The Real Problem With The Mets (and why Mark DeRosa may be part of the solution)
These days, it seems fashionable to point out "the Mets only focus on last years problems!" and then turn around to talk about the need for a starting pitcher ceaselessly without the slightest hint of irony. Maybe I'm a contrarian, but the Mets have other, arguably bigger, problems than the rotation. The middle infield is being manned by two players with serious red flags on all four legs; one, while "healthy," was a -10 run defensive secondbaseman, the other hasn't ran full-speed in nearly 8 months. At two offense-premium positions are players with a recent track record of having their bats disappear for months at a time. And most, obviously, the Mets have no catcher or leftfielder. Ah, but that core. Here's my rough win projection for the incomplete squad:
So assuming better health, the Mets are 10 wins better, but certainly not contenders. Bengie Molina and Jason Bay add 4-6 wins, depending on how you project each player's controversial defense. That brings the Mets into the 85-range, a swing of good luck from the wild card, but not going to march over the NL East into the playoffs. So where is the room for improvement?
The rotation, certainly, but to what extent? Santana and Pelfrey occupy 2 of the 5 spots. Some assortment of Maine and Niese will be at the back end, with the potential of Niese being the second best-pitcher on the staff. So that leaves Perez's spot, and probably another. Call me crazy, but I'm not totally ruling Perez out, although a responsible team would. After he lost the life on his fastball, he's spent the offseason at the training facility famous for conditioning Huston Street's pitching arm.
Regardless, knowing the Mets, this team is one average (or worse) pitcher away from calling it a rotation. That, combined with a little blind faith they'll pull in Bay, makes the left side of the infield the most suspect part of the roster. Luis Castillo is a decent hitter, but a totally unacceptable fielder. Really, the difference between the Mets getting good or poor production from Pelfrey and some second-tier, contact-heavy free agent like Joel Pineiro is just accepting Luis Castillo is a bench player and signing a new secondbaseman. A glut of unwanted secondbaseman remains on the market, most of them pretty decent fielders. Orlando Hudson. Felipe Lopez. Miguel Tejada... Mark DeRosa?
For these reasons, though, I'm not totally opposed to signing Mark DeRosa. Yes, he is a glorified bench player looking for a multi-year contract with starter money. At this point, however, just resign yourself to the fact the team is taking the video game approach to the offseason. In their eyes, they've found the best utility-infielder, back-up catcher, leftfielder, and catcher, and offered them all the most money in hopes of improving the team by brute force. Value be damned, if Mark DeRosa is the best bench player out there, the Mets will pay.
In fact, the bench might be a good place to add some wins. Most projection systems are hammering DeRosa's offense, but he's a late bloomer, coming off a laundry list of nagging and more serious injuries. Interestingly, the fans at fangraphs have projected him well above the usually optimistic Bill James projections. It's especially surprising because he's a free agent who has played for several teams recently, making me wonder which fanbase so fervently supports Mark DeRosa. Still, I like ~.340 wOBA as an offensive projection for the healthy DeRosa. Defensively, he is about a -7 defender at second, not good, but passable and better than Luis Castillo. Remember, Joel Pineiro survived with a similar player in Skip Schumaker at second last year.
To make it really work, I'd pair DeRosa with his left-handed clone, Kelly Johnson. Each could be used as a plus-defense back-up outfielder with infield experience and the upside of a starter's bat. Writing Castillo out of the picture completely, I would arrange the lineups like so:
It's a 3-position, 3-person platoon that optimizes defensive specialties and platoon splits!
Now you think I'm playing fantasy baseball, but if the Mets sign DeRosa, I could see a very similar situation. It would be characteristic of management to use DeRosa versus lefties in the ever-baffling Murphy-platoon idea, and Jerry would be eager to rest Castillo for a better hitter (he even tried Tatis there last season). And I haven't yet mentioned his grit and playoff beard!
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Molin wOBA
against RHP is pretty hilarious.
by MetsKnicksRutgers on Dec 22, 2009 7:22 AM EST reply actions
Yeah, and it's doubly hilarious that to prepare to sign Molina
the Mets picked up Blanco, who also can’t hit righties for ****.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 22, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
Meh
I’m much less concerned about Blanco’s platoon split favoring the opposite side of the other catcher, especially someone like Molina, than about his defense. You can still leverage away some of Molina’s platoon split with pinch hitters late in games when you’re putting Blanco in anyway, and part of the reason for bringing Molina in is so he can start the vast majority of games, so its not like Blanco’s going to be starting games because of a pitchers handed-ness. He’s going to be starting day games after night games and things of the like. I think the lefty-righty platoon splits and their leverageability is overblown a bit for the catcher position. At first base it makes sense, since playing time at first base is going to be weighted for offensive gains, but not at catcher.
"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 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
Dismissing offense for the catching position contributed to the Mets missing in 2007 and 2008
plus you seem strangely unconcerned with the fact that Molina is a very weak offensive contributor. WAR doesn’t count Molina’s league-worst baserunning, it doesn’t count how his defense brings down his offense, and it doesn’t project his likely decline. It also, afaicr, doesn’t do an adequate job of weighting OBP v SLG, something that bites Molina worse than almost any other regular in the major leagues. When you take these things into account Molina brings nothing of use, offensively, to the table. And yet you want to see Molina in a defensive platoon with Blanco. That would be dandy, but… where’s the offense in that platoon?
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 22, 2009 10:59 PM EST up reply actions
Hah, didn't I just respond to these questions in the comments of my pro-Molina post? ;)
WAR is based on wOBA, so unless there’s some research that suggests wOBA isn’t factoring the run value of reaching base vs. earning extra bases, it shouldn’t overvalue SLG. There isn’t really anything about his components that screams decline, and his offensive projection is still quite a bit better than any other catcher under discussion even factoring that decline (CHONE’s wOBA projection for him is quite a bit lower than his production level the last few years). But in 2009 his power was equal to what its been in the past though, and though it dipped a bit, his contact rate was still well above average. Those are the only two offensive skills he’s ever had, and there’s nothing that suggests they’re getting worse, aside from the fact that he’s 35. I actually don’t think another ~.310 wOBA season is all that unreasonable an expectation for him, he’s pretty much been at that mark or higher for the last seven seasons, and there isn’t an outright statistical peak and valley over that time, it just looks like normal distribution. And while his defense is bad, its not butcher-bad. According the both BtB and Driveline Mechanics, he’s around right around the 33rd percentile (his DM ranking is lower, but its also weighted for a lot more games played than a lot of the guys ahead of him). And as far as baserunning, the issue is a bit overblown. Average catcher baserunning (aka replacement level catcher baserunning) isn’t 0. So even if Molina’s baserunning is five runs lower than an average non-catcher, its significantly closer to average for catchers. It still may be the worst in the game, but that value difference is closer to a quarter of a win than half a win.
The point is, which catcher is better, at least offensively? By CHONE’s R/150, the only remaining one available is Miguel Olivo. It doesn’t matter how terrible Molina is so much as matter how much better/worse he is than any other options, and as sad as it is, he actually is better than the other options in terms of raw cost-independent production, including the ones already on the roster. Even more, no other catcher under consideration has consistently played as many games as Molina has, which I suspect may have more value than we realize. I said this in the other post, my biggest problem with the last few years in terms of the catcher position was the revolving door, where every few trips through the rotation, the whole staff would have to get used to a new receiver.
As far as the platoon thing goes, I’m not so much suggesting that the Mets go with an offense/defense platoon, as saying that catcher isn’t really a platoonable position, at least not in the traditional sense, especially when the #1 is expected to catch 120 games. There are too many other reasons and nuances for weighting playing time that will have more effect on the seasons outcome than getting a few extra offensive runs.
"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 12:15 AM EST up reply actions
Mark, you seem to enjoy following me around and pestering me with irrationalities.
Since I’m not into wasting any more time unraveling your relentless thread of illogic, for the next week or so I’m going to simply copy and paste one of your particularly singularly irrational posts, from the “Mets vs Red Sox: a 2010 lineup and projection comparison”. Apologies to other posters for taking up space here, but Mark’s peculiar “reasoning” may deflect other, more interesting posts of the kind I’m always willing to engage. Mark’s assertions are in quotation marks, my replies are not:
There are too many problems with your post [Mark] 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 22, 2009 9:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
by SeanSchirmer on Dec 23, 2009 12:37 AM EST up reply actions
huh?
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Dec 23, 2009 9:08 AM EST up reply actions
For the sake of reference, a 3-2-1 regression on his wOBAs
Without any age adjustments, you get .316. Considering all three figures have been within .020 of each other and don’t follow anything like a linear decline, how much of that do we take away for age? Obviously some, but probably less than for the average 35 year old catcher, considering how durable and cosistent Molina’s been the last few years. If his wOBA is .316, CHONE got his playing time right (126 games, 486 PAs), as -5 defense and -3 baserunning, that’s 1.7 WAR. A .310 wOBA and its 1.4 WAR. At his CHONE projected .298 wOBA its just a tad under 1 WAR.
"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 12:33 AM EST up reply actions
James is worth at least 2 wins
You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.
by Kevin H on Dec 22, 2009 7:56 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think that's a bit on the low side - my projection:

by James Kannengieser on Dec 22, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions
If your UZR didn't drop last year
maybe Pelfrey wouldn’t have “regressed,” way to go James.
the number one issue facing the Mets is finding that one guy who’s going to say "get on my shoulders and ride me to the championship."
Wait a minute
That’s Pujols’ page. You’re a phony, a great big phony. Hey everybody, this guy’s a phony!
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 no no
See it says Mets on the left. Mets not Cardinals!
by James Kannengieser on Dec 23, 2009 9:15 AM EST up reply actions
photoshop
"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 24, 2009 4:04 AM EST up reply actions
Unrealistic
The Mets aren’t going to pay Castillo to be a bench player. If they can’t trade Castillo he has the job.
His contract is a sunk cost
and so his salary should be irrelevant when making that decision. If the Mets had any grasp of basic economic principles, they’d make the decision based on projected performance alone. On that note, if I looked like Brad Pitt…
by DoghouseBlues on Dec 22, 2009 9:21 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly
we know they won’t but it’s ridiculous. It especially doesn’t make sense considering they’re paying someone 2 million to be his back up. Why not use that 2 million towards someone who could be a major upgrade.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Is that how you spell
Jabronis?
the number one issue facing the Mets is finding that one guy who’s going to say "get on my shoulders and ride me to the championship."
Could have sworn it was jabronies.
If there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
and I clearly don't care enough to argue about it.
If there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
I'll check with the authority on the word

the number one issue facing the Mets is finding that one guy who’s going to say "get on my shoulders and ride me to the championship."
I-G-A-R-I-S-H-I
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
i am not convinced that rotation is not the biggest problem
this article did remind me however, that our team once reliably second division, is fast approaching third division territory. Three of the five pitchers you mention are coming off of surgery and one other is Ollie. So I know this essay was for the sake of argument, but I think there’s a better chance that the core position players will rebound (even with drag of the typical crappy peripheral players) than that the rotation as presently conceived will avoid crashing and burning.
Also, scouts agree that Kannengieser doesn’t have the arm for left field, and he may have a drinking problem.
I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself into trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya
Kannengieser has too many letters, it is against the MLB regulations. It doesn't fit in a jersey.
One anonymous scout told me he is weak against “premium pitch” and is strong against “premium pitch”.
The best case scenario for this offseason is not trading away our farm. Or make no trades at all.
Dammit. In my AAOP I wanted Placido Polanco for the role you see for DeRosa,
and they’ll wind up with comparable AAVs.
I might go cheaper and try for Kelly Johnson. The Braves nontendered him and I don’t think he’ll get anything like starter money. By the way, having pissed away I mean spent $2m on Alex Cora, there’s no way Minaya’s going to add an expensive MI.
Damned if I can remember the player comparable to Johnson and DeRosa who just signed for 2/4. Can anyone help out? It took place within the last three to five days….
If Kannengieser changed his name to Jaime Kanneguez
Omar might be interested…
Just kidding! No one get angry please…
by Mackey Sasser on Dec 22, 2009 12:29 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
He can hit up Sosa for some of that cream he has. Not the steroid cream, either.
"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 22, 2009 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
Love the idea
You forgot to mention the best part. No Alex Cora!
"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 2:10 PM EST reply actions
He sort of seems a lot like
a rich man’s (figuratively and literally) Fernando Tatis. They can play the same positions, put up similar wOBAs, similar age, etc., except DeRosa has had considerably more power the last two years. I would rather resign Tatis for very little and go after someone a bit more specialized since we would already have a ‘do-it-all’ sort of guy off the bench.
Travis Hafner is made of gold
How dare you include Dr. Socks in a list of jabronies!
With Nick Evans sitting around doing nothing, and Nick Murphy’s status with the club in the future unsure, especially with Davis coming up soon, you’d think that there’d be some kind of organizational push to, you know, teach either/or some more positions, and turn them into more polished Mark DeRosa-type players.
"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 22, 2009 5:51 PM EST reply actions
Lol
I wouldn’t think that, it makes too much sense for me to think the mets would do it. I imagine we’ll trade them for nothing, a la keppinger/wigginton, to a lesser extent anderson hernandez and then overpay for someone to do the same thing they could, a la alex cora.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
You're right; Sometimes I assume that there's a good thought every now and then up there, in the front office.
Silly me.
"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 22, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions

by 

























