyes is telling me that while the mets “did just fine at scoring runs” and 3 guys scored 100 runs and knocked 100 in, situational hitting IS a problem, and IS keeping our Octobers painfully free of Mets baseball. I am hard-pressed right now to accept that I am imagining this. I feel like the statistical perspective is bordering on the famous quote of the guy caught in the act of cheating: “You want to believe me, or your lying eyes?” (Was that Ike Turner quote?).

Mind you, I am NOT making the argument that statistical approaches are hogwash or anything like that, but I would like to see better answers then “they’ll be fine.” I am frustrated by people who, once they are committed to a perspective, always think in zero sum terms, particularly when the implications are that the front office should stand pat on some issues and we ought to wait for luck to even things out. While at the same time, the consensus (around the blogosphere not necessarily here) seems to be that the Mets second half surge is due to something (never specified) that Jerry Manuel did, and NOT the teams’ luck evening out. It seems wildly inconsistent to me.

And I am a little steamed that in the less thoughtful corners of the interwebs, and in the front office, folks are content to hang this one entirely on the bullpen, and a few injuries like Church and Wags. Yet that is obviously not the whole story. We were so lucky this season in one respect: NO member of the Mets offensive core was ever injured for any significant period of time guys!! Doesn’t that merit some attention from the thoughtful fans on this blog??

I AM blowing off steam here, but I expect that this is the place where we’ll develop more satisfying answers.

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on Sep 29, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions

"NO member of the Mets offensive core was ever injured for any significant period of time"

I don’t think that’s true. Church was shaping up to be a member of the Mets’ offensive core before he broke his brain. Alou was (unrealistically) counted on to contribute. So was Castillo (also unrealistically). Castro, our best-hitting catcher, was injured for a period. (And underutilized, but that’s a wholly separate issue.) Tatis, who came out of nowhere to become part of the offensive core (wherever it came from, his 125 OPS+ was one of the best on the team) got hurt and missed the last few weeks. I mean, the CORE core guys (Wright/Reyes/Beltran/Delgado) stayed healthy, but as we’ve seen this year, four hitters do not a lineup make.

by JoshNY on Sep 29, 2008 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions

You can define core the way you want

but I am quite happy with this definition: Beltran Wright Reyes. It has the advantage of being aesthetically commensurate with the rule of 3, and being true.

Church had a couple of good months. I’m not surprised we all think he has a lot of promise, but am a little surprised that people familiar with his history are penciling him in. Alou and Castillo=not core, as you say. Castro and Tatis? Cmon.

My interest is in the question, to torture a metaphor: is there is something rotten with this apple, or is it (still) a question of waiting for it to get ripe?

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on Sep 29, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions

sorry I should also say why i don't include

Delgado in the core. My argument would be that anyone that watched him in 2007and put him among the core guys would be run out of town. I personally brew Carlos Delgado Kool aid in my bathtub, and I thought he was done. So it’s selective memory to think that Omar could have seriously counted on him (then again he counted on Alou).

Anyone that thought he would make the adjustment and do what he did is a madman or a genius. Forget the bullpen for a minute, imagine where they’d be without Delgado’s performance this year.

To answer the obvious question, why is he going on about the “core”?, its a way of focusing discussion about where to go from here. How could this team fail with its three three guys having healthy, pretty great years, and not seriously consider how to prevent this in the future?

As to my original question, if the answer is adding complimentary parts around the core for the bottom of the order, or getting another core part (Teixeira or the like) to change the chemistry, I am imagining most are picking the former. Both, I say!

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on Sep 29, 2008 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions

hmm

I suppose there are all different ways of defining “core” but yours is probably the most apt.

Players who played at leat 150 games:
Phi: Utley, Howard, Burrell (Rollins 137)
ChC: Lee, Fukudome (DeRosa, Ramirez, Theriot 149; Soto 141)
Mil: Fielder, Braun, Hart, Kendall (Hardy 146)
LAD: Martin, Loney, Kemp (Ethier 141)
LAA: none (Hunter 146, Anderson 145, Guerrero 143)
ChW: Cabrera, Dye, Swisher (Thome 147)
Min: Morneau (162), Young (Mauer 145, Kubel 140)
Bos: Pedroia (Ellsbury, Youkilis 145
TB: Iwamura (Upton 145, Pena 139, Hinske 133)

It was a very healthy season for big players all around, if I’m not mistaken. Soriano, Longoria, Larry Wayne Jones, Milton Bradley, Carlos Quentin, David Ortiz and Ian Kinsler seemed to be the only guys to miss a whole lot of time this year, as far as I can figure.

A healthy core isn’t enough. The Mets need more contributions from the rest of the team. (Which is something we both agree on, anyway; I’m just pointing out that the Mets weren’t unique in having a healthy core this year.)

by JoshNY on Sep 29, 2008 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions

jesus it was a healthy year

Big Papi is the only one I “remember” going down among contenders on your list.

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on Sep 29, 2008 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions

me or your own eyes?

Groucho Marx.

by anonymous on Sep 29, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Ike Turner. Ha

thanks.

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on Sep 29, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't know about a rotten core

And I am not thinking about statistical analysis right now. I think the five big players (Santana, Reyes, Beltran, Wright and Delgado) on the Mets this year did all they could do. Sure, I would have enjoyed about 10% more production from the batters, but I think there is only so much you can expect out of a guy. (I mean, Dub drove in a ton of baserunners this year! Would we like it more if he hit them in the 9th instead of the 1st?)

My brother sited this the other day, and I think it should be the nagging voice going off when considering all free-agent signing this winter: “Jayson Stark noted that, if the Mets played 8-inning games this year, they would be leading the division by 6.5 games. Yep.” The Mets could not close the games. They need more arms than bats.

"The people of Houston are spending money like oil's selling at $40 a barrel."

by IanB in MD on Sep 29, 2008 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions

we were second in runs scored

to the loaded cubs offense. i really don’t think the problem lies there.

as for the situational hitting thing…what would be your plan? bring in guys that hit well in the clutch? other than the stud hitters (pujols, etc) who would be impossible to get anyway, who is there that hits well in any situation? you could say that so and so hit well in the clutch this year, but who says he’ll repeat that performance?

by gogomets on Sep 29, 2008 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions

if i knew the answers

how do you keep these guys from “funking” each other? are we just satisfied with streaky offense? Is the answer adding complimentary parts around a core that isn’t going anywhere (say beefing up the bottom of the order), or getting perhaps another core part (Teixeira or the like) to change the chemistry? I think some offensive redesign would be helpful. I’m trying to get around using “clutch” as a crutch, but I don’t think the offense is right and maybe adding the right guy would be the trick. The question is where.

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on Sep 29, 2008 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions

xnumberoneson

showed that the phils were a little better than we were this year in the situational hitting department, but the brewers weren’t, and they won 90 games!

wright didn’t disappear down the stretch. he had a 1.000 OPS in september. his “clutch” stats weren’t great this year, but they were great last year. next year, i’m sure they’ll be fine.

by gogomets on Sep 29, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Reyes did fine in September

These situtional hitting numbers surprise and convince me. It was the bullpen that ended our season. Keep the core intact.

by Endys Game on Sep 29, 2008 5:21 PM EDT reply actions

no he didn't

.243/.314/.402/.716 is not fine.

but, I think that’s largely due to a .261 BABIP in September. (see the post from a few weeks ago “Reyes unlucky in September”.)

In May, June, July and August Reyes had BABIP .340, .327, .350, .342. He had OPS .922, .839, .963, .815 in those months.

In March/April he had BABIP .267 and OPS .720.

I don’t know if there’s anywhere I can get split line drive rate stats to figure out whether the low BABIP in April and in September was due to a lot of popups or what, though.

I do know that Reyes’ line drive rate of 23.4% this year was the highest of his career, and if I’m not mistaken a guy with his speed should have a much higher batting average than he did with that high of a line drive rate.

by JoshNY on Sep 29, 2008 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions

yes he was unlucky

I meant he looked fine at the plate and will still able to contribute some big hits. But of course he needed to do more. All the hitters did to overcome the pitching problems. Reyes, Wright and Beltran must stay part of this team and anyone who suggests otherwise is very misguided in my view.

by Endys Game on Sep 29, 2008 8:45 PM EDT reply actions

More kindling for the fire.

Feel free to tear down this argument:

If it’s true that the players weren’t giving their all for Randolph, then can we lay the blame some of the players for NOT HAVING THE GUTS to do what’s right…COMPETE!? It’s been stated, argued and / or debated that due to relations with Willie that “perhaps” some of the players didn’t perform for Randolph, resulting in his being let go.

It’s hard to argue with the notion that they DIDN’T produce for Willie because the same crew provided a second half winning record for Manuel. I don’t want to believe that some players made a concerted effort to hold back and as a result loss more games than they had to. It’s my opinion that everyone wants to win, regardless of how they feel about the boss. We all know what one more win would have gotten us…A playoff spot.

Comments?

" I'LL TRY TO FIND YOU SOME AND I'LL BRING 'EM TO YA! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Sep 30, 2008 6:34 PM EDT reply actions