BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Statistically Speaking: What are the Mets thinking with?

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Statistically Speaking: What are the Mets thinking with?

“The paths of experimentation twist and turn through mountains of miscalculations and often lose themselves in error and darkness!”...from the metsmirizing, “The Brain That Wouldn’t Die”.

While the Mets have done well, could they have done better? Think for a moment what the Mets (think they) are buying. Basically, they want stomach relief and they believe that a “closer” (or two) can provide this. Now they don’t have to worry in the ninth inning. And with Putz, the eighth inning is safe too. That’s got to be a nice feeling. The problem is that when you manage with your feelings, it feels great, but you can get burned.

What if they had taken the $12 million per (why does that suddenly sound reasonable?) that they will be paying K-Rod (plus whatever Putz makes, although he’s in the slave years… so keep him), and spent it elsewhere. While finding a good relief pitcher will probably help them, did they get the right guy? Why not Jeremy Affeldt? No, he’s not as good as K-Rod, and never will be. But you could get three of him and be more sure about the 6th and 7th innings and still pretty sure about the 9th. But that’s not what people want they want a “lockdown” closer. It’s apparently OK if the game is lost in the sixth inning. You just can’t lose it in the ninth inning.

Repoz Posted: December 13, 2008 at 04:32 PM | 22 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: mets, sabermetrics

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. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: December 13, 2008 at 04:48 PM (#3028331)

Why not Jeremy Affeldt? No, he’s not as good as K-Rod, and never will be. But you could get three of him and be more sure about the 6th and 7th innings and still pretty sure about the 9th.

This is starting to grate on my nerves. Please show me the three Jeremy Affeldts who could be had for 12M combined this offseason. I'd imagine the cost of each Jeremy Affeldt would go up as they dwindle in number. Furthermore, unless Bud Selig has suddenly begun cloning good lefty relief pitching, it's a safe assumption that there's a paucity of Jeremy Affeldts on the market.

Note : If Bud Selig had cloning technology, I sincerely doubt he would use it towards building an army of Jeremy Affeldts.

2. Greg (U)K Posted: December 13, 2008 at 05:16 PM (#3028338)

Am I the only one that thinks people already had their "Mets make panic sign of K-Rod" articles before the Winter Meetings.
And now they are pissed off that K-Rod signed for a reasonable contract and their template columns don't really make a strong point anymore.

3. Russlan will never be fond of Jason Bay Posted: December 13, 2008 at 05:27 PM (#3028341)

I honestly don't get the argument that 3 Jeremy Affeldts somehow equal K-Rod. K-Rod is much better (look at his career ERA+) and more importantly signing three Jeremy Affeldts means that you have to dump guys like Sanchez and Feliciano, guys you already have, whom you hope will pitch well. It's just a silly argument.

4. Neil Kinnock...Lord Palmerston! (Orinoco) Posted: December 13, 2008 at 05:33 PM (#3028344)

I'm down with the three Affeldts bullpen, provided the Mets get a special dispensation from Selig that they can have a 30 men roster.

5. Mike Emeigh

Posted: December 13, 2008 at 05:41 PM (#3028349)

I must admit that I haven't run the numbers, but that's not the point.

Actually, it IS the point. If you're going to suggest that the Mets might not have done the best thing, why not try to make an argument - with evidence - about the "something else that the Mets could have done"?

-- MWE

6. Darren

Posted: December 13, 2008 at 05:44 PM (#3028350)

I don't think the Mets problem last year was the 6th/7th. They have guys good enough for that role. They needed the 8th/9th guys, and that's what they got. In K-Rod, they got one of the most consistent closers out there. That's worth the extra dough.

7. robinred

Posted: December 13, 2008 at 05:52 PM (#3028354)

I think the Mets should try to get Juan Cruz as well. What they need is better relievers. They got two.

8. Russlan will never be fond of Jason Bay Posted: December 13, 2008 at 06:02 PM (#3028358)

I'd probably pass on signing Cruz at this point. There's no need to give up another draft pick for one thing and the Mets could use another lefty if they do add someone. I could live with a bullpen that looks like this:

K-Rod
Putz
Sanchez
Feliciano
Beimel
Green
Stokes/Parnell

You can never tell how these things will work out but that seems like a good pen to me.

9. The Wilpons Must Go (Tom D) Posted: December 13, 2008 at 07:54 PM (#3028415)

The Affeldt argument is an extension of Buzzy Bavasi's remark about replacing Nolan Ryan with two 8-7 pitchers. There have been years when K-Rod's ERA has been a fraction of Affeldt's. A lefty in the pen is needed but the guy will replace Schoenweis (thankfully) not a first tier closer.

10. Walt Davis Posted: December 13, 2008 at 08:07 PM (#3028429)

As Mike points out, the articles a mess and should be embarrassed to go under the moniker "statistically speaking". The premise is, essentially, that the Mets acted out of panic because they didn't make alternate moves (including panicking and signing Manny for god knows how much) but there's not even an effort to show that these alternate moves would be better. And of course no evidence that the Mets didn't consider these other options before determining that K-Rod/Putz was the way to go.

And Affeldt? A guy puts together a good 140 innings and now he's the solution to major problems?

11. jwb Posted: December 13, 2008 at 08:45 PM (#3028444)

The Affeldt argument is an extension of Buzzy Bavasi's remark about replacing Nolan Ryan with two 8-7 pitchers.

The Cubs let Greg Maddux go via free agency because they figured they could get two pitchers for the money Maddux wanted.

Rest of career:
Greg Maddux 260-152

And the two pitchers they got for their $5M+, rest of career:
Greg Hibbard 16-16
Jose Guzman 14-12

12. Raskolnikov Posted: December 13, 2008 at 09:12 PM (#3028453)

Joe Nelson just got non-tendered. I really really hope the Mets go after him because he's a lot better than Sanchez.

The Saitos and the Nelsons are why I wanted Omar to go after Sabathia first. Yes, K-Rod and Putz will help, but there always a *lot* of good relievers available, and this offseason is showing it again.

13. PreservedFish Posted: December 13, 2008 at 09:47 PM (#3028456)

Personally, I don't count on Duaner Sanchez for anything.

14. Sam M. Posted: December 13, 2008 at 10:08 PM (#3028460)

The Saitos and the Nelsons are why I wanted Omar to go after Sabathia first. Yes, K-Rod and Putz will help, but there always a *lot* of good relievers available, and this offseason is showing it again.

If the fact that there are good alternative available is your thing, then there are plenty of reasonable alternatives to C.C. still available, too. Alternatives who wouldn't have cost $23M a year for seven years. There is no way in the world I wanted the Mets to go that far, that long for Sabathia. I think 3/$37M for K-Rod is a far smarter investment of resources.

And I guess you'll never convince me that Saito (who isn't healthy anyway) and Nelson are reasonable facsimiles for K-Rod. I know that puts me outside of saberCW, but I dissent from the "relievers are fungible so don't send money on your bullpen" mantra.

15. Russlan will never be fond of Jason Bay Posted: December 13, 2008 at 10:09 PM (#3028461)

Personally, I don't count on Duaner Sanchez for anything.

Duaner's season is kind of perplexing to me. His OPS against was .681 last season, not drastically different from the .632 he posted in 2006 when he was really good for the Mets. His peripherals were about the same and he was having a pretty good year until mid-August. Considering he missed about a season and a half, it is possible that he just ran out of gas.

Sanchez's secondary stuff is still pretty good and if he gains a little more fastball, he could be a good setup man.

16. Lassus Posted: December 13, 2008 at 10:57 PM (#3028480)

Does anyone know what Duaner's been doing in the off-season? Any winter ball?

17. Mike Emeigh

Posted: December 13, 2008 at 11:07 PM (#3028483)

His OPS against was .681 last season, not drastically different from the .632 he posted in 2006 when he was really good for the Mets.

Huh? 50 points of OPS against is HUGE - every point of OPS is around 0.01 of ERA, depending on how it's distributed. The rest of the difference is that Sanchez had a lower ERA than his OPS suggested in 2006, and a higher one in 2007. He should have been around a half-run worse in 2006 and about 3/4 of a run better in 2007.

-- MWE

EDIT: And that's not unusual for a reliever.

18. neonwattagelimit Posted: December 14, 2008 at 12:53 AM (#3028522)

I think the SABR crowd - which I usually agree with - sometimes fails to make the distinction between the often idiotic ways in which bullpens are used and the actual value of good relievers. Jeremy Affeldt does not equal K-Rod, nor do three Jeremy Affeldts. Jeremy Affeldt does not equal J.J. Putz. While the modern idea of the "closer" is pretty ridiculous, nearly all good bullpens should have a sort of "relief ace" who is a pitcher that can consistently be trusted to get high-leverage outs. This doesn't mean assigning guys roles based on the save stat, but it does mean that you can't make a good bullpen out of Jeremy Affeldts if you don't have a Mo or a K-Rod or a Lidge or a Nathan lurking in there somewhere to get the big outs. Come to think of it, the '08 Mets bullpen after Wagner got hurt proves this point.

This is why closer-by-committee rarely works - such set-ups usually just mean "we don't have a guy we trust with the ball in big situations." The modern closer may be a foolish idea, but there's certainly a need for a hierarchy in relief pitching.

19. Russ Posted: December 14, 2008 at 02:23 PM (#3028606)

Duaner Sanchez is good enough that you always want to take a chance on him, but not good enough to give you less than a 70% chance of being disappointed.

20. Russlan will never be fond of Jason Bay Posted: December 14, 2008 at 03:01 PM (#3028609)

Duaner Sanchez is good enough that you always want to take a chance on him, but not good enough to give you less than a 70% chance of being disappointed.

That really hasn't been the case with the Mets. He was great for them in 2006. He was mediocre in 2008 because he lost 3-4 mph of his fastball.

21. rfloh Posted: December 14, 2008 at 04:06 PM (#3028621)

While the modern idea of the "closer" is pretty ridiculous, nearly all good bullpens should have a sort of "relief ace" who is a pitcher that can consistently be trusted to get high-leverage outs.

Is there much evidence that the modern idea of the "closer" is pretty ridiculous, and that "relief aces" are better? Or is that more hard core fundamentalist stathead dogma?

22. neonwattagelimit Posted: December 14, 2008 at 11:08 PM (#3028827)

Is there much evidence that the modern idea of the "closer" is pretty ridiculous, and that "relief aces" are better? Or is that more hard core fundamentalist stathead dogma?

I don't think so. Wouldn't you rather have your best reliever come in with one out in the 8th (or, hell, the 7th) and the bases loaded than at the top of the 9th with a three-run lead? That's really all I meant. Some managers do use their closers in that way, more or less. My main point was that while building a bullpen from the scrap heap is fine and all, sometimes inking a big-name closer (or relief ace, or what-have-you) is called for.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Statistically Speaking: What are the Mets thinking with?

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics