Snark bait

by TomDC on May 1, 2009 10:56 AM EDT

I had two thoughts while reading Jack Curry's piece this morning -- 1) he's right about the Phils and the Mets, and 2) Curry almost seemed to be inviting attack by sabermetricians. From the get-go, Curry serves of heaping spoonfuls of non-quantifiable touchy-feeliness:

Shane Victorino described the optimistic feeling in the Phillies’ dugout as “a sense.” The players do not share any specific words or special handshakes if the Phillies are trailing. But Victorino said they do share the belief that the beginning of a comeback is one pitch away.

In his observations of how differently the Mets and Phillies have fared in late innings, in my opinion Curry overemphasizes hitting performance vs. pitching performance, only alluding indirectly to the Mets bullpen failures of recent seasons (as well as this season) by noting the importance of the the Phillies "stellar bullpen." But that's really my only complaint with the piece.

While he didn't make any reference to the Phillies "grit," I could practically hear a collective groan about sentences like:

The Mets and the Phillies each scored 799 runs last season, and had comparable lineups, but the Mets do not have the same instincts to fight back.

Did he really say "Instincts to fight back?!" What an old fart, eh? Yuk, yuk.

And then there's Curry's brief dip into statistics:

One statistical measure of clutch hitting is how players do in close and late situations, which is defined as at-bats in the seventh inning or later when the score is tied, one team is ahead by a run or the tying run is on base, at the plate or on deck. Utley (.714, 2 homers), Ibanez (.583, 3 homers) and Matt Stairs (.500, 1 homer) currently have three of the top six averages in the N.L. in those situations. The Mets do not have anyone in the top 25.

First a derisive guffaw over "clutch hitting" and then a contemptuous eye-roll accompanying the objection that this is a small sample size.

And yet . . . having watched the Mets over the last 2+ seasons, I do "feel" within my "heart" that there is "something" lacking in the Mets "chemistry." Repeated late game and late season failures aren't entirely attributable to a lousy bullpen and boneheaded, old school managerial decisions.

Yes, one month does not a season make, but I've largely lost the optimism I had gained in the off season from the Mets bringing in Putz and K-Rod. I'm not sure how I would "fix" the team were I suddenly to assume Jerry's or Omar's job. I know I wouldn't have added Sheffield. I want to believe that Murphy will get demonstrably better in the outfield as the season progresses as long as he gets the opportunity. What's up with Wright? He does seem to be pressing, as if the pressure of the last two season implosions stil weigh on him. Are the 27 KOs a symptom of him trying too hard to banish the past with home runs? The rest? Mostly intangible, to me.

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

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Small sample size for the win!

by Lunkwill Fook on May 1, 2009 11:31 AM EDT reply actions

Had me until the last 2 paragraphs

by James Kannengieser on May 1, 2009 11:33 AM EDT reply actions

Yep

funny reading this after reading the Ted Berg piece.

'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 May 1, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions

i'm sure that .714 average is sustainable

by englishgrey on May 1, 2009 12:30 PM EDT reply actions

Just like how Brad Lidge is never ever ever ever ever ever going to blow a save again

oh, wait, never mind

by JoshNY on May 1, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't know which title was more appropriate: "Scotty" or "Snark Bait".

King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president

by Sam Page on May 1, 2009 12:36 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah man

I think this has more to do with the fact that you were assuming everything was peaches and candy because the bullpen was fixed. That was a big fix, and I’m confident it will and is helping the team be more than it would have been otherwise, but as many have pointed out, this still didn’t look like a 100 win team or anything. Sure, the 9-12 record is less than I hoped/expected, but not by that much. Do I think this is the best team in the division? Sure, I think they could be, but it was never going to be by a landslide like it was in 2006, when the Mets had a team that was clearly superior in almost every area in April.

by Mark Himmelstein on May 1, 2009 1:33 PM EDT reply actions

I didn't expect peches and candy . . .

I’m well aware that this team had and still has substantial flaws other than the bullpen. But I would have thought a 12-9 at this point of the season more realistic than a 9-12. And to my eye at least, they’ve been playing even worse than their record.

When will Wright relax? Will Jerry platoon corner outfielders all year? Will we find an adequate replacement for Perez, assuming he doesn’t turn his season around this weekend? Schneider/Castro = must I accept we’re stuck with a subpar catcher?

by TomDC on May 1, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm tempted to actually respond to this

but no…no. Scotties go here.

by Mark Himmelstein on May 1, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions

eh

I don’t think this is so bad. I mean, the only thing I don’t like is the psychoanalyzing of Wright, but there’s obviously something wrong with him, otherwise he wouldn’t be on pace to shatter his personal high in K’s and challenge the single season record. We’re all curious if there’s an adequate replacement for Ollie. I think a lot of us are curious what Jerry’s outfield platoon strategy is going to be all year. I disagree about Schneider/Castro, but only b/c of the atrocious state of catching around the league.

by cjmulrain on May 1, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions

agreed

aside from the amateur psychology, these are some valid questions.

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on May 1, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Fair enough

My problem with it is that saying the following:

But I would have thought a 12-9 at this point of the season more realistic than a 9-12. And to my eye at least, they’ve been playing even worse than their record.

Just doesn’t mean that much. The Mets have scored 96 runs and given up 97. 12-9 and 9-12 are both within a win or two of the Mets pythagorean record. I expect them to outscore opponents over the long haul, but the April results are hardly surprising, and if anything, they’ve played slightly better than their record indicates.

by Mark Himmelstein on May 1, 2009 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions

I'll just add this:

Schneider/Castro actually = league average catcher.

by Lunkwill Fook on May 1, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Omir Santos

not so much.

by jasondg on May 1, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree that there are a lot of bad catchers around

But the two-headed monster that the Mets have seems worse than most to me. Schneider — so-so defense and so-so pitcher managment and leadership and subpar offense. Castro — poor defense and pitcher management/leadership, somewhat better than average offense, but injury/health issues. More than anything else, I just don’t feel like we get anything consistant out of our catcher(s). I could live with a poor hitting catcher who could give us consistently good defense, can call a good game, and provide some leadership.

by TomDC on May 1, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Can you measure...

defense, a good game, or leadership?

by BlackOps on May 1, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions

OK, I'll go there.

Defense, while more resistant to reliable metrics than offense, can of course be measured in different ways — passed balls, thrown out percentage, etc. Determining whether a catcher is “calling a good game” will naturally be more subjective. “Providing leadership” even more subjective and anecdotal.

But, just because a quality is very difficult or impossible to quantify doesn’t mean that it isn’t an important factor in outcomes.

What percentage of sabermetricians majored in economics (and then maybe became accountants)? Is that measurable? Because the almost blind faith in mathematical models and dismissiveness toward subjective or non empirically verifiable or reducible factors is reminiscent of the dismal wannabe science as practiced by the orthodox.

by TomDC on May 1, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

What percentage of sabermetricians majored in economics (and then maybe became accountants)? Is that measurable?

Probably. You’d have to commission a survey or something, though, because I’m not sure anyone is keeping track of these stats at the moment.

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on May 1, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions

You make a good point here

But, just because a quality is very difficult or impossible to quantify doesn’t mean that it isn’t an important factor in outcomes.

I don’t think anyone discounts that leadership or “calling a good game” are unimportant. However, the problem is exactly what you said – they are very difficult and/or impossible to measure. Therefore we turn to things that are easier to measure.

The problem with “leadership” and “grit” and all that is too frequently people see a losing team and automatically say there’s no leadership there. And automatically say a winning team has great leadership. Meanwhile this is not necessarily the case. Objectivity is our goal here.

by James Kannengieser on May 1, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions

actually I don't think that's such a great point

Not to completely dismiss the argument — obviously there are factors in baseball games that nobody knows how to measure and predict yet — but in the case of, for instance, catchers’ game-calling skills, I think it’s actually fair at this point to say that it probably doesn’t influence the outcome of games as much as people think. This has been investigated so thoroughly that, I think it’s likely that, if there were a strong measurable effect there — a way to distinguish between different catchers’ contributions to winning games behind the plate — it would’ve been found or at least some evidence of it could be shown at this point.

by anonymous on May 1, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Its a bold statement to claim its safe to claim

game calling doesn’t have a big influence. Is “thouroughly investigated” one of the claims of the business that calls itself “Tango”?

Point me to the study that breaks down actual pitch calling. Not some crapshoot mathematical model invented by an econ student who wants some MLB dollars or a gig at ESPN.

by Lovejoy on May 2, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh, now that's not going to be a popular comment.

Pitch calling is going to be difficult to attribute because it’s part of the gameplan, i.e. it isn’t all the catcher’s decision to make. It’s like basestealing success. Sure, being a good basestealer is the main factor, but the coaching and choosing when to run is nearly as important. If you mean pitch selection, then you have a valid point. But again, that is hardly solely reliant on the catcher’s talents. Thus, it’s nearly impossible to objectively describe.

And I can guarantee you that 80% of those guys with “gigs” at ESPN are completely and utterly worthless as far as analysts. And nowadays, the people that DO get the MLB dollars are the econ students who invent mathematical models.

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

by squid92 on May 2, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions