Starting Pitching and the 2010 Mets

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 7, 2009 2:39 AM EST

Where do we think the team is, and what does it need?

I thought I'd post some information and look for some opinions on the state of the Mets starting pitching going into the 2010 season. I noticed a majority of the AAOPs favored at least some gambling with the rotation by signing pitchers with injury histories such as Rich Harden and Ben Sheets.

As things currently stand, if the 2010 season started tomorrow and the Mets went with their five starters with they highest upside they would be running out the following rotation. Here they are along with their IP, ERA, and FIP from 2009:

Starter IP ERA FIP WAR

Santana 166.2 3.13 3.79 2.8

Pelfrey 184.1 5.03 4.39 1.8

Maine 81.1 4.43 4.57 0.6

Perez 66.0 6.82 6.40 -0.8

Niese 25.2 4.21 3.25 0.6

This is the current rotation of the team with the second highest payroll in the major leagues. (Nelson Figueroa and his low upside is not the Mets' preferred 5th starter at the moment so I'm relegating him here to the pen/AAA.) Last season the front five pitched a grand total of 524 innings. Of the two who finished the season not on the DL, one (Pelfrey) had an ERA over 5.00 for the season, and the other (Maine) threw in all of four games after returning from a serious arm injury.

Of the remaining three Santana had his season cut short by an elbow injury which had been causing him pain since before the all-star break. His surgery to remove bone chips is the second of this type he has undergone. Niese ended his season with a torn hamstring. Perez threw his last pitch on August 23rd. In none of these cases, as with Maine, is it at all clear how well the pitcher is going to recover from their injury.

In other words, the Mets rotation, as currently constructed, averaged 105 innings per starter last season, with an ERA of 4.51. That's extremely poor.

The reason I pointed out earlier that a majority of AAOPlans (and commentary outside this site) showed a willingness to gamble on injured starters is that I was surprised how little concern there was over the *quantity* next season's rotation would be capable of delivering. *Quality* was routinely discussed, and people were typically willing to invest in the upside of pitchers like Ben Sheets, who threw zero innings in 2009, and Rich Harden, who threw 148 and 141 innings the last two years, and a total of 72 innings total in the two years before that. What I'm trying to discover is, where do people expect starter's innings to come from on the 2010 Mets? Are we, generally, expecting Maine to pitch somewhere between the 140 and 191 innings he threw in 2008 and 2007? Is Perez going to figure out how to pitch again and return to being the useful starter he was in 2007 and 2008 when he threw a combined 371 innings? Will Santana continue to be the 220 inning a year stud he was since 2004?

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 53 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Can anyone remove the coding from the post? Thanks.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 7, 2009 2:40 AM EST reply actions

You can edit fanposts.

"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 7, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions

edit and delete the blank lines at the top of your post

this is where the hidden formatting text lies. Microsoft word is annoying like that.

by KeithsMoustache on Dec 7, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions

Thanks.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 7, 2009 8:25 PM EST up reply actions

Everytime I look at our roster

This is the current rotation of the team with the second highest payroll in the major leagues

I can’t fathom how that payroll part can’t be a lie. How in the world did we turn 150 million into that crap, ESPECIALLY, considering how underpaid Wright and Reyes are.

Only the mets.

by Gina on Dec 7, 2009 10:13 AM EST reply actions

Same here. It seem inconceivable, and we don't even have any true albatross contracts

like Zito’s, or Wells’. But every time I add it up, it still gets very close to $150 million.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 7, 2009 8:27 PM EST up reply actions

For what its worth

I working on a fanpost that contradicts this a bit, here’s a preview.

2006 Mets SP tRA: 5.36

I can’t get a tRA ranking, but their rotation was 23rd in the majors by FIP. Only 2 starters had more than 150 IP, Tom Glavine and Steve Trachsel, and they had a 5.39 and 6.50 tRA, respectively. The team high SP pRAA was Pedro Martinez’s 10.3. Jose Lima, Geremi Gonzalez, Victor Zambrano, Dave Williams, Alay Soler, and a not-yet-ready Mike Pelfrey were all forced to make starts.

The point is, its possible to be an imperfect team and get good results. Right now, the Mets have a lot of needs. But to become a good team again, its not critical that they create a well balanced roster, just that they improve as much as they possible can for the lowest cost. The reason the 2006 Mets were so successful was because of their dominant offense (.348 team wOBA) and Bullpen (3.66 relief tRA), and average defense (1.1 UZR). If the market just isn’t there for SP, which it appears that its not, they should focus on the markets that are there, which coincidentally enough are offense and bullpen. This isn’t to say that I don’t think they should improve the rotation if the opportunity is there, but if its not, there are other things they can do to attempt to achieve respectability that are just as likely to work as the hypothetical diversification of spending across all needs equally, an ideal scenario that just doesn’t seem possible.

"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 7, 2009 10:39 AM EST reply actions

I agree and disagree

Imbalance need not be crippling, by any means. I don’t agree, though, that the market for starting pitching prohibits the Mets from bolstering what is currently a disaster area—the rotation is in even worse shape than the lineup or the bullpen. There’s enough out there availble on short deals (Garland, Arroyo, Harang…), on reasonable dollars and years (Marquis), and even some flyers that if the Mets move now they can do very well for themselves.

Nice summary, btw. I’m looking forward to reading the complete post.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 7, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions

It is the kind of situation, though,

that if Omar farts around and tries to save a couple of million in this thin market, he could easily be the guy at the end of the tune without a chair to park in

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 7, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions

That's absolutely true

I mean this in the most general sense, that is, the Mets don’t have to acquire a bevy of impact SP talent to compete. There’s certainly room for improvement given what they have and the market, but that the market will also probably prove more favorable if the major acquisitions are in other areas.

"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 7, 2009 7:15 PM EST up reply actions

Any particular ideas on those areas?

I’m thinking this might be a good market for salary dumps, among other things.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 7, 2009 8:25 PM EST reply actions

There are lots of high value relief arms out there

And not all are going to find jobs as closers. It seems like a nice market to wait out and pick the scrappings of, or at least feign interest right now in the guys who are fringe closers like the Braves duo, Kevin Gregg, Fernando Rodney, etc. Spending a bit to ensure some more positive value relief innings could be a nice way of taking advantage of an overstuffed market. Obviously, the trio of free agent outfielders, even Jason Bay, are tempting to varying degrees.

Honestly, I’m just not sold on any of the FA SP beyond Lackey and Wolf, and it seems unlikely either are coming to us. Sure, Garland would be a reasonable addition, as long as its assumed that he’s a below average pitcher, and as long as there’s no “buy high” market for him. Arroyo and Harang are fine too, as long as they don’t cost anything significant in talent. I have a sinking feeling that Piniero would be a disaster and another negative value contract by next season. So really what I’m saying is, if the opportunity cost of going heavy into the SP market means forgoing a more impactful addition from a different area of the market, it shouldn’t be done just for the sake of “our pitching sucks.” We have enough that sucks where we don’t have to nit pick and specialize, and we don’t need to make all aspects of the team perfect to build a contender or even a team reasonable comparable to the Phillies.

"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 7, 2009 9:24 PM EST up reply actions

Makes a lot of sense.

My feeling is that the bullpen isn’t a completely gaping hole so playing a little poker and gambling that prices come down is smart.

Permit me to pick a a fairly large nit. You say Garland is a below average pitcher. The ERA+ for starting pitchers is right around 96 every season. Garland’s ERA+ for the last five years (oldest to newest) were 128, 105, 111, 91, 111, while throwing 221, 211, 208, 196, and 204 innings. In those years he started 32, 32, 32, 32, and 33 games. That’s pretty much the definition of an above average pitcher, and you could reasonably argue that in his 128, 111, and 111 years he was effectively a #2 starter.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 8, 2009 12:06 AM EST up reply actions

Well, I was looking at statcorner

And his pRAA each of the last four years (starting with 2009)

4.5
-8.5
-18.5
-11.5

tRA+ over the same span:

123
90
82
90

Not sure why or if there’s a viable reason that his ERA’s have been so consistently better than his tRA’s, but I’m doing to stick with the defense independent measure.

"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 8, 2009 12:16 AM EST up reply actions

I'll have to look into the defenses behind him over the years

to get a better idea of why that happens.

It may be a skill. It may not, of course.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 8, 2009 12:58 AM EST up reply actions

I checked

The D’Backs were good this year, Dodgers about average. The Angels were about average in 2008, and the White Sox were pretty bad in 2006 and 2007 (UZRs below -20).

It may be a skill, but if it is, its really hard to identify using typical saber means. He doesn’t miss bats, he’s not all that great at preventing home runs, his BABIPs follow normal distribution. He has decent command, that’s about it.

For what its worth, James projects a 4.33 ERA and 4.55 FIP while CHONE projects a 4.56 ERA.

"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 8, 2009 1:08 AM EST up reply actions

I think it's a skill to a small degree

I wouldn’t over value it. I think he is slowly declining stuff wise, and his stuff wasn’t great to begin with. But he does know how to pitch. In Garland’s case, he really doesn’t even seem to be that good in BABIP, his career rate is .290, only slightly above average. He also may have a bit of skill in stranding runners, and in game management (so that distribution of things like runs allowed, or walks allowed, aren’t totally random), all of which maybe gives a bit of extra value.

But his velocity continues to gradually decline. He’s averaging under 90 mph on the fastball, and it is losing effectiveness. He struggled early, but really turned it around from June on. He seems to have done this though primarily by throwing a lot less fastballs and more sliders, curves, and cutters. The cutter was only introduced last year:

http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfx.aspx?playerid=232&position=P

I don’t think he’ll get away with it forever, but he’s a guy who, even if he gives you a 4.30 ERA, will probably managed to win a couple of games more than he really should. I wouldn’t pay more than $6M-8M/yr and I would give him over 2 years. He’s strictly a back end #4 type guy to me. A bit like Trachsel when the Mets first signed him, before they started extending him into his mid 30s long after he was worth keeping around. You might get a couple of good years out of Garland though at ages 30-31. In some ways reminds me also of Tobi Stoner. No great stuff at this point, but can command a pretty large repertoire and somehow gets guys out. And especially having spent his career in the AL, if NL hitters are less familiar with him, he’ll find ways to get them out for awhile.

by acerimusdux on Dec 8, 2009 6:07 PM EST up reply actions

Well put

"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 8, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions

Well put indeed.

I’d hate to give him three years, also. One thing—a #4, to my thinking, is a below average starter. If average is an ERA+ of 96, then a 4 should come in around 90. I understand that there’s a belief Garland is more of a true talent 102 than 108 (those numbers for example only), but as long as you think he’s a true talent 96 or better, particularly given his durability he’s at least a #3.

From your post I get the sense that Garland may be successfully converting himself into more of a junkballer, but haven’t heard that elsewhere. Is that your sense, that he’s adapting before he turns in a rancid season and has no other choice? It doesn’t seem like he’s sitting on his hands hoping hitters aren’t noticing the drop in velocity. I hadn’t thought of him as turning into Jamie Moyer, but if he’s smart enough he may be able to do just that.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 8, 2009 7:24 PM EST up reply actions

If you regress his tRA+ 5-4-3-2-1

I get 93. Even though the sample size is large, I don’t think you can regress that all the way to 102 to determine his talent level relative to average.

"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 8, 2009 11:50 PM EST up reply actions

"(those numbers for example only)"

Why do you prefer tRA to FIP, btw?

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 9, 2009 10:02 PM EST up reply actions

I'm pretty certain TRA has been shown to be a better predictor

Since the type of contact a hitter makes is actually within a pitchers control/skill set, and FIP doesn’t take it into account. FIP also doesn’t regress HR rates.

by Gina on Dec 9, 2009 11:16 PM EST up reply actions

A better predictor of future performance*

I should say tra takes line drive/flyball/groundball rates into account, that’s what i mean by type of contact.

by Gina on Dec 9, 2009 11:18 PM EST up reply actions

I think FIP and tRA are pretty close in their predictive qualities

tRA is more granular though, and statcorner provides a bunch of useful info that fangraphs or THT don’t.

"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 9, 2009 11:43 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks. I'll look into it.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 10, 2009 5:16 AM EST up reply actions

Whoops, my bad, didn't notice they broke up 2009 into two seasons

that makes the pRAA’s for the last four years

-4
-18.9 (18.5 was mistyped)
-11.5
12.4

tRA+’s

96
82
90
110

Doesn’t change much.

"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 8, 2009 12:26 AM EST up reply actions

Also

The guy hasn’t had a K/9 over 5.00 in four seasons. Good luck pairing that up with a defense that combined for a -47.3 UZR and ranked 26th in the majors in PADE. This is the same reason Piniero scares the hell out of me. The only way these signings work is if the big three stars, Beltran, Wright, and Reyes, all find their previous defensive glory AND the Mets make some major defensive upgrades. Bengie Molina and Orlando Hudson don’t count.

"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 8, 2009 12:32 AM EST up reply actions

Great point on pitching quantity.

We need depth even more than a #2. Granted, if you do get to the playoffs, where only 3 pitchers can make most of the starts, then the quality becomes more important. But right now this is not that near to a playoff team, and depth was far and away the biggest problem

Last year, the Mets had only 71 starts made by Santana, Pelfrey, and Maine, their only 3 MLB quality SP. They were 36-35 in those starts. Add 5 starts in which Niese performed well, and that’s still only 76 starts.

The other 86 starts were made by Livan Hernandez, Oliver Perez, Tim Redding, Bobby Parnell, Nelson Figueroa, Pat Misch, and Fernando Nieve. The team was 31-55 in those starts, a .360 winning percentage. Even if you had another reliable league average SP last season make 32 starts, that would have still left 54 starts to be made by guys who arguably don’t belong in the majors right now.

You could argue at least that Nieve and Misch were decent young pitchers worth giving a look to, and they did OK, the Mets went 6-8 in their starts. And likewise,Oliver Perez was bad, but arguably he wasn’t expected to be that bad, and while not worth the money, was at least considered a respectable big league option heading into the year. And the Mets went 6-8 in his starts. That still leaves 58 starts, in which the Mets went 19-39 (.328 wpct.), behind pitchers no one expected anything of coming into last season. You would have needed to have 2 more reliable SP to fill that gap.

As common as pitching injuries are, you need to head into a season expecting at least one SP to go down. So you need at least 6 SP capable of pitching to something near to league average. John Niese projects pretty well right now, but the Mets should still keep him in AAA to start the season for that reason. He has options and can be the first call up. But we could really use another one like him in AAA. (Maybe Stoner will step up, or Gee if he comes back healthy).

Santana, Maine, and Pelfrey should certainly be back, but if Perez is going to be in the rotation you are going to need to have other options available should he falter. Misch and Nieve should probably both be in the pen where you can slide them into the rotation for an emergency start if needed.

by acerimusdux on Dec 7, 2009 10:51 PM EST reply actions

Excellent break down of last year's pitching woes.

It would make a strong fanpost.

Agree about starting Niese in the minors—or—what about using him as a long reliever, if the pen shakes out that way? Even if Ollie isn’t too awful he’s going to be a five inning guy if that for April, at least. With all the other injuries to the staff I’d think two long relievers would be a good idea. Even if Maine comes back well I don’t think you’ll want to push him past 150 innings for the season, so it makes all the sense in the world to start both him and Niese slowly.

Do you think Misch and Nieve make more sense out of the pen, or in AAA? Or one in each?

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 7, 2009 11:59 PM EST up reply actions

Might depend on options

I’m not sure if either guy has options left, or will clear waivers. Nieve was a pretty good prospect, and he improved a lot after the Mets claimed him, so he probably wouldn’t make it through waivers unless he pitches poorly. I expect you have to keep him in the pen if you want him.

Misch, I’m not sure. But for now he looks like a decent candidate for long man and a second lefty in the pen (though he’s not really any better vs. LHB, so more a longman, but at least a different look from your other guys).

by acerimusdux on Dec 8, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions

I won't deny anything you have to say

But is this any worse than having a first baseman and corner outfielder who currently project worse than the average NL SS from 2009? I just don’t think that there’s enough money in the bank to unilaterally correct all the different problems, and some are going to have to take higher priority than others, and so the determination should be made more by how the market develops than by the particular needs themselves. If getting Matt Holliday means Jon Niese has to start the year on the MLB roster and Nelson Figeroua is the 6th starter, so be it. I’d rather that than spending on two FA starters to create SP depth and living with Bengie Molina and/or Orlando Hudson as the positional upgrades.

"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 8, 2009 1:00 AM EST up reply actions

Agree on every point

I keep reading that the top tier FA talent isn’t that good this year, but for me Holliday is a top guy in pretty much any year. I’m absolutely in on that, up to a point, and then go low budget with the other upgrades if you must.

I don’t think Lackey will be worth it on the pitching side, I like Pineiro though as I think he has actually turned a corner, and I don’t like much of what else is left for SP available, especially with Wolf now signed.

I wouldn’t mind either though if you could send Castillo for Pierre in a salary neutral exchange (meaning they pick up the difference), and spend $7M/yr on Hudson for 2 years. Between 2B and the bench I think that’s a net 2.25 win upgrade. And with Pierre in a 4th OF role, you could maybe non-tender Francoeur and start Pagan there, or at the least platoon them.

For me adding pitching depth could mean even dealing for a young guy not getting a chance elsewhere. Maybe even someone else’s B- back to mid rotation prospect to be stashed in AAA, if you want to give Niese a shot. I’d like to have a clone or two of Niese.

by acerimusdux on Dec 8, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah that's a good point

That’s probably the best way to leverage the pitching priority, look for Niese-clone types, 0-3 back end guys with options left, preferably ones who aren’t getting a shot in another organization.

"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 8, 2009 6:52 PM EST up reply actions

I only disagree with the Pierre acquisition.

Particularly if we sign Holliday we are well stocked with 4th and 5th OFers. Castillo should net something more valuable than that in trade. I’ll guess his value at around 6 million versus the 12 million he’s owed. He won’t get you a star, but he should get you more than a redundant spare part.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 8, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions

I can't stand Sullivan or Reed

I guess I can understand if you want Martinez to have a spot, and Pagan to be the other. But Pierre would easily be worth $3M to me as an upgrade over Sullivan or Reed. I prefer young talent there if the guy might be as good or has upside to be something more in the future. But I don’t see much possibility for either with the guys we currently have, other than Fernando, and don’t see much better available elsewhere either.

Pierre is still a very good defender and elite base stealer. He’s not any better a starter than Castillo right now, but he’d be maybe the best bench player in the game. He’s also still pretty young at only 32 next year. I remember Kenny Lofton at the same age being badly undervalued for a couple of offseasons, but then he would always be in demand at the trade deadline when teams in contention wanted to boost their chances. His skill set is just more rare and more valuable than Castillo’s right now.

As a starter, both are maybe +1.25 win guys. But Pierre will still be worth a full win or more even in a bench role. If you pinch run him, use him as a late inning defensive replacement, backup for 3 positions, start him when match-ups are favorable, you can really leverage his value. He’s more talented than Endy Chavez was.

If I had to have one guy as a starter, I’d probably take Castillo, just because there seem to be more options in LF, and the lineup does need some pop. But, if I could have Dan Uggla at a reasonable cost, I think I might even prefer Uggla + Pierre to Bay + Castillo even in a starting role.

by acerimusdux on Dec 8, 2009 8:12 PM EST up reply actions

I don't want Sullivan or Reed around either,

though I don’t think anyone considers them 4th OFers.

On the reasonable assumption that the Mets sign a LFer for 2010 they already have the best (or one of the best) OFers in the majors in Angel Pagan. And respectable 5th OFers in Murphy, Evans, and Tatis. It’s not that Pierre isn’t a terrific bench guy, because he is. It’s just that a slight (if it’s even that) upgrade on Pagan has to be way, way down on the Mets list of priorities.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 8, 2009 10:09 PM EST up reply actions

Do you mean best 4th outfielders in Pagan?

I think the problem is even with an upgrade over Pagan, he’d still be our 3rd best outfielder, so it would have to be a pretty significant upgrade.

by Gina on Dec 8, 2009 10:14 PM EST up reply actions

Uh, yeah. Oops. I did mean "best 4th".

And good point about him being our 3rd best OFer. I meant that assuming Francouer in RF, and a good FA in LF, that Pagan becomes our defacto 4th OFer.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 9, 2009 10:04 PM EST up reply actions

Murphy/Evans/Tatis

Evans doesn’t belong in the majors right now. He needs to learn to hit AAA pitching before you consider him for a bench spot, especially given his defensive limitations. Tatis you don’t bring back unless he’s really the best you can do for a RH bat for 1B tp platoon with Murphy. I might prefer a guy like Nady, but Tatis will do. But you wouldn’t need him for example, if you had Holliday, Francoeur, and an upgrade over Murphy at 1B.

Murphy if he’s replaced at 1B is more like the 6th outfielder, bench bat, professional hitter. You really need one more guy who can play a good OF, something Murphy/Tatis really don’t do that well.

And I really wouldn’t consider Pagan/Pierre redundant. Honestly, Pagan would even be liable to end up the starter in RF, leaving Francoeur as the RH bench bat.

I would agree though, that it might be best to just keep Castillo, if the budget is tight and you’ve already signed a major bat like Holliday, and have a very limited budget left for other priorities. If the Mets go the multiple smaller upgrades route though, I would consider something like Pagan starting in LF, with Johnson, Hudson, and Molina the additions, and then a bench of Pie, Fiorentino (FA 5h OF), Murphy, Cora, Blanco

by acerimusdux on Dec 9, 2009 2:01 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, learn to hit AAA pitching, Nick Evans!

Let’s ignore your BABIP below .200!

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Dec 9, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions

Well it was actually .233

Which is still extremely low, but he also had a gb rate over 40% which is pretty bad. On minorleaguesplits you can neutralize luck, and even though that brings his ops up like .110 pointstheres still a huge platoon split and his obp overall is only around .320, with a pretty unimpressive bb/k.

by Gina on Dec 9, 2009 3:03 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, but it's also in like 300 PA.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Dec 9, 2009 9:55 PM EST up reply actions

Though Evans whupped LH pitching at the major league level.

Which is entirely consistent with his minor league numbers. Since I don’t think he’ll ever really hit RHP I therefore don’t think he has a lot to learn in the minors. He is what he is, and that’s a corner sub, platoon, ph guy.

" Tatis you don’t bring back unless he’s really the best you can do for a RH bat for 1B tp platoon with Murphy."

But Tatis is a lot more valuable than that. He’s the very definition of a supersub—decent glove at most positions, league average at bat. For the $2.5 million or so he’ll get in arb he’s a very valuable guy on a club with a lot of injury risks. He also goes a long way towards keeping 1b from becoming a black hole next year.

I understand why you don’t want Murphy as the 5th OFer next year, but that’s some of his job description. 5th OFers are alway missing something—they can hit but are below average fielders, or they’re pretty good gloves with a 640 OPS, or they can’t do anything very well but they don’t suck at any one thing…. I corrected my post w Gina, above. If we acquire a good LFer, and since we’re stuck with Francoeur in RF, that means we have one of the best 4th OFers in baseball in Pagan. That makes, imo, Murphy a perfectly tolerable 5th OFer. Good bat for the position, not a great but not a hopeless glove.

Pierre might be better than Frnacouer in RF, but if that’s the way it works out if we swap Pierre for Castillo and Pierre is getting a ton of starts out there, we’ll be fighting the Nats to stay out of last place. Any team giving Pierre 100+ starts in a corner has punted the season.

I’ll disagree in friendly fashion with the other acquisitions you’re proposing. The three you mention will cost around $20 million per year. That’s a lot of money to put into mediocre vets in their decline phases or with injury risks. I’d much, much rather go with Holliday and hope to get good years out of younger players than know for certain that I have no chance of cracking 90 wins.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 9, 2009 10:18 PM EST up reply actions

That's probably 6 wins for that $20M

I’m figuring:

Hudson is a good +1.5 over Castillo
Johnson about +1.75 over Murphy
Molina about +2 over Santos
And Pierre and Murphy adds +1 to the bench

As for age, Molina is the only one of those guys who is more than 2 years older than Holliday. You do realize Holliday will get 5 or 6 years, right? I don’t think any of these guys gets more than 2. This is more a plan B for me, I still want Holliday if the price is right, but I think there’s an argument for more distributed short term risk rather than taking a larger risk pushed into the future.

As for Murphy, I don’t object at all to carrying him. But the only reason he’s missing something as an outfielder is that he’s not an outfielder, he’s an infielder. Let him back up 1B/3B. Outfield is a position where you are going to have injuries from time to time. I just wouldn’t want to start a season with only one outfielder on the bench. Look at all the fringe guys we’ve had to call up the last few years due to our lack of outfield depth. I prefer a 6 man bench, but even on a 5 man bench I want two real outfielders.

That’s just a roster construction preference. As for Pagan, he can do a lot of things, but he’s not ideal as a defensive replacement or pinch runner in a critical spot, not because he lacks talent, but because he is too error prone. I like him better as a pinch hitter, offensive replacement, platoon guy, and injury backup.

by acerimusdux on Dec 10, 2009 12:09 AM EST up reply actions

That seems pretty optimistic on Molina

BtB and driveline mechanics both pegged his defense as a negative (the former more than the latter) and he’s one of the few players in the game where accounting for baserunning hurts him big time. You have to take at least 8-10 runs off his fangraphs WAR for it to accurately reflect both. His James projected wOBA is .310, it was .308 in 2009. He looks like a 0.5-1.0 WAR player to me, which may be better than Santos projects, but not by two full wins. And don’t get me wrong, I’m no Santos advocate, but the difference in cost just won’t justify the difference in value between Molina and Santos.

"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 10, 2009 12:24 AM EST up reply actions

He's also very good at driving in runs

Over his career he has scored 17.3% of baserunners, vs. a league average of around 14%. That’s an extra 107 baserunners scored over his career. That’s a number you’d expect from a middle of the lineup bat. Wright for example has driven in 17.8% of baserunners.

And this is with a career wOBA of .312. If you go by wOBA, he’s near 20 points, or 10 runs below average. But his actual production has been at least average.

Last 7 years:

BSR% WPA
21.9 -0.22
18.2 +0.76
18.8 +1.19
15.4 +0.72
18.3 -0.58
19.8 +0.65
17.4 -0.08

Keep in mind, WPA is an average player baseline, with no positional adjustment. While wOBA is useful, like any rate stat you are assuming that all events are random with wOBA. You would expect an average hitter to have a 14% BSR%, and a 0.0 WPA. And at the catcher position, that average hitter would be worth 3.5 wins.

And I would be game calling is worth another half win, even if it is hard to prove. Keep in mind, it took some time to prove pitcher control of BABIP had a SD of about 4 runs in 200 innings. A catcher can catch 1000 innings. An ability half as significant could amount to 10 runs. Just because it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack doesn’t mean it’s not significant.

Also, while I hadn’t looked at base running, if you are going to include it, you need to compare to other catchers, as I don’t believe it is included in the standard positional adjustment either. And if the comparison is Santos, well per BP, Molina was -4.5 EQBRR in 520 PA, while Santos was -3.0 in 306 PA. I don’t see any advantage there.

Bottom line, WAR has Molina averaging +2.2 WAR per season over the last three seasons, and WAR is probably badly undervaluing him. I think he was probably worth a full win more than that. I’d bet he’s still worth 2.5 wins next year, even if WAR will probably only put him at 1.5.

by acerimusdux on Dec 10, 2009 11:49 PM EST up reply actions

Interesting case

My question is are BSR% and WPA demonstrably repeatable skills? They may seem to be repeatable, but that doesn’t necessarily make them skills. Couldn’t the BSR%, rather than suggest he’s like a “middle of an order hitter” suggest that he has actually generally hit in the middle of an order? Couldn’t it just mean that he’s usually had quality baserunners on base when he’s hitting? Does that number remain significantly above average when he hits in the #6, #7 or #8 spot? How would a different kind of lesser hitter fare given the chance to hit in the middle of the order, or in whatever part of the Giants order Molina was hitting in.

And just glancing at Molina’s WPA, its not as if they haven’t closely correlated with his wOBA. So long as he’s been +/-10 wRAA, he’s between slightly below average to very good by WPA. When he was younger and putting up sub-.300 wOBAs, his WPAs were also well below average. And that was with elements of defensive production that were probably much better than they are now. James projects a .310 wOBA this year. With CHONE I get .302. For James, that translates to -8.6 wRAA in 140 games (for real? 140 games??). For CHONE, its -15 R/150 in 126 games is -12.6. If its the latter, couldn’t he be very well approaching -0.50 WPA? Even if we take the middle ground and say its somewhere in-between, maybe -10 in 126 games (using CHONE’s 486 PAs), like you suggested, and add in his below average defense, where again, opinions vary, but lets say -5, then fill in replacement (16.2) and position (10.12), that only gets you to 1.13 WAR, not 2.2. You can’t assume he’s on a level plane of production, he’s a catcher way past the average age for his position. And you do still have to subtract for baserunning, even if you assume a replacement catcher is a lesser baserunner than a replacement player at a different position, Molina is still clearly below that level as well. Santos may not be any better in that regard, but other replacement level catchers probably would be.

Even if you assume Molina is a 1 WAR gamecaller, other catcher options are generally 0 WAR gamecallers, and Thole and Santos are -1 WAR gamecallers, what kind of contract does that justify for Molina? What’s the opportunity cost? Even if giving Molina a decent contract is justified in terms of straight cost in an arbitrary market, what if in this market Dioner Navarro is going to get non-tendered and picked up for half the cost? What fraction Molina’s production would a first half with Santos and second half with Thole give you (assuming Blanco is going to be the second catcher on the roster no matter what)?

I mean, I’ll grant that you’ve considered me to at least think twice about Molina’s value. Especially if he can be had on a one year deal, he could justify his cost. I just don’t think there’s any reason to rush into it. There are lots of other ways that include a lot less risk to get value on the dollar, and even for the catcher position, the market isn’t so bone dry that it doesn’t seem impossible that a lesser or even equal player could be found for significantly lower cost.

"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 11, 2009 3:04 AM EST up reply actions

clutch hitting

I’m pretty sure clutch hitting has been shown to be repeatable, but I guess it’s a question of degree. In a small sample I’m sure it would be regressed heavily, but even looking at career rates, I should probably be regressing, I just haven’t looked into researching how much. But I’m pretty sure it is meaningful enough that it is something worth looking at (along with baserunning) after looking at wOBA or WAR.

On how much WPA is over what you would expect, I believe the “Clutch” measure at fangraphs is a measure of that. If you look earlier in his career, when his WPA’s were worse, his wOBAs at that point were just awful. There’s a .287 and a .260 in there. He’s been pretty clutch throughout though, for a career total of 4.89 wins.

While this isn’t comparing to wOBA, it instead compares to WPA/LI, which is essentially a context neutral WPA, which should thus closely correlate to wOBA. This number is calculated for each individual play, so it is in effect removing the value of context (the value of the leverage of each individual situation) from the WPA.

So I’ll agree I’m probably overstating it some, but projections for Santos and Thole are probably pretty uncertain at this point as well. And I definitely don’t want Molina if its’ for 3 years, and even a year 2 should be based on incentives.

Honestly, in part I think we’re buying time here for the guys on the farm to have one more year of development. If this team is falling short, in 6 months the smart move would likely be unloading all these cheap veterans at the deadline.

Meantime, I’m onboard with bringing on some of these flawed players as long as it’s at low cost with no long commitments. The flaws are why these guys should be cheap.

Thus, you have in Nick Johnosn, an injury prone 1B with less power than you might like. You maybe find a left fielder (Branyan?) with some pop but poor defense. You have Molina and his subpar OBP and baserunning. But put Johnson’s monster OBP near the top, Branyan’s bat near the middle, and Molina’s clutch hitting picking up these guys in the end, and add Pierre on the bench to either pinch run for Branyan or Molina when needed or to sub for Branyan defensively. Now you are maybe getting more than the sum of the parts.

Of course this also assumes a manager competent enough to juggle these pieces wisely, which is a matter for another discussion. But as long as the cost isn’t great, Molina seems like a decent fit on this roster. Our younger catchers apparently could use some tutoring in the finer aspects of receiving and game calling. Our lineup needs someone who has an ability to drive in runs. Molina seems a decent short term solution (though yes, he should drop off sharply at his age.)

by acerimusdux on Dec 11, 2009 6:05 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah I hear you

On a one year deal, Bengie Molina is probably more worthwhile than a lot of us are considering, just by virtue of the fact that we’re horrified that once we start negotiating with him, he’ll wind up with 2 years and an easily attainable option.

Re: Clutch hitting. Its not so much that I think you need to regress it to get the mathematically correct number, its that the skills involved in WPA and BSR% seem like they might already quantified by other means and/or can be attributed to conditions that may not always be arbitrary, and thus shouldn’t be expected to follow normal distribution. The issue of repeatable clutch production may be valid, it certainly appears he’s consistently been more clutch than average by the WPA-WPA/LI method. But using his career 4.89 mark is very misleading, nearly half of that value came in one season (2004, when his clutch was 2.16) and was 5x higher than it was in all but two of his other seasons (2001 and 2006, when he was about 0.8). What happens if his wOBA falls down to .300 or below? Even if he’s a little clutcher than a typical .300 wOBA hitter, isn’t there a good chance his WPA will still look pretty terrible? And again, wouldn’t you simply expect a player with his skillset to reflect better production in high leverage situations than not? I honestly don’t know if that last question is valid, but if a player is more likely than average to hit a double in any situation, high leverage or not, and he is likely to draw a walk compared to average, won’t that increase the appearance of “clutchness” without actually changing his value, even relative to a leverage index? Is he more likely than another player who has the exact same leverage independent skillset to hit a double with runners on base? If not, then this value is essentially quantified by attributing a linear run value to those doubles and walks. And it seems like even if there is a difference, it winds up being relatively marginal when compared to the weighted value of x-number of arbitrary doubles.

I’m actually into the Nick Johnson idea, for exactly the reason you state, guys like that can help buy prospects another year, and especially at first base, it seems that’s about all the time we’ll need before we get a pretty complete player. Josh Thole seems like less of a sure thing than Ike Davis, but at the same time, a two year deal for Bengie Molina, or even a one year deal, seems much more risky than a one year deal for Nick Johnson.

The greater than the sum of the parts argument is interesting, I’m really into those kinds of arguments. But in this case, how high is the sum of the parts to begin with? Enough to take a roster than projects as .500 at best and turn it into a team that could compete in a division that has a team as good as the Phillies, and only looks to be getting deeper, with the Nats finally producing some young talent and the Braves with one of the deepest rotations in the league? Maybe it is, I’m really not sure, and its an interesting argument for sure.

"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 11, 2009 11:45 PM EST up reply actions

Also, re: BSR%

I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised if under neutral conditions, Molina’s BSR% was above average. But isn’t that the same value that’s getting derived from the productive elements of his skillset? He puts the ball in play and has average power. He hits the ball in the air, a lot, which is an advantage in SF situations I guess, but wouldn’t you expect a guy who’s entire value is in his ability to hit homers, doubles, and signles to have a high BSR%? Isn’t that accounted for in the weighted value outcomes to begin with?

"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 11, 2009 3:09 AM EST up reply actions

Meddler covered my problems w Molina

And I’d be fine with 5 or 6 years for Holliday. With a 150m budget a team can have 5 core players and should never be in rebuilding mode. Holliday sets us up for a continued run.

Hudson got $8m with incentives last year. He’s rumored to be looking for 4/32. I’d rather have him than Castillo, of course, but he’s too old for that many years, and that’s way too much money for the upgrade. I’ve said elsewhere how perfect a fit Polanco would have been for the Mets, even better than Hudson, and on a shorter, cheaper deal.

Ah, well.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 10, 2009 5:20 AM EST up reply actions