SB Nation User Blog: riversmccown

Steve Slaton to IR

riversmccown — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:20:59 -0000

Steve Slaton to IR

No word on how Chris Brown's throwing arm is doing.

The Hunt for Coach #3

riversmccown — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:28:16 -0000

TIM: Thanks to Rivers for this FanPost. While I'm still not ready to bid Kubes adieu, I'm always in favor of a good discussion; hence, the bump to the front page.

Admitting that Gary Kubiak isn't the right coach for this team is something that really pains me. I still think he can be a successful head coach, and I still think he's far from the biggest problem for the team (hello, defense!). But in light of the fact that a) I think he's going to be fired and b) I think he's had enough problems with clock management, playcalling, winning close games, and challenges to warrant it, I figured I'd put my thoughts on e-paper here about the next head coach.

Stipulation #1 for me in hiring a new head coach is that I want Kyle Shanahan to stay on as offensive coordinator. The overall offensive scheme that we have is successful, the players that we have on offense best fit the PA-pass system. I think most of the offensive problems this year stem from poor personnel (the interior offensive line, Slaton's struggles with fumbles/injuries, the lack of a good interior back) for the scheme rather than any problems with the scheme itself. To blow that up and start all over again with say, a total West Coast offense, would probably do more harm than good.

I would rather pair Baby Shan with a stellar defensive mind than deal with a new cook messing up what we have offensively, because we have made progress there. In the event that we CAN'T keep Shans, I think we should at least look into a similarly young/inexperienced mind that has the same Denver offensive principles. I'd also love to see Kubiak back as the offensive coordinator, but well, that's not going to happen. Haha. I think I've wasted enough words trying to say that the offensive scheme and the stars we have are good fits for each other, so let's move on to the candidates.

MY FAVORITES:

1) Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Leslie Frazier - He has experience building a program out of nothing in college (Trinity), he improved pretty much every staff he was a part of prior to being a defensive coordinator (Philly, Cincy, Indy), He stumbled at first, given the Vikings after Mike Tomlin left, but the past two seasons he's presided over one of the better defenses in the NFL. He runs the 4-3. The 2008 Vikings had the best DVOA against three-wide sets in the NFL, something that could come in handy when Peyton Manning is in your division.

Reservations: I'm pretty sure he's a stellar coach, but well, as much as I hate Jared Allen, it's hard to not have a good defense with him and the Williams Wall at the forefront of everything. He's definitely had a lot of talent to work with in all of his professional stops, exempting perhaps the Bengals. However, he turned that Bengals team into a high-turnover machine, which tells me that he probably knows how to adapt to not having a good defense.

2) Carolina Panthers coach John Fox - Well, just look at his head coaching career. He's well over .500, and has yet to finish below 7-9 in a season. The Panthers defense has been outside of the Top 15 once in his entire eight-year stint with the Panthers, including three times in the Top 5. He loves man-to-man coverage, which after 8 years of hell having to deal with the zone defense this team throws out would be a godsend. He's also built big running games, has experience drawing up plays for a dominant wide receiver, and made a Super Bowl with Jake Delhomme as his quarterback. I can't help but look at the people who want him out of Carolina as people trying to make a change just for the sake of making a change. Runs the 4-3. Of all the retreads out there, I think he's the best bet for future success in Houston.

Reservations: His defense hasn't exactly set the world on fire the last few seasons, but they've also been dealing with an abnormal amount of injuries. Whether it's his fault or not, the Panthers definitely have traded up in the draft a lot for my taste. He has a tendency to rely too much on stars and not enough on depth. Of course, his hiring relies on the Panthers actually firing him.

3) Philadelphia Eagles defensive coordinator Sean McDermott - Hey, it's the guy I wanted to be our defensive coordinator last offseason! He's back! All McDermott has done this season is put the Eagles #3 in defensive DVOA despite the passing of Jim Johnson, several injuries, and a downright pathetic linebacking core that forced a midseason trade for Will Witherspoon. He philosophically tends to follow Johnson, and that's great because Johnson was one of the absolute best in his profession. Runs the 4-3. Has a background as a defensive backs coach that would come in handy given how it's our absolute weak point.

Reservations: He's very young, and the young coach trend hasn't shown itself to be the best thing for NFL teams over the past couple of years. Not a ton of data on him as a defensive mind, and has shoe-horned himself in with the Eagles to the point where it's difficult to be sure that he brings enough to the table on his own.

4) Cincinnati Bengals defensive coordinator Mike Zimmer - Presiding over the Cowboys defense for years, Zimmer survived numerous regime changes and had only one real bad year, 2004. Was the fall guy in 2005 despite a 12th-ranked DVOA defense because Wade Phillips was the main defensive cook. Hired by Bobby Petrino in Atlanta, he presided over an abysmal Falcons defense, but I'm willing to throw that year out since it was such a sideshow. The Bengals hired him to be second-chef for Marvin Lewis, and the Bengals defense has gone from 28th in DVOA in 07, to 16th in 08 and 17th in 09. Great backstory with his wife this year. Has 4-3 and 3-4 experience.

Reservations: He doesn't seem to have much recent experience being the #1 defensive mind. I don't like that he's been such a second banana. The Bengals defense would have been hardpressed not to improve with all the money and draft picks they've poured into it. More importantly, he's only presided over one defense that has been in the DVOA top 5 in any given year. I like him, but I think he's clearly the 4th best candidate wheras the other three I've juggled back and forth between the #1 spot. He could be someone who just doesn't have the coaching skillset to make the jump to head coach.

Those would be the first four guys I would interview. The rest of the guys I like fit into a few easy categories so I'll just give them capsules:

Guys I like slightly less, but whom I don't think would actually coach in Houston anyway: Bill Cowher (3-4, think we're not prestigious enough for him, and I'd rather have Fox than him anyway. Still, hard to ignore the resume.), Tony Dungy (He fits all the categories but can you really picture him joining the Houston Texans to try and beat Peyton? Me either.), Monte Kiffin (Extremely old and has already sort of taken on the happy father role with Lane at Tenn, but a hell of a coach.)

Guys I like who I don't think fit us scheme-wise: Dallas offensive coordinator Jason Garrett (would change the offense, don't think Jerry would let him get away), 49ers defensive coordinator Greg Manusky (prefers 3-4), former Rams coach Mike Martz (I think he's incredibly underrated and has an excellent scheme, but it goes away from what we have and putting Matt Schaub in a position to take a lot of hits isn't something that has historical support as a good idea).

Thoughts, BRB? Anyone I missed?

(More Texans talk and Game Charting observations throughout the year at: From Mom's Basement)

AAOP: All-In

riversmccown — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:18:04 -0000

For years, the Mets have built a glorious core for a dominant team, than surrounded that core with expensive deadweight and floatsam. While injuries decimated the core in 2009 and Minaya responded by making the team into an elaborate joke (Francoeur is the punchline), I believe in that core to this day. I recognize even as I create this plan that it swaps out grission for creativity and flexibility, meaning it probably has no chance of happening. However, the Mets did let Todd Hundley play left field once, so I can't say there is zero chance. You gotta believe.

STEP ONE: ELIMINATE

The first step of this plan is to eliminate the overpaid mediocrities from our roster. While I'd like to sit here and say that this is easy, it actually involves some very tricky maneuvering. Lets start with the easy part! I'd like to announce the following non-tenders in alphabetical order:

Francoeur, Jeff. That is all.

Okay, no, that isn't really all, but it felt good to type that without grouping it in elsewhere. It felt like all was right with the world again and there was hope for my favorite baseball team. Anyway, a full list of non-tenders that aren't Francoeur: Cory Sullivan (who?), Jeremy Reed, Tim Redding, and Sean Green (go allow 2 hits an inning for someone else please).

That's great Rivers, really grand, but you've only saved us about 5 mil there and we still have Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez! Yes, and we will get rid of them my friend, but you may cringe a bit here because it is going to cost us some farm system chunks.

TRADE #1: Arizona recieves Luis Castillo, Bobby Parnell, and Eddie Kunz

Mets receive Chris Snyder

Why the Mets do this: I don't like going all-in on Chris Snyder, but that is why we have Josh Thole around. I see the two of them creating some sort of platoon, a 60/40 share or something like that. The simple truth is that there really aren't any good catchers out there. The best trade candidates elsewhere include Ryan Doumit and Kelly Shoppach, and neither of those guys have contracts that overcompensate them, nor do they play on teams that are in need of a second baseman. While Snyder has a few glaring warts (mixed metaphors!), he's got a track record of being a decent hitter for a catcher, even if it is in Arizona.

Why the Diamondbacks do this: They aren't receptive to a straight up swap, but Parnell is a decent bullpen piece that is cheap for a few years. I think that makes up for the difference in upside and positional scarcity. Kunz was a good prospect once, I think. Wait, are we sure he isn't Royce Ring? Well anyway, they can have him too.

TRADE #2:

Milwaukee recieves Oliver Perez, 12 million dollars (spread out over two seasons), and Brad Holt

Mets receive Rickie Weeks

Why the Mets do this: 6 million is not chump change in this economy. There isn't a single Mets fan that wants to watch Oliver Perez issue another walk. There isn't a single Mets fan that wants to look at Oliver Perez's face as he stomps off the field after walking the bases loaded, etc. etc.

Weeks may or may not stay at second base. UZR seems to think he is adequate, but if he's not he can eventually supplant Beltran or play a corner outfield slot. Plus speed, can walk, does have some pop. Either way, he fits in well with my blueprint of this team: plus athleticism and has tons of tools. He's coming off a wrist injury, so we'll need insurance, but I think this is a good buy-low.

Why the Brewers do this: The Brewers have successfully cleared all this salary space for pitching, but judging by the past, where they have signed Jeff Suppan to 4 years and 40 million, they probably aren't looking for the right pitcher anyway. Compared to what some of the few good pitchers in this market will get, 6 mil/2 is a bargain for someone who is young and left-handed. Also, he could be the next Sandy Koufax, who knows? Additionally, they get Holt, who could very well be a solid piece for them in the next few years. The Brewers aren't exactly stacked with upper level pitching.

Why do they give up on Weeks? Well, they haven't been thrilled with his defense for awhile, he's become somewhat injury-prone. While they don't have an obvious candidate to take over at second, they have Herman Iribarren loitering in AAA, this would free up some cash to re-up Felipe Lopez. They'd have some options here while they wait for Brett Lawrie. So that re-focuses us and gives us some medium risk high-reward types at positions we were weak-ish at last year. Now we get ready for...

STEP TWO!!!!: ATTACKING FREE AGENCY

The Mets haven't really had a great-hitting corner outfielder since that one time Moises Alou wasn't hurt...1995 I think. The best player in free agency is a corner outfielder. The Mets park emphasizes a need for defense. Said player is one of the best defensive left-fielders in years. The Mets haven't had a competent non-David Wright right-handed hitter for balance since...also that one year Alou was healthy. So yes, in my dream world, Matt Holliday gets 19 million per year for 6 years to play bases ball for the New York Mets.

After that, John Lackey is inked to a 5 year, 15 mil a year contract and allowed to finish any game he damn well feels like. He's obviously the most talented starter on the market (non-injury prone division), and while I hate giving five years to a pitcher, that is probably what it takes to get this done. The Mets are all-in here, after all.

STEP 3: THE BIGGGGGG DEAL

Tampa Bay receives: Fernando Martinez, Wilmer Flores, Ruben Tejada, and Dan Murphy

Mets receive: Carl Crawford and Andy Sonnastine

Why the Mets do it: They now have three of the greatest defensive outfielders of the 00's patrolling the deep confines of Citi. Crawford gives them elite speed, elite defense, and his game plays perfectly for the park. Sonnastine gives them a back-of-the-rotation starter with the potential to rebound into a decent three or four. He gets pitted against Jon Niese, and the loser reports to AAA for injury waiting.

Why the Rays do it: They have a capable Crawford replacement in Desmond Jennings, Sonnastine is one of the blandest of their army of MLB/upper level cheap arms they can throw at you. Martinez and Flores can develop at their own pace, Murphy can go down to AAA where he belongs and bitch about how he'll never get to play third base. They get an opportunity to fleece the Mets again.

STEP 4: FILLING OUT THE ROSTER

So full of grission he doesn't even need hands.

For first base, I have Carlos Delgado back for 4 mil/1, which he should accept out of the goodness of his heart after 2007. Eric Hinske comes on to backup the corners and platoon with Delgado for 1 mil. His 3 consecutive World Series appearances mean that he is able to take the clubhouse leader title away from Alex Cora in a bloodless coup. It is bloodless because, like all grission battles, it is fought mentally. Alex Cora's biggest mistake was teaching Hinske the art of grission in 2007 when they both won the championship for the Red Sox. Let me demonstrate this with a graph:

Fortunately for Mets fans, Hinske has grission AND he can hit. Which is a combo that had previously only belonged to Derek Jeter. Such a bargain for just one million.

Kelly Johnson is set to either be non-tendered or traded, I like taking him on even if it costs a mid-level prospect. Double down on him and Weeks and one of them should hit like a champ. He's a solid bench player and can also play the outfield.

For the rest of the bench, Pagan is brought back at 1, and Argenis Reyes is selected over Anderson Hernandez for defensive ability and the possibility of confusing people with multiple Reyes.

For the staff, Maine and Feliciano are tendered at 3.75 and 2.5. The rest of the bullpen is made out of minor league free agents and minimum salaried FA's, because why waste money on Kiko Calero when you could find the next one of him? That said, if we could somehow squeeze another three million out so we could bring Octavio Dotel back, I'd love it for his name alone. It's just not in the cards on this plan since I'm already up against the gun.

So that is:

SS Reyes 9.375

RF Crawford 10

3B Wright 10.2

LF Holliday 19

CF Beltran 20

1B Delgado 4

2B Weeks 3.25

C Snyder 4.75

Bench

C Thole .4

1B Hinske 1

OF Pagan 1.5

2B Johnson 1.5

IF Ar.Reyes .4

Rotation

Santana 21

Lackey 15

Maine 3.75

Pelfrey .5

Niese .4

(Perez 6)

Bullpen

Rodriguez 12.16

Feliciano 2.5

5 lucky contest winners/holdovers: .4 (Also Dotel if you'll let me have him for 3/2)

(Putz 1)

Which puts me at a grand total of 150.085.

This plan fills our team with in-prime arms and bats, asides from Delgado. Besides catcher and first base, everyone on the team has speed, power, and can take a walk. We have two reliable starters backed by a slew of guys who could pitch well, and a bullpen that can be cobbled together on the fly. I really wanted to trade K-Rod too and build a three man bullpen off the money, but I figured that was a little too unrealistic given the glut of quality relief pitching in this market. This is, in my opinion, the best sort of swing-for-the-fences team the Mets could cobble together for 150 milion. I know it's a blow to the farm, but you'll notice that I deliberately traded mostly younger players in my plan. Players that I don't expect to be ready to play well at the major league level until this teams window is shut anyway, like Tejada and Flores.

If this seems a little far-fetched, let me tell you about this other team that recently missed the playoffs and was thought of as possibly past it's prime that went out and signed the best free agent pitcher and the best free agent position player. You might have seen them coming down the streets recently.

Kubiak, the running game, and game theory

riversmccown — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:59:19 -0000

Having dealt with a family crisis the last few days, I wasn't exactly putting on my analysis hat the last couple of days for the Cardinals game. In fact, I missed most of the game. But it seems like the vast majority of the criticism throughout Texan blogosphere is brought to the running game, in particular Steve Slaton and the run blocking's inability to get yards inside and Gary Kubiak's refusal to stop calling inside runs.

While I understand the outrage here, I'm at least a little sympathetic to Kubiak because he simply hasn't ever had this problem in his coaching career. With the Broncos, they had a running game that could churn out solid gains in it's sleep. Running behind multiple Pro Bowl inside linemen like Mark Schlereth and Tom Nalen is a little different than running behind Chris Myers and Kasey Studdard, as we've discovered this year. I've been shouting since about Week 2 that the running game with Steve Slaton needs to be focused more on draws and sweeps, with the screen PASS a big weapon too (thanks Beef).

The real problem for the Texans is that Kubiak builds his offense to run the play-action pass to perfection. As I stated in a previous charting report on FMB, I think if we sorted the teams 10 biggest plays this season by yardage, about 8 or 9 of them would have come off the play-action pass. To run the play-action pass effectively though, you sort of have to put up with running the ball up the middle and taking the results of that. With past Broncos teams, and the last few years' Texans, running up the middle brings the Kubiak offense 3-4 yards. This year it's taken us into a ton of 2nd and 9, 2nd and 8, 2nd and 11, and other unfavorable markers. However, even despite the fact that the run game has been putrid, the play-action pass has been devastating. Which brings you to the conundrum: how many carries can Kubiak sacrifice and still keep the PA passes as productive as they have been? It's not as cut and dry as "running the ball doesn't work, run the ball less", because running the ball is working on one level. Now you can say "teams will eventually play off our run and go into PA coverage," but if you keep giving teams 1 or 2 yard losses, which usually in the NFL are drive-enders if you can get them, they're going to keep playing to stop the run.

So yes, the run game looks awful. I can assure you from my tape that this is not Steve Slaton, but I know that's sort of a moot point. But just how many plays are the Texans going to be able to cut from the run game and keep play-action working strong? We're at 126 rushing and 115 passing, so about a 52/48 ratio. Could the Texans offense succeed at 45/55? Probably so. But you can't completely abandon the run down to 40/60 or so and risk losing your biggest weapon. I would like to see the Texans run more spread and *gulp* I'd love to see them run the no huddle every once in awhile. With the traits we've emphasized in linemen and our personnel it works best to out-athleticism other teams.

But I can't really see pinning the entire loss on Kubiak and the run game for a few reasons:

1) We're 4 games into the season coming into Arizona, waaaay before the point where we've reached a strong enough sample of games to really tell who is going to do what and who is good or bad (and yes, this is variable for NFL players, particularly depending on their health). Especially when we're still trying to figure out what Studdard ultimately is, and now what Breisel's replacement will bring to the table. I'm always preaching about how players need to make an immediate impact to be considered good, but it's clear the Texans don't have any better options in the middle. They may be trying a sampling to see just what their guys are good at to better call plays later. Playcalling is a lot more complex than "lets run the best plays we have" early in the season, especially when you aren't used to your new personnel. Perhaps someone up front is hiding an injury? Chris Myers is clearly favoring his vag...well, you know what I mean. We aren't privy to everything.

2) Chris Brown is not a goal line back. I think we've all accepted that. However, Chris Brown is not any worse of a goal line back than Slaton is either. The Texans don't have a real goal line back. The Texans don't have any interior offensive linemen who can create a push on the goal line. So on that last sequence, I have no problems with Kubiak's play calling. First play was a Slaton shovel (which I thought was excellent) to get to the goal line. Second, run. Third, the play-action set up off the run, which Schaub didn't execute. Now, the fourth down call was weird to me, but not out of the question weird. The real key is that the drive should've been over on third down, Kubiak did his job there and Schaub let him down. Not that I'm driving the Sex Cannon for Prez bus or anything, but that was lack of execution.

3) This team is the sum of it's crappy parts. We have our good parts, but we aren't good enough to make up for poor execution. We can live with crappy safety play if we get a few breaks, but we can't have Matt Turk punting the Cardinals onto our 45 and still live with it. We can live with Schaub making a few mistakes every game, but we have to stay away from penalties. We can live with Jacoby Jones returning punts and muffing a few, but not when we can't stop the run. The Texans have enough talent to hang with anyone in the league, but they can't overcome their weak points unless they execute 80-85% of the game properly, and they just don't do that consistently. I don't think you can pin the loss on the run game just because they were the last ones on the field. No question they were awful, but were they really any more awful than the TD drive with 50 seconds left when all you had to do was hold them out of the end zone? Were they really any more awful than Schaub's throwing power on the comeback routes?

I think the running game is a convenient target, due to both the lack of Slaton yards compared to last year and the fact that it's "holding back" the offense that was supposed to be our strong suit. Nobody expected our defense to be great, so if they stink, that's fine. But the running game? That was supposed to be in good hands. Well, it's not a great interior line at all, and they could tweak a few things, absolutely. But you can't just ask Kubiak to destroy his entire system and do something completely different just because the inside running is bad, especially when it is working on one level. The system has worked for years, so clearly it's not a design flaw so much as a personnel problem. Chris Myers needs to go and we need to see what White, Caldwell, and any other street FAs we can think of can do on the field, that's the bottom line.

Chron: Solomon: Kubiak's job is on the line this week

riversmccown — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:11:38 -0000

Chron: Solomon: Kubiak's job is on the line this week

Not quite as desperate as he makes it out to be in the column, but he brings up a good point: this team probably isn't making it back from 1-3.

"Fred Bennett is killing us" and "Fred Bennett is worse than Petey"

riversmccown — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:47:42 -0000

Over the past few hours of catching up on all the reactions that I missed whilst sleeping off a vicious Cougs-related hangover, the one thing that rang hollow to me about the many scathing tantrums on our defense is the blame for Fred Bennett. Let me start out by saying that I've been a game charter for Football Outsiders for two years going on three, and I know we don't exactly have the best reputation with this stuff after Bennett was dubbed the next great hope for the Texans secondary and spent much of last year being pedestrian. I'm also going to caution that I haven't re-watched this game a single time yet, since we don't get our little sheets to fill in until after the Monday night game. That said, I want to quash a few things and go over a few points:

-"Fred Bennett is worse than Petey" is an absolutely incomprehensible argument. DeMarcus Faggins was giving up a long touchdown or touchdown setup catch in almost every single game he played in, even though he was often used as a nickel back. Meanwhile, Fred Bennett gave up 6 catches at a 13.5 ypc clip to Mike Sims-Walker (simplifying, of course, since we haven't broken the tape down yet) as a starting second defensive back. These are completely different situations. I won't bludgeon this point too much because everyone gets overly emotional and attached to the last game's performance, and I expect some hyperbole. But Bennett's performance, circumstantially, wasn't even that bad. Which leads us to...

-"Fred Bennett is killing us" is something that requires a deeper breakdown. Was Bennett's "man" involved in a lot of first down plays? Maybe. Did he miss a tackle or two? Absolutely. But there is a lot more to it than that. Let me channel my inner Kevin Nealon for this one...

Our new (crappy) defensive scheme is run by Frank Bush (idiot), who prefers a more aggressive (masochistic) defense. This scheme often sends 5-7 players (gang bang) right at the quarterback (pound him!), which is great except that everyone (me and your mom) can see it coming (me and your mom) and it leads to a checkdown route (better girls were busy). Because our blitzers take forever to get there (me too), and the coverage was read incredibly easily (your mom), Fred Bennett and his fellow defensive backs that didn't charge the ball immediately (your...sister) are usually in a deep zone (too easy) and give up underneath completions (condoms) to avoid touchdowns (pregnancy).

There isn't a cornerback in the NFL who would thrive under that setup. In my charting experience thus far this year, when the Texans do have someone in a short zone on the blitz, it's usually a DL who has pulled back as part of a zone blitz, and that DL is often Mario Williams because Frank Bush is an idiot. And when they don't blitz? It's usually that same Richard Smith stuff you all remember and love, zone coverage with the front four rushing. Which, somewhat surprisingly to Frank Bush I'm sure, still doesn't work. Particularly when half the players in the scheme can't defend a pass to save their lives.

If you wanted to know the difference between this defensive scheme and say, Rex Ryan's Jets schemes from Week 1, it's all about complexity. We are a few solid players in the front seven from matching their personnel, but we have a DL who demands double teams and we have playmaking linebackers. Part of the difference is that the 3-4, IMO, is easier to blitz from because you have less of a clue where the rushers are coming from when you only have 3 down linemen. But the bigger difference is that the schemes don't take too much undue risk while still creating matchup problems, and they are deeper than "lets rush the cornerback". Ryan's schemes involved tactically exploiting the worst pass protectors on the line (Chris Myers and Duane Brown) by sending multiple men at the same spot, which often left Eric Winston blocking invisible robots. By doing this, he got pass pressure with fewer players than the Texans are using to get no pass pressure at all. The Texans have run only one wrinkle blitz all year that I've charted: when they sent Xavier Adibi on a delayed blitz on Mark Sanchez. Result: Incompletion. Most of Bush's blitzes are strictly Green Eggs & Ham level of simplicity. See quarterback, get quarterback.

So as easy as it is to watch the game film and see Fred Bennett next to a player on a complete pass and say "Fred Bennett is klling us," there really is a lot more to it than that. Fred Bennett is mostly still playing zone and most of those zones are deep. I'm not saying Fred Bennett had the game of his life, or even that he's been good so far this season, but he's managed to keep his men in front of him and is doing an acceptable job; hardly "off the charts bad" as bfd put it. In fact, I think the high expectations placed on him are dragging down his perceived performance simply because he was once thought of so highly. That Fred Bennett isn't coming back, he was someone who couldn't hold up to the film study. Accept that he's a credible NFL corner instead of a star, and these results aren't really that out of line.

And no, he is not "killing us". After the two hugest problems: the massive NT/SS holes and a defensive scheme that makes the Wildcat look like the West Coast offense in terms of big-play potential, Bennett might come in around 7th or 8th on the list of defensive worries. Somewhere between "Somebody wake Amobi Okoye up and tell him he's allowed to play a whole half now" and "Brian Cushing is a two down linebacker". To say that Bennett is the thing between us and a good defense is like saying that the biggest problem with public schools today is that you aren't allowed to pray in class. Speaking of praying, it's the only thing that's going to keep teams out of the end zone against the Texans until one of those two big problems are fixed.

I saved this picture in spring training knowing it'd have hilarious purposes.

riversmccown — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:41:45 -0000

I saved this picture in spring training knowing it'd have hilarious purposes.

My uncle (who was my main ticket to Mets fandom) gave me some of his old Mets stuff awhile back,...

riversmccown — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:25:58 -0000

My uncle (who was my main ticket to Mets fandom) gave me some of his old Mets stuff awhile back, and I finally found it again when I was packing some stuff up to get ready for a move. I have no idea where this is from, but it's a whole poster series of 1973 Mets starters, and then on the back of each of them there is a Lil Abner comic.

Anyway, this one is Cleon Jones. More forthcoming.

Farewell, offensive-minded catcher.

riversmccown — Sat, 30 May 2009 12:03:53 -0000

This actually isn't going to be a post about how the Mets were foolish to give up on Ramon Castro; I figure we've rung that bell enough for the past twenty-four hours. As much as I hate to see Castro go, I'm happy he's out of a situation where he was routinely misused and had to deal with a manager who obviously didn't trust him.

Instead, I want to look at something that I found a little funny about our remaining catchers.

Omir Santos threw out 24% of runners (incomplete numbers from b-r, 01-02 and 08-09) in the minors, and has thrown out 31% this year and 29% overall in the majors. Schneider has thrown out a similar 33% this year, and although he's got a much higher career rate, this has been right around his established level of true talent since 2005, where he's thrown out between 30-33% every year.

Brian Schneider is a career .301 wOBA hitter. He's never been above .320 since 2002, and last years .309 was his best since 2005. Santos wOBA thus far has been .324, and while he's projected by every system to decrease that, and probably fairly so given his past, he continues to spray the ball over the yard with line drives. The ZIPS projection system seems to think he'll actually hit worse than his .299 career wOBA for the rest of the season, but if you give him the benefit of the doubt that he hits his career norms the rest of the way, he's probably not appreciably worse than Schneider going forward. Especially when you consider that Schneider has been platooned pretty extensively throughout his career to get to those numbers and Santos has acheived the vast majority of his numbers against righties.

In fact, the only big difference between the two of them is their respective backgrounds and costs. Santos, a minor league invite, making the league minimum, versus Schneider, making $4.9 million this year and $16 million over the course of his deal, who was considered the main piece by Minaya to give up his top trading chip at the time. As much as I'm dumbfounded by the idiocy that led us to this catching combination, I laugh at how Minaya has found 95% of what he wanted so badly in that Washington trade for the cost of a minor league invite.

Naturally, the front office is going to continue to give Schneider chances to justify the cost, all but saying that he'd get the majority of the playing time early on. A straight platoon is probably where we're headed unless Schneider goes Joe Mauer on everyone starting today, but given their respective talent at this time, Santos may actually be the one that deserves the bigger share of time.

Also, the fact that the Mets have created a $150 million team where the best full-strength option at catcher was a minor league invite is incredibly sad. Not completely surprising considering Minaya's track record with backups in general and catchers specifically, but sad nonetheless.

Meet Wilson Valdez: The latest in a long line of torn off straps of pant leg

riversmccown — Wed, 27 May 2009 12:44:25 -0000

Wilson Valdez has a career 36 OPS+.

Look, we're all in favor of Omar Minaya acquiring a shortstop of sorts to tide us over until we get Jose Reyes back. But Wilson Valdez isn't a prototypical gold no hit/good glove middile infielder, he's a negative hit/good glove middle infielder. James descrbed his offense as "exceptionally poor", but I don't think that even begins to put into words how bad he has been. Valdez isn't just a standout, he's cream of the crap.

Neifi Perez, oft-joked about as the worst offensive player of the decade, had a career 64 OPS+. Upon the occassion of Tony Pena Jr. being intentionally walked by Blue Jays skipper John Gibbons, Joe Posnanski said that he would've "fired him on the spot." Tony Pena Jr has a career OPS+ of 47, although to be fair he was in the midst of a season where it ended up being 7. To put this in a Mets fan perspective, do you remember last year when Marlon Anderson kept getting to pinch-hit in key spots even though he was essentially an automatic out? His OPS+ last year was 40, or 6 points higher than Valdez's CAREER MLB numbers.

Beyond the fact that Valdez couldn't hit in the California Penal League, look at the long-range plan of this move. He's already 31 and he's in the midst of a season in which he is hitting .198 in the International League. So let me get to defense, since this is obviously the only reason this move was made. Yes, Ramon Martinez isn't really a shortstop at this point in his career. Fernando Tatis was never really a shortstop at any point in his career. So alright, you pitch me the argument that Valdez is valuable because he'd give the Mets someone who could play a competent shortstop. Well alright. Pray tell me then, why they couldn't find one that was even marginally competent with the bat?

Omar Minaya has always tended to look past marginal youngsters for bench spots, leaving the system ill-prepared for a rash of injuries of this magnitutde. In 2007, the Mets lost Ruben Gotay on waivers to the Braves. Not really a big deal. In fact, he's mostly forgotten now. But Gotay has a respectable .334 wOBA for the Diamondbacks this year in Reno. We didn't just deal him for something we needed, we gave him away for free. We gave him away because at the time we wantead Brady Clark on the bench at the start of the season, the same Brady Clark who appeared in seven whole games for the Mets in 2008.

Alright fine McCown, but Gotay was never really a shortstop! He played some games there, but yeah, fair point, although he's as much a shorstop as Ramon Martinez is at this point. Well, how about when we, ironically, in another panic-induced trade, dealt Anderson Hernandez away for 19 games of Luis Ayala? Hernandez is, by both scouting and numbers, a competent defensive middle infielder. He's in the midst of a career offensive year, although I'm not going to use that to buoy my argument, since it's probably going to last about as long as Girls Club lasted on FOX. However, he does have a career 66 OPS+. He's also 25. Gotay is 26. This is another key point: they both possibly have (or in Anderson's case, are having) a career year or spike in them. The only spike Wilson Valdez has left is his dog, assuming he has one and that it's named Spike.

It's just a matter of sloppy managing. As much care and consideration as Omar gives to the big dollar signings and the big trades in the offseason, watching him fill the back end of his roster is like watching a ten-year-old boy trade for baseball cards. "Oh I've heard of him!...Used to be an Expo...He played in the World Series one year...This guy hit a homer at a game I went to..."

Not many teams would be able to withstand their starting shortstop and his primary backup going down at the same time without having some problems, but when you have a team as thin as the Mets are at the top of the minors, both due to Omar's negligence and the team's penchant for promoting players who shouldn't really be where they are yet, it goes from bullet wound to shotgun blast to the leg. Most teams have people like Gotay or Anderson to turn to in the minors in case of an event like this, and the Mets have nothing. They carry first aid kits, and the Mets tear off a piece of their pant legs and tie it around and hope it heals.

For every Fernando Tatis or Jose Valentin, we get three Jose Offermans. Before Carlos Delgado started hitting again, our backup options were something like Marlon Anderson, Andy Phillips, and luring Lee Stevens out of retirment if that didn't work out. When the Mets were relying on Moises Alou, Orlando Hernandez, and Pedro Martinez last year, injuries were an excuse for the club not playing up to expectations. I would argue that the Mets are a team that is uniquely in a position where good health is a neccesity for their chances, not only because so much of their talent is concentrated in their stars, but also because there is absolutely nothing behind them.

So we have our new pants leg strap. But for one thing, he's not really any better than Ramon Martinez, even if he can field better than him, since his batting is probably somewhat similar to when Mr. Burns showed Ozzie Smith how to bunt in The Simpsons. If all he's going to be is a defensive replacement for Martinez...well, why are we not better off just playing Tatis there and seeing if he can reel in 80% of the plays the average shortstop makes? For another, we gave up actual cash for him, money that I'm sure would probably be better used taking X amount of children to the ballgame one day to watch Ramon Martinez. Thirdly, where is the way out of this? We're wandering around from strap to strap here and have been for some time. Hell, I'd almost rather deal one of our 15-20 prospects for someone like Ronny Cedeno or Maicer Izturis than watch us run out Valdez. At least then theres a chance you have an actual solution.

So we've established that Valdez can't hit, hates children, and is the root of all evil. No, I'm sure Wilson Valdez is a great guy. Might wanna try out those "ster-oids" or whatever they call them, but his acquisition is the problem, not him. The very fact that there was a reason to ever trade for Valdez, like Ayala and Trot Nixon before him, is an indictment against the Mets organizational philosophies. Branch Rickey is famously quoted as saying that luck is the residue of design. While that quote doesn't quite encapsulate everything behind how the Mets have managed to blow division leads in September two years in a row, it sure is evident that they aren't doing everything in their resources to put together a solid amount of MLB-ready replacement players for Buffalo in case of disaster.

On the plus side, while the Mets are stumbling around with their pants leg strap, gritting their teeth all angrily, they sure do look like a badass. It shows pluck and determination to keep going on, and this should increase team grission levels. Grission and "edge" don't win you any actual games in the standings though; that takes talent. Something that Wilson Valdez doesn't have enough of to be in the majors.