What is a "Complementary" Player?
by englishgrey on Jan 9, 2010 3:02 AM EST
76 comments
In the aftermath of the Mets' dismal 2009 season, some commentators in the Mets blogosphere argued that the team's woes stemmed from Omar Minaya's failure to surround his core group of players -- David Wright, Jose Reyes, and Carlos Beltran -- with "complementary" players. This argument makes sense on a gut level, but it raises an important question: what do we mean when we talk about "complementary" players? To answer this question, I compared the Mets' roster over the last four seasons to the Phillies' roster over the same time period. I chose the Phillies as a comparable team because, like the Mets, the Phillies' roster has been built around a three-player offensive core -- Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, and Jimmy Rollins. By isolating these core players and focusing on each team's Top 7 non-core offensive WAR producers, we can see what types of players outside the core helped to contribute to each teams' offensive production over the last four seasons.
2006 Rosters
| Core | Beltran 7.0 | Reyes 5.5 | Wright 4.6 | TOTAL 17.1 | Complementary Players | LoDuca 3.3 | Valentin 3.1 | Delgado 2.9 | Chavez 2.5 | Castro 0.5 | Nady 0.5 | Tucker 0.3 | TOTAL 13.1 |
|---|
| Core | Howard 7.0 | Utley 6.8 | Rollins 5.0 | TOTAL 18.8 | Complementary Players | Victorino 2.5 | Burrell 2.3 | Abreu 2.0 | Coste 1.9 | Rowand 1.3 | Liberthal 1.2 | Dellucci 1.1 | TOTAL 12.3 |
|---|
The two offenses produced nearly identical WAR numbers from their Top 10 offensive contributors (31.1 WAR for the Phillies, 30.2 WAR for the Mets). While the Phillies' core produced nearly two more wins than the Mets' core in 2006, the Mets' complementary players produced nearly a win more than the Phillies' complementary players. What's interesting here is the variance in the distribution of each team's complementary player production. The Mets produced a higher total complementary player WAR on the backs of its top-four complementary players -- Lo Duca, Valentin, Delgado, and Chavez -- who cumulatively produced 11.8 WAR. The Phillies, on the other hand, received at least a win of production from each of its complementary players, but its top-four complementary players fell 3.1 wins short of matching the Mets' top-four complementary players. Thus, the Mets relied on top-heavy production from its complementary players, while the Phillies received a more even distribution of production from its complementary players.
2007 Rosters
| Core | Wright 8.4 | Reyes 5.1 | Beltran 4.9 | TOTAL 18.4 | Complementary Players | Alou 2.1 | Castro 1.5 | Delgado 1.5 | Lo Duca 1.3 | Easley 1.3 | Castillo 1.3 | Gotay 0.7 | TOTAL 9.7 |
|---|
| Core | Utley 8.0 | Rollins 6.7 | Howard 4.3 | TOTAL 19.0 | Complementary Players | Rowand 6.2 | Werth 3.4 | Victorino 2.9 | Burrell 2.3 | Ruiz 1.7 | Iguchi 1.1 | Dobbs 1.0 | TOTAL 18.6 |
|---|
The importance of complementary players comes into focus in 2007. Each team's core produced around 19 wins, but the Phillies' complementary players nearly doubled the production of the Mets' complementary players. Like the Mets in 2006, the Phillies' top-four complementary players produced the majority of the Phillies' complementary player WAR. But the Phillies also received decent production from its bottom-three complementary players, with Ruiz, Iguchi, and Dobbs combining for 3.8 WAR. Compare that to the Mets bottom-three complementary players in 2006, who produced only 1.3 WAR. The Mets did receive more consistent production from its complementary players in 2007, as almost all of the complementary players produced at least 1 WAR. However, the Mets' top-four complementary players produced 5.4 fewer WAR than their 2006 counterparts, thus resulting in overall lower WAR production for the Mets' complementary players in 2007 than in 2006.
2008 Rosters
| Core | Wright 7.4 | Beltran 6.7 | Reyes 5.9 | TOTAL 20.0 | Complementary Players | Delgado 2.9 | Schneider 1.6 | Tatis 1.6 | Church 1.6 | Murphy 0.9 | Castro 0.9 | Chavez 0.9 | TOTAL 10.4 |
|---|
| Core | Utley 8.1 | Rollins 5.3 | Howard 3.3 | TOTAL 16.7 | Complementary Players | Werth 5.3 | Victorino 4.1 | Burrell 3.2 | Coste 1.6 | Feliz 1.5 | Dobbs 0.9 | Ruiz 0.5 | TOTAL 17.1 |
|---|
The Mets' core had its best performance in 2008, but the complementary players once again finished with a lower WAR total than their 2006 counterparts. Additionally, as in 2007, only one Met complementary player finished the season with more than 2 WAR, whereas 4 Met complementary players finished above 2 WAR in 2006. The Phillies' complementary players outperformed their team's core, led by their top-three WAR producers who totaled 12.6 WAR.
2009 Rosters
| Core | Wright 3.4 | Beltran 2.9 | Reyes 0.7 | TOTAL 7.0 | Complementary Players | Pagan 2.8 | Castillo 1.6 | Tatis 1.5 | Santos 1.0 | Delgado 0.8 | Murphy 0.6 | Castro 0.4 | TOTAL 8.7 |
|---|
| Core | Utley 7.6 | Howard 4.8 | Rollins 2.4 | TOTAL 14.8 | Complementary Players | Werth 4.7 | Ibanez 4.2 | Victorino 3.4 | Ruiz 2.2 | Feliz 1.3 | Francisco 0.6 | Coste 0.5 | TOTAL 16.9 |
|---|
Each team's core produced its lowest WAR total of the four-year period, but the loss of production from the Mets' core was far more precipitous, totaling an astonishing 13 fewer wins than in 2008. The Mets' complementary players also produced their lowest WAR total, but the group's 2009 total only fell short of its 2007 and 2008 performances by 1.0 WAR and 1.7 WAR respectively. Once again, the Phillies' complementary players outperformed their team's core, with the top-three complementary players producing 12.3 WAR.
Conclusion
A comparison of the Mets' and Phillies' rosters shows that complementary players, defined as the Top 7 WAR contributors outside a team's superstar players, can make or break an offensive lineup. That's not surprising, considering that this definition of complementary players includes more than half of a team's offensive players. However, if we look closer at the numbers above, I think we can pinpoint exactly what type of complementary players the Mets lack.
In the 2007-2009 seasons, the Phillies' complementary players destroyed the Mets' complementary players, outproducing them by 7 to 9 WAR in each season. What was the biggest difference between each team's complementary players? In each of those three seasons, the Mets failed to carry more than one complementary player who produced more than 2 WAR, and no single complementary player produced a WAR total above 3. During the same time period, the Phillies produced 11 complementary players with more than 2 WAR (4 in 2007, 3 in 2008, and 4 in 2009) and 8 players with more than 3 WAR (2 in 2007, 3 in 2008, and 3 in 2009). What the Mets were missing during these seasons were players who could produce between 3-5 WAR seasons to complement the 5-8 WAR seasons that the Mets could expect from Beltran, Wright, and Reyes (at least in 2007 and 2008). Thus, when we talk about the Mets' lack of "complementary" players, we mean that the Mets are lacking Jayson Werth, Shane Victorino, and Raul Ibanez -- players that can be an All-Star in any given season but who fall short of putting up superstar numbers on a consistent basis.
Fortunately, the Mets' recent signing of Jason Bay gives the team exactly the type of complementary player it needs. CHONE projects Bay to contribute 4 WAR to the Mets in 2010, which should be a welcome addition to the team's group of complementary players if Wright, Beltran, and Reyes can return with 5+ WAR seasons. In addition, if Pagan can somehow convince the Mets that he should start in RF over Francoeur, he has the potential to put up 3+ WAR in a full season of at-bats, as he's already produced 3.2 WAR as a Met in about 500 PAs. However, none of the other Mets' complementary players, such Jeff Francoeur, Daniel Murphy, Luis Castillo, and (most likely) Bengie Molina, project to produce more than a 2 WAR season. But if these four players can cumulatively produce somewhere around 8 WAR, and Bay and Pagan combine for 8 WAR, and the core produces 15+ WAR, the Mets' lineup will produce on the same level as in 2006-2008, when the Mets played meaningful games in September. That might be wishful thinking, but it's a result that doesn't seem too far outside the realm of possibility.
7 recs |
76 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Great write up.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 8, 2010 9:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Very good post with some faulty conclusions
but it completely ignores pitching and englishgrey makes some very faulty conclusions.
Lets start with Jeff Francouer. His time with the Mets last year points to around a 2+ WAR over a full season. However, that’s batting with absolutely zero protection behind him and not much in front of him. In 5 years in the big leagues, Francouer has posted two seasons of 3.0+ WAR. Before this year, Pagan’s best WAR was a .4 and last year was a 2.8. Now, at lot of that has to do with games played and that mostly relates to his ability to stay healthy. And therein lies the main problem with as a starting player… he can’t stay healthy. Pagan broke his own record in games started last year by 43, but he wasn’t without injury this season, especially at the beginning of the year.
Another problem with the Franc Pagan argument is that everyone expects these players to be the “same” in 09. For Pagan, a 29 year old OF, I would expect him to be the same or slightly better given his number of at-bats. Francour on the other hand is significantly younger. At the very least, you can expect his power numbers to increase year over year. However, factor in a full spring training with the Mets as well as time to work with Wright and Hojo, and they might just teach him some patience at the plate.
The last problem with Pagan I’d like to touch on is that he hit out of the leadoff spot most of the last year. Assuming Reyes is healthy, he won’t get that opportunity. Is it reasonable to expect that same type of production this year? I’d argue that if he was hitting out of the 2 hole, then yes, its reasonable. But out of the 6-8 spots, where he’d be getting at least one less at bat per game, his production would likely slide, especially given his limited power (6 HR’s last year, with 1 inside the parker and 5 of them came in august in citifield, which seems rather flukish.
There’s no doubt though that while the Mets need to hit better in 09, their real issue lies with whether or not they can out pitch the opposition in their own home ballpark in 09.
Still, the Mets could do the most for their WAR by getting Orlando Hudson and starting him at 2B. At a position thin with offensive producers, Orlando is a gold glover and better than league average hitter, and has consistently produced WARs above 2.0 for the last 6+ seasons and more than capable of producing a 3.0 WAR in 2010. He’d also slot in perfectly in the number 2 hole as a switch hitter with more power and steal potential than Luis.
by MLB DW on Jan 8, 2010 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Have to disagree
I think you are ignoring that Francoeur was one of the worst hitters in baseball in 2008 and the first half of 2009. He needs more than a half-season of decent, luck-fueled hitting to be relies upon for some decent production.
Pagan may be older than Francoeur, but he seems to be a late bloomer. Francoeur, on the other hand, has been a full-time starter for awhile, and he has mostly regressed as he has aged. Thus, I think it is reasonable to believe that Pagan is a better bet for production in RF.
Hudson would be an improvement over Castillo, and I hope the Mets sign him if he’s willing to take a one-year deal again. But he’s not a long-term solution because he has little upside considering his age.
by englishgrey on Jan 8, 2010 4:18 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
You could also argue
that Pagan’s numbers last year were at least partly helped by luck since he had a career high .352 BABIP.
You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.
by Kevin H on Jan 8, 2010 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
good point
although pagan’s speed makes his higher BABIP a little more sustainable. also, pagan is a better defender than francoeur, which is another point in his favor.
by englishgrey on Jan 8, 2010 4:48 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with Pagan
Is that he’s never been greater than 1 WAR in a given year before 2009. In fact he never had reached 0.5 WAR. Granted he’s never played a full season, but some of that’s injury related and some of its the fact that he just has never been that good before.
Pagan may project a bit better than Francoeur, but most of the same arguments that apply to Francoeur in regard to the half season worth of data also apply to Pagan, they had similar playing time totals for the Mets. Frenchy was actually 1.6 hWAR for the Mets in 2009 in just over 300 PAs. Pagan was 2.2 hWAR in 370 PAs, pretty much the same, the difference in their wOBA’s was .010. What really shifts the WAR total is defense. The thing is, we know UZR is sketchy in CitiField’s outfield and Francoeur was having a much better defensive season in Atlanta (2.7 UZR in 80 games, very solid). Plus its really tough to tell anything in just a half season of UZR data anyway. I actually think Francoeur may have more upside than Pagan. His power is a more potent offensive skill than any Pagan has, if it comes back to life (as it looked like it might be in CitiField). Plus, he’s quite a bit younger, Pagan was just breaking into the majors at Frenchy’s age. Pagan is a bit more well rounded, so I expect he’s a safer bet, but even his speed isn’t that much of an offensive weapon. He’s only an averagish baserunner, and he’s only been a plus defender in a corner, more like average in center, which is still a bit better than I expect from Frenchy, but not all that much. I’m not sure why this is, he’s obviously uber-athletic, but it just doesn’t translate to that awesome a baseball weapon, and at 28 times running out on upside projections. Plus, If you go by +/- instead of UZR, Francoeur probably projects nearly as good as Pagan defensively.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Jan 8, 2010 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The other problem with Pagan
hIs head. For a guy thats so close to 30 and isn’t as offensively talented as Manny Ramirez, he was way too mistake prone on the base-paths and that’s unacceptable, especially from a leadoff type.
Francouer has the superior arm for right field. There’s no doubt about it… no one runs on him. Pagan has a very good arm, but its no Francouer.
Field wise, positioning and other factors play into this greatly. With Beltran or even Pagan in center, Francouer doesn’t have to cover as much ground in RF. UZR doesn’t take into account those factors. It’s as simple as that really.
by MLB DW on Jan 8, 2010 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
UZR takes into account the ground he actually covers.
The fact that Beltran covers alot should actually help him in that balls are not dropping in zones that he would normally be responsible for. You really seem to have no idea what is actually factored into UZR.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 8, 2010 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
First of all
Francoeur only played a month with Beltran, who’s knees were hardly at 100%. Secondly, UZR is based on zones and percentages in those zones, not total numbers. This leads into number 3, in which sample sizes are extremely important in UZR calculations… the bigger the better, always being the case. Fourth, UZR does not address, an outfielder’s arm, which is half the story. Fifth, UZR does not include outs made in foul territory along the foul lines in the OF, which are important to assessing a corner OF’s value.
An example of why UZR is terrible by itself, especially for corner OFs, we need look no further than Raul Ibanez. Raul posted UZR’s for -20.5 and -12.1 in 07 and 08 respectively, indicating he was a horrible defensive OF, which he is. It’s really no surprise UZR would get this right, considering any ball hit in a radius of 10 feet away from where Rual is standing is a guaranteed hit. Yet in 2009, Raul posted a spectacular 8.0 UZR (10.5 UZR/150). Could it be that at 37, Raul was finally peaking defensively, as he did offensively? Or could it be the factors of playing next to Victorino in a small OF? or maybe performance enhancers…. even while nursing a strained groin for most of the season?
Anyone who saw Raul play more than two games each of the last three seasons will tell you his range was as good as a sack of potatoes.
by MLB DW on Jan 8, 2010 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
None of that really refutes my point.
The balls in Francoeur that are recorded and affect Francoeur’s UZR includes balls Francoeur fields and hits. Balls Beltran fields are not counted towards either category, but logic dictates that Beltran covering ground into Francoeurs zones will actually prevent hits which would hurt Francoeur. UZR also does take Francoeur’s arm into account, which is the majority of the reason he was so valuable early in his career.
If you want to discredit UZR, there are plenty of legitimate arguments out there. Make sure you do a little research into the metric first though, as you have many of your facts wrong. Firejerrynow was kind enough to give you several links.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 8, 2010 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
*help Francoeur* as opposed to hurt Francoeur
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 8, 2010 11:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
nss
You need to do some research about UZR, because one of the first statements in UZR primer is this:
Note: Before I begin explaining the UZR system, keep in mind that there are at least two components of defense that UZR does not address: One, an outfielder’s “arm.”
There are people out there who attempt to adjusted UZR for these factors.
“affect Francoeur’s UZR includes balls Francoeur fields and hits” So he fields a ball, pulls a bat out of his pants and hits it back to the infield? haven’t seen that play very often.
I suggest you take a look at “Everything you always wanted to know about: UZR” Explained By Alex Remington It should help you greatly.
by MLB DW on Jan 9, 2010 2:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be balls that Francoeur fields, as in outs that he records, and hits, as in balls that drop in play.
As far as the arm goes, just look in the fangraphs glossary:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
Here’s the announcement of arm ratings being included:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/fielding-update-arms-and-double-plays/
Here’s an interesting study:
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/5/20/873802/outfield-uzr-component-aging
Don’t stick to the dummies guide to UZR…actually look at the site you’re getting your data from.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 9, 2010 2:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Um... This is from FanGraphs' Glossary
.UZR (ultimate zone rating): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is in both range runs, outfield arm runs, double play runs and error runs combined.
So, um, yeah.
The Mets lobby Omar for a plan, and his plan, he likes his plan. The problem is that he didn't write his plan down 'cause that makes it paperwork, and that’s false hustle... Know what I’m sayin’?
by Evan_S on Jan 9, 2010 8:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Remington primer
Link. Says nothing about arm rating being omitted.
by James Kannengieser on Jan 9, 2010 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How about check a players UZR breakdown
I’m not sure what else the “Arm” section could denote….
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Jan 9, 2010 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
THAT's your best interpretation?
“So he fields a ball, pulls a bat out of his pants and hits it back to the infield?”
Try reading the comment again and looking for an alternate meaning, before you start making ridiculous attacks. Unless you’re going for most obnoxious commenter, then by all means continue what you’re doing.
by DoghouseBlues on Jan 9, 2010 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And if you think UZR is so worthless, why do you keep citing Francoeur's two 3+WAR seasons?
You do realize that the majority of his value was from his defense don’t you? Ironically that defense was measured by UZR. Thats a very Mike Silva-esque style of trying to discredit data when you don’t like what it says, but embracing it when it supports your argument.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 8, 2010 11:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember, Raul Ibanez went from seattle
where there is a large outfield, to Philly, which is a bandbox.
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
by firejerrynow on Jan 9, 2010 6:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Arm runs is part of UZR
The Mets lobby Omar for a plan, and his plan, he likes his plan. The problem is that he didn't write his plan down 'cause that makes it paperwork, and that’s false hustle... Know what I’m sayin’?
by Evan_S on Jan 9, 2010 8:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How do you nurse a strained groin?
Just curious.
by SeanSchirmer on Jan 13, 2010 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow--that was aimed at a quote from a dozen posts upthread.
It looks weird, just sitting out there like that.
by SeanSchirmer on Jan 13, 2010 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
actually it does
you should read about UZR here and here
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
by firejerrynow on Jan 8, 2010 8:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
see above
but when i mean positioning, I mean positioning relative to the hitter and the zone. The zone doesn’t change based on where the OF is playing, in relation to the hitter at bat, even if the OF is playing 15+ feet farther from that zone than he normally is when a ball is hit there.
Another thing UZR doesn’t account for is the type of hit (line drive, pop up).
by MLB DW on Jan 8, 2010 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
UZR accounts for how hard the ball is hit (think lazy fly versus screaming liner)
Please actually do a little research first, there’s lots of good info out there.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 8, 2010 11:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
as Schmidtxc posted below
you need to research UZR more, and not base your research from Metsmerized
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
by firejerrynow on Jan 9, 2010 6:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
interesting stuff, mark
I haven’t done a detailed comparison of the two players, but you’re correct in pointing out that both are difficult to project based on their 2009 seasons. I tend to favor Pagan because I still can’t get over Francoeur’s poor 2008 and first-half of 2009. But I don’t doubt that he could perform better than Pagan.
by englishgrey on Jan 8, 2010 6:31 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
What is the +/- data?
With UZR, Pagan is -0.7/150 in CF, 14.9/150 in LF, and 19.8/150 in RF. However, Pagan hasn’t really played that much in the majors. Francoeur is 6.2/150 in his career in RF, but has been a little down the last few years. Francoeur projects as about average in RF. Steve Sommers UZR projections have Frenchy at -0.22/150 in RF, and Pagan at -1.25/150 in CF. Jeff Zimmerman has Frenchy at 1 UZR/150 and Pagan at -1 in CF, 3 in LF, and 4 in RF.
by EtSuKe on Jan 8, 2010 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One problem with Frenchy's defensive projections
is that he put on a lot of muscle in order to become more of a slugger after like the 06 season I believe, which some believe to have led to him completely falling off defensively, so I imagine his defense is more likely to be in line with the last few years than his projection.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
by Gina on Jan 8, 2010 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His range has fallen off, but you can't forget his arm.
In 2007 he had a 16.9 UZR, due to a 16.5 Arm. If you spread that out over 2008, or 2009 he looks much better.
by EtSuKe on Jan 8, 2010 7:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well his range was also no where near as bad in 2007 as in 2008 or 2009
but it’s weird that his arm rating was so high that year, and hasn’t been anywhere near that any other year. Does it mean teams just don’t test him anymore?
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
by Gina on Jan 8, 2010 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd think the bonus for throwing out runners who really shouldn't have been running helped that.
At some point players just stopped running on him when it was iffy though, and he probably was brought back towards the mean. During that time prior to him establishing his arm, I’m sure people were willing to test his accuracy in iffy situations.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 8, 2010 8:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd lso think that would be the case for all young outfielders with really good arms.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 8, 2010 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
*also*
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 8, 2010 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Teams don't run on Franc's arm.
Simple as that.
by MLB DW on Jan 8, 2010 11:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Does it actually take players not running into account?
Or just him throwing out players who do run
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
by Gina on Jan 9, 2010 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It does factor for players not taking extra bases, although I wonnder if it factors it heavily enough.
It is taken into account however.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 9, 2010 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure that's true
Its pretty obvious the “bulking up” experiment failed in just about every way. I wouldn’t be surprised if he went back to something closer to his old workout routine/diet from when he was actually having success.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Jan 9, 2010 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sam did a nice writeup on the divergence between UZR and +/- on French
Here. Basically, they both agree that he was pretty bad in 2008, the year he “bulked up,” but +/- was much more favorable than UZR before that, and also had him as above average in 2009. He was actually the best defensive full time RF by +/- in 2007. He wasn’t that good in 2009, but he was still much better on the Dewan system than UZR. I agree, he probably projects somewhere around average, maybe a bit above, I’m more inclined to believe his number will be positive than negative, but not all that high.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Jan 9, 2010 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really wish there was a free site which game us access to plus/minus data.
Just Wednesday I was bellied up to the bar and ran into a Red Sox fan that ended up chatting with me about Bay, UZR, and Fenway for almost an hour. Two years ago I’d have never had that conversation at a bar. Fangraphs has really exposed a much larger group to advanced metrics, but there are so many good tools to look at that most fans just don’t have access too.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 9, 2010 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is really a pain in the ass
It would be better if we could average the 2.
by EtSuKe on Jan 9, 2010 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
You’re ignoring that Francouer had a revival with the Mets following the trade and that WAR isn’t the only stat you should go by when making decisions. Jeff almost led the Mets in HRs, despite having less than half (280) of Murphy’s at-bats.
This issue has been over played time and time again, but the truth has been known since before july…. http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/7/31/969901/who-is-the-real-angel-pagan
Go look at Pagan’s career stats outside of the leadoff spot… In the 6th and 7th spots, where he has a combined 214 ABs (most outside of the leadoff spot), his average is .258 and his slugging is .400. He is a better 6th hitter (.275, .480 slugg) than a 7th, but if Pagan’s batting 6th for the Mets next year, they might as well throw it in now.
The argument that Franc’s regressed as he’s aged is faulty as well. By all measures, he greatly improved from 06 to 07 (HR’s decreased, but doubles doubled, indicating a fluky outlier). 08 he struggled, but it was well documented.
Jeff Francouer is no guarantee, but not only is he a safer bet than Pagan, he’s got higher upside as well.
by MLB DW on Jan 8, 2010 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
214 ABs is not enough to draw any conclusions.
Pagan projects as being better than Francoeur with full playing time. Francoeur is more durable though.
by EtSuKe on Jan 8, 2010 5:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's regressed as he's aged
because his defense, which is where the majority of his value came from in his early years, has completely fallen off a cliff. Plus you can’t just look at 1/2 of a season and ignore 3-4 prior years of data on Frenchy and say he’s turned things around.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
by Gina on Jan 8, 2010 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His defense
hasn’t fallen of a cliff at all. Secondly, he was a subpar hitter for a season and a half, in which he’s even admitted he fell into bad habits.
The 3-4 years of data say he’s a superior hitter and at 26, there’s more room for improvement.
by MLB DW on Jan 8, 2010 10:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What data says he's a superior hitter?
Superior hitters don’t make outs, they get on base. Jeff Francoeur gets on base at a lower clip than most professional baseball players (and it’s been trending downward). How does that make him a superior hitter? If anything that data says he should be in the minors learning to hit.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 8, 2010 10:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Francoeur: 317 career wOBA
Pagan: .335 career wOBA
by EtSuKe on Jan 9, 2010 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd seriously rather have Pagan
players without plate discipline usually don’t last that long in the majors
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
by firejerrynow on Jan 9, 2010 6:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm amazed at your ability to spell "Francoeur" incorrectly in three different ways while attempting to defend him.
I know it’s an odd name, but you’d think you’d get it correct at least once. Also, Orlando Hudson has never stolen over 10 bases in any season…while Castillo may not be the burner he used to be, he’s a better base stealer than that. His gold glove means nothing either. That award lost all its credibility in 1999 when Rafael Palmiero won one while playing only 28 games in the field as the teams primary DH.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Schmidtxc on Jan 8, 2010 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent, excellent post
Physically seeing numbers in front of your eyes to validate it all, why you need a good cast of characters, very good.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 8, 2010 10:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Is it actually possible for Bay and Pagan to combine for 8 WAR
and Frenchy to still get enough at bats for for him, and those other guys to produce 8 WAR, without those other guys putting up wholly unexpected seasons?
Also I think there’s an even bigger discrepancy now in the rotations. Considering Hamels is likely to put up a season probably near Santana’s totals by himself and Blanton/Happ are likely to be league average. And outside of Pelfrey I really think our best shot at league average production is Niese.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
by Gina on Jan 8, 2010 11:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
probably not possible
the WAR projections I tacked on at the end really rely on getting career years from every complimentary players. bay and pagan can definitely combine for 8 WAR if pagan starts, and but that would likely limit francoeur’s contribution. but the phillies in 2007 had four OFers with more than 2 WAR each, so it’s certainly possible. i could see a situation where pagan starts most days, but francoeur still starts once or twice a week either to directly replace pagan or pagan’s moved to center to rest beltran. but yea, i really doubt murphy, francoeur, molina, and castillo combine for 8 WAR. they really need to have unexpectedly productive seasons to do that.
also agree about the phillies’ rotation being better than ours. i obviously didn’t address that in the post, but the discrepancy in pitching makes the production of complimentary players even more important for the Mets. although i’m not as down on the Mets’ rotation as you might be. signing Pinerio and getting average seasons from Pelfrey and Niese would give us a decent (not great) rotation.
by englishgrey on Jan 8, 2010 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I think signing piniero and getting 2 WAR production from Pelfrey would make
a huge difference. I just don’t see any way they can justify going into the season with both Maine and Ollie locked into spots.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
by Gina on Jan 8, 2010 11:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also I brought up the rotation more because I consider Blanton and Happ
to be complementary type guys. Sure neither are overly impressive but there’s something to be said for getting league average production at the back end of your rotation.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
by Gina on Jan 8, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would say Pagan and Bay would put up 6 WAR.
A little higher than 3 (3.2-3.5) or Bay, and a little lower than 3 for Pagan (2.5-2.8)
by EtSuKe on Jan 8, 2010 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you really think
Hamels can match Santana’s numbers though? While I expect a bounce back year from Hamels, I don’t think he’s Santana’s equal. Out of curiosity, do you expect a huge year from Hamels, or a regression from Santana?
by Ryan_86 on Jan 9, 2010 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
While I don't agree with Gina, I'd assume a bit of both- Hamels having an "on" year, and Santana regressing due to age, injury recovery, and further "entrenchment" in the NL (seeing the same batters, his "book" being thicker, etc.).
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 9, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In the last three years
they’ve put up pretty much equal numbers across the board, and Santanas only been slightly more valuable in terms of WAR, even throwing out last season.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
by Gina on Jan 9, 2010 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This makes a lot of sense.
you know what I'm sayin' ?
by fxcarden on Jan 8, 2010 11:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
More than one way to win
Keep in mind also, you don’t have to have as much offense as the Phillies to win. You can also win with a bit less offense and better pitching. For most of the Phillies run, their pitching really wasn’t that great for a playoff team.
If the Mets only get maybe 6 WAR from Pagan + Bay, they might be lucky enough to have one of their young players step up for over 2 WAR as well (out of Murphy, Carter, Martinez), and then get 1-1.5 WAR each from guys like Castillo, Francoeur, and Blanco. That won’t get you to the 16-18 WAR range of the Phillies supporting cast in recent years but might get you to the +12 WAR range where the Mets have at least been contenders.
The Mets aren’t likely to get better than that from this group though. Their best odds of making up the difference may be on the pitching side. If you sign a Pineiro (4.8 WAR last year), you might get +3 there. Young pitchers like Pelfrey (3.0 WAR in 2008), Niese, and Maine (2.7 WAR in 2007) probably have better chances to surprise than the complementary positional talent.
The Phillies top 7 starting pitchers (by innings) the last three years produced:
2007 8.6 WAR
2008 10.6 WAR
2009 10.9 WAR
A good rotation top to bottom could easily produce 14 WAR or more.
by acerimusdux on Jan 8, 2010 1:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
true
Pitching certainly matters, but I focused solely on offensive players to keep the post from being too long. Great pitching would certainly help, but not surrounding a talented core like Wright, Reyes, and Beltran with even a single player worth more than 3 WAR is a big failing of Minaya’s. Maybe we could overlook this mistake if Minaya had used all of his resources to put together a top-notch rotation, but he didn’t. But besides trading Santana (which was a good move), the only significant addition Minaya has made to the rotation since the 2006 season is Ollie’s terrible contract.
by englishgrey on Jan 8, 2010 3:07 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but that was with only half a year of Cliff Lee
Now that they’ve added Halladay they’’ll likely end up in the 14 WAR range.
And I really don’t see anyway you can expect the mets to make up the discrepancy int he pitching side, if anything I’d say at this point we’re just as far behind in that area. Even adding Piniero I’d say would only bring us to even if we get league average performances from Pelfrey and Niese/Maine/Ollie, which isn’t guaranteed.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
by Gina on Jan 8, 2010 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can't worry about what the Phillies will do
I was interpreting the Phillies comparison just as an example of how to get to over 90 wins. You can’t worry about what the Phillies might be in 2010. Even if they project to 95 wins, there’s plenty that can go wrong. And even if they win 100, 90 might win the wildcard.
by acerimusdux on Jan 9, 2010 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Great Post !!!
I don’t think guys like Francoeur and Castillo are adding anything this season. To upgrade our total wins these guys have to be moved and better players brought in.
What would the cost of Rick Ankiel be for RF? Castillo is really tricky. If we just cut him the cost of bringing in anyone else + his $$$$ does not make sense.
Agreed Gina, Ollie and Maine should not be handed two spots…make them compete for them.
Asking a General Manager to slim down his budget is like asking an alcoholic to blow up a distillery.
by scott from peekskill on Jan 8, 2010 1:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree
And I think the same can be said about Francoeur and Pagan. It’s hard to predict exactly what type of production we’re going to get from either of them. Assuming a continuation of the second half of ’09 from either of them seems like a stretch, though not an impossibility. Make them compete for the starting day job in ST rather than handing one of them the guaranteed spot now. They might make a decent platoon also
by Ryan_86 on Jan 9, 2010 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent post
Really puts a claim a lot of people make into a more clear perspective
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Jan 8, 2010 5:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Very good writeup.
“Jeff Francoeur, Daniel Murphy, Luis Castillo, and (most likely) Bengie Molina, project to produce more than a 2 WAR season. But if these four players can cumulatively produce somewhere around 8 WAR, … That might be wishful thinking, but it’s a result that doesn’t seem too far outside the realm of possibility.”
Regrettably, it’s as far outside the realm of possibility as Alpha Centauri is outside the solar system. This just won’t happen. Also, a WAR of 4 is Bay’s absolute upper limit given his defense, and to get to 4 Pagan will have to have a career year that tops 2009 career years as much as 2009 topped anything he had done previously. To get to 90 wins the Mets will have to get insanely lucky, and even 90 wins doesn’t come close to guaranteeing a playoff spot. We definitely need to add another starter to have a shot, get very, very lucky with Perez, have Niese come through with a 4.25 ERA in 150 innings, the bullpen gambles to pay off, the core to get healthy, and Murphy to become an average 1bman. THEN we might pull it off.
By the way, does signing a complementary player (which I agree Bay is, whereas Holliday is a core player) for 4/66 bother anyone?
by SeanSchirmer on Jan 8, 2010 6:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You need to remember
That the offseason is not over yet either though. While I don’t exactly rely on the FO to make smart moves going forward, there’s the chance we take a shot on a high-risk, even higher-reward guy like Sheets. And while 90 wins doesn’t GUARANTEE a playoff spot, it certainly puts us in the running for the Wild Card, regardless of how many games the Phillies do or don’t win.
by Ryan_86 on Jan 9, 2010 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My question is....
how in holy hell did Michael Tucker end up with a positive WAR in 2006, let alone a whole 0.3? that’s near insanity! did he actually do anything of note other then pinch run?
by mistermet on Jan 10, 2010 1:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
2.3 UZR
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
by firejerrynow on Jan 10, 2010 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
(wakes up)
Is the saber debate over?
Great post and exalts the need for a good bench not grit to win a division.
by cuseindahuse on Jan 10, 2010 9:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Amazin' Avenue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
