premium blogad:
blogads:
advertisement:
sitemeter:
|
|
|
December 22, 2008
The 2009 Mets Are Good; But They Should Get Better
Taken from the user journals. –Alex I don’t know why I have the urge to be prolific as of late, but there’s something I feel should be said that has not been said, and that’s a rigorous examination of the Mets’ chances in 2009. For all the kvetching around the Mets’ blogosphere, the Mets have cause for optimism in 2009, even if they don’t exercise any real competence the rest of the offseason. Kvetching would still be justified as far as long-term plans go, but for 2009 the Mets already have what it takes to contend. Why? The monsterous talents of the Big Four (we know who they are) are as solid a foudation as one can ask for. The bullpen upgrade is huge; and the solid performances we can expect from most of the complimentary players should be enough to counter the Castillo black hole. Yes, Church, Murphy, and Delgado are question marks, and Schneider is not particularly exciting, but we would be justified in expecting at least 2 wins above average from them collectively, especially if Schneider and Castro are effectively platooned, which Manuel seems inclined to do. From Castillo, we should expect a performance of 2 wins below average. Here’s the overall picture. Let’s say the Mets go all-out this offseason. This entails signing Orlando Hudson for 2nd base–assuming the Mets are committed to Murphy in left–and Lowe. (I’m fine with Niese in the back end.) We can expect Delgado, Church, Hudson and Murphy to be worth about 2 wins above average (WAA) in total. The upgrade from Perez in 2008 to Lowe should be about 1.5 wins. K-Rod and Putz should give about 4.5 wins above average. So the Mets in these positions will be buying about 8 WAA. These players in total cost about $64M. Marginal wins on average in 2008 cost $2.4M; so assuming average production to be worth about 2 marginal wins above replacement, these wins should cost $56.4M. So they will be overpaying by about $7.6M. (Oddly enough, the bargains of Murphy and Church offset the rather modest free agent premiums of Delgado, Putz, K-Rod, Hudson and Lowe; so for a big-market Win-Now team, these positions are filled with impressive efficiency.) But comparing this to the 2008 Mets paints an even brighter picture, since the Mets had below average production from these positions except 1B–in the case of 2B it was below replacement–in 2008. The bullpen upgrade from 2008 should yield 5.5 wins. Does that seem unbelievably high? Here’s some news; it’s conservative. We’ll be going from a collective 1.5 wins below average (generously) to 4 wins above average (conservatively). Assuming Hudson to be .5 wins-above-average in 2009, the upgrade from Castillo and Easley’s 2008 will be worth (brace youself) 4.5 wins (assuming Hudson to be .5 WAA). Castillo was -2.5 WAA in a half season. Easley was -3 WAA in a half-season. (Average production assumes a full season; so it’s really hard to cost a team 2.5 wins when you’re only hurting the team for half a season. Castillo and Easley, however, were up to the challenge.) Looking at the outfield corners, Church and Tatis were each .5 wins below average in half-seasons. (Again, “average production” assumes full seasons.) Murphy was effective in 150 PAs, and Chavez was average in 287PAs. (Yes, he was average; his D was outstanding and his bat was tolerable, and I’m using PAs not to measure offense, but as a proxy for playing time.) Anderson, Evans, and Pagan however, killed the Mets for a collective 366 PAs (factoring Pagan’s poor defense). All in all, this amounts to 500 PAs of 1 WAA each, average production for 300 PAs, and lousy production for 500 PAs (counting guys like Aguila and Easley who were terrible in limited time). Do the math, and this adds up to about -2.5 WAA; (yup, our outfield corners killed us). Murphy and Church for full seasons should give us 1 WAA for both positions collectively, meaning that we can expect to gain 3.5 wins in 2009 from these spots. Santana and Beltran should decline slightly in 2009; but Santana overachieved a bit in 2008, and Beltran was exceptionally unlucky. So let’s say those two negate each other in 2009. Reyes and Wright are in the upswing of their careers, so they’ll get better; but Pelf should regress; so let’s say they cancel out. Let’s also give Maine half an extra win in 2009 and expect Delgado to drop half a win. So add everything up, and the Mets should thus expect to gain–if they go all out–15 wins above their 2008 record for a record of 103 and 59. (That’s how bad our bullpen, second-basemen, and corners were; and that’s how good our Big Four are.) Of course, we are making huge assumptions. We are assuming that the rest of the NL East will be the same and that the Wilpons will actually do what it takes. In reality, the Marlins, Braves and Nationals have gotten better, and the Phillies, in exchanging Burrel for Ibañez, have gotten worse. (Howard had a bad year, but the bullpen drastically overachieved. If both regress, the Phillies should still lose at least two wins overall.) This, however, should be more than offset by the gains from the Braves and particularly the Marlins, especially considering how unlucky the Braves got last year. Overall, the increase in competitiveness in the NL East should dock the Mets 5 wins; so lets cut their record to 98-64. Still, not too shabby. But we are also assuming that the Wilpons will go all out to Win Now. Win-Now strategies are extremely expensive. In addition, they cost prospects, which takes some of the joy out of winning. It’s only natural that owners will balk at the expense, if the are able to afford it at all. The Mets are on the hook for about $115M. Signing Lowe and Hudson should cost an extra $28M or so; so the budget would amount to $144M. Considering the financial state of the Mets, their payroll history, and their stated committment to winning now, this is not too much to ask, but if the Wilpons flake out on 2nd base and Lowe, they will hurt themselves severely. Castillo instead of Hudson will cost the Mets 2.5 wins (with the generous assumption of replacement 2nd base production). Perez instead of Lowe will cost the Mets at least two more, generously assuming average production from Perez. Thus, if the Wilpons go cheap, we go from expecting 98 wins to expecting 93.5. Now, this is still a virtually guaranteed playoff berth, which is why I’m saying the Mets can rest easy. But beware. These 5 or so wins are very valuable for two reasons. 1.) Just because we can expect to win 93.5 doesn’t mean we will. This is just an expectation assuming even breaks. What about bad breaks? An injury, perhaps to Beltran or Church? Severe regressions from Murphy, Tatis, Delgado, and/or Perez? Pelfrey dropping further than expected and Maine continuing to frustrate? The Mets’ principles have an history of consistency, so I would set a rather small standard deviation. However, bad breaks can take us from 93 wins to 89, which puts us exactly where we were last year (perhaps even another loss in the final day). A team that expects 99 wins, however, will not drop 10 games without a major injury to a guy like Reyes or Wright. That extra $28M takes us from a very good shot in the playoffs to a real guarantee. 2.) The difference between 94 wins and 98 is the difference between a contender for the title and a favorite that should go deep into the playoffs. These wins are thus extremely valuable, as they give the Wilpons huge playoff revenues in the form of national network coverage for as much as 19 extra games. Also, it’s not quite right to cover the bad-breaks scenario without mentioning the good breaks. Murphy could be the real deal; Church could produce to pre-concussion levels, which, combined with his excellent defense, would make him a 2.5 WAA stud; Ollie and Maine could put it all together; Niese could perform well; and Delgado and Pelfrey could keep up the pace of their second halves. Any team that gets all the good breaks would be playoff-bound of course, but the Mets have a lot of extreme variables on their team; and if they all come out aces, we’re looking at 103 wins even with Ollie and Castillo. With Lowe and Hudson? Think 108 wins; (Hudson’s a variable too). Of course, that’s what the 93.5 win expectation measures. It assumes some good breaks that cancel out some bad ones, and leave you with the results you…well…expected. Looking past 2009, the Mets are in decent shape if they don’t shoot themselves in the foot. I’ve been trying to argue that the Mets should trade Murphy for good, cheap production at 2nd base, sign Adam Dunn (or Milton Bradley) and put him at 1st in 2010, and slate F!Mart for LF in 2010, in addition to acquiring Lowe. (This, incidenally, would bump them from a 98 win team to a 101 win team even with the increased competition. Trading for a good 2nd baseman is probably worth .5 wins over Hudson; and Adam Dunn should be worth at least 1.5 wins over Murphy, since both will play poor defense.) The result of this would be a 2009 lineup of Reyes, Beltran, Wright, Dunn, Delgado, a Murphy equivalent, Church, and Schneider/Castro, and a rotation of Santana, Lowe, Pelfrey, Maine, and perhaps Niese. The team would cost about $146M in 2009 instead of $158M–the difference is essentially Hudson’s projected salary–and would eliminate the possibility of Hudson becoming yet another 2nd base albatross. In 2010, the lineup would be Reyes, Beltran, Wright, Dunn, F!Mart, a Murphy equivalent, Church, and Catcher. The rotation and bullpen would be the same. This would cost about $132M. This is not for the sake of being cheap (although efficient wins are more elegant). It gives the Mets flexibility should things go wrong, and it is doable for the Wilpons, who are not cheap, but don’t like to go over-budget. The Mets, if they get a young, solid, and controlled 2nd baseman, would also help themselves long-term. Assuming Omar slates Murphy for 1st in 2010, goes cheap on pitching, and sticks with Castillo, the Mets are then fully stocked for 2010 and cheaper still, but considerably worse. The 2010 lineup would be Reyes, Beltran, Wright, F!Mart, Murphy, Church, Catcher, and Castillo, the 2010 rotation would be Santana, Pelfrey, Maine, Niese, and some guy named Bob, and the bullpen would be the same. The payroll would be about $110M, but the team would lose 5 wins. The good thing is that there is no real long-term harm done. If Omar goes somewhere in between, expect a $125M payroll and a two-win drop from my team. (I’m being somewhat generous to myself.) Also, I should point out that I’m not counting the variable performance of Murphy. If he comes up aces, we break even. All in all, the Mets are in good shape for 2009 already; but it would still be irresponsible for the Wilpons not to make another push, which means getting a good starting pitcher and upgrading 2nd base, or at least doing one of these. In the long run, the Mets have good flexibility and a solid base on which to build. The real damage from the Castillo signing is being felt in that it is preventing the Wilpons from getting a real 2nd baseman. As long as the Wilpons and Omar remain obstinate on Castillo, expect the Mets to pay for their obstinacy to the tune of 3 wins a year. 27 Responses to “The 2009 Mets Are Good; But They Should Get Better”Leave a ReplyYou must be logged in to post a comment. |
|
2009 Mets:
95 wins
NL East Crown
good piece, MightyJoe
It’s easy to forget how bad the Mets handled Left Field last year. But, we should remember that Tatis and Murphy are both big question marks and I hope Omar isn’t as confident as he makes out to be with those two. You must really hate the Secondbasemen because I don’t see Hudson being .5 wins above replacement. I’d say he’s anywhere between 2-5 (there is alot of upside/risk tied to his defense), but certainly not .5. .5 seems more realistic for Castillo, but I think even he could outperform that easily if he gets in any sort of shape.
I think he means above average not replacement. I think replacement is well below average.
Yes .5 wins above average. WAA. Average is about 2 wins above replacement. I’m being conservative with most of these guys. I’m also putting Murphy, Church, and Delgado as 2 WAA collectively, and assuming that Castillo works squarely at replacement.
I got my info from Beyond the Boxscore regarding player value. I am actually having a hard time believing that Easley, Castillo, and Argenis were so bad that they were a combined 2 wins below replcement. They were bad, but 2 wins below replacement.
Wow you are reaching so far. Washington is better? Florida is better? Atlanta is better? Why are all these teams better.. Name why they are all better for me. Mets are so much better. haha K-rod is a closer whose fastball has dropped from 96 to 91 in a year. His shoulder is done. Good thing you got Putz to pick him up. But then what? Mets are Choke Artists!!!!!!!!!! Add whomever money can buy, the Mets will always be choke artists. And how did the Phillies get worse by signing one of the most consistent outfielders in the game.. Slanted and terrible this article is… Go back to crying Mets fans, because on paper is the only place you will win your division title every year
Much to learn you still have my young apprentice.
Of course it’s slanted you nimrod, it’s on the METSGeek website.
Got to love the random Philly troll. Might want to get your facts strait, Putz was a salary neutral move for the most part and we paid less for k-rod than you are for Lidge. And I will bet good money that K-Rod has a better year next year than Lidge. You had a magical season from your pen last year, good luck holding your breath for it to repeat.
Decent article overall. We have already had a good off season, but if we want to celebrate next off season we better do a good job on our rotation. I think looking for Hudson is a bit much, I expect our offense will be essentially the same as last year, but we need a quality arm in the rotation to solidify this team. I would sign Lowe if we can and then resign Pedro for a one year deal for the 5th spot. Niese could then get 5-10 starts during the year that Pedro will end up missing during the year and then we could have Niese ready to go for next year.
I think the Braves will be better next year, but I am still waiting to see what they are going to do to make themselves better. Phils seem to be content on growth from within the team, but they will miss Moyer in the rotation and Burrel in the lineup. Not sure how the Marlins will be getting better next year, they won’t be a real contender until they learn how to field.
Gotta love being called choke artists by a fan of one of the all time “choking-est” franchises in history. Mets *bullpen* choked in ‘07 after running out of gas. The offense was ok. I don’t think they choked last year. Phils just had a great September.
This is my favorite part of that post. Right out of the Joe Morgan playbook, forget about being a “good” outfielder, so long as you’re “consistant”. Heee-larious.
Yeah those philly fans are obsessed with the Mets. Heck the Philly players are too. Oh, well.
Refering to your artcile, why do you think Pelfrey will regress this year. If anything I see him getting 15 wins with a 3.5 era… he made tremendous strides last year and I dont know why he would take a step back.
@ MightyJoe–You guys are right, thanks for clarifying. K-Rod and Putz are 4.5 wins collectively above the replacement reliever, however, hence my confusion. (Not sure there is much of a difference between average and replacement with relievers). Good article otherwise, but I’m not sure you can so easily cancel out certain instances of regression/progression and expect the Mets to get net better. The Mets over-performed a little bit last year and I don’t think their a 90 win team yet. Their close, but we need Lowe.
@hnic28–
Yes, they’re much better. By getting rid of Hermida and Olsen their defense and rotation can be realigned to maximize each players’ skills.
Did we really over perform? our Pythagorean winning percentage was 89-73.
I think alot of people thought that Pelfrey pitched over his head due to the fact that he attained success without missing to many bats.
I am inclined to think that he is bound to improve with maturity.
As much as i would like to see Orlando Hudson at second base, I am pretty sure that Castillo is not going anywhere due to sound baseball management.
sound baseball management: No one wants Castillo and Hudson’s production might very well drop like Castillo’s did. If I had an ulimited budget, I would damn near cut Castillo and pick up Hudson, but that is not the case.
Sound baseball management or not. Castillo costs the Mets 2 wins from even an average player every year he’s here, and that’s being generous to Castillo. If the Mets had an average 2nd baseman in 2008, we are 91-71 and in the playoffs. We’re cutting it really close to coming up short again; and if we do, Castillo will be the reason again.
Hudson might become another albatross, which is why I want either to put Murph at 2nd or parlay him into a 2nd baseman.
The Marlins have some studs who are due to really light things up. The Nationals should have full years of Milz, Dukes, and Willie Harris (who is highly underrated) and their infield corners should be healthy, which should more than offset Christian Guzman’s inevitable regression.
I don’t mean it in that sense, more that individuals like Delgado over-performed. But, like he points out there is lots of room for improvement, so I’m optimistic.
I’m sorry, but again I just don’t get this statement.
The guy was banged up for a good year and a half,
then comes back to put up his typical career numbers.
He was easily the Mets’ MVP in the 2nd half! Yet, no love.
I just don’t see how Delgado returning to his norm was over-performing.
He was underperforming for a good year-and-a-half. He was also very unlucky for the 1st half of 2008. It ain’t open and shut either way.
Agreed, MightyJoe.
But if you stop UNDER performing and return to your normal numbers, how does that become OVER performing?
Merry Christmas Mets Fans. Lets just hope you don’t get any sharp objects this year. 2 chokes in a row!
PS when did Moyer sign with another team? Oh wait, he is only negotiating with the Phillies. Thats right.
Because what he did in the second half of last year wasn’t really his normal numbers were they? They were above and beyond anything he’s done in the last 4 years. Or are you talking about the year as a whole?
Well, that’s why I looked at the best-case scenario also. I would cite Delgado as an example of a high-variance player now. You have grounds for thinking he’ll stick to his 2nd-half 2008 self, but can you really pencil that in the way you can pencil in .300/.395/.540 for David Wright every year? I can’t see how that would be justified, though you would have some reasonable grounds for hope. I would say a reasonable estimate is close to his overall 2008 production level, with perhaps some better defense–say 1-1.5 wins above average.
Oliver Perez by the way is slotted at .7 wins below average, while Dereck Lowe is pegged at 1.7 wins above average. None of the projection systems think Perez will put it together. These 2.4 wins would be worth about $10M on the FA market, and much more considering they separate the Mets from the pack as far as playoff expectations go.
If Omar goes with Ollie over $6M, it would be boneheaded in the extreme.
I’m with the Delgado-haters. His afwul year and a half wasn’t due to some injury that’s now gone. It was due to his inability to fix terrible habits at the plate. Even in 2006, when he got out of whack, it took him 2 months to find himself. The double toe-tap with his front foot is a terrible timing mechanism that makes him prone to diving over the plate.
As an older player, I expect these weaknesses to get worse, not better. Performing like he did in Toronto should NOW be considered WAY OVERPERFORMING his current status.
I’ll put it this way: in 2009, I expect Delgado to spend part of the season being excellent, and part absolutely killing us. That second part will be way too big to stomach.
Nice coverage, Mighty Joe! I’m with you on most of your positional analyses, except for the bullpen. I’d like to see a breakdown of what we’re shedding and gaining in terms of WAA or WARP. Going from:
Wagner, Ayala, Heilman, Feliciano, Smith, Schoeneweis, Sanchez, Stokes, and our various injury replacements of 2008
to:
K-Rod, Putz, Feliciano, Green, Sanchez, Stokes, or minor guys like Robertson, plus various injury replacements of 2009
sounds great, but it doesn’t sound like 4.5 wins to me.
As for Lowe, I think 2009 is a no-brainer… but 2012 is no-brainer in the other direction. We’ll see what kind of contract he can be had for.
The thing about the bullpen in 2008 is that Wagner had a WPA of like 1.5 or so, almost as low as Jorge Sosa. They were not just bad, they were also incredibly unclutch and unlucky; and they were forced to give way too much time to guys like Ayala (and Jorge Sosa) who are marginal mop-up men.
Replace Heilman and Joe Smith with K-Rod and Putz, assuming decent health and performance from them, and factoring in for a luck regression on the positive side will conservatively give us 4-5 wins all else being equal. Think of how many blown saves our bullpen had altogether–including Wagner–and you’ll see why I feel this is actually conservative.
I would actually consider using Figueroa instead of Green as a ROOGY.
I did make an error with another calculation though, that I should correct.