Mets vs Red Sox: a 2010 lineup projection and comparison
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 6:50 AM EST
Email
Print
A comparison between the Mets and Red Sox readily suggests itself. Both are big market teams able to afford payrolls in the $130 to $150 million range. Here are their current lineups for 2010 along with Bill James's projected wRAA for each starting position player. (wRAA=Runs Above Average based on wOBA. A good definition of wRAA can be had on this webpage: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/whats-new-at-fangraphs/)
The 2010 New York Mets current lineup (assuming they add Bengie Molina) with James's projections:
ss Reyes 13.5 in 746 PAs
2b Castillo -4.5 523
cf Beltran 25.0 598
3b Wright 35.2 685
rf Francoeur -2.2 618
lf Pagan -0.4 361
1b Murphy -4.8 568
(James projects Murphy for only 296 PAs in 2010 so I'm using Murphy's 2009 stats)
c Molina -8.6 545
Total: 53.2 wRAA
The 2010 Boston Red Sox, also using James's projections as compiled by Paxton Crawford Ranch:
Ellsbury cf 14.8
Pedroia 2b 23
VMart c 20.7
Youk 3b 28.5
Drew rf 22.9
Cameron lf 0.6
Ortiz dh 24.7
Scutaro ss -1.4
Kotchman 1b 0.9
Total: 137.7 wRAA
In other words--this is how bad it is--even after subtracting Ortiz at DH the Mets would have to add another Wright and another Beltran for 2010 to match the Red Sox lineup.
James projects Jason Bay at around 27.0 wRAA in 2010. That closes almost half the gap between the two teams. There's no way the Mets come close to the Red Sox's pitching, though. To put it another way, if the Mets signed both Jason Bay and Matt Holliday they'd still be way behind their Boston counterparts.
It's going to be a long, long season.
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.
78 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So, if I understand this correctly
The Red Sox are projected to be a lot better than the Mets. Can’t say that I’m shocked.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Dec 21, 2009 9:15 AM EST reply actions
water is also wet
kidding aside I appreciate that you did the comparison, as sobering as the results may be. Its fun to think of how many Beltran and Wright clones the Mets are going to have to take from their secret medical facility in order to win next year. They may not be able to diagnose medical conditions, but they’re pretty good at human cloning.
by KeithsMoustache on Dec 21, 2009 10:29 AM EST reply actions
Cool idea, but comparing us to Boston is not really practical.
I’d have gone for any of the Phillies, Cubs, or Dodgers to give us an NL comparable.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 21, 2009 11:26 AM EST reply actions
I get it from the standpoint of an organizational comparison
for the purpose of showing how little our FO has done with similar resources.
But, yeah, Boston’s relative awesomeness has little to do with how the upcoming season will play out in the NL. Still, cool idea.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Dec 21, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
Sure--that makes sense too, though it would involve the eight or so teams that have a shot
at the wildcard. (May we anticipate your next fanpost? :) I was particularly interested in the most comparable team to the Mets: similar payrolls, similar player development budgets, big markets, GMs who have led their teams for very similar periods of time…
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, but the Red Sox organization
doesn’t have the resources to clone Johan, Beltran and Wright
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
These projects are all sorts of wrong
Ortiz at 24… maybe if you’re going off his 08 stats. Franc’s is off as well. If you’re projecting just off his performance as a Mets, his wRAA would be much higher. Atlanta was his kryptonite.
Why would any projection be based solely on his time with the Mets?
I mean, he did play baseball in Atlanta before the trade.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Dec 21, 2009 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
I assume James uses a 3-2-1 system, or something very close to that,
as do all of the credible projection systems. I do agree, though, that Ortiz’s days of wRAAs above 50 are long gone. Dismissing Francouer’s ATL stats doesn’t make sense to me. He DID make those plate appearances. You can’t just erase them from the record.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 9:08 PM EST up reply actions
Only one thing, baseball is played on the field,
as gloomy as things look now, just remember the Mets went to Fenway in late May,
and took two out of three, with last seasons cast of characters……explain that………
great. We won 2 out of 3
And that means what exactly?
Explain it……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
by firejerrynow on Dec 21, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
three words, small sample size
also remember about a week after we took 2-3 from boston we got swept by the Pirates
by KeithsMoustache on Dec 21, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
Uh, three games?
That’s really all the explanation you should need. Every team in baseball went on a three game winning streak last year and a three game losing streak.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
I have no explanation, sir,
other than the Mets clearly outgrissioned the Red Sox. They wanted it more. It was heart, desire, passion…
…oh hell. We got lucky.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 9:12 PM EST up reply actions
I think the comparision would make more sense
if you took money per wRAA into account. Since like someone else said we have comparable resources.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
So...wouldn't that pretty much give you the same results?
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
In this instance I guess since they dwarf us
but if it was reversed, since they spent like 30 million less than us, you might get different result, like say if it was us compared to the Yankees, though the Yankees still manage to get way more bang for their buck than we do.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Yeah--someone has done a good job somewhere
(can’t remember where) of going year to year on which teams were paying how much per win. I think Florida paid the least, and the Yankees paid the most, most years.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
Not as big a difference as you make it seem
Obviously the Sox are much better, but this overstates it.
First, you can’t count 9 players for the Red Sox and 8 for the Mets. You have to remove Ortiz. If you assume the Mets sign Bay and Molina (which seems pretty likely), and you use the Fan projections instead of Bill James, you get this:
Mets:
Reyes 20.9
Castillo 0.6
Wright 38.5
Beltran 29.7
Murphy 5.2
Francoeur -7.2
Molina (no fan projection, so I used BJ) -8.6
Bay 28.1
Total: 107.1
Red Sox:
Ellsbury 11.3
Pedoria 24.4
Martinez 22.5
Youkilis 37.3
Drew 24.6
Cameron 7.9
Scutaro 0
Kotchman (BJ) .9
Total: 129.9
The Red Sox are still better, but not by nearly as much. Obviously the Red Sox are a better team (especially in defense and pitching), but you are definitely overstating the difference.
That's one way to look at it.
And of course I did note the result of removing Ortiz from the RSox lineup—but keep in mind that simply subtracting Ortiz favors the Mets, since if the Sox didn’t have the DH to fill they could have easily chosen to go more for offense (and surely would have at 1b) at at least three positions. You might just as well keep Ortiz and subtract Kotchman, which puts the Mets even further behind.
It’s also not clear to me why using the Fans’ projections is a better method.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 9:04 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not saying Fans are better
just showing a different point of view. And because I saw that Bill James had Ellsbury higher than Reyes and that made no sense to me. Overall, the switch from BJ to Fans didn’t make much of a difference.
I think it makes sense to get rid of Ortiz because the Mets don’t have the opportunity to get a player with terrible defense who can hit.
Also, I don’t see why you used last year’s stats for Murphy, using a projection adds 10 runs for the Mets.
The mets don't have that oppurtunity?
Jason Bay begs to differ
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Fair enough.
I took Murphy’s 2008 PAs because James projects him with fewer than 300 PAs in 2010, and at the moment Murphy is the starting 1bman. YMMV.
As for Ortiz, the Red Sox have certainly had the opportunity to add a hitter who can field. We disagree.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
Its a shame that the Mets have two well above average offensive players at SS and CF
And just one other player projected even by James to be above average offensively.
If you look at the Sox, the only player expected to produce below the MLB average offensively is Scutaro, their SS, and its -1.4.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 21, 2009 7:40 PM EST reply actions
It's pathetic is what is is
Can you imagine if we just had average players at every other position?
But no instead our gm wants to trade for players like Gary Matthews Jr.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Little Sarge??? Say it ain't so. Please.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 9:01 PM EST up reply actions
Crap. Nationals just picked up Marquis, apparently for 2/15.
That’s a perfectly reasonable deal.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 9:15 PM EST up reply actions
Not really
Marquis is not a good fit with the Mets. He’s just another 4/5 starter.
But he's better than the 4/5 starters we have
He’s better than the 3/4/5 starters we have.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
I would definitely take Pelfrey over him
And I would rather give Niese a shot than pay Marquis $7.5M
I would rather give Sheets 1/9 or so than Marquis 2/15
Yeah Pelfrey would be 2
3/4/5 would be Maine/Ollie/Niese.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Ah
I read that as he’s better than “4 out of the 5” starter we have.
I still wouldn’t have given him 2/15. I’d rather give Sheets 1/9 or Piniero 3/24.
If you think Marquis is a 4/5 starter you have completely unreasonable
expectations of what starting pitchers do.
I’m genuinely curious: 1 through 5, what do you feel the average starter for each spot in the rotation posts, for ERA and IP?
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
If you want an average
I could just go to B-ref and get that. But I know that’s not what you mean/want.
Last year, Marquis was better thana 4/5. I admit to that. Next year, I do not think he will be.
Not trying to bust your chops,
but I’ve noticed a lot of people think a number 3 starter, for instance, is supposed to post a lot better than a 4.27 ERA.
And I don’t expect Marquis to pitch as well next year as he did this year. I think he’ll pitch a little better than he did in 2007-2008. That’s still valuable, particularly at 2/15.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 22, 2009 12:29 AM EST up reply actions
Here's the problem with calling Marquis a guy who could come in and have an ERA better than 4.60
He’s been on excellent defensive teams throughout his career. Here’s his team’s Park Adjusted Defensive Efficiency (and MLB rank) for the last few years.
2009 (COL): 0.48 (7th)
2008 (CHC): 2.46 (1st)
2007 (CHC): 2.62 (3rd)
2006 (STL): 0.85 (9th)
2005 (STL): 1.02 (9th)
2004 (STL) 1.58 (2nd)
The Mets 2009 PADE: -1.74 (26th)
Marquis has been on a defensive team no worse than 9th in baseball in each of the last six seasons, and in three seasons, he was on one of the top three defensive teams in MLB. HIs K% is anemic and it always has been. Putting him on the Mets without upgrading the defense would be a disaster. Even by ERA, the only seasons Marquis has been an above average pitcher are the years he’s had his GB% over 50%, and that was thanks in large part to his quality defenses. By tRA, 2009 was his first above average year, and his tRA+ was 101. 2/15 isn’t a terrible deal for him, but its pretty bad. I don’t expect him to be worth that much over the next two years.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 22, 2009 1:27 AM EST up reply actions
Impressive research as usual, Med, but...
there’s a remarkable trend in Marquis’ numbers that could be luck, but if not—if it represents a repeatable component of his game—helps explain why he’s routinely better than his stats tend to indicate:
15.8, 13.6, 13.1, 10.5, 8.3, 7.8.
In other words, or simply in words, those numbers are the percentages since 2004 of HRs Marquis allows on fly balls hit against him. The last three (and lowest) numbers coincide with the three most valuable seasons of his career, and include seasons at, of all places, Wrigley and Coors. Now, I grant you that playing in front of strong defensive teams certainly helps his game, but that’s not entirely persuasive since we’re not seeing the breakdown in terms of infield versus outfield efficiency. If the numbers show that much of Marquis’ teams’ good DERs resulted from efficient outfields, then we probably need to look elsewhere for more of the why of Marquis outperforming his raw numbers. As for whether his ever-decreasing HR rate is luck or skill I have no idea, and short of data showing location, wind direction and speed, along with other relevant data, I’m not sure how to begin that particular investigation.
If not Marquis, who do you prefer, if anyone, in his price range: Doug Davis? Jon Garland?
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 22, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
Looks like pretty typical normal distribution to me
The trend is probably just coincidence. Pitchers tend to have very little control over HR/FB marks, and anything in the 8-10% range is typical in the same way a .290-.310 BABIP is typical for a pitcher. Even at Coors this year, the team average was 10%, so 7.8% isn’t a huge deviation that demands attention. If anything, I take that as a sign that Marquis is due for a regression regardless of defense.
As for INF/OF splits, I’m not sure that’s all that relevant, since its not like Marquis primarily gets groundballs, then strikeouts, he still gives up plenty of flyballs, its just a smaller percentage of balls in play than groundballs. But even following this argument, here are the composite infield UZR’s to match up with the three weakest PADE’s above.
2009 (COL): 7.4
2006 (STL): 20.8
2005 (STL): 16.8
All three very strong infield defenses.
I’m really with Sam on the SP issue, I don’t think its the most efficient way to fix the roster. The difference between Marquis, Davis, and Garland, and the “lesser” guys the Mets have, even Nelson Figeuroa, is smaller than the difference between an upgrade in the outfield or at first base, and the cost per win is also less prohibitive. That’s not to say they shouldn’t upgrade SP under any circumstances, but these guys just aren’t great fixes at the prices they’re going for. If the price comes down, or if the Mets have some money to burn after making the cheaper and more effective offensive/defensive fixes, fine, these guys are next in line, but until then, I’d basically ignore them.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 22, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions
There are too many problems with your post to cover them all,
but here are a few:
“since its not like Marquis primarily gets groundballs,”
Last year Marquis’ GB/FB ratio was 2.03. 2 to 1 is the very definition of a ground ball pitcher. His career rate ratio is 1.57. That’s a ground ball pitcher, strongly so. That he’s not a strikeout pitcher is irrelevant to that point. Describing him as someone who ’doesn’t primarily get groundballs’ betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of an essential term involved in understanding pitching.
“But even following this argument, here are the composite infield UZR’s to match up with the three weakest PADE’s above.
2009 (COL): 7.4
2006 (STL): 20.8
2005 (STL): 16.8
All three very strong infield defenses."
Well, no. I won’t waste time on this except to recommend you do some reading on the selective use of statistics and why that’s not a good thing, and to deflate your hyperbole. The 2009 Rockies, just to take your most recent example, started three below average fielders in their infield. Clint Barnes at 2b was their only above average starter in the IF—and Barnes only barely put the Rockies IFers in the black. And given that all their least durable IF starters played 147 games and the other three played 150 games or more, even your cherry-picking of the 2009 Rockies and characterizing them as having a “very strong infield defense” is, on the face of it, absurd.
“The trend is probably just coincidence. Pitchers tend to have very little control over HR/FB marks, and anything in the 8-10% range is typical in the same way a .290-.310 BABIP is typical for a pitcher. Even at Coors this year, the team average was 10%, so 7.8% isn’t a huge deviation that demands attention. If anything, I take that as a sign that Marquis is due for a regression regardless of defense.”
Thanks for making my point. Since Marquis’s 7.8 is right around the 8-10% range, you are in effect proposing that his earlier years, where he didn’t appear to be a particularly strong pitcher and gave up far more than his share of HR/FB, were very likely the result of bad luck. Therefore, he’s not due for a regression.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 23, 2009 12:14 AM EST up reply actions
Sean
I believe we’ve had a little misunderstanding. First, I’m not trolling you, I’m Meddler. I just got added as a site mod/front page writer, so I asked Eric to change my name. I’m just trying to engage you in the same type of debate I’ve enjoyed engaging you in for the last few months. I mean you no ill will at all, and I generally appreciate your commentary, no matter how stark in contrast it stands to my own opinions and perspectives, since you almost always take the time to explain your reasoning. I hope this clears things up a bit.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 23, 2009 2:17 AM EST up reply actions
For the real response
Assuming the hostility is a mistake, I think you misunderstood my comments about Marquis “groundball” nature.
its not like Marquis primarily gets groundballs, then strikeouts, he still gives up plenty of flyballs, its just a smaller percentage of balls in play than groundballs.
This sentence may have been unclear, but at least notice it continued after the word “groundballs”. What I meant was, because he gets so few strikeouts, he probably gets more flyballs than one would expect, despite getting more ground balls than fly balls. Intuitively, I figured a pitcher with a 50% GB% and 12% K% would get more groundballs than a pitcher with a 50% GB% and 18% K%. I figured if you just took FB/PA, rather than FB/BIP, Marquis would be much closer to average (and still well above average in GB/PA). I went and checked it out, and it turns out it was less significant than I’d thought. 29% of PA’s in 2009 resulted in flyballs. Marquis FB/PA rate has been more in the 20-25% range.
That doesn’t really change my point though. The UZR totals I posted before was a composite of the totals for the Rockies found here and sorting through the totals for different positions. The link is the total defensive production each team with sorters for position. It would be more conclusive to retrosheet every game Marquis started and check out the specific defenders he had, but, well, crazy time consuming.
Either way, Rockies did not have four infielders play at least 147 games. Ian Stewart, who actually had a 4.7 UZR, started the majority of games at third base, 85. Garrett Atkins, who had a -0.4 UZR at 3B, started 75. Atkins also started some games at 1B, and Stewart some games at 2B. Atkins had a positive UZR at first base. If you total up all the UZRs of all the team’s infielders, you get the 7.4 mark I listed above.
Plus, I already noted that Marquis actually was slightly above average in 2009 anyway by tRA, it was just the first time in his career, so he probably would have been solid this year even with a weaker defense, and of the three I checked out (I didn’t do the other three because it just seems so unlikely teams in the Top 3 in PADE would have a weak infield), the Rockies do seem to be the weakest.
As for the HR/FB, all I’m saying is a 7.8% HR/FB is more likely to move up next year than down. Just like the 13.6% in 2005 was more likely to go down than up. Nothing in the last few years seems that strange though. He wasn’t very good in 2007 or 2008, when his HR/FB was between 8-10%. 2004 looks a little funky, very high HR/FB and low ERA. But his LOB% that year was also very high, 79.3%, well higher than average and the highest mark of his career.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 23, 2009 4:35 AM EST up reply actions
I'd rather give Sheets that contract
And still sign someone like Marquis/Garland.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Optimist! (and you call yourself a Mets fan)
I’m reluctant to roll the dice with a guy like Sheets when we didn’t have a single starter come close to expectations. Not one.
OTOH, if you meant you’d literally sign Sheets to 2/15 and lock him in for 2011, and if we assume Omar is fired and replaced next offseason by a competent GM who might be able to take advantage of Sheets’ upside, then I see your point.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 22, 2009 12:32 AM EST up reply actions
Actually, last year Marquis WAS better than 4 of the 5 starters we had.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 10:19 PM EST up reply actions
I agree
but I don’t think that will be the case next year.
yeah I agree with this
I don’t expect him to repeat anywhere near last years performance.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
4 of the 5 starters we had last season were also named Redding, Figueroa, Hernandez, and Misch. So, that's not saying too, too much...
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 21, 2009 11:14 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah but at this point
It’s not like we’ve got much better, we still have crazy Ollie, we still have no idea if Maine will last more than 100 innings, and now we have a rookie coming off a season ending injury last year. For all we know by June we’ll be wishing we had guys as good as Redding, Figueroa, Hernandez and Misch to run out there.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
I think you just proved not only haven't we gotten much better,
we haven’t gotten ANY better.
The Mets got league-leading performance from their fill-in starters. For a team that won 70 games we got some dismayingly (for the sake of projecting 2010) good seasons out of subs and scrubs.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 22, 2009 12:24 AM EST up reply actions
Don't forget
What we wouldn’t have given for Tim Redding or Nelson Figueroa in 2006. I mean, I’m not happy about the pitching, but offense and defense both seem like cheaper commodities right now, at least if you’re willing to buy just one or the other. And Marquis wasn’t the answer. There is a replacement level for pitching, and Marquis is pretty damn close to it. I’d much more be willing to believe that the Mets will hit and defend enough to stomach a few starts from someone as dreadful as Jose Lima than to believe they’re going to pitch well enough to Daniel Murphy lead the team in HR or whatever.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 22, 2009 1:31 AM EST up reply actions
See my post above, in reply to yours,if you're interested.
Also, I haven’t seen Marquis as the primary addition to the staff, but as the second (and lesser) of two necessary additions to the rotation. I definitely don’t see him as a savior, but rather as a strong 4th starter. That allows me to see if Ollie can handle the 5th starter role while Maine and Niese start the season building up arm strength pitching long relief. With all the injuries to Mets pitchers last season I’ll want to baby Santana and Perez, and what’s the point of starting Maine (and/or Niese) in the rotation when neither should be pushed much past 125 innings in 2010 (the same is true for Ollie)?
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 22, 2009 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
As for Mr. Lima, it's too easy to forgive his 0-4 record in 2006
because we won the division in spite of him. Such was not the case resulting from giving Brian Lawrence and his ungodly 6.83 ERA in six starts (and two losses) in the one-game division-loss disaster that was 2007.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 22, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
The 2007 team was still MUCH better than the 2009 team
My point is that assuming there is a cost ceiling involved in what the Mets are willing to spend, it just makes more sense to allocate that as efficiently as possible, rather than try to spread it around to as many various needs as possible. They’re much more likely to get away with a handful of replacement starts from a Jorge Sosa or a Fernando Nieve or a Nelson Figeuroa than they are to get away with getting away with less than NL SS average level offense from 1B and LF. The fixes at a1B and LF are cheaper (cost per win), more significant, and less risky. I don’t see how adding Jason Marquis effects Santana’s season. If he needs a little babying, he’ll get it, regardless of whose behind him. The problem with Marquis is whatever Mike Pelfrey is, you can basically take that minus any upside and a least .25 off whatever run rate you expect, and that’s pretty much what Marquis is going to give you. So if Mike Pelfrey is going to have another 5.00 ERA season because of crappy defense, Marquis is going to have a 5.25 ERA season. That’s production the Mets could just as easily find in the bargain bin as they could find by spending the market rate.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 22, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
Your earlier post was a thoroughgoing exercise in the misapplication
of statistics, where were easily debunked. I’ll be brief here. You wrote:
" So if Mike Pelfrey is going to have another 5.00 ERA season because of crappy defense, Marquis is going to have a 5.25 ERA season."
But no one is suggesting Pelfrey is going to put up another 5.00 ERA. He projects in the 4.3-4.6 range. Figuring that Marquis is going to be worse when they’re not at all the same kind of pitcher who don’t throw the same stuff simply doesn’t make any sense. Keep in mind that the Mets D is very likely to be better this season. Besides, didn’t you describe Marquis in an earlier post as not being a ground ball pitcher? I encourage you to try to be consistent, at least within the same thread.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 23, 2009 12:20 AM EST up reply actions
Pelf's projections.
So long as Jose Reyes is playing, the defense behind him is going to be marginally better, at least. Castillo will still be there, another year worse for wear, but it’s better than a Castillo/Cora/Hernandez combination at short.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 23, 2009 12:44 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah
But Reyes wasn’t particularly spectacular in 2008 either, in fact his UZR was 0.0. I’m not saying I don’t expect the defense to improve a bit, but its a big unknown just how much at best. Will Wright return to the positive UZR realm? Will Reyes’ range continue to hold up? We know Castillo will be crappy, and Murphy appears to be a solid defender, but its a pretty small data set. They were definitely better in 2008, but even then, hardly spectacular, which I think speak’s to Pelf’s relative quality, he can be pretty solid with a defense that is close to average on the infield. Marquis, I don’t think so. He really needed his quality defenses in every year except 2009, and even then, his ERAs were average to slightly below at best.
I’m not saying I expect another 5.00 ERA season from Pelf, but I am saying that Marquis is basically a lesser version of Pelf, and whatever productive Pelf provides, its likely Marquis production will be somewhat parallel, but inferior.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 23, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed.
My point was that, even if Reyes’ defense is somewhat shaky and shoddy, all things considered, I’d prefer him at short than Alex Cora, Anderson Hernandez, Ramon Martinez, Angel Berroa, and whoever we’re slotted at short.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 23, 2009 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
He was better than Perez, Maine, Pelfrey, Niese, and Nieve
so unfortunately it says a lot.
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 22, 2009 12:20 AM EST up reply actions
Geeze...
The Red Sox can have a pitching rotation next season of:
Beckett
Lester
Lackey
Dice-K
Wakefield/Buchholtz
That’s pretty impressive.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 23, 2009 12:46 AM EST reply actions
The Yankees will have
I wonder how much more the red sox are paying for their rotation than we are. I imagine it’s really not that much more.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
They've got to be paying A LOT more than we are.
The Red Sox are paying Lackey $10 million, Beckett $10 million, Dice-K $10 million, Wakefield $5 million, Lester $1 million, Buchholtz $500,000. That’s $36.5 million dollars, give or take.
We’re paying Santana $19 million, Perez $12 million, Maine $2.5 million, Pelfrey $2.4 million, and Niese (if he’s our fifth starter; haven’t made any particular overtures towards any specific FA pitchers, so let’s just assume that he will be, for now) $400,000. That’s $36.4 million dollars, give or take.
See the massive difference between Epstein and Omar? We’re basically paying the same amount for starting pitching. The Red Sox have two genuine aces (Beckett, Lester), another two who could be aces if they pitched elsewhere (Matsuzaka, Lackey), and their fifth guy. We have…Yeah, we have Sandy Koufax.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 23, 2009 8:20 AM EST up reply actions
Whoops. That comment title should say, "They've got to be paying A LOT more than we are, right?"
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 23, 2009 8:21 AM EST up reply actions
And that's six starters you listed for the Sox
The Mets lobby Omar for a plan, and his plan, he likes his plan. The problem is that he didn't write his plan down 'cause that makes it paperwork, and that’s false hustle... Know what I’m sayin’?
No; I put either Wakefield or Buchholtz. I don't know which of the two they're actually going to use.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 23, 2009 8:45 AM EST up reply actions
No i was just saying
The $36.5 million is between six starters while our $36.4 million is between five, so they’re paying less for their five man rotation than we are. Now that I’ve actually looked it up though, it’s not true. Lackey is getting $18 million next year not $10 million, Beckett is getting $12 million, Matsuzaka $8 million, Wakefield, $3.5 million, Lester $3.75 million and Buchholz ~$500,000. That totals to $45.75 million.
The Mets lobby Omar for a plan, and his plan, he likes his plan. The problem is that he didn't write his plan down 'cause that makes it paperwork, and that’s false hustle... Know what I’m sayin’?
That's still less than 10 million more
And they have 2-3 bonafide aces, in Lester, Lackey and Beckett, plus a major break out candidate in Buchholz, and two guys who would probably be number 2’s on our team.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
We have two bonafide aces, a solid ground ball pitcher, Maine is good when healthy, and Niese could break out
Could you really ask for more than Santana and Koufax?
The Mets lobby Omar for a plan, and his plan, he likes his plan. The problem is that he didn't write his plan down 'cause that makes it paperwork, and that’s false hustle... Know what I’m sayin’?
Hey, it was 8:45 AM, and I hadn't had my coffee!
Get off my back!
Heh, I’m surprised that I was able to add numbers that early. The basic, simple 1-6 numbers, those I wasn’t able to count. The salaries, I did add those right.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 23, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
How about the posting 52 mil plus fo Dice-K??????
that’s an overall expenditure on the Japanese player.
Are you counting the posting for Dice-K??
I believe 52 mil plus…..that’s not exactly peanuts……
The Red Sox paid that when they signed him, as I understand it. Basically, the Seibu Lions got that money when they let him become an international free agent.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 23, 2009 8:22 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, it's an upfront fee.
It has no ramifications on the luxury tax.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Dec 24, 2009 3:27 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
