Mets - Signed Bay
New York Mets - Signed LF Jason Bay to a 4-year, $66 million contract.
This contract comes with an option for a 5th season.
This is a pretty good signing for the Mets, but with a few caveats. The team and the fans have to remember that while they’re getting a solid player in Bay, he’s not a superstar. The Mets needed a bat like Bay’s, but he’s not one of the best hitters in the league and his defense leaves much to be desired. Fenway and LF always seems to be an ongoing issue for defensive statistics, but Bay had a UZR of -12 in his last full year in Pittsburgh, so it’s not a stretch to say he’s a significantly below-average defensive player.
The Mets really have to get what pitching they can at this point. The problems with the team are such that even adding a needed bat in left doesn’t make the job done. To use a poker term, the Mets are “pot committed” after this signing. The team was at a crossroads, with too much talent to rebuild and perhaps not good enough to win the division, so if the team is going for it, they have to absolutely go for it. They have the weakest starting rotation of any NL team with a realistic expectation of competing in 2010 and signing Bengie Molina and a whole brigade de cuisine of backup catchers isn’t going to fix it.
ZiPS Projection - Jason Bay
———————————————————————————————————————
Year AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB BA OBP SLG OPS+
———————————————————————————————————————
2010 537 94 145 22 3 36 99 81 154 10 .270 .369 .523 136
2011 471 82 121 22 3 28 90 73 134 6 .257 .362 .495 126
2012 466 79 117 21 2 28 87 71 138 5 .251 .355 .485 122
2013 460 75 111 20 2 25 82 69 142 5 .241 .344 .457 112
———————————————————————————————————————
Dan Szymborski
Posted: December 30, 2009 at 12:37 AM |
52 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
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. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 30, 2009 at 03:54 AM (#3424399)Don't really agree with this. Not if you are implying that they need to do some drastic #### to make the msot out of 2010.
1. Delgado and LaRoche are still out there. Sign one of the two to play 1b and make Murphy a supersub/PH extraordinarie.
2. If Garland can be had on a one year deal, you jump at it. Kick the tires on Sheets/Bedard on incentive laden one year deals. If not, look at Garland/Pineiro and see which one makes the most sense with respect to dollars/contract length.
3. Do not give Benji Molina a three year deal. Look at Snyder. How desperate are the D-backs to get rid of him?
4. Continue to look at relievers. Donelly isn't getting that many phone calls. Can he be had for less than a million bucks?
Well, they are definitely not in long-term rebuilding mode, but that doesn't mean it's all about just one season, either. The Mets' brain trust could be realistic enough to understand that it is extremely rare to make up 23 games (on a very good team, anyway) in the standings in a single year, no matter how much you do in the off-season. So they should understand that even signing Bay and acquiring a solid first baseman and adding TWO starters is unlikely to get the job done -- in 2010. It might set them up to be a lot closer, and be in position to get the rest of the job done next off-season.
So yes, they are all-in with not going into rebuilding mode and aiming for 2014. But that shouldn't be news, and it doesn't mean they can't use some restraint when it comes to leaving some tasks undone if the right solution doesn't present itself to some of their problems.
The fifth season is also cursed.
Fernando looked pretty good in center for a guy I think most scouts believed would be a corner outfielder and Beltran is only signed for two seasons. Also, Bay could be moved to first base or traded eventually.
What do you guys think?
Given how the Mets have misspent--Bay and Molina instead of Lackey and Cameron, for instance--they've put themselves in a position where they need to gamble hugely. If they had grabbed Lackey and Cameron, further solid signings or trades would have made sense: Add Arroyo or Marquis to Lackey and Cameron and you have a respectable chance of adding 10-12 wins total to the team. Now, having added less than 4 wins with the Bay and Molina signings, miracles are in order. Were I the Mets GM and having put myself in this particular hole, I'd have to go after Sheets and someone else of his ilk and take my shot at filling the inside straight.
I think defensive metrics, which are very far from perfection, are being extremely overrated right now in calculating the value of players.
I doubt the Mets regret this move.
The sudden decline in playing time is the most peculiar bit to me. What happens at age 32 that establishes that new, significantly lower baseline of PAs per season?
I would have expected to see the decline evenly spread or slightly increasing across the years, not be so spiky.
Again, I think Walt makes a good observation here. Bay's been a rather remarkably consistent offensive player over his career, with the exception of the year he was hurt. It seems odd to project him for anything other than a nice, smooth and slight decline as he moves into his early and mid 30s.
In any case, Mets fans will not regret seeing his bat in the lineup behind Beltran and Wright every day. He is limited defensively, but far from a butcher. On the basepaths, he's smart and surprisingly fast once he gets going. He's not quick--which is a big part of his defensive shortcomings--but he's not the type of power hitter who will have trouble going first to third or scoring from second on most base hits. Consummate pro, if a bit dull.
He was certainly an asset during his time in Boston, and I'm sure just about every Sox fan--including this one--wishes him the best with the Mets.
So the defensive collapse immediately following knee surgery was just a coincidence? He also underwent an instinctectomy prior to the 2007 season, and that's the culprit?
32/33 seems to be the age of death for non-star corner outfielders.
that is all.
I'm not sure what this means. Do you think a knee injury from years ago suggests imminent deterioration now?
Similar Batters through 30
View Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
Ryan Klesko (957)
Geoff Jenkins (953)
Tim Salmon (951)
J.D. Drew (940)
Bobby Higginson (936)
Jim Edmonds (936)
George Foster (934)
Willie Stargell (933) *
Richard Hidalgo (932)
Kevin Mitchell (932)
If he turns into Willie Stargell Mets fans will be happy. His family will be stunned but Mets fans will be happy
As a Sox fan I wish Bay well in his new digs but I'm leaning toward glad they spent that money on Bacne instead
Klesko was a roider (just look at him)
Jenkins was clearly worse than bay
Salmon was very productive 3 of his 5 next years
Drew has remained productive despite his injury record
Higginson was a collapse
Edmonds remained very productive
Foster's a weird comp, I think, but alternated good and awful years after 30
Stargell was Stargell
Hidalgo was rarely any good in his career
Mitchell already had an injury history, and continued to be injured but hit while he was healthy
no mopar's "read" is:
1: There should be a rate stat quality control- someone who hit .275/.350/.475 in the 60s/70s is a hell of a lot better hitter than someone who hit .275/.350/.475 in the 90s/00s
2: Bay's career stats through age 30 may look a lot like someone else's through age 30, but Bay and that player may be so dramatically different from ages 28-30 - that it is pretty obviously that guy is not going to be a good age 31 comp.
Hidalgo brings out these issues most clearly:
Bay: .280-185-610,
Hidalgo: .269-171-560
BUT Bay has a21 point OPS+ lead
and Bay hit .286/.373/.522 at age 29, and .267/.384/.537 at age 30
Hidalgo hit .239/.301/.444 at 29 and .221/.289/.416 at 30...
Bay is pretty clearly:
1: Better than Hidalgo (vastly so ages 29-30)
2: Not on the Hidalgo career path.
Klesko is a very good statistical comp, and he did hit .274/.375/.469 (OPS+ 129- Petco) in 2099 age 31-34 PAs...
Salmon also looks like a good comp
Coke to 28, because I was expecting to see that in a 1-liner.
-- MWE
and as a Mets fan, FU MWE for post 36.
:-)
This is a more reasonable projection than at first glance IMO.
In another thread, I looked at Jason Bay's age 25-30 seasons (131 OPS+ in 3,790 PA) and found six LF comps with similar OPS+. Three (Floyd, Rudi, and Gant) had about 3,100 PA. Three others (Watson, White, Klesko) had 3,584, 3,833 and 3,308 PA respectively. From this I concluded that Bay is not likely to suffer a Floyd-esque collapse. The age 31-35 seasons of the lower PA group were noticely worse (90-109 OPS+ in 1654-2,592 PA) than the higher PA group (129,114,130 OPS+ in 2,384, 2601, and 2,105 PA)
When I look on a year-by-year basis at the three comps with similar durability to Bay, the PAs drop off similarly; the OPS pattern varied. It's the age 35 season where the risk comes in; hopefully 30 years improvement in training, medicine, nutrition, etc., keeps Bay on the field.
Bob Watson
Year Age PA OPS+
1977 31 623 138
1978 32 527 133
1979 33 529 124
<u>1980 34 525 127</u>
1981 35 180 104
Roy White
Year Age PA OPS+
1975 31 636 128
1976 32 728 127
1977 33 606 109
<u>1978 34 395 112</u>
1979 35 236 59
Ryan Klesko
Year Age PA OPS+
2002 31 625 152
2003 32 474 118
2004 33 480 129
<u>2005 34 520 110</u>
2006 35 6 388
The history of baseball is inextricably tied up with the history of bodies in decline. There's nothing pessimistic about this, it's simply the way things are. The history of baseball is full of speedy guys who could steal bases with good percentages at 30, and were done as full-time ballplayers three years later. It's full of power hitters, good power hitters, whose ability vanished between the ages of 30 and 35. That's the norm. As for defense, Bay's on the wrong end of the defensive spectrum. There's only one place he can move, but there's no reason to believe he'll be a better 1bman than he is a LFer, and in any case he'd have to be around 5 runs better at 1b than he is in LF in order not to lose ground.
One drawback for Bay and the Mets is that your durable guys would all qualify for the rumored vesting option. Even without it 2 of your 3 guys wouldn't be worth the deal, and the third isn't really, either, it's just not too obviously painful. Throw in the fifth year and it's all-around gruesome.
I'm surprised that the playing time decline is _projected_ to occur at age 32 and that big OPS+ declines are _projected_ for ages 32 and 34 but not 33. That is a pretty odd thing for a model to spit out -- even if it's one with quadratic or interaction terms of age by whatever. It would be more common if age is being treated categorically (i.e. dummy variables) which may or may not be appropriate.
That is if the effect of age was linear, we'd see roughly equal drops; if it was quadratic, and assuming we've passed the point (for players like Bay) where the squared term takes over, we'd see the decline increasing in magnitude. But, over a short period of time, seeing steady, big drop, steady, big drop is unusual for a model.
Anyway, I'm just curious, not saying it's wrong.
There are 2 big problems with Bay's (and most everyone els's) BBREF comps:
1: There should be a rate stat quality control- someone who hit .275/.350/.475 in the 60s/70s is a hell of a lot better hitter than someone who hit .275/.350/.475 in the 90s/00s
The first only sometimes holds. It's certainly true that b-r comps can be awful due to not controlling for era differences, but not always. Bay's comps are generally fine, the only one that's "bad" is Hidalgo and that's got nothing to do with era differences. Bay's OPS+ through age 30 is 131, the average of his comps is 125 (and it will be about 127-8 if you dropped Hidalgo). Other than Hidalgo, the lowest is Jenkins at 119 and the hightest is Mitchell at 140 -- nothing wrong with that sort of range. 7 of the 10 comps are from 1992 or later, roughly the same era. The three that aren't are the three with the highest OPS+ but they're 136, 139 and 140 so hardly absurd.
Moreover, everyone except for Edmonds was a corner OF. Four of the 10 even have reasonably similar SB/CS numbers. I love that Willie Stargell leads this group in triples at 38.
So generally they match pretty well on raw stats, match pretty well on adjusted stats, play the same position, tend to match on era and some even have similar baserunning numbers. Toss out Hidalgo and I don't know what else you'd want from a set of career offensive comps.
Now ... your point about age 28-30 or 27-30 production is quite valid. This could be easily solved if P-I could add the ability to look at a table of players from age X onwards. (i.e. we could do it by hand easily)
But all of this is just a fun distraction of course -- comps give us very little information. The last few years of performance and a simple aging curve probably get you 90% of the way there (well 90% of the way we've gone so far). Body type and such probably add another few percent. Comps just tweak things a little.
The term "non-star" doesn't really mean much to me. Although it does seem to be awfully exclusive. Bay's OPS in 2009 was second among all corner outfielders in MLB. I accept that's a fairly coarse measure of stardom, but if nothing else, the guy can bloody well hit a baseball.
Second, it's not like ZiPS is projecting him to fall off a cliff after 2010. His rates remain more or less intact, with the exception of a slight loss of power. ZiPS projects a 126 OPS+ for 2011 and 122 for 2012, hardly doom and gloom. It's the rather large, sudden, and sustained drop in playing time between 2010 and the remaining years that's peculiar. It's as if ZiPS is projecting a weirdly specific and chronic injury sometime in 2011 that will thereafter limit Bay to something like 80-100 fewer PAs per year than his very consistent norm. If he's still hitting as well as ZiPS thinks he will be in 2011-2012, why else would he be losing playing time, right?
I cannot believe that the Mets BTF community was so optimistic about this signing. I wasn't.
http://fonzieforever.blogspot.com/2010/01/who-is-jason-bay-most-like.html
Here's an obvious bit of spam to my blog.
http://dumbassmetsblog.probablysponsoredbydickembiggeners.com
Now, back to the Mets! Jason Bay sucks, eh? And the contract is back-loaded....
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main