Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > It's Mets...Just Mets > Discussion

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 17, 2008 at 03:48 PM (#3031573)
Realsitically, the Mets aren't going to do anything about sexond base unless they can move Castillo. Thye'll give him a chance to prove that he can replicate his 2007 numbers in 2009 before cutting him.
   2. Chris Dial Posted: December 17, 2008 at 04:02 PM (#3031584)
Probably, and that's going to cost us. Because, well, maybe *next week* is when he gets it going. Or the week after. Besides, we're paying him. Nex thing you know, it's the end of June and we're a half dozen games back (and the fifth starter has only started 10 times).
   3. Roadblock Jones Posted: December 17, 2008 at 04:19 PM (#3031604)
It would make a lot of sense to pick up Durham as a bench player no matter what happens with Castillo or Murphy.
   4. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 17, 2008 at 04:37 PM (#3031627)
Grudz seems like a decent one year option to easy Murphy in the role.
   5. Chris Dial Posted: December 17, 2008 at 04:53 PM (#3031650)
Durham sems to have dropped off the radar after that awful season two years ago. He's still quite good.
   6. Roadblock Jones Posted: December 17, 2008 at 04:57 PM (#3031654)
Switch hitter, durable, good athlete, and a former pupil of Manuel. They could have used him on the Mets every year since 2005.
   7. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 17, 2008 at 05:02 PM (#3031661)
Don't the Met need someone who can at least fake SS for the bench? Seriously, who is going to back up Jose? Easley's not coming back and he's been the backup the last few seasons.
   8. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 17, 2008 at 05:10 PM (#3031667)
Aaron Miles or Joey Cora are two names that come to mind. They could start the season as backups to short and second. If Castillo sucks, they could be given a chance to start. Obviously, the hope is that Castillo won't be as bad as Dial expects.
   9. Lassus Posted: December 17, 2008 at 05:28 PM (#3031682)
I really think - although your already-stated reasons against are accurate - that they are depending on Jose's youth and energy and durability to get him through most of the season and for Argenis to be the backup.
   10. ColonelTom Posted: December 17, 2008 at 09:09 PM (#3031915)
Alas, most of the backup SS options out there aren't better than replacement level - the Mets had Ramon Martinez in the organization last year as a "break glass in case of emergency" option, and presumably there's more where that came from.
   11. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 17, 2008 at 09:14 PM (#3031921)
I really think - although your already-stated reasons against are accurate - that they are depending on Jose's youth and energy and durability to get him through most of the season and for Argenis to be the backup.

They non-tendered Argenis.
   12. MikeinMI Posted: December 17, 2008 at 09:18 PM (#3031926)
Aaron Miles or Joey Cora


I think you meant Alex Cora.
   13. PreservedFish Posted: December 17, 2008 at 09:28 PM (#3031939)
The X factor with Orlando Hudson is his health. I believe that he has been shelved two years in a row now because of wrist and hand injuries. If he were healthy he would be one of the very finest free agents on the market. And be an utterly perfect fit for the Mets.

As it is, I think the lack of buzz around him might be deserved. He is going to sign what will look like a bargain contract, possibly with a crappy team, but to people with better knowledge of his health it might all make sense.
   14. PreservedFish Posted: December 17, 2008 at 09:33 PM (#3031943)
By the way, I criticized Dial for what I thought was the misuse of this Mets mini-forum a few days ago ... but I have been very happy with the run of single-issue topics posted. Good work.
   15. Darren Posted: December 18, 2008 at 12:40 AM (#3032171)
Orlando Hudson has been improving each season, and is considered to be a good glove.


Hudson's UZR for the past 3 years (/150):

-3.8
-2.9
-9.1

That looks as bad or worse than Castillo's. I don't see how you could consider Castillo's defense bad and Hudson's good, unless some other stats tell a starkly differnt story.

He's still a nice player and Carruth at Fangraphs wrote something today valuing him at $11 to $17 mil. I still wouldn't give up on Castillo as sunk cost, though.
   16. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 02:44 AM (#3032248)
Second base is an enormously difficult position to play, and the Mets have already made the choice not to try Daniel Murphy there. With all off-season to work with it would make antisense to decide to throw him into the deep end of the pool only when pitchers and catchers report.

It's not at all clear to me that even if Castillo is now and will remain a below average 2b, that he's not the Mets best option. Say a clear (else why bother) alternative exists (Aaron Miles, btw, is not that alternative. He just had his lucky year, and still wasn't that good). That clear alternative is going to cost 7-10 million per year for x years. (A one year fix probably sinks Castillo's entire contract.) There very may well be a better way to spend those millions, like a real OFer at 12 million per in this market, since Church is not the answer, and Adam Dunn will probably be in 2010 as fungible as OFers get, if Murphy proves himself in LF and Martinez is ready. It's not like Castillo is putting up a 50 OPS+ and can no longer turn a double play.
   17. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:18 AM (#3032269)
There very may well be a better way to spend those millions, like a real OFer at 12 million per in this market, since Church is not the answer
Pardon? Why is Church not the answer?
   18. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:19 AM (#3032271)
Second base is an enormously difficult position to play, and the Mets have already made the choice not to try Daniel Murphy there. With all off-season to work with it would make antisense to decide to throw him into the deep end of the pool only when pitchers and catchers report.
Why?
   19. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:20 AM (#3032272)
It's not at all clear to me that even if Castillo is now and will remain a below average 2b
How is it not clear that he is a below average 2B? What would it take to convince you of that?
   20. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:21 AM (#3032273)
That looks as bad or worse than Castillo's. I don't see how you could consider Castillo's defense bad and Hudson's good, unless some other stats tell a starkly different story
I didn't check Hudson's defense year to year, and I haven't ever been particularly impressed, but he's "considered to be good defensively". He can outhit Castillo significantly.
   21. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:32 AM (#3032280)
Second base is an enormously difficult position to play, and the Mets have already made the choice not to try Daniel Murphy there. With all off-season to work with it would make antisense to decide to throw him into the deep end of the pool only when pitchers and catchers report.

Why?
I'm assuming you're serious, but I don't know why you're serious. If we want a ballplayer to make a switch to a very demanding position and we have the option of having him start learning that position in October, or start learning that position in February, why would we want him to wait until February?
   22. Lassus Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:46 AM (#3032284)
I'm beginning to wonder (although it's probably "desperately hope") that Omar has some plan to get a 2B we don't know about yet. I don't really understand why Murphy would have been taken off the 2B project so fast. He couldn't have been bad enough to abandon it so quick, there hasn't even been time to suck that bad.

I probably missed some statement or post on this, right?
   23. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:50 AM (#3032288)
I'm assuming you're serious, but I don't know why you're serious. If we want a ballplayer to make a switch to a very demanding position and we have the option of having him start learning that position in October, or start learning that position in February, why would we want him to wait until February?
Well, decisions aren't always made correctly the first time through. Maybe they hope (against hope) that Castillo is okay. They certainly *planned* to try Murphy at 2B, didn't they? Murphy *already played* 2B for three weeks in the minors. He wasn't great at it, but he wasn't the worst either. It doesn't matter that the Mets are indecisive about what they are going to do now. That really doesn't change what the better decision is. It would have been better to play Murphy there in October. It would have been EVEN BETTER to play Murphy there in September, and August. So, the fact that a poor decision was made in teh past, IMO, is not an argument to continue that decision, simply because one won't admit that it wasn't the best path.
   24. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:12 AM (#3032297)
Well, ok, Chris, but what's the point of that kind of analysis? It's grand to sit here and write about the things that the Mets should be doing with their talent, but in terms of telling anyone anything about the 2009 Mets, sitting here and talking about Murphy at 2B isn't especially meaningful. It's like me writing about the Yankees with Beltran in CF, sure that'd be the best outcome, but it isn't happening.

And Murphy now has a grand total of 3 weeks of second base experience, which was apparently sufficiently dreadful for a team that thought Kaz Matsui was a solid SS to abandon ship. Would you really have him start picking up second base in Spring Training?
   25. Raskolnikov Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:21 AM (#3032307)
How about a trade for Brian Roberts? Probably too costly.

I would sign OHudson and try to deal him when Havens/Flores is ready.
   26. Raskolnikov Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:22 AM (#3032310)
I would also try to convert Shawn Bowman to 2B as he is blocked at 3B and doesn't hit enough for the OF.
   27. Lassus Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:42 AM (#3032317)
I REALLY like the idea of signing Hudson, but with Castillo around... - weeps -
   28. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:59 AM (#3032331)
I'm beginning to wonder (although it's probably "desperately hope") that Omar has some plan to get a 2B we don't know about yet. I don't really understand why Murphy would have been taken off the 2B project so fast. He couldn't have been bad enough to abandon it so quick, there hasn't even been time to suck that bad.

I probably missed some statement or post on this, right?
Don't know about that, but did you catch the report that the Mets couldn't arrange for Murph to play 2b in the AFL?

Well, decisions aren't always made correctly the first time through. Maybe they hope (against hope) that Castillo is okay. They certainly *planned* to try Murphy at 2B, didn't they? Murphy *already played* 2B for three weeks in the minors. He wasn't great at it, but he wasn't the worst either. It doesn't matter that the Mets are indecisive about what they are going to do now. That really doesn't change what the better decision is. It would have been better to play Murphy there in October. It would have been EVEN BETTER to play Murphy there in September, and August. So, the fact that a poor decision was made in teh past, IMO, is not an argument to continue that decision, simply because one won't admit that it wasn't the best path.
Fair enough, Chris. The problem is that trying to get a young, talented ballplayer who has had some success in the OF to play a passable 2b, a position he has no real experience with, where his deficits won't outweigh (or interefere) with his hitting, is a nearly impossible task even on six months notice. To think that that little experiment can begin in February dangerously underestimates the difficulty of it. It's as though, because the Mets made a bad decision in October, they should now make a worse one in Spring Training. It's just too good a way to injure one of your very few talented young players. Murphy has a great deal to learn about playing LF. Let's find out if he can be a very good, or merely good LFer, and not throw his career away on a true longshot. Besides, who plays LF if we give Murphy to 2b? And if you say, let's sign a FA, I'll reply, let's instead with that money sign a FA to play 2b and let Murphy build on his already excellent work in the outfield.

As for throwing Murphy into the MI in the middle of a division race, one the Mets had every hope of winning as of late summer 2008, and during and to which Murphy was making a valuable contribution in the OF, and for which position there was no replacement that I can see, I can only ask, cheerfully, are you insane?
   29. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 18, 2008 at 02:35 PM (#3032440)
Another guy who would make sense is David Eckstein if the Mets decide they don't want to pay for Hudson. He can backup at short and compete with Castillo for the second base job.
   30. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 02:58 PM (#3032453)
Well, ok, Chris, but what's the point of that kind of analysis? It's grand to sit here and write about the things that the Mets should be doing with their talent, but in terms of telling anyone anything about the 2009 Mets, sitting here and talking about Murphy at 2B isn't especially meaningful. It's like me writing about the Yankees with Beltran in CF, sure that'd be the best outcome, but it isn't happening.
That's not a good analogy. It's like you writing about the Yankees moving Derek Jeter to CF or ARod to shortstop. What? That'd never be written about!

And Murphy now has a grand total of 3 weeks of second base experience, which was apparently sufficiently dreadful for a team that thought Kaz Matsui was a solid SS to abandon ship.
Did you just appeal to the authority of the Mets FO decision making? I suppose they are infallible.
Would you really have him start picking up second base in Spring Training?
Well, no. I'd have people hitting grounders to him *right now*, or into whatever games I could find. But yes, come ST, he'd be playing second base for a long enough time for me to decide that his *overall value* isn't higher.

In addition, Murphy's value at 2B is greater than "Murphy at 2B". We have Castillo at 2B + Murphy in LF (a net negative) versus Murphy at 2B + a good hitting LF for a net positive.

It isn't *just* that Murphy is better than Castillo at 2B, but that we can find a LF that's better than Murphy, and upgrade to positions *significantly*.

I'd think this was most apparent to Yankee fans.
   31. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:02 PM (#3032459)
Fair enough, Chris. The problem is that trying to get a young, talented ballplayer who has had some success in the OF to play a passable 2b, a position he has no real experience with, where his deficits won't outweigh (or interefere) with his hitting, is a nearly impossible task even on six months notice. To think that that little experiment can begin in February dangerously underestimates the difficulty of it. It's as though, because the Mets made a bad decision in October, they should now make a worse one in Spring Training. It's just too good a way to injure one of your very few talented young players. Murphy has a great deal to learn about playing LF. Let's find out if he can be a very good, or merely good LFer, and not throw his career away on a true longshot. Besides, who plays LF if we give Murphy to 2b? And if you say, let's sign a FA, I'll reply, let's instead with that money sign a FA to play 2b and let Murphy build on his already excellent work in the outfield.

As for throwing Murphy into the MI in the middle of a division race, one the Mets had every hope of winning as of late summer 2008, and during and to which Murphy was making a valuable contribution in the OF, and for which position there was no replacement that I can see, I can only ask, cheerfully, are you insane?
Am I insane? We took a minor league 3B that had played for three weeks at 2B - an *infielder* - and stuck him in LF "in the middle of a division race". LF was "a position he has no real experience with, where his deficits won't outweigh (or interefere) with his hitting,"."To think that that little experiment can begin in February dangerously underestimates the difficulty of it." heck, he began the OF play *halfway through the season!*

Above average LF FAs are easier to come by than FA 2Bs. I think we have demonstrated there are not "good" 2B FA candidates.
   32. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:03 PM (#3032460)
Another guy who would make sense is David Eckstein if the Mets decide they don't want to pay for Hudson. He can backup at short and compete with Castillo for the second base job.
Sure, if we want to finish second or third.
   33. Lassus Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:22 PM (#3032474)
Don't know about that, but did you catch the report that the Mets couldn't arrange for Murph to play 2b in the AFL?

No, and I hate to be stupid, but that makes even less sense to me. "Couldn't arrange"? Please tell me that's your wording and not theirs, because I'll cry.

Has there been a single statement anywhere, a sentence, an offhanded comment from some Mets coach or staff or office somewhere that remotely explains why the Murphy to 2B plan has been abandoned at this point?
   34. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:25 PM (#3032475)
Above average LF FAs are easier to come by than FA 2Bs. I think we have demonstrated there are not "good" 2B FA candidates.
Fair enough, but if we operate under that premise, what happens if ST arrives, they try out Murphy at 2B and he's a disaster, sub-Uggla with the glove? Then the Mets have two guys who can't play second (Murphy and Castillo) one of whom could--at least in thoery--play LF, where the Mets will have already signed someone else to fill the void.

It seems like your plan creates at least the possibility of the Mets having an expensive left fielder who'll play, a cheap left fielder who won't, and absolutely no one capable manning of second base. Espcially because, as I mentioned above, the Mets have already tried Murphy at second base once this offseason and decided he can't cut it.
   35. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:34 PM (#3032485)
they try out Murphy at 2B and he's a disaster, sub-Uggla with the glove? Then the Mets have two guys who can't play second (Murphy and Castillo) one of whom could--at least in thoery--play LF, where the Mets will have already signed someone else to fill the void.

It seems like your plan creates at least the possibility of the Mets having an expensive left fielder who'll play, a cheap left fielder who won't, and absolutely no one capable manning of second base. Espcially because, as I mentioned above, the Mets have already tried Murphy at second base once this offseason and decided he can't cut it.
In order for your scenario, Murphy has to be so bad at 2B that it outweighs how much he's going to outhit Castillo. One reason Jeter, who is a terrible defensive player, is still a top SS is because he hits so much more. Even stipulating that Murphy will play 2B like Jeter plays SS, Murphy is 40 runs better than Castillo with the bat. He's not 40 runs worse with the glove, and not even 40 runs below average.

Secondly, stop appealing to authority wrt what the Mets FO decided.
   36. The District Attorney Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:53 PM (#3032500)
I would like a full commitment to Murphy at 2B also, and I don't understand why it "couldn't be arranged" for him to play there in the AFL. But now that it hasn't been done, I think it's best to shelve it for '09. It's not just a question of Castillo and Murphy's offensive runs created minus defensive runs allowed. It's a question of the fans/media potentially blaming the rookie if the team starts slow and Murphy playing 2B like a guy who never played there before... and most importantly, the potential for Murphy's own confidence to be shattered if he's making a public fool of himself daily.

It's not appropriate to compare it to moving to LF, an easier position. It's quite different. Moves the "wrong way" on the defensive spectrum require much more time and TLC.

There is always next year, of course. In the meantime, Castillo's presence shouldn't prevent the Mets from signing or trading for someone who is actually good (e.g. O. Hudson, Uggla). If not, then I guess we're starting Castillo -- I don't think Eckstein/Cora types would be any better┬╣. I don't think starting Castillo makes the division unwinnable, so that won't make me cry if it happens. But, preferably it won't.

┬╣ Not sure whether I'd put Grudz, Durham and O. Cabrera in the O. Hudson category or the Eckstein category. I do have some sympathy for the "who's healthy today?" platoon of Nomar/Castillo, because I'm assuming Nomar realizes that no one is going to commit to him as an everyday player at this point, saving me the trouble of having to decide who should start every day if we got him ;-) I do get the impression that Nomar a) wants to play in California and b) wants a lot of money given the production you can expect out of him, so it's probably not all that likely.
   37. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 03:54 PM (#3032503)
Even stipulating that Murphy will play 2B like Jeter plays SS, Murphy is 40 runs better than Castillo with the bat. He's not 40 runs worse with the glove, and not even 40 runs below average.
Well, so what? You've spent all this time telling us that if Castillo played every day, he'd be the (second) worst player in baseball. It seems like given the choice of:

(1) Murphy in LF + FA Second Baseman
(2) Murphy at 2B + FA Left Fielder

You would want #2, because of the weakness of the second base free agent class. That seems like a hasty conclusion to draw without going through things or knowing exactly how bad Murphy will be at second base.

(Incidentally, the choices I left out there at FAs at both positions, which is probably the best choice if most expensive and Murphy in left and Castillo at 2B, which is probably the worst.)

And I'm appealing to the authority of the Mets FO because they are--literally--the only measure we have on Murphy's D at second.
   38. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:04 PM (#3032510)
It's not just a question of Castillo and Murphy's offensive runs created minus defensive runs allowed. It's a question of the fans/media potentially blaming the rookie if the team starts slow and Murphy playing 2B like a guy who never played there before... and most importantly, the potential for Murphy's own confidence to be shattered if he's making a public fool of himself daily.
Actually, if these things don't impact Murphy's OPD, tehn this doesn't matter at all. It *is* just a matter of Murphy's OPD. What your saying could be a factor in that number, but the number is what matters.
   39. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:05 PM (#3032513)
Well, so what? You've spent all this time telling us that if Castillo played every day, he'd be the (second) worst player in baseball. It seems like given the choice of:

(1) Murphy in LF + FA Second Baseman
(2) Murphy at 2B + FA Left Fielder

You would want #2, because of the weakness of the second base free agent class. That seems like a hasty conclusion to draw without going through things or knowing exactly how bad Murphy will be at second base.
Well, they did this EXACT same thing last year with him in LF.
And I'm appealing to the authority of the Mets FO because they are--literally--the only measure we have on Murphy's D at second.
No, they aren't.
   40. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:07 PM (#3032517)
It's not appropriate to compare it to moving to LF, an easier position. It's quite different. Moves the "wrong way" on the defensive spectrum require much more time and TLC.
Except that it is also more damaging. And Murphy hs played second. Third base is closer to 2B than it is to LF (I think). And Murphy has played lots of 2B. It's not a small amount wrt familiarity.
   41. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:15 PM (#3032526)
Well, they did this EXACT same thing last year with him in LF.
But they did that in the middle of the season, after the man they had imagined would be their LF (foolishly, it must be said), Alou, went down for the year.

And who else is weighing in on Murphy's defense at second? I haven't seen it. I'm not being delibertly obtuse here.
   42. The District Attorney Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:19 PM (#3032531)
It *is* just a matter of Murphy's OPD. What your saying could be a factor in that number, but the number is what matters.
Well, no, because if it screws up Murphy's general development as a player, the impact of that goes beyond the runs-created-minus-runs-allowed in however long they give him in '09 before they pull the plug.

I'm not saying that that is bound to happen by any stretch, but it's pretty awful if it does happen, and that downside is why teams don't generally try to convert their top prospects to tougher defensive positions in a six-week timeframe.

And Murphy has played lots of 2B. It's not a small amount wrt familiarity.
That's based on the 17 games at AA last year, and however many he just played in the AFL before they decided it "couldn't be arranged" after all? That last sentence sounds more sarcastic than it is; I don't know where he might have played in college or previous springs or what have you.

I hope "couldn't be arranged" becomes the next Mets catchphrase, BTW.
   43. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:25 PM (#3032537)
And who else is weighing in on Murphy's defense at second? I haven't seen it. I'm not being delibertly obtuse here.
the stats are available.
   44. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:38 PM (#3032554)
the stats are available.
Oh, come on. He's played as many MLB innings at 2B as you or I have. In his minor league career, he has 17 games at second base, in Double-A. And from those I can conclude that he will make 48 errors if he plays 162 games at second next year.

That was a terrible answer, and really below you.
   45. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:44 PM (#3032559)
Oh, come on. He's played as many MLB innings at 2B as you or I have. In his minor league career, he has 17 games at second base, in Double-A. And from those I can conclude that he will make 48 errors if he plays 162 games at second next year.

That was a terrible answer, and really below you.
He had played just as many LF innings. That's below you. the stats exist - we do NOT have to rely solely on the FO. You can do the work, rather than putting it on me. IThat I haven't done an exhaustive study doesn't mean all we have is what the Mets FO thinks. The stats are available.
   46. Lassus Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:45 PM (#3032560)
Has there been a single statement anywhere, a sentence, an offhanded comment from some Mets coach or staff or office somewhere that remotely explains why the Murphy to 2B plan has been abandoned at this point?

I'm guessing now that this answer is a "no".
   47. Lassus Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:46 PM (#3032562)
I can't edit in this part of the site, but I have to say, this whole situation has provided me with one of the ONLY times I'm pissed off at the Mets, what a ###########.
   48. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 04:53 PM (#3032574)
He had played just as many LF innings. That's below you. the stats exist - we do NOT have to rely solely on the FO. You can do the work, rather than putting it on me. IThat I haven't done an exhaustive study doesn't mean all we have is what the Mets FO thinks. The stats are available.
Right, he had played just as many LF innings. Which is why if you had asked me if Murphy was capable of being an adequate LF prior to his debut, I would've said that the only evidence is that (a) LF is not that hard a position to manage and (b) the Mets' FO thought he could, so I would think he was capable.

Here, by contrast, we have a position that is hard to master, and a FO that thinks he can't do it. And while you're telling me to do the work, I did it. That's it, Murphy played 17 games at second base in Minors (and 15 games in the AFL for which I can't find the defensive stats even after a diligent look) and made 5 errors. Errors aren't the be-all and end-all, but that translates out to 48 over a full season, which is plainly unacceptable.

So either you look at those stats--as you told me to--and conclude that 48 Erorr Murphy can't cut it at second, or you rightly realize 17 games isn't no where near a big enough sample to draw from and have to rely on other methods. And the only other method right now, is the Mets FO, which pulled the plug on (or "couldn't arrange") the Murphy 2B experiment about as quick as they could.
   49. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 08:45 PM (#3032980)
Right, he had played just as many LF innings. Which is why if you had asked me if Murphy was capable of being an adequate LF prior to his debut, I would've said that the only evidence is that (a) LF is not that hard a position to manage and (b) the Mets' FO thought he could, so I would think he was capable.
And he hadn't played it in the minors, which *should* tell you that the Mets FO doesn't have a good understanding in evaluating defensive play. They think errors is the be-all-end-all.
   50. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 18, 2008 at 08:55 PM (#3032991)
From Keith Law's chat today on the WWL:

Pete (laurel MD): Ok Klaw, lets get serious, can Danny Murphy really play 2nd base...will he?

Keith Law: (1:44 PM ET ) No, he can't.
   51. Lassus Posted: December 18, 2008 at 08:58 PM (#3032993)
Tim: (Astoria) Keith, how many games did you watch Danny Murphy play 2nd base?
   52. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 09:07 PM (#3033006)
And he hadn't played it in the minors, which *should* tell you that the Mets FO doesn't have a good understanding in evaluating defensive play. They think errors is the be-all-end-all.
I don't see how that follows in the slightest. Murphy's primary defensive position in the minors was 3B. Why, if the Mets thought he might be able to stick at 3B, why would they be trying him out in LF, except when it was necessary for the big club? They obviously thought him sticking at third base was a possibility, what would moving him to an easier spot on the defensive spectrum as a prospect do?

In fact, it appears that there is basically no reason to think Murphy will be a MLB-caliber second baseman. Keith Law says he can't, the Mets think he can't, his stats are limited but gruesome, there's nothing.

You prefer him there because of your perception of how ghastly Castillo is and this "better LF" you keep talking about, but I'm not at all seeing how Murphy at at 2B + the "better LF" is a superior choice to Murphy in LF + a freee agent 2B. Those would seem to hinge entirely on what players are inserted into the non-Murphy spot.
   53. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 18, 2008 at 09:10 PM (#3033012)
I'll second everything RB said.
   54. Lassus Posted: December 18, 2008 at 09:14 PM (#3033014)
In fact, it appears that there is basically no reason to think Murphy will be a MLB-caliber second baseman.

Yes, and I'll accept that he easily couldn't be.

However, if one is going to take 17 games as the judgment, let's, I dunno, not to pick on Keith, but take Keith's first 17 columns and make a judgment on his career because of that. In fact, let's take 10 or 12 of those 17 columns and make the decision then as I doubt anyone making these decisions or writing these columns has actually seen every inning of every game he played at 2B.

Again - he might not be a good 2B or MLB-ready. But why have they not given it some kind of sample-size try? That's what I want to hear.
   55. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 09:41 PM (#3033058)
I don't see how that follows in the slightest.
Because the Mets will put *anyone* in the outfield. They grossly underestimate (as do statheads) how difficult playing LF is in the majors. There's a completely different skillset. tracking balls while you run, getting a good read off the bat. It's complicated. Some people are infielders and some are outfielders. Some people can do both.
Murphy's primary defensive position in the minors was 3B. Why, if the Mets thought he might be able to stick at 3B, why would they be trying him out in LF, except when it was necessary for the big club? They obviously thought him sticking at third base was a possibility, what would moving him to an easier spot on the defensive spectrum as a prospect do?
He played 2B in the minors. He played infield in the minors. the similarities between 2nd and 3rd aren't that different. If he was a 3B in the minors, I suspect he's played quite a bit at SS. One reason he doesn't get to play 2B is because he's tall. If you don't think there is a tremendous bias "because he's tall, he can't play IF", you're mistaken.

In fact, it appears that there is basically no reason to think Murphy will be a MLB-caliber second baseman. Keith Law says he can't, the Mets think he can't, his stats are limited but gruesome, there's nothing.
They aren't "gruesome". There *is* reason to think so - as much as anything else. I don't trust the Mets FO's decision making at all. they signed Castillo to a huge contract. They signed Alou to one. They aren't very capable, IMO, of properly projecting a player's future skillset. SO I have no faith whatsoever in their ability to identify whether or not *the total package* of Murphy at 2B is worth trying. Maybe he can't play 2B in the majors well enough that it doesn't negatively impact the team. But it's more likely he *can* in a manner that outperforms Luis Castillo.

You prefer him there because of your perception
I'd prefer you let me define why I think something.
of how ghastly Castillo is and this "better LF" you keep talking about, but I'm not at all seeing how Murphy at at 2B + the "better LF" is a superior choice to Murphy in LF + a freee agent 2B. Those would seem to hinge entirely on what players are inserted into the non-Murphy spot.
Well, that's just stupid. *OF COURSE* it depends on who plays those positions. If they sign *you* to play LF, then it will be a disaster. That's a strawman, non-starter position.

It's not a difficult exercise though (for me).
Murphy (at 2B) - Offense - +25 Defense (Jeter-like) - -25 He's league average.

Available LFs: PICK ONE (2008 OPD data): Dunn (+15), Abreu (-7 with +15 offense/-22 on defense), Manny (+40), Bonds - who do you want? They are going to be a + total player (part of that depends on how horrible Abreu is). Shirley you recognize that signing any one of these guys is going to be an above average player (better hitter, worse fielder, but overall a +10 to +20 (or higher) player)

Now Murphy in LF is an average player. Average hitter for LF (maybe slightly above) Average fielder (probably slightly below).

FA 2b: Each of the 2B's I listed were about average. Durham (+5 in 08) and Hudson (-1) were plus hitters but average to below defenders, but *usually* about average overall (-3 to +3 OPD). Grudz (-1 in '08) is a plus defender, but slightly below average hitter. He may come in higher than average, but is old. OCab is a good defender and a bad hitter (and may not like 2B, but he'd do - he was +8 in 08, but offensively compared to SS). In the end, this position setup will only net out *at most* +10.

The upside in LF is tremendous - we could be +30 there.

Now, that's what happens *if Murphy is godawful at 2B*. If Murphy is merely "terrible", not as bad as Jeter, he's a -15 defensively and overall +10. And if he staggers close to average around -5, then we are +20.

He can't hit as much as the bats available on the FA for LF.
   56. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 18, 2008 at 09:44 PM (#3033062)
Chris, what do you think Murphy will hit next year?
   57. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 09:49 PM (#3033077)
Chris, what do you think Murphy will hit next year?
For argument's sake, I'm leaving his approximate OPS+ where it is. It can dip some, but still be better than Castillo. I 'm neither increasing it (as it could withage/experience) nor decreasing (as it could with regression).
   58. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 18, 2008 at 09:51 PM (#3033080)
Gotcha - just wanted to understand where your numbers in 55 were coming from, thanks.
   59. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 10:16 PM (#3033107)
He played 2B in the minors. He played infield in the minors. the similarities between 2nd and 3rd aren't that different. If he was a 3B in the minors, I suspect he's played quite a bit at SS. One reason he doesn't get to play 2B is because he's tall. If you don't think there is a tremendous bias "because he's tall, he can't play IF", you're mistaken.
I'm sure Murphy was the SS on his high school baseball team, he probably pitched some days too, do you want him closing now? Since Daniel Murphy became a professional player--June of 2006--he has never played SS in a game situation.

And saying he played "infield" in the minors is outright deceiving. He played third base, almost exclusively: 196 games at 3B, 34 elsewhere, combined. Even now we could be generous and call Murphy a 3B/LF, but when it comes to his career in the minors he was a third baseman who had been tried elsewhere.

They aren't "gruesome". There *is* reason to think so - as much as anything else. I don't trust the Mets FO's decision making at all. they signed Castillo to a huge contract. They signed Alou to one. They aren't very capable, IMO, of properly projecting a player's future skillset. SO I have no faith whatsoever in their ability to identify whether or not *the total package* of Murphy at 2B is worth trying. Maybe he can't play 2B in the majors well enough that it doesn't negatively impact the team. But it's more likely he *can* in a manner that outperforms Luis Castillo.
They're gruesome. He made 5 errors in 17 games! That's 44 errors per 150 games. Also, given that it is 17 games, almost entirely meaningless.

So you are going to completely dismiss the judgement of the Mets FO, and rightly ignore his limited (but horrible) statistic record you're left with two pieces of evidence: Keith Law thinks Murphy can't handle second base, and that Murphy was/is a 3B and you think he can shift to 2B. So I suppose that yes, excluding a goodly part of the evidence there is as much reason to think Murphy can handle second base as anything else. But then, that's always true.

Well, that's just stupid. *OF COURSE* it depends on who plays those positions. If they sign *you* to play LF, then it will be a disaster. That's a strawman, non-starter position.
It isn't a strawman, because I'm obviously not suggesting the Mets are going to sign me or you or Elvis to play LF (or 2B) next season, we're talking about viable candidates here.

You breaking it down answers a lot of these questions, and if that had been done from the start, it'd be clear. But a huge component of this is Murphy being even Kent-level at 2B. And not letting a move to a new, difficult position affect his hitting. There's a lot of "if's" in there.
   60. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 10:50 PM (#3033151)
No, and I hate to be stupid, but that makes even less sense to me. "Couldn't arrange"? Please tell me that's your wording and not theirs, because I'll cry.
Theirs, I'm afraid. You book slots in the AFL (in a sense) like you book tables in a restaurant. "Sahrry, sore, but The Gahden Room is full this evening. Praps the Vahlcano Room...?"

We took a minor league 3B that had played for three weeks at 2B - an *infielder* - and stuck him in LF "in the middle of a division race". LF was "a position he has no real experience with, where his deficits won't outweigh (or interefere) with his hitting,"."To think that that little experiment can begin in February dangerously underestimates the difficulty of it." heck, he began the OF play *halfway through the season!*
Dunno what to say about this except it completely misses that LF is an isolated defensive position. The things a LFer has to do on D that involves other players is fairly minimal, while the oppostie is true for a 2Bman. Too, the defensive cost of platooning at a MI position is not insignificant.

Above average LF FAs are easier to come by than FA 2Bs. I think we have demonstrated there are not "good" 2B FA candidates.
It's not at all clear to me that the cost of a FA LFer, in money and years, makes signing one worth it. There's also little downside to keeping Murphy in LF as we already have a pretty good idea he can handle it. If we sign Adam Dunn to a 5/60 contract and Murphy washes out at 2b, we've basically thrown away a good, young, cheap ballplayer, an extremely valuable part of any club.
   61. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 10:52 PM (#3033154)
edit: AND severely damaged his value in a trade.
   62. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 10:58 PM (#3033166)
Secondly, stop appealing to authority wrt what the Mets FO decided.
Let's happily grant Chris this one--there's some genetic idiocy that seems to demand the Mets FO, from the 80s through today, that the club try the most ghastly position switches imaginable, as though Doc Frankenstein decided it would be really cool to put a camel's hump where the monster's ear usually goes. Piazza at 1b? How can that miss?! Todd Hundely in the OF? Wheeee!! Howard Johnson at SS? He's an athletic guy! It has to work!! Gregg Jeffries in the MI?

Now THERE'S a lesson in how to ruin a promising young hitter's career.
   63. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:00 PM (#3033168)
I can't wait until the ZiPs on Murphy comes out.
   64. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:07 PM (#3033182)
You breaking it down answers a lot of these questions, and if that had been done from the start, it'd be clear. But a huge component of this is Murphy being even Kent-level at 2B. And not letting a move to a new, difficult position affect his hitting. There's a lot of "if's" in there.
Most of us, you inclusive, are plenty familiar with advanced metrics. Understanding the breakdown as I performed, IMO, is the entry fee to having this conversation. The doorman shouldn't have waived your cover charge. 8-P
   65. Elvis Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:09 PM (#3033183)
'm obviously not suggesting the Mets are going to sign me or you or Elvis to play


I'm basically an infield corner. I can play 2B or LF but I have my problems at either position. A lot like Murphy, I guess...
   66. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:12 PM (#3033190)
They're gruesome. He made 5 errors in 17 games! That's 44 errors per 150 games. Also, given that it is 17 games, almost entirely meaningless.
It isn't necessarily gruesome. In his first game, he made three errors, and 2 over the next 16 (maybe - I just made that up, but maybe). Second, Tuffy Rhodes hit three home runs on Opening Day. Eerily, he did NOT go on to hit 486 home runs that season.

It isn't meaningless because it means he *knows* how to play the position. He isn't "learning" the position (mostly), he just isn't good at it yet.

It's also disingenuous to suggest that Murphy's baseball playing skills only contain 134 games. He knows *how* to play the positions. It's a matter of repititions to prevent errors. I think Murphy is significantly more valuable at 2B than LF, and as such should be given a proper tryout there. He's VERY unlikely to be worse (overall) than Castillo.
   67. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:14 PM (#3033193)
Gregg Jeffries in the MI?

Now THERE'S a lesson in how to ruin a promising young hitter's career.
While I make this argument, this has definitely been in my mind.
   68. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:14 PM (#3033194)
One odd and interesting thing about this very thoughtful thread is that Chris, who rightly mistrusts the judgment of the Mets FO, is actually arguing for the kind of thing the Mets FO used to push for all the time: position switches that thrust ballplayers into positions they had little experience with.

(1) Murphy in LF + FA Second Baseman
(2) Murphy at 2B + FA Left Fielder
I know you weren't limiting to just these choices but I'd like to add another: (3) Murphy in LF + Castillo at 2B + Cheap glove man at 2B + all that money we might have spent on a FA LFer spent on a FA who can play RF (and ideally slot into 1B in 2010 if Martinez looks ready for the OF).

We'd at least have solid D at 2b, the strong possibility of having a cheap, average or above LFer slotted in for year, we get rid of having to rely on Church to play a full season, and we solve the 1b opening in advance. (And god, no, no new multiyear contract for Delgado if he has a decent year this year--he's old, he'll be overpirced if he puts up an OPS of .850, and he's the prefect old-guy Omar signing. No!)

Here, by contrast, we have a position that is hard to master, and a FO that thinks he can't do it. And while you're telling me to do the work, I did it. That's it, Murphy played 17 games at second base in Minors (and 15 games in the AFL for which I can't find the defensive stats even after a diligent look) and made 5 errors. Errors aren't the be-all and end-all, but that translates out to 48 over a full season, which is plainly unaccepta
   69. Mark S. is bored Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:16 PM (#3033197)
o, and I hate to be stupid, but that makes even less sense to me. "Couldn't arrange"? Please tell me that's your wording and not theirs, because I'll cry.

Theirs, I'm afraid. You book slots in the AFL (in a sense) like you book tables in a restaurant. "Sahrry, sore, but The Gahden Room is full this evening. Praps the Vahlcano Room...?"


The Mets DID reserve 2B for Murphy in the AFL. And he did play 2B in the AFL. The plan was for him to play 2B in the AFL and then in Puerto Rico. The plan came to a crashing halt when Murphy pulled a hamstring. He was limited to 15 games in the AFL and his Puerto Rico plans were shelved.
   70. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM (#3033210)
Thanks, Mark. Evidently most of us missed that hamstring problem. SO, he wasn't "pulled from playing 2B in the AFL". Maybe the FO doesn't not think he can't handle it.
   71. Mark S. is bored Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:23 PM (#3033216)
The FO planned for Murphy to play 2B all winter in order to be ready at 2B for Spring Training. After only 15 games at 2B, they might have reservations about having him play 2B to start the season.
   72. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:24 PM (#3033221)
Ouch. OPS 1.106! That playing second base was killing his offense!
   73. Mark S. is bored Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:25 PM (#3033222)
It's the AFL. If you didn't have an OPS over .900, you weren't trying.
   74. Elvis Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:29 PM (#3033230)
No, he was not going to play 2B in Puerto Rico. From MLB.com

"Murphy was to have primarily played left field with the Ponce team in Puerto Rico..."

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081120&content_id=3687068&vkey=news_nym&fext;=.jsp&c_id=nym
   75. Elvis Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:31 PM (#3033233)
That may be but he was third in the AFL in OBP
   76. Mark S. is bored Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:32 PM (#3033237)
From the Elvis article:

He played second base almost exclusively for the Saguaros, as the Mets had designated him as a second baseman in July when they made arrangements for him to play in the AFL. But before he began playing, the club told him that he most likely would share left field with veteran Fernando Tatis, Murphy playing against right-handed pitchers and Tatis against lefties.

The club hasn't wavered from that plan, and has since re-signed Tatis and is not aggressively pursuing another outfielder.
   77. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:36 PM (#3033242)
Sorry for the multiple posts, guys. I'm lost without the editing function, which generally gives me enough time to proofread and to piece in thoughts on later posts. Imo this is one of the better threads we've had as it brings up all kinds of issues, and a tip of the hat to Chris for ably defending an unpopular position.
   78. Chris Dial Posted: December 18, 2008 at 11:53 PM (#3033260)
Thanks, ark. (and everyone else). THis is the good discussions we cvan have. I have sent an email to Jeff Sackmann who runs the Minor League Splits stuff. HE should have some pbp data (and he made a system for rating minor league defenders), so we can at least get some tilt, even if the answer isn't definitive.
   79. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 19, 2008 at 02:36 AM (#3033413)
Not to turn this into an MBS-fest, but indeed, this was a great discussion, everyone stayed civil, argued honestly, etc. I'm still not 100% won over to Chris' position, but I am a lot more before I got here.
   80. The District Attorney Posted: December 19, 2008 at 05:43 PM (#3033973)
Just to clarify, I agree with:
It's a matter of repititions to prevent errors. I think Murphy is significantly more valuable at 2B than LF, and as such should be given a proper tryout there.
I just don't like the suggestion that Murphy should be getting these needed repetitions and learning the most basic things about how to play the position, in the major league spotlight. Not so much because he is going to be so bad as to outweigh the offensive difference between him and Castillo; even not thinking that Castillo is as irredeemable as Dial thinks he is, I agree that that's unlikely (although I'm not totally ruling it out either.) By far the bigger reason is because Murphy is a young player with the potential to be really good, and that kind of treatment is not the recommended way to develop such a player. (Nor do I see the Mets going for the type of super-slugger LF whom you'd need to really make the whole thing worthwhile, by the way.) And I disagree that 3B ? LF is a comparable move to 3B ? 2B; that 3B and 2B are essentially similar positions to each other; or that Murphy's 32 professional games played at 2B are significant in any real way.

BTW:
He played second base almost exclusively for the Saguaros, as the Mets had designated him as a second baseman in July when they made arrangements for him to play in the AFL. But before he began playing, the club told him that he most likely would share left field with veteran Fernando Tatis, Murphy playing against right-handed pitchers and Tatis against lefties.
This does make it sound like they make some sort of official arrangement ahead of time with the winter leagues as to what positions people will be playing. Is that even legal?
   81. Chris Dial Posted: December 19, 2008 at 05:58 PM (#3034006)
learning the most basic things about how to play the position,
He isn't learning those things. He already knows those things.
   82. Chris Dial Posted: December 19, 2008 at 06:02 PM (#3034016)
And I disagree that 3B ? LF is a comparable move to 3B ? 2B; that 3B and 2B are essentially similar positions to each other
That isn't what I argued. I argued that playing 2B in the minors for three weeks and then trying that in the majors is better than 4 games in LF in the minors and then trying that in the majors.
   83. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 19, 2008 at 06:12 PM (#3034040)
I'd just like to chime in and say that no player named "Dan Murphy" should ever be good.

And Chris Dial stinks of human waste.
   84. Chris Dial Posted: December 19, 2008 at 06:15 PM (#3034046)
He's not "Dan", he's "Daniel".

Also, I have something for you, but you need to email me your address. I have owed it to you for about a decade.
   85. The District Attorney Posted: December 19, 2008 at 06:20 PM (#3034049)
He isn't learning those things. He already knows those things.
Well, now this is semantics. If he "knows" how to play the position in an intellectual sense, but hasn't done it often enough for it to come naturally (and may in fact not have the skills to be much good at it even if he does put those reps in), I have no problem calling that state of affairs "not knowing how to play the position." But it's word choice; I think we're talking about the same thing, ultimately.

I argued that playing 2B in the minors for three weeks and then trying that in the majors is better than 4 games in LF in the minors and then trying that in the majors.
Okay, I disagree with that also ;-) Neither is a terrific idea, but I think the former is a lot worse.
   86. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 19, 2008 at 06:22 PM (#3034056)
Oh. "DANIEL." Even more reason to hate him. I'll email you.
   87. Chris Dial Posted: December 19, 2008 at 06:35 PM (#3034073)
Well, now this is semantics. If he "knows" how to play the position in an intellectual sense, but hasn't done it often enough for it to come naturally (and may in fact not have the skills to be much good at it even if he does put those reps in), I have no problem calling that state of affairs "not knowing how to play the position." But it's word choice; I think we're talking about the same thing, ultimately.
I don't think it is semantics. It isn't that it doens't come natural - he just has to practice it.
   88. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 19, 2008 at 06:40 PM (#3034080)
I don't think it is semantics. It isn't that it doens't come natural - he just has to practice it.

Uh... No. If he doesn't know it as muscle memory he doesn't know it. This isn't a Trig test. If he's thinking "step across the bag and pivot" he doesn't know how to play second base.
   89. TugMcGraw Posted: December 21, 2008 at 02:11 AM (#3034900)
Pardon? Why is Church not the answer?


....uh, could it be that he averages around 102 games per season? Ryan Church is a younger version of Moises Alou.
   90. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: December 21, 2008 at 10:10 AM (#3035136)
....uh, could it be that he averages around 102 games per season? Ryan Church is a younger version of Moises Alou.
Yup. Church is fragile, and he's entering his age 30 season. Once--once--he played more than 102 games, and then he only put up a 114 OPS+. He's a fine 4th OFer, and if he's healthy can fill in for a week at a time in good style. He puts up an 830 OPS against righties and can be my go-to pinch hitter from the left side any time. He's no one the Mets can or should count on for more than that, but that's plenty. He's a valuable spare part if used properly.
   91. TugMcGraw Posted: December 21, 2008 at 03:34 PM (#3035175)
My take: Successful teams don't start a RF that can be counted on to miss nearly 40% of the games ... especially if his performance went to absolute $hit after having an accident involving his head, for chrissakes. The Mets need both corner outfield positions covered, not to mention 2B.
   92. josehamiton1032 Posted: March 16, 2009 at 06:59 PM (#3104880)
He's being payed to much. Every aspect of his game in dropping.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.5989 seconds
61 querie(s) executed