What odds would you need to bet on the Mets hitting better than LA?

I want some of whatever Tim is smoking.

That would be the subjective pipe.

lol

I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE

And, from the other thread, I also approve FTL space travel with no spacecraft.

One of these may be more likely to occur than the other.

So if all the Mets play well, and all the Dodgers don't, the Mets are better.

The article doesn't delve into the starting rotations. On paper, the Dodgers seem to have the best starting pitching in baseball, no?

And this depends an awful lot on Lucas Duda and Kirk Neuwenhuis not sucking. That's an awfully big "if" isn't it?

I don't see that much of a gap between the Mets and Dodgers offenses. Carl Crawford and Hanley Ramirez no longer project as plus players, Mark Ellis doesn't hit, AJ Ellis' power is probably a Brady Anderson fluke, and they currently have replacement-level nobodies at 3B or SS, whichever one Hanley isn't playing.** (They'll buy one, won't they? That's probably 20 runs right there.) The Dodgers offense probably isn't much better than league average, even with Kemp, Ethier, and Gonzalez.

Of course, as Satch points out, the strength of the Dodgers is their pitching. They're a 90-93 win club almost entirely on the back of their pitching staff. The Mets by contrast have Jonathan Niese. (summons flying monkeys.)

**And Hanley Ramirez is getting awfully close to being a replacement-level nobody himself. WAR 2010-2012: 2.6, 0.0, 1.1

The Mets by contrast have Jonathan Niese. (summons flying monkeys.)

That comparison is an insult to the appearance of flying monkeys.

Hmm

http://www.rlyw.net/index.php/RLYW/comments/cairo_2012_v0.3_and_some_extremely_early_and_completely_useless_2012_p

Cairo agrees it seems.

-11

That's from a year ago...unless I'm missing something.

Indeed. The very similar title and date threw my off. This year's has the Dodgers ahead by 12 runs. Something I guess but Marchman seems to have a legit point.

www.rlyw.net/index.php/RLYW/comments/cairo_2013_v0.2s_extremely_early_and_completely_useless_2013_projected_mlb_

How do the park factors compare?

And it will be a nice day if it doesn't rain. Forecast? What's a forecast?

Mark Ellis doesn't hit

Skip Schumaker will probably be platooning with Ellis, which should make 2B more productive.

How do the park factors compare?

They're about the same, the 2013 projections are assuming both parks suppress scoring by about 4%.

The Mets Lineup Can Compete With The Dodgers

That's not saying much.

Don't know why the Mets are comparing itself with the Dodgers. They're not in the same division, the Dodgers aren't the world series champions, the Dodgers didn't even go to the playoffs, and the Mets are probably going to fight the Marlins for the bottom of the cellar.

@17 RTFA

I don't see that much of a gap between the Mets and Dodgers offenses. Carl Crawford and Hanley Ramirez no longer project as plus players, Mark Ellis doesn't hit, AJ Ellis' power is probably a Brady Anderson fluke, and they currently have replacement-level nobodies at 3B or SS, whichever one Hanley isn't playing.**

Is Crawford even playing next season? Either way,Shane Victorino, Juan Rivera and Tony Gwynn combined for about 650 PA's at an 81 OPS+ in the outfield, it's not a high bar.

Hanley is taking away PA's from Dee Gordan, who racked up a 56 OPS+ in 330 PA before Hanley arrived. He is still a plus player with the bat btw, 2.9 oWAR last year. Not his like hi peak level in the 7's and he gives it almost all away on defense, but that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Adrian Gonzalez is taking away PA's from Loney, who put up 359 PA's at 79 OPS+.

I stil think the Dodgers will score 100 more runs than the Mets this year at the current state. I'm thinking the Mets will make some moves in Jan and Feb. ( Bourne might be a start ).

@17 RTFA

Stop oppressing him!

Tim and Howard had a rather fun Twitter exchange over this article.

The article doesn't delve into the starting rotations. On paper, the Dodgers seem to have the best starting pitching in baseball, no?

The negativity from Mets fans disgusts me.

/kidding

A stupid article titled to get page hits, which I suppose it'll be successful at. What it says is, if everything goes really well for the Mets, and really badly for the Dodgers, the Mets' lineup might be almost as productive as the Dodgers', only not really.

Meanwhile, the Mets have Lucas Duda and Kirk Nieuwenhuis, who at the top of their range—and both are the right age to play there—will be average or better-than-average players.

At the top of anybody's range currently in the majors they're a better than average player, but... yeah. No. Duda and Nieuwenhuis are incredibly likely not to be starters on the next good Mets team, and on a good club they'd be very nice role players. One of the signs of an... overwhelmed organization is that they chronically have to ask players to do more than they're comfortable doing or that they're likely to do well.

Duda's value as a hitter is done in by his defects if you use him as an outfielder. He'd be a decent spare part on a team that needs a ph against righties and a backup first baseman. His MLEs against righties isn't all that hot, something around .330/.400 according to milsplits.com, but that's better than some teams run out, and it's easy enough to live with that in a backup. For some reason the Mets sent him out to take 148 PAs against left handed pitchers, and his .662 OPS against them was entirely consistent with his minor league splits. He can't hit lefties. The 235 PAs he's had against LHP since 2010 have been some sort of bizarre experiment in the bounds of futility.

Nieuwenhuis's story is similar. He doesn't hit well enough to play a corner regularly, and doesn't defend well enough to play CF regularly. He can't hit lefties, either, but would be a solid back OFer on a pretty good team. He's the kind of guy whose limitations make it difficult to optimally piece together an OF. If he's your 5th OFer you're fine, but if he's your 4th OFer you hope to find a cheap defensive wiz who can at least get on base against lefties, if not provide some pop.

Anyway, contrary to the Mets under Minaya, the team now has a lot of depth in back up roles and at the margins. They just need some stars to make that depth meaningful.

I was kind of amazed last year to see Nieuwenhuis' name in a Fangraphs article, listed among baseball's biggest BABIP overachievers, alongside obvious candidates like Melky Cabrera and Andrew McCutchen. That's right, it took a healthy dollop of luck to achieve that 91 OPS+, but I suppose that's believable for a guy that was on a 200-K pace. I still like the guy and I think he has the raw skills to be a solid outfielder, a starter even, but it's not going to happen without a real hitting breakthrough.

In a small sample size, his UZR in CF was positive. If he can field, he can probably stick. Most likely he sucks though.

Skip Schumaker will probably be platooning with Ellis, which should make 2B more productive.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I have a feeling the Mets are going to run Cowsill out there in CF against lefties. Provided he gets out of spring training without gout or valley fever. In the limited MLB sample, he has a decent split against them.

@27, makes sense. Both Arizona and Oakland seem to have taken at least a little trouble to limit his PAs against righthanders. I think the Mets are in one of those situations where, if they want to hope Nieu can become a regular, they'll play him against righties and lefties, whereas a platoon of Nieu and Cowgirl will probably be a little more productive.

He also had a decent split in the minors. It's strange that there isn't a website comparable to BBRef for minor leaguers that's both legible and includes yearly split data. Maybe there's no real money in it, given all the work it would take.

fangraphs had an interesting article comparing Brett Lawrie and Cowbell, including

As for Lawrie versus Cowgill, the difference in how both are viewed is a product of the age difference between the two prospects. For Cowgill, 2012 will be his age-26 season and it’s a generally accepted fact that a player’s prime begins at 26. This means Cowgill will be learning the ropes at the Major League level while already in his prime, so Collin Cowgill at 500 plate appearances may very well be similar to Collin Cowgill at 1,500 plate appearances or more. Beyond making minor adjustments to his approach at the game’s highest level, room for maturation both physically and mentally is limited due to his advanced age.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, projecting Brett Lawrie for 500-600 plate appearances during his age-22 through -25 seasons leaves him with a projected 2,000+ plate appearances to grow and adjust both physically and mentally at the big league level before entering his prime. This drastically increases the likelihood Lawrie becomes an impact player at the Major League level. Like any profession, the longer one is able to compete and learn at its highest level, the better the prime of the career is likely to be.