Pressing The Panic Button

by Sam Page on Apr 17, 2009 11:54 AM EDT in Commentary Comment 75 comments

You know those Mets fans who post irrationally in forums, calling for Beltran's trade everytime he makes an error? Yea, turns out those people run the Mets:

But while Mets people are all understandably thrilled to be in their comfy new confines, a slow start that has revealed weaknesses in the team's rotation, defense and lineup has offset the jubilation. Although the new season is just seven days old, Mets people seem genuinely dismayed.

Animated_siren_medium MURPHY FLYBALL ALERT

From inside Citi Field's bunker room:

Omar: How could Murphy drop that ball?!?! He means business...what kind of businessman drops a baseball?

Tony B: I don't know. I'll check Metsblog again, but I'm pretty sure he means business. I don't think that's changed. Hold on, it's still loading...I'm using Internet Explorer 8.

"We have a good team ... on paper, anyway,'' lamented one top Mets decision maker.

Can I see that piece of paper you've got there?

1B: Pujols

2B: Utley

SS: Tony Pena Jr.

No wonder!

1. The defense looks slipshod. There's no excuse for back-to-back games in which players drop routine fly balls, though it's possible Church is still getting acclimated to what looks like a difficult right field. And by the way, Gary Sheffield is not going to help there. Manuel intends to give Sheffield starts in right and perhaps even left, but only to keep him sharp, as Sheffield, 40, himself admitted he's concerned about his outfield play after a whole year away. "He can't play the field anymore,'' one scout said, flat out.

Obviously, Murphy made a terrible play. Before Murphy dropped that flyball, however, he lead the team in UZR with 1.4. And stop telling me the sample size is too small to declare him good yet, while arguing he's bad. Give him time to prove himself either way. It's too early to make judgement on any player on this roster, least of all the player who just learned his position.

2. There are a few issues with the starting pitchers, too. Yes, Johan Santana looks more terrific than ever, Livan Hernandez turned in a nice Mets debut and John Maine was solid the first time out after a dreadful spring in which higher-ups questioned whether he had lost his confidence, but Oliver Perez struggled badly out of the stretch in his outing and Mike Pelfrey hasn't yet shown the dominant stuff he flashed last year.

The day after this article came out Oliver Perez pitched well and the team announced Mike Pelfrey had tendinitis. The lesson: don't jump to conclusions. The real lesson: don't pay Oliver Perez $36MM.

3. The offense is underachieving. One Mets exec remarked that the Padres' Mexico League reclamation project Walter Silva shut them down "on nothing'' before Wright's three-run home run put them in business -- at least until three Padres' relievers, including Duaner Sanchez, whom the Mets released in spring, did the same.

Yea the Mets totally didn't hit Walter Silva...before they scored those five runs against him. The lineup so far by OPS:

Reyes .700
Murphy .754
Wright .872
Delgado 1.072
Beltran .905
Church 1.099
Schneider .440 (wat)
Castillo .910

The two getting the most plate appearance have disappointed so far, but the lineup hasn't been bad. And wouldn't you know it? Castro blasted one off Duaner the other night.

4. There isn't enough fire. Another Mets person said the players seem to "lack a killer instinct'' so far, which might reflect leftover feelings from their two straight September fades.

If the Mets front office really is worried about the teams slow start, I'm disappointed. The only person to really play below my expectations so far is Mike Pelfrey, who has been pitching through pain and noticeably flat on his sinker. I'm also dissapointed at how little I got to make fun of Heyman. That article was surprisingly-what the-

Scrappy Padres second baseman David Eckstein reminded the Mets what they missed when they failed to sign him yet again this winter by killing them in their inaugural game at Citi Field with three hits and a walk.

0 recs | Comment 75 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

jon heyman is a hack

the baseball analysts thoroughly crush him here and here. good reads.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON. WE WANT THE MANSION NOT THE CONDO.

by kendynamo on Apr 17, 2009 12:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Who is Rich Lederer? Is he a former “newspaper editor” like Marc Hulet?

by Lovejoy on Apr 17, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I vomitted a little reading that.

by Lunkwill Fook on Apr 17, 2009 12:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Overreaction is awesome

9 games into the year and we’re already into “the Mets cannot turn this ship around in the following 153 games” mode, with obligatory references to Septembers 07/08 (p.s. I just looked it up on the interweb and it is totally still April right now just in case Jon Heyman and his anonymous sources forgot) and David Eckstein’s gritty grit heart clutchness. What the hell, people?

PS – Heyman is a dickass.

'Oh yes, I know all about that duty-of-a-citizen stuff. It doesn't go. There are exceptions to every rule, and this was one of them. When a man risks his liberty to come and root at a ball-game, you've got to hand it to him. He isn't a crook. He's a fan.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Apr 17, 2009 12:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

hehe

“dickass”

by JoshNY on Apr 17, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

For that anatomical picture. I’ll have trouble sleeping tonight with that thought in my head. But I agree with you. Wish I’d thought up that term.

by zmanmetfan on Apr 17, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think people are definitely overreacting

But I do think the rotation is something that is at least a little worrisome. I would be even more worried though if the front office was actually surprised that the rotation was so-so after Santana. I would hope if a bunch of random people on the internet could tell the rotation had issues the people in the front office would have at least been considering it.

And we’re 4th in the NL in runs but our offense is underachieving? We scored 3 runs off Silva who none of our hitters had ever seen before and who there probably wasn’t much advanced scouting on him considering he had never pitched in MLB before. We scored 3 runs on one of the best pitchers in the NL in Peavy yesterday, how is it the offenses fault that our pitching is giving up more runs than we can score?

And like everyone else I think the complaints about Murphy’s defense are just ridiculous. That being said did anyone else hear last night the broadcaster saying Manuel was planning on getting Tatis work at 2nd base? Does anyone else not understand why it makes sense for Tatis to play 2nd but not Murphy? Is it just because he’s shorter?

by Gina on Apr 17, 2009 12:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why Tatis? Because, my friends, "it is better to lloook good than to be good"

the motto that all Fernando’s live by. You’re too young to remember the great Fernando Lamas, but if he were a Met right now, he might get some starts at second or perhaps spell Church in right.

Since everyone in this thread agrees, for the sake of good-natured balance, I’m going to go against the grain here and say that that I don’t think its “overreacting” to react negatively to the kind of ball we’re seeing so far. If it was 2007, or this was a new cast of characters, maybe that would be true. But I think the burden of proof has shifted to the team to show that they are progressing and, searching my fans heart, I see little evidence of this. I’m not defending every point some columnist makes, but to me, this post has the air of doing the same cherry picking to come to opposite conclusions.

There’s only so long we can mock unscientific analysts (“fire,” “grit,” “will to win”) and point to stats that show the house, raging on fire, is structurally sound. While we have a hearty laugh, our Octobers have been mostly free lately. It’s getting hot in here.

If those are Heyman’s comments re: Eckstein in the pink boxes well, I don’t think they’re wildly inappropriate. I’d rather eat squirrel soup than let David Eckstein near my team, but can you blame a columnist who needs to write a column for making the obvious comparison, Eckstein getting timely hits and catching everything that comes his way, shot-putting the ball safely to first for the easy out versus Castillo? Eckstein did look pretty solid this week, comparatively.

Looking at OPS after 9 games shows how terrific these guys are? Then I’m going with my lying eyes, ‘cause as a team, these guys still play a depressing brand of baseball to watch. If you watch the games, you see how, besides the obvious bad news bears moments that get all the press, many small defensive miscues and lapses add up and certainly don’t help the Mets win games. You’ll see an offense that shuts off like it has a switch. You also might see poorly approached at- bats, pitchers who can’t get bunts down, double play opportunities and lead runners unassailed. It’s losing baseball, and it won’t cut it in this NL East. And there is reason for concern going forward. We have absolutely no idea what to expect out of 3 of the 5 starters. We have two oft-injured catchers. We have a DH and we play in the NL. We’re old and creaky on the right side and some days challenged a bit in the OF, I just pray they hit it to Beltran or the left side of the infield.

Management must be “dismayed” and surprised, since they think overcompensating in one area to address each successive failure is the way to go. I wonder how they’ll avoid the big picture this winter? I feel justified in pressing the “cringe button.”

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

by itsmetsforme on Apr 17, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well put

by Meddler on Apr 17, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i don't think anyone is mocking grit and pointing to stats to say we're structurally found

Most stats said we were an 89 win team last year, and we were. Most people point to stats to say our core players are better than found but the rest of the team around them is not, which is why we keep ending up winning 88, 89 games and barely missing out on the play-offs. The stats show exactly what the teams problem is.

by Gina on Apr 17, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also everything you mentioned in the second half of your second to last paragraph

Is an issue of talent around the stars, not the stars themselves or a lack of grit or hustle. Most advanced stats tell you Castillo’s defense is going to leave something to be desired, everyone in our rotation after Santana will struggle to be even league average, Schneider is overpayed and Castro is only awesome for about 300 innings a year.

by Gina on Apr 17, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well I want to believe in the teams core as much as you do, believe me

but I have to point out that it’s kind of hard to falsify the hypothesis that the problem is with the surrounding, complementary players. I think SOME sportsfans, though not anyone here of course, forget that statistical measures are only as good as the theories they inform. The core becomes something endogenous to the theory, beyond question, and if it turns out to be the problem, there are no grounds for analytic intervention. Meaning the theory isn’t worth squat, at least explanation-wise. This is outside of my original comments, and not anymore scientific, but I “conjecture” that this particular offensive core has a tendency to run very very cold. So how many years do you wait, telling yourself its just a matter of fitting some more pieces together outside the 3-4 guys who must certainly be thought of as the core?

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

by itsmetsforme on Apr 17, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some big words in there

If you followed any team in baseball as closely as you do the Mets, you would probably say that the core players run very very cold. This is not a special problem for the Mets – every team goes through slumps, every team runs very very cold, even clutchies like Derek Jeter and Jimmy Rollins.

I’m not really sure what your point is. Are you saying the Mets should trade Reyes, Wright, Beltran or Johan?

by James Kannengieser on Apr 17, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand what you're point is

Stats say that with the core we have and the pieces around them we should be an 89-90 win team. with the core we have the pieces behind them we’ve been an 89-90 win team. So I don’t understand where your issue is? We’ve basically finished exactly where stats say we should finish based on how the team is configured.

by Gina on Apr 17, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Its not the core

Personally, I’m pretty happy with a guy who has a .415 OBP during a cold stretch, one of the top CF and SS in the game, etc. I get your point, but how do you do any better with that part? Having a good core isn’t about having four guys that are constantly red hot. Reyes was had a .710 OPS in April of 2006 and 2008, his two best years. In 2007, the “off” year inbetween, his April OPS was 1.038, and it showed in all the wrong ways that September.

The way I see it, the offense so far has been good, not great, and in the losses, its been just short of enough to outscore their own starting pitcher. Its a troubling trend, but as you said, hardly scientific.

Your point about cores in general is well taken, but I think it would be more appropriately directed at our crosstown rivals, who last season, relied on heavily on a 35 year old catcher and paid the price, and who are in danger of that again this year with an injured $20 million man as well as a full time DH. For the Mets, the core is not the problem, and there’s no predictive reason to think it will be.

by Meddler on Apr 17, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry to launch a bromide i'm too busy to follow up on

i was procrastinating from some work this morning, and now i’m not, so here’s a poorly thought out response.

my points are just minor responses to the way i read the original post, plus the idea of exempting a component of the team from criticism a priori:

1. Generally, metrics have no meaning outside of theoretical context. Pointing to statistics without an argument, or an idea of what are you trying to explain isn’t scientific. Projection systems are great, but I don’t see how they have much to do with explaining what I’m interested in—system failure, or why a team with three bonifide stars in the lineup can’t get it done, etc. I’m willing to learn, but they seem besides the point here.
2. Perhaps the core isn’t the problem as most on this site seem to hold as a truism (and i surely hope its true), but I was just saying that if your theory places certain components outside of the bounds of analysis, well you get what you get, that’s all. Ironically, a savvy fan can end up with a terrific team on paper, like the clueless quoted front office person and a shitty team performance. It seems to me available metrics used here are not capturing the problem, which is what leads people to talk about “heart” and “grit” and all. Maybe no one knows where the problems come from, but are we to stop discussing anything outside the bounds of statistics, throw our hands up, and wait for chance? This team has familiar problems, and oldtimers who don’t know VORP from Vaseline are laughed at while our stats show that everything is hunky dorry. Yet the lineup, rotation, and pen are rarely in synch and the losses pile up. Why does it matter? Well Omar seems to think switching a few complementary pieces would do the trick, so we’ll see how it works out with the same core as the last three years. What happens when Schneid and Castillo are gone, who can we blame?
3. I guess I’m in the uninspiring “the Mets are a concern” group as someone below said. Most of my issues are looking back at what the team should have done this off-season, I admit.

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

by itsmetsforme on Apr 17, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand most of your issues have to do with what we didnt do in the off-season

But i don’t understand where your issues with stats comes in? The stats and the projection systems explain why a team with three bonafide superstars can’t get it done, because the rest of the team is below average. if you go buy vorp or warp we dont have a world series winning team, they say we have the exact what we’ve seen, a team good enough to win 88-92 games. I don’t understand what failures you think they are missing when that’s exactly what we’ve been?

What stats have been shown that say everything’s hunky dory? there have been stats showing the offense isn’t the problem but there’s also been stats showing brian schniederis awful, offensively at least, and our rotation after Santana has been past awful. I really don’t under what thing you claim stats are missing about our team is, when stats clearly say Perez, Pelfrey, Maine and Livan are not a rotation thats going to take us to a world series, or that Schneider is well overpaid and a liability on offense, that Castillo was sub replacement level.

And the problem is Omar hasnt been switching out complementary pieces. He switches in and out crap and borderline replacement levels players.

by Gina on Apr 17, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Its not that we accept the core as a "given"

But by any measure, the Mets core is about a close as any team’s. If we didn’t have Schneider and Castillo, we’d have other players. If they were other similar below average players, we’d be a similar team. If they were average players, maybe the Mets would elevate their win total back into the mid 90s. Paul LoDuca and Jose Valentin aren’t anything special, but they were valuable players in 2006, and since that time, we haven’t gotten that level of production out of those positions, while the production the other positions has remained fairly consistent.

by Meddler on Apr 17, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"if your theory places certain components outside of the bounds of analysis, well you get what you get"

But is the core outside the bounds of analysis? No, I don’t think so, I think they’re a huge part of the analysis. The predictive quality of the Mets core suggests a high level of production, that’s just what the analysis says, it doesn’t put them outside of its bounds. Just because the team hasn’t won doesn’t mean David Wright and Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran haven’t done about as much as three players possibly can to create wins, or at least to lend as much as three players can to the possibility of their team winning. They’re not going to be perfect for 162 games, but over those 162 games, odds are there aren’t many players who will do more.

by Meddler on Apr 17, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

good point

There’s only so long we can mock unscientific analysts ("fire," "grit," "will to win") and point to stats that show the house, raging on fire, is structurally sound. While we have a hearty laugh, our Octobers have been mostly free lately. It’s getting hot in here.

rationally, i understand that the team has only played 9 games and there’s plenty of evidence that the team has just had a bad start to the season. but having watched the team the best two years, i’m already getting a sense of deja vu, which is not a good sign.

so at some point, yes, we do need to stop rationalizing the way this team plays ball. but where do go from there…if don’t rely on stats, then we’re stuck talking about intangibles and chemistry, and that’s just useless. so i’m just hoping the mets start winning so that i can avoid any of these tricky questions

by englishgrey on Apr 17, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think people are merely pointing out that attributes like that are useless

I never predicted that the Mets would make the playoffs this year, or last year, or the year before that. And once again, I don’t see a foreseeable solution to these supposedly disastrous developments. Are we supposed to trade Reyes, Wright, or Beltran? Are we supposed to ship F-Mart, Humber, Niese, and the rest of our already-depleted farm system? Or Castillo, who’s off to a ridiculously good start?

I finished rationalizing the Mets long ago. Penciling them in for a playoff spot is incredibly foolish; writing them off early on can make you look like an idiot come September. So instead of expressing dire concerns about this team without offering any real solutions, why don’t we just enjoy this beautiful weather and watch them play some fucking baseball?!

by Prince on Apr 17, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

good idea

but i think this is what we do to bide the time until baseball is played…

by englishgrey on Apr 17, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know

But I’ve been reading these comments for the past few days, and today’s installment might as well have been copied and pasted from Wednesday. The Mets are a concern! This has been well-documented. There’s nothing new about today’s remarks, except that there’s even more doom and gloom. I’d like to hear a solution which can be put in place now that we’re here, as opposed to what should have been done in the past.

by Prince on Apr 17, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

one thing we're supposed to do

improve areas of need during free agency, which we did not do as effectively as we could have

by JoshNY on Apr 17, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent analysis

And I agree with what you say. Heyman is a jerk, no doubt. Looking at this team objectively, as a die-hard fan, is tough to do. But I think there is reason for concern as well as optimism. Concern over the points you made, and optimism because there are 153 games left. I saw this same team (essentially) come from 7.5 back in late June to 3.5 up in late September last year before running out of gas. They have the talent, but they have holes as well. We can only hope as fans that management is analyzing what happens daily but is slow to push the panic button. We can hope that Jerry is analyzing what happens daily and in the locker run but is quick to flesh out trends and make the necessary changes. In short, we have to trust that those charged with running the team know what they are doing. How that statement makes you feel is up to you.

by zmanmetfan on Apr 17, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the problem with the offense

Is that while there are some great starts here, a lot of them are sandwiched around Brian Schneider. The most effective offensive players thus far have been the Carloses, Church, and believe it or not, Castillo. So it seems like more often than not, one or two of the Carloses will get on base, and then Schneider will make an out (or two) and you either have Castillo asked to drive in runs (HA!), the threat ends and Castillo leads off the next inning. Then even if Castillo gets on and the pitcher moves him, Reyes hasn’t been able to do much with it.

by Meddler on Apr 17, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

by Gina on Apr 17, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the worst part

was when Eckstein killed us in games 2 and 3 of the series with by going 1-for-8 with a single.

Also, we failed to sign Eckstein? I did not know we failed to do that.

I thought I read somewhere that, “The Mets succeeded this off-season in not signing tiny, infuriatingly-bad-at-baseball aging middle infielder, David Eckstein.”

batting helmets. batting titles. obp.

by Durelo on Apr 17, 2009 12:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sheff & Eck

If the Mets starting lineup featured both of them, that might be too much to handle…

Dear Liz Lemon: While other women have bigger boobs than you, no other woman has as big a heart. When I saw you getting ready to go out and get nailed by a bunch of guys last night, I knew for sure it was over between us, and for the first time since the '86 World Series, I cried... I cried...

by hotspur on Apr 17, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it was less a case of "failing to sign" him

as it was recognizing that he isn’t very good.

by Prince on Apr 17, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

overreacting

i think the overreacting and the booing at shea stem from the same place. the franchise finally turned a corner in 2006, dominated the division, and only missed the world series because beltran is the epitome of unclutchness. so there were really high expectations in 2007, and we know how that ended. and then we got santana, and the expectations were high again…and we know how that ended.

fans have been waiting for the sequel to 2006 for 2+ years now, and i think they’re starting to get worried that 2006 was actually a fluke, not the beginning of years of success. and apparently those feelings are finding their way into the front office now too.

hence, overreaction and quickness to boo mets players on opening day

by englishgrey on Apr 17, 2009 12:35 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

i think its this, well said.

lots of anxiety over the near miss and then 2 years of almost there. its only going to get worse until we see a repeat of the howe years or we win the ws.

HELLO HELLO MR WILPON. WE WANT THE MANSION NOT THE CONDO.

by kendynamo on Apr 17, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

drudge alert lights = nice touch

by englishgrey on Apr 17, 2009 12:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed!

batting helmets. batting titles. obp.

by Durelo on Apr 17, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Castillo is OPSing .910 and we're complaining about not signing Eckstein? Really?

(Yes, I know, small sample size, but hitting well in a small sample size is better than hitting poorly in a small sample size.)

by JoshNY on Apr 17, 2009 12:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But sample size doesn't apply to grit.

by Meddler on Apr 17, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even the largest sample size

is insufficient to show the true measure of David Eckstein’s grit.

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Apr 17, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not worried so much about the Mets

As I am about the Marlins. I remember back in 2006, when the Mets started 8-1, someone relayed a statistic about how like 85% of all teams to start their seasons 8-1 made the playoffs. I know its relatively meaningless, you can blow a seven game lead with 17 to play, you can certainly blow a 4 game lead with 153 to play. Something about that 8-1 number just urks me though.

by Meddler on Apr 17, 2009 12:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Meh, I'm not concerned

though projection systems seemed to undervalue their starters in general, Josh Johnson specifically. But yeah not worried,
Presenting your current division leaders:
AL East – Blue Jays
Central – Royals
West – Mariners
WC – Orioles
NL East – Marlins
Central – Cardinals
West – Padres
WC – Dodgers

by Sokojoe on Apr 17, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I feel the same way

Just that number 8-1 reminded me of hearing lots of talking heads in 2006. But then again, this was a much less competitive division in 2006. The Phillies were busy shedding Bobby Abreu and some of their veteran pitching. The Braves were trying to pull a quick rebuild.

Besides that, the Marlins are also clearly a flawed team. Great SP and great offense, but poor defense and bullpen. If they lose Lindstrom, they’ll have a really hard time closing out games. And though their offense is strong, most of the guys in there aren’t going to be able to carry the team all year. Uggla’s a force, but he probably whiffs to much to avoid a slump at some point. Bonifacio, well, he’s Emil Bonifacio, and by years end, he’ll probably once again look like a poor man’s Chone Figgins. And I’m not on the Maybin bandwagon the way a lot of people are. He just doesn’t look like a major league hitter yet to me. He can’t lay off high heat and he can’t quite catch up to it yet either.

by Meddler on Apr 17, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of the division leaders

How backwards does the AL East look right now? Jays, O’s, Yanks, Rays, Sox? Its like Bizarro world or something.

by Meddler on Apr 17, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually have a hard time agreeing with most projection systems on the Marlins

I just don’t see why they would only be expected to win 70 some games, which is what I think pecota had them at. I don’t see how they’re expected to be nearly 20 games worse than us the philies and the braves.

by Gina on Apr 17, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All those systems project big time regression

for Johnson, Volstad, Uggla, etc. Johnson is a stud and while Uggla may not repeat his 2008 numbers, he’s still going to mash.

by gogomets on Apr 17, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes the real problem is the 36MM to Ollie

The rotation is really the only thing thats bothering me at this point: The middle three guys (Pelf, Ollie and Maine) are inconsisent. And I’m not using the small sample size. I am looking at their entire careers. You never know what you’ll get with either one of the three. That and the fact that they leave a million guys on base, but its too early to get annoyed about that.

Oh, and people need to stop booing Castillo when he’s actually hitting the ball. I know old habits die hard but c’mon now.

by meigs1414 on Apr 17, 2009 1:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

inconsistency

you never know what you’ll get with 95% of the pitchers out there. the term “inconsistent” is overused to describe our pitchers, as if they were the only ones who had good starts and bad starts.

by JoshNY on Apr 17, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the reason we consider them inconsistent

is b/c of the talent they flashed early on (2007 for Maine and Ollie, last year for Pelfrey) and the fact that they haven’t been able to maintain that (obviously it’s VERY early this year to judge Pelf, but you get the point). Far less than 95% of pitchers out there have had seasons as good as Maine and Ollie have had at early stages in their careers, so there’s no reason to expect those pitchers to get better or even return to that level, whereas for Maine and Ollie there’s always that hope. At least, that’s my interpretation of it.

by cjmulrain on Apr 17, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

good point.

by meigs1414 on Apr 17, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's kind of were advanced stats come in

Most advanced stats say Perez wasnt as good in 06 and his ERA and WHIP, and that Pelfrey likely wasn’t going to be able to maintain last years numbers, and that Maine in the first half of 07 was a fluke and the second half, and parts of last year, was him regressing to his mean. They’re not really inconsistent they just had fluky seasons, although perez is obviously an odd case.

by Gina on Apr 17, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thats a fair point

But at the same time I know what I am getting with Livian as well as Santana. Livian isn’t nearly as good as Santana, but I know what I have with him: A crap load of innings and a lot of fat jokes. And I’m okay with that. Thats all I want from a starting pitcher: a general idea of what he brings to a start. “Which Ollie is going to show up?” is always a question. We have no idea who is going to pitch that night. Pelf can at least be excused for the fact that he is young and Maine is coming back from injury so who knows what you’ll get from him. Thats all I mean from a consistency stand point: Knowing a rough idea of what I’ll get on the mound from a specific pitcher. That is what I mean.

by meigs1414 on Apr 17, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LIVAN

by gogomets on Apr 17, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My bad, Livan

by meigs1414 on Apr 17, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But with Livan...

maybe you know you’re getting a lot of innings because he’s got a rubber arm, and because the organization doesn’t have as much invested in him so Jerry is willing to make him throw a lot of innings, but you don’t know whether they’ll be GOOD innings any more than you do with Ollie or Maine or Pelf.

by JoshNY on Apr 17, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right good point

but again, that’s what I am looking for. Livan’s innings may not be good BUT I know I am getting it. Ollie and Maine and Pelf, I could be getting a gem or 8 runs in three innings. The problem is I don’t know. 9 times out of ten, I’m getting a dominant performance from Santana and innings from Livan. 9 times out of ten, I know nothing about the other three, which is a major problem when building a bullpen, using bullpen guys and anything else involving pitching.

Look, I’m not knocking them, I realize they are young and young pitchers will give you fluky seasons. The fact of the matter is no one knows what we are getting from them night in and night out and to me, I would just be a lot more confident with at least one other guy, like Lowe, that I can go, all right i am going to get this and it gives a good shot to win, every fifth day.

by meigs1414 on Apr 17, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The thing is

I think over the course of the season most pitchers, young or not, do that. Like guys like Vincente Padilla or Wandy Rodriguez have a few games out of the season where they wow you, and then a few games out of the season where they wow you for the wrong reasons. I don’t think Maine/Pelfrey are that different from most other pitchers when it comes to consistency. Perez is different, IMO, for different reasons, with Perez he’s probably not any more or less consistent than the average pitcher, his problems just come for different reasons, mostly his insanity.

by Gina on Apr 17, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Someone please explain to me

what the fuck a “killer instinct” is in terms of baseball. Because we’re not hitting well w/RISP, the Mets are pussies? WTF

by gogomets on Apr 17, 2009 1:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Amen.

batting helmets. batting titles. obp.

by Durelo on Apr 17, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's my opinion on that

What I think it means is that the Mets seem to jump out to early leads, then the offense goes into hibernation and they fail to tack on runs. They seem complacent and think that their early lead will be enough. They don’t play with offensive urgency. Think of it this way. How many times have you seen an NBA team jump out to a 30 point lead, then seem to forget how they built that lead and by their lackluster play they let the other team back into the game? This is how I see it. If the Mets put up 3 in the first inning and lead off the second with the top of the order, they should keep the pedal to the metal. But tonight, Reyes and Murphy hit weak grounders to the infield and Wright got a hit before running into an out on an attempted steal with Delgado up. They did not score again, although they threatened, until Sheffield tied it in the 7th. 6 innings between runs is why people get the impression they are coasting, or have no “killer instinct.” That’s how I see it.

by zmanmetfan on Apr 17, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think there is something to be said for this

But don’t forget that the pitchers are trying too. Bush couldn’t locate his breaking ball at all in the first, but he made some sort of adjustment in the 2nd and 3rd and all of a sudden he was pouring curves over the plate early in the count and in the dirt with two strikes. I actually thought Bush settled in much better immediately after the first than Peavy did, and I felt like the leadoff single and failed bunt against Peavy in the 2nd was a much bigger missed opportunity.

And for the record, Reyes scorched the ball right Corey Hart leading off the 2nd inning, and Murphy hit the ball pretty well too right at Hall, before Wright singled through the hole and subsequently got caught stealing, which was a decent thought with two outs, but it was a perfect pitch for the catcher to throw on.

by Meddler on Apr 18, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm pretty sure every team in the league does that

Gives multiple innings between runs after getting leads.

by Gina on Apr 18, 2009 1:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What really bothered me about last night's game

When you get three runs in the first off an elite SP, especially one who pitches for a poor offensive team, that’s where you need to take advantage and lock down a win. They really had Peavy on the ropes. He clearly didn’t have his best stuff, especially early, but even with loads of baserunners in the middle innings they couldn’t tack on. Maine couldn’t get bunts down. The righties in the lineup couldn’t even get the ball in play. Delgado started swinging at every first pitch he saw. And Maine completely fell in love with his slider in the third inning.

by Meddler on Apr 17, 2009 1:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm confused

by James Kannengieser on Apr 17, 2009 1:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I like to think of him as a general contractor

He’ll work from the office but, when needed, he has no problem getting his hands dirty. In fact, when at the office too long, you can see him watching the construction workers through the window. Just wishing he could go back to the days of male commandary that you can only be achieved by working under the sun for eight hour days with the same group of guys day in and day out. The look on his face tells you he misses the crude jokes and insulting nicknames given to each man. Misses that while the work was tough, the pay moderate and knowing the union was going to screw you, you could hold your head up high with your fellow worker because your weren’t some corporate tool, you were a man and you built shit. Alas, because of a wife whose psych degree was cute when they first met, car payments, two kids and a house that seems to always be one step ahead of repairs; to the office Murph goes, living the life a younger Daniel swore he would never live.

by Sokojoe on Apr 17, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs