More On The Castro/Broadway Trade
by Sam Page on May 30, 2009 1:25 AM EDT
in Analysis
155 comments
Like with correctness, there are sliding scales of wrong. The Mets got it absolutely wrong. But I'll get to Omir later.
First, consider this trade in the most abstract way possible: the Mets trade oft-injured, average catcher for former top pitching prospect, who has fallen out of favor. Reminiscent of John Maine, eh? Sounds kind of like the Oliver Perez thrown-in, doesn't it? Except, when considered in context, these realities make it suddenly less appealing:
- The Mets need an average catcher. Most teams do, and The Mets especially.
- Lance Broadway is not good. He was a former first round pick, but he mostly kept his "top prospect" status because the White Sox have sported some pretty terrible farm systems this decade. He doesn't get enough strikeouts and issues too many walks. The silver-lining in his career stats is his solid GB%, but that in itself won't make a good pitcher. Optimism says he's been good so far this year, and could be a useful bullpen arm, but he looks more like a bizzaro-world bust-version of Mike Pelfrey than John Maine.
- The Mets are paying the White Sox to make this trade. That's backwards.
Now I'll say something nice about Omir Santos. He makes contact. Santos has swung at everything and has made an astonishing 64% contact rate on balls outside of the zone, which has allowed him to keep a good 85% contact rate. The walk-off hit was a good example of said phenomenon. Still, Omir Santos will probably drop-off in a big way, and soon. Whether you think Omir Santos is really this good or not, you have to accept that it's not a good sign when people are debating whether a player with a .300 OBP is "for real".
Minaya's comments about Santos were also a little disturbing because it indicates he both likes Santos enough to start, possibly over Schneider, and thinks ~30 games of totally bizarre data is an adequate sample size to evaluate a player.
Farewell, Blastro, you were too good for this team. Good luck, Schneider.
0 recs |
155 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It's just depressing...
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 1:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
30 Games that run counter to everything else a player has done in his career
ISN’T enough to make a complete evaluation? Surely you jest
by njmetfan12 on May 30, 2009 1:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
.300 OBP
It’s not like this guy is even doing what Juan Pierre is currently doing (and will regress from). He’s been stunningly average at best and will likely decline FROM THAT.
Or to put it another way, Santos’ absurd hot streak still doesn’t bring him to an AVERAGE Castro season. Ridiculous.
One can only pray he somehow flukes his way through the entire season. Players have done it before, and a guy who can hit bad balls probably has a better chance of it.
Somehow, a chain of events unfolded that put Steve Phillips in a professional broadcast booth Sunday night so he could rip Carlos Beltran. Try to explain that in any other terms.
by Greenpoint Ian on May 30, 2009 1:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
until they give him a 4 year extension
by cjmulrain on May 30, 2009 2:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually
his hot streak does bring him to an avg. castro season. For now. Santoss current woba is .324. Castro career .311. ZIPS update .328.
But it won’t last, probably.
He does seem to have added some power. 4 spring homers. 3 regular season. I know. Tiny sample. Make him piss in a cup!
I get the feeling the pitchers, stats be damned, don’t like pitching to castro, and castro maybe can’t be an every day with his conditioning. Of course, with schneid’s back, he need not be everyday. Just a suspicion. Otherwise, based on evidence, the under-rating of castro makes no sense. Santos seems to have become Pelfrey’s catcher, for example, last 4, and last 6-7, I think. Although Castro caught his first Phillies game.
Broadway is not much. Maybe they can rectify. He hasn’t been godawful this year.
And Valentin isn’t a bad sub.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, seriously
Way to take clutchness way out of context. This is atrocious. I’ll gladly rescind this comment if Broadway is somehow useful. But seriously, the strategy here seems to be attempt to trade from a strength, except, you’re trading the strongest part of your strength. Just awful. There is nothing else to say.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Meddler on May 30, 2009 1:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He has a middling high 80s fastball with no control.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm checking outside my window
And not only is the sky not falling, the Mets are still in first place and about to get their ACTUAL starting catcher back. This is a nothing trade.
by WWORDuke on May 30, 2009 1:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's not about just this trade, though
It’s about the thought process that this trade represents, which people here have shown more eloquently than I can is seriously flawed.
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
by Lefti on May 30, 2009 2:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This isn't nothing
We will have Santos at the 7th or 8th spot in the lineup instead of Castro for roughly 1/3rd of our games. This will be the difference between average and replacement production, at best, which is 2 wins. We only have about 3/5ths of the season to play and it’s only 1/3rd of the games, so it comes down to roughly half a win.
That may not seem like much until you realize thatwe gave away half a win for no reason. The difference between Santana and an average pitcher last year was roughly 3 wins. Let’s say he’s on pace for 4 wins now. The Mets just pissed away 1/8th the value of Johan Santana over an average pitcher. All we need are a few more stupid moves like this, and we lose half of Santana’s value. This is why we didn’t make the playoffs last year despite having Johan. We gave away what he gave us at the margins by having Marlon Anderson and Endy Chavez play our corners half the year.
I will not allow the denigration of the life essence
by GenJackRipper on May 30, 2009 2:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually it's worse
if you consider the best case scenario, which is Castro and Schneider splitting games roughly evenly with Schneider being spelled against lefties and some righties. If this is the case, then we downgrade 1/2 our games at catcher from Castro to Schneider/Santos. This comes out roughly to two thirds of a win pissed away for no reason.
I will not allow the denigration of the life essence
by GenJackRipper on May 30, 2009 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
does this give any value
to the possibility that, say Mike Pelfrey, warranted or not, may prefer pitching to Omir Santos, can’t say so publicly, and that this psychological benefit may have some value? I am trying to think of some hidden reasons here. Pelf has been pitching awfully well. Coincidence, and he pitched poorly in just a couple of starts at first, but with schneid’s catching, not Castro. Nevertheless, Santos has caught him mostly during this hot streak by him.
Pitchers can be stubborn and sometimes need to be coddled in this way.
Empty speculation, perhaps.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, pretty empty.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
then why is pelf pitching to santos all the time. Outside Observer pointed out santana yelling at Castro in the dugout recently.
You don’t think pitchers have preferred game callers and targets? Stats be damned?
POst had an article by a reporter recently, forget which one, about how Yankee pitchers always griped to him about Posada as a target. That HE would remind thm hey, it’s nice when he saves your sorry ass by driving i some runs.
Pichers are not geniuses necessarily, and maybe foolish, but teams do sometimes cater to their desires. You want Pelfrey confident in his catcher on the mound. Johan, he’s awesome anyway, but I want him happy, too. And Jerry DID lambaste him for setting up outside. That was easily corrected, but maybe Santana was pissed?
It is just speculation, it may be empty. I suspect there is something to it. whether pitcher happiness is worth 2/3rds a win over rest of season on offense, I don’t know.
Pelfrey’s pitching pretty damn well, no?
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
THAT'S not the empty part.
The empty part is saying that, without a doubt, Santos calls a better game than Castro. How would any of us know that? Have any of us pitched in a professional baseball game to each of them?
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not saying he does
I thought that was clear from my post. My question is do the pitchers think so, and, stats be damned, does THAT matter at all. Pitcher happiness, not whether he ACTUALLY calls a better game. First, there is the possibility he does frame better, the there is the possibility, perhaps probability, the pitchers prefer him. I haven’t pitched any professional games, but Pelfrey and Santanahave. Ask them. They won’t give you the answer they give to Manuel, I would bet.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Omir Santos's catching was obviously responsible for Pelfrey's breakout 2008
Mike Pelfrey, 2008: ERA: 3.72; FIP: 4.02; K-rate: 5.0/9IP; BB-rate: 2.9/9IP
Mike Pelfrey, 2009: ERA: 3.88; FIP: 4.35; K-rate: 3.8/9IP; BB-rate: 3.1/9IP
"The NY Mets are my favorite squadron" -- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
by jessef on May 30, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not the entire season that Wobatus is referring to
it’s the recent success he’s had with Santos behind the plate. In the beginning of Pelf’s season, his ERA was in the 5 range, but he’s brought it way down as he’s hit his stride. For whatever reason.
"What position do you play?"
"I bat third."
by Preach19 on May 30, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks
and it isn’t just that. But I have a feeling the pitchers may prefer him, stats or no stats to back it up.
However, note. Santana’s last 2 starts caught by castro. 6 walks to Nats and 4 earned runs and 11 hits against Giants. His last 3 caught by Santos were typical stellar Santana, generally. I only went back that far.
Pelfrey’s last 4 caught by santos (I tossed out the first one-after all, it was the first time he caught him in a game in the regular season).
27 2/3rd innings 23 hits 17 ks 7 walks no homers 39 grounders 26 flies, 18 line drives.
OK, not out of line with his good stretch last year, and he got lucky with the homers perhaps. But the k rate picked up over that time.
I am giving squid some stts, and as he said, hard to back up because the sample size is so small, and the correlation effect isn’t the same as with his also small hitting sample.
Nevertheless, the words out of managers and coaches was the game calling or framing wasn’t loved. My suspicion would be that comes more from the pitchers, not that pitchers would parrot what they are force fed by managers and coaches. Players even less than managers should not be dumping on teammates
Again, I am not saying santos actually does call a better game (DArling also mentioned the pitch framing, Howie mentioned pitchers shaking him off less). Maybe it is all a management conspiracy. But I don’t think so.
And I am not trying to justify the move, just trying to see what other reasons might have been there and what things they weighed in the balance aside from the ostensibly non-zero hitting statistical separation between putative back-up catchers.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'm with you all the way that we don't know everything
Someone said earlier that this site has no bias because stats show no bias. You just can’t believe that and be very well educated. EVERYONE has a bias. On this site, the bias is to believe that because you have the numbers you know all the elements that go into the decision making, and dismiss out of hand the importance of any facts you don’t have access to.
I think this trade shows as well as anything could that we don’t know everything. Could it be just sheer stupidity that led Omar to pay somebody to take Castro? It could. I don’t think it’s likely. He may not be as smart as we all here are, but I do think there are reasons for the decisions he’s making. And we don’t know them. What they say to the public is PR.
Rubin writes that if they hadn’t done this there would have been a mutiny, according to “a prominent Met”. I don’t know what that means. (I don’t care enough to register and ask him, and he wouldn’t say anyway, I’m sure.) Does it mean fans? That’s not logical, fans would get over sending Omir down in 5 minutes. It seems to mean players, and it seems likely that pitchers would be the particular players he’s referring to.
But anyway, you all can be know-it-alls, sometimes to the detriment of really digging into an issue. For us all to just have a circle jerk about how stupid Omar is is really not that thoughtful or interesting.
by SupT on May 31, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You should probably read more comments on this site before making that statement.
I (and the other regular stat lovers) have consistently said that while we believe there is more going on than what meets the eyes, how would you know what’s going on? You don’t. So, you have to use the evidence available to you. And what we have is stats.
And like you said before, what is said to the public is PR. How do we know that players really supported Santos? Besides the fact that that statement is WAY to vague to make that assumption in the first place, for all we know that’s just Omar’s inflicting crowd control to show support for Santos.
The fact that the trade happened isn’t in and of itself a stupid move. Castro isn’t exactly core on this team. But you can’t trade your best player at a position because a career minor leaguer has had a solid 85 PAs. That IS stupid.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 31, 2009 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well now you're just being silly
Most of Mets world is happy with the trade, and quite taken with little Omir. You really think Omar called the pitchers together and said, “hey guys, this trade isn’t going to look like much to anybody who looks at the numbers, so we’ve got to get on message and give the reporters some comments, else that handful of commenters over at AA will be all over us!”
The whole point here is that Omar obviously DIDN’T make this trade because “a career minor leaguer has had a solid 85 PAs”. And some of us are interested in what the actual reason(s) might be.
I like this site. I like stats. I think the chances we get any decent offense out of Omir this season are maybe 3%, tops. But it’s clear to me that talking about this trade solely on the basis of Ramon & Omir’s offensive stats is pointless.
by SupT on May 31, 2009 1:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pointless for whom?
If you mean in terms of understanding why the trade was done, I agree. But in terms of understanding whether the trade was smart or not, the offensive stats constitute the most important evidence. Not all of it, but the most important evidence.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 31, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The whole point here is that Omar obviously DIDN’T make this trade because "a career minor leaguer has had a solid 85 PAs".
So, you’re saying that regardless of how well/poorly Santos was hitting, Omar was committed to trading Castro to anyone? I sincerely hope he’s not that stupid. Deciding that you absolutely need to trade someone for no good reason, with no one ready to take his place, is moronic.
by BobbyV_Incognito on May 31, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well that actually seems to be true
Remember they were rumors of trying to shop him in the off-season.
by Gina on May 31, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh
I don’t hate Santos as much as the majority of AA, but I said to my friend at the game tonight that Santos’ big day meant trouble for Castro. I guess I was wrong, b/c Castro was already gone. Awesome not.
by cjmulrain on May 30, 2009 2:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No one hates him.
I actually kind of like him, but still think he sucks.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on May 30, 2009 2:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is ridiculous.
Castro is playing at about what he usually does, and Santos is playing way over his head, and Castro has still been better, even if only slightly. The home run in Boston and lucking into a game winning rbi situation (if Paulino doesn’t make that bad throw, Sheff ain’t scoring from second) tonight pushed the Mets to trade their best catcher (not saying much about our catchers) for a nothing pitcher. Why make this trade at all? Why not just send Santos to the minors and have Schnieder/Castro? Schnied is going to start the majority anyway, so what difference does it make having Castro as the back up and Santos in Buffalo? Now if someone gets injured we get to see Cancel again, yay.
Best part of this, is that it isn’t even the worst mistake Omar made with a catcher. I still miss Flores and his .311/.382/.522
I wonder who we get for Ryan Church, you know Manuel needs room to play Pagan.
I’m really starting to hate Manuel and Omar, these little things may cost us another playoff appearance.
And lastly, I agree with you Sam, I like seeing a below average minor leaguer get a chance to shine in the bigs, everyone likes to see an underdog make it. It’s just highly unlikely for Santos to maintain his adequate major league production for the rest of the year.
by Evan_S on May 30, 2009 2:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
flores
also has a .400 babip. He strikes out a lot.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't get me wrong
flores is damn good. But maybe just a little over his head. Omar admits that was a mistake.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i have never seen so many overreact to a minor move in exactly the same way before
you’d think Castro was Johny Bench with all the exaggerations being tossed around here. Given the situation, I can’t get worked up about trading Castro. They obviously didn’t want to keep him, his injuries, and relatively large contract. It was probably more about Castro than Santos, despite all the rhetoric. And other than being really unfair to Santos, we really know nothing about how his game will develop as a backup catcher. This in no way is the same as Flores, who was given away for nothing in oversight—even Doh’mar admits that.
This was at least a purposeful trade and this Broadway guy…who knows? That said, the only part that really troubles me is that Omar paid for this. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me at this point.
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 May 30, 2009 3:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah if we're sending cash
I don’t really see how Castro’s contract can be considered a reason for the trade, considering it wasnt a very big contract to begin with. Unless we sent them like less than.
by Gina on May 30, 2009 3:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You think Castro is worth more than 2.6 Million?
by Major on May 30, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, a 1-1.5 WAR player
is worth 4-6.5 Million.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on May 30, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, absolutely. 4.5 mil per WAR.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But when he's injured as much as he is
It’s not that much of a steal.
"What position do you play?"
"I bat third."
by Preach19 on May 30, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even with the injuries
he was a 0.9 WAR player in 2008 and 1.5 WAR player in 2007.
Easily, easily worth the 2.6MM.
by Aeoni on May 30, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What Aeoni said.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The last part
That’s it exactly. Unless the Mets find some way to earn at least a half a win out of Broadway, I cannot condone this move.
At least we still have Javier Valentin to come up once the Santos mirage evaporates.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Meddler on May 30, 2009 5:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good deal
castro is an old backup catcher. that’s it. i’ll always roll the dice on a young pitcher in exchange for a replaceable backup.
by Les Gomez on May 30, 2009 5:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I believe
this might be the place for you.
by JohnPeterson on May 30, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the young pitcher sucks, and the backup catcher (who should be the starting one) is good.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could this have something to do with Santana's argument?
In his last start that Johan labelled ‘bizarre’ he was having heated words with Castro on the bench. A lot has been said about Castro vs Santos hitting stats but what about calling the game?
Ever since Santos has been starting the pitching staff has been performing very well. They seem to have more confidence in his calling and defence. Maybe the pitching staff preferred Santos?
by Outside Observer on May 30, 2009 5:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Another thought
I went to DRaysBay and they were talking about how Castro couldn’t throw people out on the basepaths to save his life. Has Santos’ arm been challenged that much? Doesn’t seem like it.
by WWORDuke on May 30, 2009 6:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Castro has a fine arm
why did you go to DRaysBay for that information?
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on May 30, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, seriously.
Who would know, us or them? Jeez.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
less bias?
:)
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 May 30, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's one of the good things about stats
Bias can’t magically make Castro’s cs numbers are way better than Santos. Castro is like 7th out of 42, Santos is like 24th.
by Gina on May 30, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They keep numbers on this
Castro has been in the top half, probably top third, of catchers in throwing runners out. Santos has been in the bottom half near the bottom quarter. You can go to ESPN and look at catcher defense numbers, you have to look at unqualified cause neither of them have enough innings, to see the numbers.
by Gina on May 30, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea, but
most of the runners Castro threw out only got thrown out b/c they disliked him so much that they forgot to keep running. They just stopped halfway to second and were like “man, that Castro sure is an asshole who sucks at baseball, I bet I don’t even have to keep running.” Meanwhile, when Santos is catching, the opposing baserunners are like “damn, I think Scott Boras wrote a book comparing this guy to Johnny Bench, I better kick it in an extra gear to make sure I beat his rifled throw”
by cjmulrain on May 30, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
he's at .470 now
probably the high point.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never liked Castro
I realize all that anyone in this group cares about are the numbers, which is why I don’t post here very often, since my counting system is “one, two, three, many”. So forgive my simplistic question, but didn’t anyone ever think there was a character issue with Castro? As with Lastings Milledge, I don’t really care about his numbers. His presence on the team brings me down. By the way, anyone hear anything from Lastings Milledge lately? Omir Santos is a fresh face with an optimistic attitude who can only improve with time, and what do you say we all hang back and give him room to shine? His performance today and his performance on my birthday (another completely subjective indicator) suggest to me that he could be having a break-out season. I read these things in the flight patterns of birds in the sky. I hear them blown on the West wind.
If the Mets can win the World Series, America can get out of Vietnam – Tom Seaver, 1969
by yabanjin on May 30, 2009 7:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Is there an opposite to "this"?
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Castro was the lovable playhouse joker
If there were any questions about his character, I’m sure they’ll be raised after the fact. Also, I talked to Lastings the other day and he’s still ballin’.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on May 30, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Warthen said Castro wasn't great at calling pitches on WFAN with Evan Roberts
by Major on May 30, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of COURSE he says that. What, do you think he'd contradict the organization?
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and that's a character flaw?
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on May 30, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball
I Don’t Think You Understand It.
by JohnPeterson on May 30, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
tact
you might lack it.
Just teasing. You made me laugh. But you just snarked 2 folks in a row.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
These folks deserve snarking.
The only justifications available here are character-grit-hustle armchair psychology, or an irrational belief in Santos’s transformation into a major-league hitter. Both richly deserve to be ridiculed far more thoroughly than John’s done.
by anonymous on May 30, 2009 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
that they deserve ridicule. And I don’t think only character-grit-armchair psychology have been offered as justification. Albeit that may have been somewhat the line of the particular people to whom John was replying.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Omar deserves ridicule.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe
he probably spends less time agonizing about it than folks here and gets paid a boatload. So I am sure he doesn’t mind much.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So getting paid a boatload = good at your job?
Disagree.
by James Kannengieser on May 31, 2009 4:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if he actually agonized over this
less than people here, that’s pretty sad. Considering it’s his fucking job that countless other smart people are qualified to do better than he.
by James Kannengieser on May 31, 2009 4:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not sad at all
the decision he made may be wrong, but it shouldn’t take a ton of agonizing to reach the decision one way or the other. The amount of time spent agonizing over a decision doesn’t improve decision making necessarily. I think what some are faulting him for here is not allegedly knowing some basic stats that would help him make what they feel to be the correct decision in just a few minutes.
And the people here likely spend more time agonizing over this than their own job some times.
Finally, I am pretty sure some folks here feel they are smarter and feel they deserve the money more than Omar does. Which is fair enough. Maybe so.
by wobatus on May 31, 2009 6:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
“And the people here likely spend more time agonizing over this than their own job some times.”
So true. I don’t necessarily love Omar, but I absolutely don’t want him agonizing over whether to trade players – I want him to be detached and emotionless. He should be a businessman, not a fan, when putting the team together.
by cjmulrain on May 31, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh geez
So forgive my simplistic question, but didn’t anyone ever think there was a character issue with Castro?
No, but even if there was, so what? Reggie Jackson had “character issues” and so did many of his teammates in the 1970s. Those teammates and he won FIVE WORLD SERIES in that decade, despite these “character” issues.
Omir Santos is a fresh face with an optimistic attitude who can only improve with time, and what do you say we all hang back and give him room to shine?
Who says he can only improve? The fact of the matter is that he very likely will do nothing but regress over time to the borderline AA player he is.
His performance today and his performance on my birthday (another completely subjective indicator) suggest to me that he could be having a break-out season.
No, they suggest “small sample size”. People need to drop the talk about the HR off of Papelbon. Felix Hernandez hit a grand slam off of Johan last year. It doesn’t make him the next Ted Williams.
Somehow, a chain of events unfolded that put Steve Phillips in a professional broadcast booth Sunday night so he could rip Carlos Beltran. Try to explain that in any other terms.
by Greenpoint Ian on May 30, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reggie Jackson?
Reggie was not a fringe bench player who was never available to do his job when he was needed most.
by acerimusdux on May 30, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But he DID do his job. And he does it better than Omir Santos.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"character" was brought up
and I mentioned someone whose career shows the utter lack of importance of “character”.
Also, “fringe bench player”? “Never available to do his job”? What on earth are you talking about?
Somehow, a chain of events unfolded that put Steve Phillips in a professional broadcast booth Sunday night so he could rip Carlos Beltran. Try to explain that in any other terms.
by Greenpoint Ian on May 30, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Performance on two days means he'll have a breakout season?
I have a bridge to sell you.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
Omir Santos is a fresh face with an optimistic attitude who can only improve with time, and what do you say we all hang back and give him room to shine?
No. Wrong. Fail.
I really hope he does get better, but 100 years of baseball history suggest 28 year old career minor leaguers who couldn’t hit in the minors and weren’t more than average defensively won’t suddenly improve in much of a significant way.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Meddler on May 30, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there are clearly things going on that we don't know about
They wanted Castro gone. I don’t think it’s just personality, plenty of people in baseball don’t love one another. Manuel doesn’t have enough pull to get this done if it was just about dislike, and Castro has been around long enough and this is last-minute enough that it can’t be simple dislike on the part of person(s) in the front office. My impression was that players liked Castro, apparently he’s a funny guy. There’s got to be an issue. He does have a record, no?
Also, I wouldn’t put much stock in Omar’s blather about Santos last night. It’s hilarious when he talks to the press. He gets out there, makes his declarative statement, looks around, realizes that he’s got to keep talking, and starts blathering. He was saying, “and hey, the little butterball made this look good tonight, didn’t he?” is all.
And I don’t know these things (my counting is system is also one, two, three, many), but people here have said that Valentin replaces Castro. So we paid – pocket change, really – to get rid of Castro because of some issue that we all don’t know about. It’s not worth getting upset over.
by SupT on May 30, 2009 9:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ok. I even understand wanting to get rid of Castro.
But don’t PAY for another team to take him off your hands for a middling AAA reliever.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have always said this is about Castro and not Santos
and now that the trade has been made, I still say it. Jerry and maybe some of the players got Castro run out of town.
by Endys Game on May 30, 2009 9:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank god for AA
It seems like we’re the only Mets fans with a brain. I’ve been saying this about Santos and the trade on some message boards and i’m being flamed. Everyone is in love with Santos’ clutchness, as i said in the other thread i hope he doesn’t becomes completely useless.
by Clemenx00 on May 30, 2009 10:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
well you can feel welcome here
since this group has the exact opposite bias
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 May 30, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop
There’s no bias here. Are you trying to start a flame war or something?
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on May 30, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If by bias he means
usage of stats that overwhelmingly support one player or another but don’t take into account Santos’ grittiness, than yes. We have loads o’ bias.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well fire up your torches then
and see what i wrote below
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 May 30, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now I know what it was like when Seaver was traded.
Except I didn’t hold Ramon Castro is such high esteem. As I have said before, I believe Josh Thole will either split time with Schneider or start next season so if he has to come up early to replace Santos then so be it.
Thole is better than the lot of them. Pure speculation BTW.
by Major on May 30, 2009 11:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He might split with Santos.
I doubt Schneider is resigned.
Thole can replace Schneider as the bench lefty backstop.
I think they’ll want a good defensive RH bat there to split time with him.
by acerimusdux on May 30, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thole is a future starter...
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree!
Which is why I feel that much of this Santo vs. Castro and Met Philosophy talk is moot. All current catchers on the roster is keeping the spot warm for Thole. End of story.
by Major on May 30, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, but don't you want to win this year?
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Steve jenderspn
I remember what of was like.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Job Omar
It’s amazing he got anything at all back for Castro, I was afraid he’d have to be released. A 33 year old backup catcher, who is breaking down, and never there when you need him, for a 25 year old pitcher with a 4.69 career ERA, 100 ERA+?
Broadway isn’t that good, he’s a long reliever/swingman at best. But, that’s pretty good value for a guy who otherwise would have had to been released. The Castro fans seem to be missing that he is an awful defender. Santos is well worth keeping instead, as a 28 year old who can play meaningful innings with some defensive competence.
Look at it this way, when we needed a bench scrub, Omar managed to land Wilson Valdez without having to deal Dillon Gee for him.
by acerimusdux on May 30, 2009 12:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
what?
I was afraid he’d have to be released.
Not necessary. We could’ve done the smart thing and sent Santos to AAA.
Somehow, a chain of events unfolded that put Steve Phillips in a professional broadcast booth Sunday night so he could rip Carlos Beltran. Try to explain that in any other terms.
by Greenpoint Ian on May 30, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
they were talking, right or wrong, about just releasing him
so that was part of the decision from their perspective
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 May 30, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Santos is not a good major league player. Period.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is crazy talk.
Castro is hitting better than any other catcher the Mets have available. How is he “breaking down”? Why would you release him rather than trying to deal one of the other two?
by anonymous on May 30, 2009 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, guys, I have a request.
Whichever side you choose to defend, use stats. Good stats. Make your point on a statistical basis, as opposed to “he is young, he will improve, he calls a good game”. If you want to prove he calls a good game through statistics, go ahead. It would still be small sample size, but still. And saying you think Omir Santos could have a breakout season because he hit a homerun on your birthday…ay. Just stop. Or leave. Or both.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 12:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
what if we just say:
“Santos is not a good major league player. Period.”
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 May 30, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But I've already backed it up with stats.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hahahahaha
you can’t hear yourself
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 May 30, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
whaaaaaa???
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you and others sound so upset by events
that you lapse into reactionary-sounding “only one way to prove (!) an argument” logic that any introductory stats class prof would slap you for. But right above that you make a tremendous blanket statement without any argument whatsoever to back it up. I don’t mean to single you out maliciously, it just looks funny is all.
More generally, this is not a very fun way to debate, not much different than shouting down people you don’t agree with, demanding that they use your preferred method or be silent (!). That’s over the top, in my opinion. That’s also ironically why people want to escape the Metsblog universe, but we are coming dangerously close to the knee jerk reactions there. I have seen the Mets make much worse moves.
I’m pretty sure the “birthday” comment was having a laugh at us, by the way.
What makes it seem kind of silly is that we at AA set the internets on fire over a backup catcher, even as the rolly polly little guy they kept is single-handedly winning a game for the Mets last night! Like scientists upset with reality for not conforming to their theories, people were upset by this because of how bad they predict Santos will be in the future!!
I see very few of us weighing evidence fairly. I would, however, like to see evidence that addresses why Omar probably did this: evidence that Blastro wasn’t thought to be lousy defensively, or wasn’t injured all the time, or wasn’t older and more expensive than Santos. Maybe it exists and would make a more balanced argument. Santos obviously showed the brass enough, defensively, attitudinally, and occasional power-wise that they could use him as an excuse to unload Castro. Jerry obviously likes the cut of his jibe and wants to ride him while he’s hot. I think there were private motives involved that may or may not come out in the tabloids, but this is hardly Milledge territory in any event. It’s nowhere near as baffling as unloading (albeit mishandled) potential for a crappy catcher with an unwieldy contract and an outfielder that couldn’t even stay in the Nationals lineup, or trading a promising young pitcher for an injured piece of junk. Omar might end up wrong, but the reasoning for the move is pretty clear, even if the amount of $ sent to Chicago seems preposterous. That, I agree, along with Omar’s soliloquy, does not inspire confidence.
I really am puzzled as to how the trade of an aged, oft-injured backup catcher could send a reasonable, supposedly objective community off their rockers so quickly. What’s more, from another perspective, rather than break up the core in the face of adversity, Omar is giving young or marginal players a chance to contribute and rewarding those who do contribute with increased roles. Isn’t this what core-loving Metsfans want?
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 May 30, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand your first couple of paragraphs, and I think that's mostly directed at Squid
and I’d have a better time accepting this:
evidence that Blastro wasn’t thought to be lousy defensively, or wasn’t injured all the time, or wasn’t older and more expensive than Santos.
if A. The contract was actually bad, B. the Mets weren’t paying the contract, or C. Castro didn’t own Santos in throwing runners out.
The other stuff you said sounds like “well at least we aren’t trading Kazmir.” which I think you mean to say “no big deal” but sounds like an excuse.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on May 30, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough
A. contract not necessarily ‘bad’ but Santos certainly cheaper B. yes C. more to it than runners, no?
I do mean that its not as big a deal. I’m suspecting the reaction is a built up release of emotions about Omar/Jerry cumulative moves.
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 May 30, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
More to it than runners is of course a good point.
So what I’ve been sorta trying to encourage you to do is maybe post some numbers comparing pitchers pitching to Santos and pitchers pitching to Castro. The sample size, again, may murk it up, but it would at least be some evidence that could help Santos’ case.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoa no, thanks for measured response but
i didn’t say, or didn’t mean to say anything about Santos as a receiver/pitch caller. That’s not my thing, other than in jest. Just saying, admittedly vaguely defense is controlling running game, bt also blocking plate, positioning, etc. There seem to be some reports coming out about met pitcher preferences but I haven’t read carefully—Santana implied stuff?
I think the Mets obviously made decision based on more than statistical evidence, so its hard to comprehensively understand the move with that alone. I bet they saw Santos and Castro as interchangeable.
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 May 30, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, I think I know where you're getting at.
You’re saying we can’t honestly know what the Castro trade was all about from the management’s because we don’t have all the information. That’s fine with me, I agree. But what I don’t agree with is the thought process that because the pitchers said something, that should be taken as completely accurate. Even if the pitchers say they prefer Santos, for all we know they’re being forcefed that by the management to spit out to the media.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
more?
I think they made the decision based on LESS than statistical evidence.
by anonymous on May 30, 2009 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it isn't much to go on
but santana gave up 6 walks against the nats in his last start, with castro, and 11 hits against the giants in his last castro-caught start before that. I think I heard each time those matched career highs, or it had been a while since he had done either. So those are stats, in incredibly tiny sample sizes. He didn’t appear before to have any issue with castro. But is santana the prominent Met heyman referred to (I didn’t see it, someone here referred to it) who said Castro had to go, or at least, maybe, that he won’t pitch to him any more?
by wobatus on May 31, 2009 7:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is speculating on the pitcher's preferred targets fair to Castro?
Prior to the last couple of weeks, I hadn’t heard anything supporting this. In fact, statistics would point to Castro being a superior defensive catcher than public opinion.
Maybe Johan was frustrated and just talking to Castro. Maybe Pelfrey was just supporting his catcher and his organization by praising Santos. How would anyone possibly know the answer to that, other than the players?
I think you need to be more clear what you define a “blanket statement” as. Because “Ramon Castro is better than Omir Santos” is not one. Maybe you’re describing something else I said, I don’t know.
No one needs to be silent. I haven’t said that. Don’t put words in my mouth. My preferred method isn’t just my preferred method. It’s the method that the majority of the people here use, the majority of good baseball writers use, and the majority of good baseball executives use. But this is what I’m saying: there are literally endless ways to prove a point here. But you cannot pretend the actual evidence that we have is irrelevant and doesn’t apply. It does. I’m saying find other evidence that supports your opinion. I actually prefer that. I would love to be assuaged that Omir Santos will keep up his “hot” streak. But literally everything I’ve seen suggests otherwise.
And what qualifies what I’m saying as kneejerk? If anything, this is the opposite of kneejerk. Kneejerk reactions would be saying, after this short amount of time, that Omir Santos is a good MLB catcher.
Honestly, you aren’t weighing evidence fairly yourself. Even now, with his hot streak that he is obviously going to crash down from, his numbers are worse than Castro’s. That’s a big deal. And you can’t just ignore that.
“Winning games for us”, while not inaccurate, is giving him just a bit too much credit. Last night, thanks to the throwing error, the infield was in, and he hit a ball that would have been playable if that hadn’t happened. I’m not saying he didn’t do a good job, and doesn’t deserve credit. It just isn’t something that Omir Santos specifically will be more capable doing than Castro moving forward.
And while I’m glad the core isn’t being traded, that shouldn’t be the standard of how the organization is doing. “Well, at least they aren’t trading our best players” does not inspire confidence.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
the statement didn’t have supporting evidence attached. that’s what i meant.
I was reacting to the “just stop. Or leave. Or both.” attitude. Perhaps i misread this.
And my view is that we don’t live in a deterministic universe, so change is possible: Santos could get better, players do all the time. Maybe he figured something out, maybe his minor league numbers will end up holding up. We don’t know. At least he could be productive until the end of the season. I don’t mind giving players like Santos or Murphy the chance.
What i meant by knee-jerk is, perhaps motivated by a certain perspective on how baseball should be understood, overreacting to a marginally important move, glorifying one player while denying any contribution, present or future of another. I can’t believe folks really think that Castro is suddenly a Greek god of baseball.
You imply the only evidence you’ll accept is stats. You also seem to imply that all good reporters, managers use stats only. I think this is shortsighted and an overstatement respectively. Statistics are useful in concert with other types of evidence, and when they don’t blind/bias us. Every question is not a stat question. When I say it seems biased, to give one example, I am thinking of how injuries are a big part of the Castro game and how this is basically ignored in favor of statistical comparisons that are favorable to Castro, even as we acknowledge that there is probably not enough data/evidence to evaluate Santos at the major league level. Also ignored is that teams often want to get younger and cheaper when the chance presents itself—the move (and paying for it) may turn out boneheaded, but the move isn’t irrational.
Thanks for the response, i got windbaggy because i didn’t want to leave you hanging.
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 May 30, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand what you're saying, again.
It’s at least good to have a back and forth with someone who knows what the statistics say, haha.
The injury question, while valid, isn’t really fair to Castro. If you averaged Ramon’s numbers from his Met years over a 600 PA span (about a season of PA for a quality starting catcher), Castro’s been about 2.4 WAR. And each year, he’s still provided value, more so than your average backup catcher.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, players do get better all the time.
But they don’t get measurably better at 28 years old. I (and I’m clearly not alone here in this belief) don’t believe that this is anything more than an unsustainable hot streak which will end, more likely sooner than later. When that happens, we’ll will have paid another team to take our best-hitting catcher and received only an average (at best) reliever in exchange. This isn’t about Castro per se; it’s more about Omar’s thought processes and bias. That our GM can overlook 664 games of minor-league baseball in favor of 85 MLB Pa is stunning. If he truly believes that Santos suddenly figured it all out now after being promoted, and that he will not cool off, then he should be fired.
And I have nothing against giving a guy a chance to succeed, but it should not come at the cost of a better player at the same position. When we promoted Murphy and he got hot right away, we didn’t cut another outfielder in order to keep him on the 25-man roster. Last night at the game, I said to my friend whenever Santos came up that my biggest concern was that Omar would believe this streak is for real, and trade Castro. Little did I know how right I already was.
by BobbyV_Incognito on May 30, 2009 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And how many people are on the other side of that spectrum?
Infinitely more. And I bet they at least had signs that their streaks were sustainable. Santos has nothing.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a gajillion
I used the 2 I knew. But now there’s Scutari. :)
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't tony phillips a steroid user?
Or at least suspected?
by Gina on May 30, 2009 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmm
maybe carrot juice for his batting eye.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But nevermind it wasnt steroids
It was amphetamines
by Gina on May 31, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pendleton
His BABIP in 1991 was .334. Not astronomically high, but in his previous 6 full seasons, he’d topped .300 only once. And he retired with a .297 mark. If you’re thinking about his sudden increase in power, I remember Fulton County Stadium something of a hitter’s park. Also, his SLG% dropped over 100 points during the next 2 seasons. So, yeah, it was a hot streak. Pendleton didn’t get any better when he hit 30.
by BobbyV_Incognito on May 31, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
except
his babip the next year was .322, and hitters do have some effect on babip. And he wasn’t below .290 for 5 years in a row, after being above it only once previously in his career. His k% went from 13s 3 years in a row to 12 and then 11s. Maybe it was all st. louis to Atlanta, but the improvement for a couple of years was across the board almost, and then he was old.
Oh man, that homer against mcdowell killed. me.
by wobatus on May 31, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except
even though his BABIP remained abnormally high for a few seasons, his other numbers didn’t. His BABIP, 1991-1995: .334, .322, .299, .290, . 325. His BA, those same 5 years: .319, .311, .272, .252, .290. And his K rate actually rose while he was with the Braves; he went from about 13% with the Cards to 11.9% his first year with Atlanta, then 10.5%, and the shot right up to 15.3%, and 18.4% the next 2 seasons.
by BobbyV_Incognito on May 31, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
you can’t say 2 years of 1300 plate appearances is a fluke. His k rate went down, then it skyrocketed. By then he broke down, a fat 33 year old.
by wobatus on May 31, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 outlier seasons out of 15 isn't a fluke?
Considering how different they were from the rest of his career, you can say that they are.
by BobbyV_Incognito on May 31, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait a second
they were 2 outlier seasons right in a row, 1300 plate appearances plus. And then he got injured and was fat to begin with. I am not saying he wasn’t a little lucky. But you have to factor those seasons in as well. It was about 20% of his prime. And he also wOBA’d .337 with the Marlins in ‘95, which was better than any of us Cards seasons. And Joe Robbie isn’t confused fo a hitters haven.
I think it is fairly obvious he improved somewhat. Babip isn’t all luck for hitters. He struck out less and seems to have hit’em harder, and sure, some of hit’em where they ain’t in ’91 and ’92.
He took a while to get it somewhat, then he was already old by the time that happened.
So, I will say some of it was luck and playing field, some of it was he got better.
by wobatus on May 31, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well we can all agree
that Omar paying Castro’s way out of town makes no sense. When exposed to management decisions on this team, I usually default to angry hulk smash, but I didn’t when I heard this news for some reason. Until the money thing was revealed.
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 May 30, 2009 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually
everything you’ve seen since everyone started saying he xcan’t keep up his hot streak is that he HAS kept up his hot streak. I know, it is annoying. I don’t expect him to keep it up either.
And, in some ways, he has matched castro. You suggest even after his hot streak he hasn’t. His ops is .780, castro .759.
Again, you’ll say flukey. I agree. wOBA castro .327, santos .324. Pretty close.
But certainly, Castro is a better offensive player historically and almost definitely will be for the rest of the year. Non-zero chance not, but in all probability. Maybe they think he has improved enough in that area, is cheaper, maybe they think or pitchers think he calls better games. Does he block balls in the dirt better? maybe.
The weirdness, of course, seemed to start with him pinch-hitting for castro. That was bizarre, and suggests a LOT is going on behind the scenes. That obviously had nothing to do with santos’s pitch calling. Did Jerry feel threatened by Castro in some way?
Well, I will miss Castro. he was a pretty good hitter and decent catcher I always thought. But this isn’t the be all and end all of the Mets.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course not.
But if we miss the playoffs by a game again this year, I will be the first to yell and scream about this trade.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 30, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and i will feel a little bad for you
when Santos hits a walkoff to clinch a playoff berth in the last game. this is because the baseball gods decree the majority of metsfans must be kept in bondage in perpetuity.
you know its coming.
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 May 30, 2009 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
where's the love for Robinson Cancel?
the stealth lynchpin of the whole deal :)
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 May 30, 2009 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
bring back jerry grote
he had gumption
by wobatus on May 31, 2009 7:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
and I’ll still wish Wright didn’t swing at balls way outside last night, bases loaded, less than 2 out, even though he wins the Mets far more games over the long haul, and even though it didn’t cost last night’s game. I’m just greedy that way.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i do that secretly
i wouldn’t trade wright for anything, but he still pisses me off.
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 May 30, 2009 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He hasnt actually kept up the hot streak
He was down to like sub .300 obp and sub .420 slug until the homer in boston.
by Gina on May 30, 2009 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he didn't keep it up
until he kept it up. .470 now. Likely the high point.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe it is unfair to castro
but I suspect that may be what happened.
by wobatus on May 31, 2009 7:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Suspect" isn't enough to justify a trade of your best catcher though.
That’s what it all comes down to.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 31, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
omar doesn't have to suspect
he may have been told that the pitchers thought this. I have to suspect. he doesn’t necesarily.
by wobatus on May 31, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
squid
pelfrey obviously broke out last year pre santos. Santana obviously was great long before. But santana apparently didn’t like his target on the 6 walk night. Jerry and warthen say it, but may have come from johan. Pelfrey has done well pitching to santos. Regardless of the numbers, the pitchers may just prefer santos. They won’t carry 3, so they deal Castro.
I’m not saying I Agee, just saying there are aspects the historical stats may not back up.
And players can improve or lose it fast. If you recall how fast baerga or alomar lost it, you spend half a season saying they’ll revert to mean but they never do. Not saying castro offense tanked. How about pendleton? He was awful until his MVP year. The next year folks thought he’d revert but he was good again.
And catchers blossom later as hitters.
By which I dont mean to say I think santos will slug .470. But we dont watch these guys at practice or see all jerry sees.
Mostly, though, it seems the pitchers prefer santos. And the stats may not back them up but I doubt they care.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 4:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
awesome Freudian slip
“I’m not saying I Agee”
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 May 30, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my iphone did that
but I was gonna call it a Metsian slip.
by wobatus on May 30, 2009 6:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Amazin' Avenue
Related FanShots on Amazin' Avenue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
