Amazingly, Jerry Manuel makes it through this extensive interview without being fired even once.
Q. Given that you need to sign a No. 1 catcher, probably a starting pitcher, a left fielder, does it stand to reason that Murphy is probably the first baseman? And given other teams get a lot of power out of first base, is that concerning because you have to off set somewhere else?
JERRY MANUEL: Well, that’s the thing for us, is how do we get all of these pieces to fit. So with a guy like Daniel Murphy, we know that we don’t come in expecting or anticipating, because of the history has showed that he does not have that kind of power.
But what he did show is good defense, and it’s the first time him playing over there. He hit a number of doubles and extra base hits. He showed that he can make the adjustments.
But you’re right. We are going to have to supplement that throughout the lineup at some point, someplace, to have at least a threat of consistent power in other spots. And hopefully David, even Jose, Carlos Beltran, Francoeur, the left field could possibly have places where we could implement and get a little bit more power.
Q. A long ways to April, but based on the other holes you need to fill, does it stand to reason that he is most likely the first baseman?
JERRY MANUEL: Well, at this point, I would have to say yeah. We can leave in five minutes and that can change, but right now he’s the first baseman and look to improve him defensively. Thought he did a good job in that area. He showed that he can make some adjustments.
I think the latter part of the year you saw some of the power, some of the doubles that he hit. So right now, I’m looking for him to progress to the next level, but not possibly be in the category with Pujols, Derrek Lee, and these types of guys, but get that from other parts of the team.
Repoz
Posted: December 09, 2009 at 05:33 AM |
26 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
mets
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. Lassus Posted: December 09, 2009 at 05:54 AM (#3407625)Why do people bother asking questions like this? It's a conclusion already. What's the point?
I think it's worse when people DON'T ask questions like this. Many Mets fans still don't understand what an offensive black hole at 1B Murphy is.
2009, minimum 100 G at 1B
Rk Player 2009 OPS+
1 Albert Pujols 188
2 Prince Fielder 168
3 Adrian Gonzalez 166
4 Joey Votto 155
5 Mark Teixeira 149
6 Derrek Lee 145
7 Miguel Cabrera 142
8 Ryan Howard 140
9 Lance Berkman 139
10 Kendry Morales 137
11 Todd Helton 130
12 Carlos Pena 130
13 Justin Morneau 129
14 Russell Branyan 128
15 Billy Butler 124
16 Nick Johnson 122
17 Lyle Overbay 122
18 Adam LaRoche 122
19 Paul Konerko 115
20 Jorge Cantu 105
21 James Loney 104
22 Daniel Murphy 95
23 Casey Kotchman 90
24 Travis Ishikawa 86
25 Chris Davis 85
Playing for the NYM, For single seasons, From <s>1901</s>1962 to 2009, Played 100 games at 1B, sorted by greatest Adjusted OPS+
Rk Player OPS+ Year Age
1 John Olerud 163 1998 29
2 Keith Hernandez 143 1984 30
3 Dave Magadan 141 1990 27
4 Keith Hernandez 140 1986 32
5 John Olerud 135 1997 28
6 Carlos Delgado 131 2006 34
7 Keith Hernandez 129 1985 31
8 Donn Clendenon 129 1970 34
9 John Olerud 128 1999 30
10 Carlos Delgado 127 2008 36
11 Ed Kranepool 124 1971 26
12 Keith Hernandez 120 1987 33
13 Rico Brogna 119 1995 25
14 Eddie Murray 115 1992 36
15 Mo Vaughn 113 2002 34
16 Eddie Murray 111 1993 37
17 Todd Zeile 110 2000 34
18 Ed Kranepool 110 1972 27
19 John Milner 109 1974 24
20 Dave Magadan 106 1991 28
21 Carlos Delgado 102 2007 35
22 Willie Montanez 102 1978 30
23 Ed Kranepool 100 1967 22
24 Ed Kranepool 100 1966 21
25 Ed Kranepool 100 1964 19
26 Dave Kingman 99 1982 33
27 Daniel Murphy 95 2009 24
28 Todd Zeile 94 2001 35
29 Ed Kranepool 93 1965 20
30 Ed Kranepool 87 1969 24
31 Tim Harkness 81 1963 25
32 Ed Kranepool 70 1968 23
33 Willie Montanez 65 1979 31
April .324/.373/.426
May .176/.278/.353
June .240/.298/.340
July .250/.323/.393
Aug .292/.308/.434
Sept .290/.308/.580
He basically was every type of hitter you can be. Hacker with good power, hacker with mediocre power, generally crappy, OBP machine with no power...all in the same season.
Personally, I wouldn't hate giving Murphy some time in the minors to learn an outfield spot or become passable at 2b so he can be a super-utility guy that can back up 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and LF. You can get 400 AB like that and a 100 OPS+ from a guy like that isn't horrible.
Best 2009 quote from Manuel:
I bet Delgado will want a two year deal. If they can get him at the right price, and without a no-trade, it might be a way to see if Murphy can improve while being a back up. Given Delgado's age, there should be a lot of innings for the backup 1st baseman: day game after a night game, post rain delay, blowouts, late inning defensive sub. Murphy failed at 2nd base in Az Fall league. It seems he is a 1st/3rd at this point. Even if he's not a long term solution, it would be beneficial to see if he can build his value back up before trading him.
Murphy games by defensive position and month, 2009:
Apr LF: 16 PH:4
May 1B: 7 LF: 11 PH:8
Jun 1B:18 PH:6 PH/1B:1
Jul 1B:22 PH:3 PH/1B:1
Aug 1B:28 PH:1
Sep 1B:22 PH:4
Oct 1B: 2 PH:1
Year PA OPS+
2008 151 129
2009 556 95
TOT 707 103
Oh give me a freaking break. If you know any fans who somehow don't know that Murphy was far below league-average for a first baseman, I can't imagine who you're talking to.
Er, actually, no. And god freaking forbid the kid should have a few fans.
[16] I agree: keep Murphy for 2010, use the money elsewhere, and don't block Davis if you believe in him.
Where are you running across these opinions? Sure isn't this site.
On Murphy, elsewhere:
http://www.dailystache.net/archives/5097
http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/the-myth-of-power/
http://www.metstoday.com/3992/2009-mets-evaluations/2009-analysis-daniel-murphy/
Angel Pagan has been disappeared.
Manuel just about accepts the notion an LF will be signed and Murphy will probably be the 1B. There's not even an obligatory "you know we like Pagan and Murphy and when you add Tatis we think that gives us a lot of coverage at the corners when we need it" sort of line.
I suppose he is effectively saying that there's no way they could simultaneously start both Pagan and Murphy, but hopefully that was obvious...
Doesn't seem like big news to me. I think it has only been the fanboyiest Mets fans here that have lobbied for Pagan as a starter.
He is frequently mentioned in the manner of: "[overpriced veteran X] sucks, might as well just let Pagan play for a tenth the price."
But that's all you can say about Murphy too.
"Q. Last year the young players got a chance to show themselves. Who do you think will make a major contribution this year?
JERRY MANUEL: I think Angel Pagan stepped up. He had some mistakes that he made on the bases and those types of things, but for the most part, I thought, given the opportunity that he got, he played very good defense, hit very well, hit over .300, had a number of triples in our ballpark. I thought he really stepped up. I thought Santos showed very well. I even think Josh Thole, even at the end of the year, played extremely well. And the acquisition of Francoeur in our ballpark got a chance to look at him on an every day basis, and I thought he played well."
X = Frenchy
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main