Luckily for my remote control I was at last nights game, and therefore unable to throw it in anger as I watched Jerry Manuels' cavalcade of stupidity. Stupid decisions were the order of the night. Most lazy observers will only see the positive outcomes and credit "grission" for the Mets win. More astute observers will see the positive results as a combination of dumb luck and poor execution by the Cardinals. Which makes last night's win more infuriating. Stupidity was rewarded. And as long as stupidity gets rewarded, it will only encourage more stupidity. It's a vicious cycle that will eventually end in disaster.

Continue reading this post »

Link to the TSN story is here.

Link to his statisics is here.

I privately called this during the Frozen Four. I thought either the Rangers or the Islanders would make a play for a the "local boy". I didn't think it would take this long though.

Gilroy was a walk-on at BU and developed into an excellent college player. But his strength was as an attacking defenseman and his stardom this year was in many ways related to how well he fit into a Terriers system that thrives on activating the defense.

This signing raises a few questions.

1. How well will Gilroy's skills translate to the NHL?

2. What does this mean for an already crowded blue line? Especially for Paul Mara.

3. How wise is it for a team so tight to the cap to guarantee a 2/$3million to an undrafted free agent?

4. With so many of the Rangers top prospects being D, is this a smart use of money?

I like Gilroy. He impressed me tremendously this season. But I wonder how much this is a move driven by his "story" versus a wise organizational decision for the Rangers.

While most of the MSM will be looking at big ticket starters and a closer to replace Billy Wagner, the Mets achillies heel this year was clearly middle relief. Middle releif is probably the most difficult area to evaluate because of the small sample size and high visability nature of the job. Traditional metrics like W-L and ERA will flucuate wildy from year to year, so giving a big contract to a pitcher who had "good year" is usually a losing proposition. K rate, BB, rate, GB%, LOB%, and HR rate are better ways to structure middle relief. But with the lack of power arms in the Mets organization, they are more likely to fill slots via free agency.

Continue reading this post »

(promoted from fanposts. --eric)

In July of 1999 the Mets handed the torch of "closer" from John Franco to Armando Benitez. His numbers in the three and a half years he spent as Mets closer are as follows:

By any evaluation these are very good numbers for a reliever. The BB/9 numbers are higher than you would like to see, but the WHIPs are reasonable given the high walk rate. The K/9 numbers are what you want from a bullpen ace. And if "saves" are your thing, Benitez did a good job of compiling them and not blowing them.

And yet the mention of the name Armando Benitez sends a chill down the spine of many a Mets fan. Why? The reason for this can be traced back to three games.

Game 6 1999 NLCS vs. ATL
Game 1 2000 WS vs. NYY
September 23, 2001 vs. ATL

All three were soul-crushing losses aided by, in no small part, Armando Benitez.

So how can someone that was so effective overall be judged by so few bad performances? This phenomenon will henceforth be known as the "Armando Benitez Effect" (ABE)

The ABE occurs because the failures of good relievers are magnified by the high leverage situations in which they most often pitch. We become so used to seeing a star reliever put up good numbers and succeed in most situations that their success becomes mundane. Our brains cannot recall all of the good things an ace reliever does because these events occur so often. However, when this reliever fails, it becomes a memorable event. We can hold on to that information because it was unique. Since any "Blown Save" represents a lost opportunity for our team to win, these failures become even more magnified. When this type of failure happens in a "clutch" situation, (pennant race, playoff game) it becomes a catastrophic event that anyone can easily recall.

In short, good relievers' successes are ordinary and get repressed mentally, while their failures are extraordinary and become highly memorable. This is what happened to Armando Benitez during his tenure with the Mets.

I bring up the ABE because of the situation with Billy Wagner. Wagner has put up excellent numbers with the Mets since joining the team in 2006. Yet his failures in key situations have led many fans to question his value. Now that his career as a Met is likely over, the debate will rage over whether or not to sign Francisco Rodriguez.

K-Rod is on the verge of setting the record for saves in a season and he is widely perceived as being one of the best closers in baseball. Here are his numbers since becoming a closer:

They are eerily similar to the numbers Benitez put up as a Met except with six more blown saves. So why isn't he perceived as a failure they way Benitez was?  Simply put, he doesn't matter to Mets fans. His failures have not been important enough to garner widespread attention and since we, as Mets fans do not have anything invested in him, his minor failures don't matter to us.

If the Mets do sign him to a long-term deal he will likely put up very good to great numbers. (He will certainly put up better numbers than anyone on the team or in the organization could put up) And everyone will love him because he "gets the job done". Until he blows that first big save, in a key situation, in a game the team "has to have". And he *will* fail. All relievers fail at some point. At that point he will go from being a conquering hero to a guy who is not worth the paper his contract was printed on. And everyone will complain about another overpaid, under performing player who doesn't come through in the clutch.

This is the "Armando Benitez Effect"

Edit:

I wanted to add a simplified working definition to further clarify what the ABE is all about. How does this sound?

The "Armando Benitez Effect" - 1. A specific lack of confidence fans of a team have in their closer/relievers, in spite of statistical evidence that indicates the closer/releiver will succeed most times. 2. A feeling of intense nausea brought on by hearing "Who let the dogs out?" by the Baja Men

My plan for improving the bullpen is a multi-faceted plan that involves roster moves, trades, praying on the weak and stupid GM's, better utilizing personnel, and  the possible return of a fan favorite.

Continue reading this post »

One thing has been made abundantly clear this season. The Mets bullpen hates Johan Santana. Santana has eight ND's this year, and in six of them he left the game in position to win. The failure of the bullpen to protect wins for Santana has intensified the debate over when he should be taken out of games. Many observers have criticized the coaching staff for not letting him go far past 100 pitches and some have even questioned Santana's desire to go deeper into games.

Continue reading this post »

Up to this point I have been an advocate of holding on to top prospects in the organization. My belief is based on the fact that I don’t think this team is good enough to justify clearing out more of the system for short term help and nobody that has been mentioned as a return is that big of an upgrade.

And while my overall opinion has not changed, after a little research, my enthusiasm for some of the players deemed “too valuable” to trade has been dampened. I haven’t soured on Fernando Martinez. His injuries this year aside, he is only 19 and has a huge upside. But the other top Mets hitting prospects are more troubling.

Dan Murphy is putting up good numbers, but his fielding is pretty bad. David Wright also blocks him at his natural position. The attempts to move him to 2B are suspect at best. Mike Carp is having a very good year in his second year at Double A. His BA and OBP are well above where his numbers have been in the past. His power numbers have been pretty consistent which is promising, but some red flags go up here. Nick Evans has struggled in limited work in the majors. He is clearly a work in progress, but he doesn’t seem to have the natural power to justify a corner outfield or 1B spot.

Of greater concern to me is the pitching. As much hype as Niese, Parnell, and Kunz have received going into the deadline, their peripherals are cause for concern. In his minor league career Kunz has a K/9 of 7.6, and K/BB of 1.6, and a 1.31 WHIP. It’s a small sample, but his numbers at Oregon State reflect this type of performance. Parnell’s K/9 is 7.9, his K/BB is 1.98, and his WHIP is 1.39. Niese has the most promising numbers with an 8.36 K/9, a 2.56 K/BB, and a 1.36 WHIP.

None of these numbers are awful but since they don’t dominate in the minors it’s hard to envision them being anything more the middle of the pack major leaguers. When you compare them to the more highly touted, “can’t miss” guys in recent years their performances just don’t stack up. Guys like Hughes, Kennedy, Chamberlain, Kershaw, Buchholz, and Volquez all had K/9 rate over 9 and K/BB ratios over 3 (except Volquez) to go along with a more dominating WHIP.

I’m not arguing that it is worth trading these guys for the limited services of a Raul Ibanez or Brian Fuentes. But based on what I see, especially from the pitchers, these guys should be far from “untouchable”.

Continue reading this post »

(promoted from FanPosts. --eric)

We have all spent plenty of time lately cringing at the sound of the starting lineup being announced and thinking "how can we make the borderline AAA portion of the lineup more productive?" After reading this entry on Joe Posnanski’s blog, I decided to use the same lineup analysis tool at Baseball Musings to see how the optimal Mets lineup compares to the regular Mets lineup.

The Tool: The lineup analysis is based on the OBP and SLG% for the nine batters in the lineup. How it gets calculated I’m not sure. Its effectiveness may be questionable since it does not take into account things like steals, and stolen base percentage. But hey, this is just for fun.

Methodology: The first issue is the stats. The stats I used are current as of June 25th and come straight from Baseball-Reference. Second was what to do about the pitcher slot. I decided to take the average OBP (.177) and SLG% (.164) of the five current starters. Three of the five are right around these numbers with Perez being slightly higher and Pelfrey being well below. The biggest issue was what to do about the outfield. I first looked at the combinations assuming a Churchless outfield. Since the acquisition of Trot Nixon, Nixon and Endy Chavez have each started 8 of 10 games. I used them as the basis for the analysis. Since their numbers are almost identical, when I substituted Ryan Church for either of them the numbers are just about the same. Fernando Tatis proved interesting as he has a greater impact on the offensive production than Nixon or Chavez.

Findings:

The typical Mets batting order of Reyes, Castillo, Wright, Beltran, Delgado, Nixon, Schneider, Chavez, Pitcher will theoretically score 4.005 runs per game. The optimal batting order of Castillo, Beltran, Delgado, Wright, Reyes, Nixon* Schneider, Chavez* Pitcher will produce 4.083 *Nixon and Chavez could be flopped without any change to run production With Fernando Tatis swapped into the 8th position run production increases to 4.047 for the typical lineup and 4.125 for the optimal lineup.

With Ryan Church back, and a typical lineup of Reyes, Castillo, Wright, Beltran, Church, Delgado, Schneider, Chavez, Pitcher, the Mets would theoretically score 4.404 runs per game. The optimal lineup would have a few possibilities which all include Castillo leading off, Beltran or Church second, Wright 3rd 4th or 5th, Reyes 3rd or 5th and Beltran or Church 4th or 5th. Six to nine are Chavez, Schneider, Delgado, Pitcher. With Tatis in for Chavez the typical lineup scores 4.446 runs, while the optimal lineup with Tatis 6th score 4.529 runs.

The difference in all of these numbers is fairly negligible, and even the worst possible lineups only results in about .5 run per game difference. But it would be intriguing to see what a lineup with Beltran 2nd, Reyes 3rd or 5th, and Delgado 8th would produce on the field. At the very least it might make things more interesting.

Surprises:

Delgado: As bad as Delgado has been I neither expected to see him as high 3rd or as low as 8th. I always figured 6th was the optimal spot in which his power might result in more runs produced but he would get fewer at bats that would usually have a negative result.

Reyes: I’m not surprised to see him out of the leadoff, but I would have assumed he would be 7th. I guess given the production in the lineup he gets on base enough to justify hitting 3rd and gets enough extra base hits to justify hitting 5th.

The pitchers slot: In many of the "good" lineups there is almost no difference in run production whether the pitcher bats 9th or 6th. I can’t explain this. Maybe it is a fault of the tool or maybe the bottom of the Mets lineup is really that bad.

No Surprises:

Castillo: Castillo’s plate discipline and extreme lack of power make him more suited to lead off than Reyes. His career .367 OBP and 10.6% BB rate are significantly higher than that of Jose Reyes

Beltran: He has always seemed like an ideal number two hitter. His OBP justifies it and he has the power to pick the top and bottom of the order. That being said, his career splits batting 2nd and 4th are almost identical.

Church: He is being given a prime spot based on his production so far this year. I expect him to come off that when he gets back. Hopefully he can stay solid enough to justify the number two spot.

If I were filling out the lineup card:

Without Church - Castillo, Beltran, Reyes, Wright, Delgado, Chavez, Schneider, Tatis, Pitcher 4.122 runs per game.

With Church - Castillo, Church, Wright, Beltran, Reyes, Chavez, Schneider, Delgado, Pitcher 4.490 runs per game.

The Mets problems go way beyond a simple lineup change.Even the best lineup is a far cry from "Murderers Row". But given the continue offensive struggles of the team so far, more efficiency in the lineup may generate better results. A little outside the box thinking when it comes to lineup production couldn’t really hurt. Who knows, they may even stumble on a combination that really works.