|
|
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Strikeouts and Knuckleballs (67 - 9:25pm, Jul 08)Last: JLAC is engulfed in a harmless burst of flameIt Occurs To Me (16 - 3:49am, May 01)Last: HarrisHow Do You Solve A Problem Like Castillo? (92 - 12:32am, Apr 05)Last: Adam StarblindCan't Anybody Here Catch the Ball? (11 - 3:18am, Jul 25)Last: phoenixscienterAbout ####### Time! (10 - 9:17pm, May 27)Last: HarrisKeystone Options (92 - 6:59pm, Mar 16)Last: josehamiton1032Johan, Pelfrey, Maine - and Pray for Rain? (89 - 12:26am, Dec 15)Last: Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..)Math Loses Again (104 - 6:38pm, Dec 12)Last:  Chris DialReturning to Status Quo (37 - 1:29am, Dec 11)Last: Dog on the sidewalk has an ugly braceletWhat I Saw Last Night - 30 APR 07 Mets-Marlins (16 - 4:04pm, Dec 08)Last: Crispix Attacksel RiosBecause You Are Bad At It (55 - 4:09am, Jun 21)Last: calhouniteMLB Mandates Vambraces (33 - 3:38pm, Mar 20)Last: Russlan is not RussianKong (95 - 4:34am, Jan 13)Last: Scott FischthalSector One Cleared (25 - 4:50pm, Oct 01)Last: GuapoFive Down, One to Go (24 - 5:27am, Sep 03)Last: Chris Dial
|
|
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. plim Posted: December 16, 2008 at 06:12 PM (#3030664)same thing could be said of julio lugo too =P
I didnt watch the Mets much last year, so why is Castillo considered so bad by everyone here? How are his legs toast if he stole 17 bases in 19 attempts in 1/2 a year in 08? I am not being snarky, i just didnt see him play and its hard to see from his stat line how he is so bad. I assume his fielding is poor, but a .350 obp out of a 2b (even with no power) doesnt seem like the worst thing in the world.
Wouldnt he at least better than whoever else they would use as a backup infielder?
That said, I do agree that Murphy should play 2B if he's the least bit capable; it'd be the difference between being a pretty replaceable guy and a near-star. I also agree that moving someone several steps the "wrong way" on the defensive spectrum, is the type of thing that you have to commit to 100% if it's going to have any shot to work at all. That probably would mean that you'd need to get rid of Castillo. I'd be reluctant to release Castillo outright, and I know he's not gonna have much trade value, but I think you try to trade him for someone else's bad contract (presumably a C, OF or P.)
That said, it doesn't look like it's gonna happen: they ain't puttin' Murphy at 2B this year, if ever.
Except in all star games. Man, that was brutal.
A call for Mr. Eaton, Mr. Adam Eaton?
==> Sorry, Mets fans, couldn't resist. I almost wouldn't want to foist Eaton on even the Mets. Well, almost.
1) The Mets might (might) have access to information we don't have, both about Castillo and about Murphy. First, about Castillo. They certainly have information about his physical condition which we don't know. They might have reason to believe he is now in better condition, and/or that his legs are healthier, than they were in the 2008 season. If they do have that information, it could change the equation. They might information about other teams' interest in Castillo -- at a particular price, of course, and perhaps only after they see him in spring training. That could change the equation on what is in the team's best interest; it might make sense to take the chance he will have a good (lucky?) spring and another team might be tempted to take some of the $$$ off the Mets' hands, or even hand us a moderately useful player in exchange. That would be a good reason not to just release him. That "other team" might well be irrational, but we all know there are other such teams out there, making bad decisions, and there is nothing at all wrong with waiting for it to happen (especially if Omar knows another team has already expressed some interest). But none of that changes my agreement with Chris that, knowing what we know now, about his performance in 2008, about his cost and likely performance in 2009, he is not the guy they should play at second base next year.
Second, as to Murphy, the Mets saw him play a handful of games at 2B in the AFL, and they saw him play a lot of games at 3B in the minors. That is information I don't have. I've only seen him play in the OF. It is possible they have made a judgment that he simply doesn't have the skills to play the middle infield, and possibly they even fear that his lack of skills make him too high an injury risk (if you don't master the art of avoiding baserunners ably, and don't have the footwork to do it well, you are gonna get hurt). I think this is doubtful, mind you, in part because as Chris points out if the comparison is between Castillo at 2008 levels and Murphy, Daniel would have to be the worst second baseman ever not to win that competition. But the comparison need not be ONLY between them; we shouldn't limit ourselves that way. If Murphy's defense would be so poor that the best we can say about him, on balance, is that he'd be better than Castillo '08, then really, the Mets should be looking for another option entirely. But that's a big "if." I wish the Mets would be more open to this possibility, and I strongly suspect that it is NOT because of a considered judgment regarding his defense that they are rejecting it. I think it's because of Castillo and his contract, and because of a certain unwillingness to be bold and think outside the box. And that's a shame. Davey Johnson, just to name a name, wouldn't have hesitated to put Daniel Murphy at second base.
2) Chris alludes briefly to the impact that playing second base could have on Murphy's hitting and development, and I think that's a real issue. I think it has two dimensions: the learning the position part, and the physical toll part. Second baseman take a battering, they get spiked, they have to jump and land a lot, turning and spraining their ankles . . . the bumps and bruises will affect Murphy's offense, of that I am sure. And he'll take even more than his share of it, because he won't know the tricks a veteran of the position knows to avoid the contact. He'll also have to spend time learning the position, time he could have spent resting, or maybe talking hitting with Delgado or Beltran. I think the Mets could, reasonably, think they don't want to put him through any of that. Does it mean they should want Castillo over him? Nope. But again, it could mean they would prefer Option C to either of 'em at second base.
3) I disagree with Chris about Daniel's offensive potential as a left fielder. But I've said enough about my optimism regarding Murphy this off-season, haven't I? And in any event, that is probably NOT a good reason for the Mets' actions, because I doubt they think as highly of him as I do. After all, if they did, they'd be clearing a position for him, not planning to platoon him with Tatis.
I personally wouldn't eat Castillo's contract just yet. That is, if I'm the one on the hook for the next $18 million. Especially if I just lost $300 million in a pyramid scheme. I would have the hope that either he could return to his 2007 form (which isn't a plus player, but is fine) ... or possibly that I could DL him indefinitely and get insurance to kick in. Give him until June to see what is going on. Obviously I would be considering salary dump trades too, although I don't understand why there would be any market for him.
But of course I don't go into the season with him as my starter. I have no ability to evaluate Murphy at 2B - my feeling is that he would be awful there, because he looks generally awkward in the field.
I am confused why there isn't more Orlando Hudson chatter - to my eye he is one of the best free agents out there, a plus fielder and a plus hitter for a sinkhole position. Does it just make too much sense? I just Googled him and the rumors I get are for bush league organizations: the Giants and Nats.
No, its just Dial who is obsessed with Castillo for some reason...
Castillo has descended to below average but he is by no means the worst player out there. Teh contract is an abomination though.
The apparent assumption that Dial makes (and a common Mets poster named Sam makes), that Murphy's 151 PAs of .313/.397/.473 performance last year (which is NOT backed up by his 1000 minor league PAs) reflects his true ability is almost as odd...
what you said was :
... and yes, I agree Frenchy was absolutely horrid last year. Never a fan, but it was almost inexplicable how godawful he was on both sides of the ball... please god, don't let Atlanta trade him.
Well, when you put the two things together -- his performance level and the amount of money the Mets are on the hook to pay him -- he's pretty high (or low?) up there on the list of bad-for-the-money players. No Andruw Jones, mind you, but pretty bad.
But that's positively Utley-esque!
Murphy reminds me of a Todd Walker like player. Does anyone else see that? I don't mean that as an insult, either. Todd Walker was a nice player to have on your team.
Don't put that on Chris. He isn't as loopy about that as I am, as he made clear (at least to me) in the piece:
Murphy hits pretty well, but not very much for a left fielder, and certainly a better left fielder is available on the market (I’m certain of that). Murphy hits a ton for a second baseman.
I'm the one who's all-in for Murphy as a corner OF-caliber bat. And not backing off one inch, by the way.
If you are preaching to me, I am a member of the choir. SIGN O-DAWG NOW!
Sunk cost? No point in putting it together.
Walker wasn't much of a fielder, but he hit well enough to find starting jobs. A solid player. (IIRC he was a big prospect, shoulda been an All-Star). My guess is that Murphy is a worse fielder than Walker ... my hope is that he is a better hitter. But I don't know. Todd Walker would be my realistic and somewhat pessimistic projection. I also think he has the potential to hit like Rusty Greer.
Year Lg Player LastName Age Team G
POS
XR+AA
DRS OPD
2008 NL Jeff Francoeur 24 ATL 155 RF
-34.7 -6.9 -41.6
2008 NL Michael Bourn 25 HOU 138 CF
-22.2 -12 -34.2
2008 NL Jeff Keppinger 28 CIN 121 SS
-14.4 -12 -26.4
2008 NL Jose Castillo 27 SFG 112 3B
-23 -1.2 -24.2
2008 NL WilyMo Pena 26 WSN 64 LF
-21.4 -2 -23.4
2008 NL Andruw Jones 31 LAD 75 CF
-20.8 -1.2 -22
2008 NL James Loney 24 LAD 161 1B
-19.8 -1.7 -21.5
2008 NL Corey Patterson 28 CIN 135 CF
-25.6 4.3 -21.3
2008 NL Willy Taveras 26 COL 133 CF
-18.8 -1.8 -20.5
2008 NL Freddy Sanchez 30 PIT 145 2B
-15.9 -1.8 -17.7
2008 NL John Bowker 24 SFG 111 1B
-16 -1.6 -17.6
2008 NL Damion Easley 38 NYM 113 2B
-8.2 -9.1 -17.3
2008 NL Rich Aurilia 36 SFG 140 1B
-14 -3 -17.1
2008 NL Chad Tracy 28 ARI 88 1B
-12.7 -4.3 -17
2008 NL Tadahito Iguchi 33 SDP 81 2B
-15.5 -0.5 -16
2008 NL Luis Gonzalez 40 FLA 136 LF
-5.1 -10.8 -15.9
2008 NL Mike Jacobs 27 FLA 141 1B
-3 -12.6 -15.6
2008 NL Eugenio Velez 26 SFG 98 2B
-10.1 -5 -15.2
2008 NL Carlos Ruiz 29 PHI 117 C
-14 -1 -15
2008 NL Luis Rivas 28 PIT 79 SS
-12.9 -2.1 -15
2008 NL Aaron Boone 35 WSN 104 1B
-13.9 -0.7 -14.6
2008 NL Brian Bixler 25 PIT 50 SS
-11.6 -2.8 -14.4
2008 NL Jay Bruce 21 CIN 108 RF
-7.5 -6.8 -14.2
2008 NL Josh Bard 30 SDP 57 C
-9.6 -4.3 -14
2008 NL Luis Castillo 32 NYM 87 2B
-5.2 -8.3 -13.6
If Castillo were to play another 70 games, he's going to be close -20 to -25.
That "challenging" for the worst player.
Well, the point in putting it together is in evaluating whether you are getting your money's worth (not that it's a tough call in Castillo's case, obviously), if and when the opportunity comes when you might be able to rid yourself of Castillo's contract but perhaps have to take on another one in exchange. At that point, you'd have to evaluate your alternatives, assess Murphy v. Castillo, what the other player brings v. the alternatives you have at his position, etc. So whether Castillo's cost is relevant is going to depend on what question the Mets are ultimately asking.
It will come as a surprise to exactly no one when I say that I would be happy to take the "over" on Daniel Murphy, for his career, bettering Todd Walker's career OBP (.348), OPS (.783), and OPS+ (98). He will outhit Walker, easily. Rusty Greer's numbers, OTOH, I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole -- .387, .863, 119. That's going to take some doing . . . .
It's pretty clear that Murphy's not going to play 2B regularly - he's shown no signs of being able to play it in the minors. Castillo's pretty horrible at this point, but unless the Mets sign someone (Wigginton? Hairston?) he's going to get a lot of starts when/if he's healthy enough to play.
Ugh. After what IPOR did to us in this game late last year, I think I'll pass on sending bad second basemen to division rivals for a while . . . .
I think Murphy will develop a bit more power than Walker (career .435 SLG), but is an inferior defender. IMHO Met fans are kidding themselves if they think that Murphy could play 2B at anywhere near an acceptable level. The James' projection seems pretty optimistic to me, but he could be a slightly-above average offensive LF next year.
Castillo was among the worst players in the league last year, but that doesn't mean that he necessarily will be in 2009 and beyond. Even if he's lost a step in the field, he's a better defender than Murphy projects to be. Give him a shot and see how he looks in spring training and early in the season. It's just as easy to DFA him in June as it is now.
What they do need, though, is a better Plan B for 2B (who is next on the depth chart with Easley gone, Marlon Anderson? That is not an endorsement for bringing back Easley, BTW). Maybe the Mets can get lucky with a waiver pickup like the Braves were able to pick up a useful spare part for 2B/3B last spring...
Wigginton no longer has the footwork to handle 3B, so I don't know how he could be expected to play at 2B.
I see Murphy as a .400/.450 caliber player -- which is about as good as Greer is (a bit better OBP, not quite the slugging). But I wouldn't bet on that, because goodness knows there is a lot of uncertainty attached to any young player. He could end up being .370/.420, which would still be quite good (who wouldn't want ANY player with a .370 OBP???). Which shows that you can let a hell of a lot of air out of the hitter I think Murphy's going to be, and still be better than Todd Walker. That is precisly why I have utter confidence that he's going to beat Walker's career numbers.
I think so too. But I am worried that he gets lost without a position ... Catalanatto is a nice example, better than Conor Jackson. With a .290 average and 109 OPS+ he is right in the range we are discussing, and he even has the lefty-hitting infielder thing going. Detroit didn't really know what to do with Cat (I remember he was an early avatar of Baseball Prospectus' love for the underutilized hitter). They had Easley in front of him and he ended up pinch-hitting a lot. He didn't hit his stride until he abandoned the infield later - still gets platooned and has never had 500 ABs, although lots of injuries mar this analysis.
Another name worth mentioning is Kelly Johnson. Seems similar to Murphy in a lot of respects but is a more capable fielder at second and left
If that gets him riled up, I'm going to have to move to Vanuatu when he sees the projection in a few days!
Nah, I'm used to it at this point. I know I'm out on a limb here, that his minor league numbers don't support my position. My view is based on the trajectory of his performance, on my observation of his approach at the plate (as distinct from from the output, by the way, for those of you who think I'm just being fooled by the results of 150 major league PAs), and by my views of how left-handed hitters who are able to implement that approach fare. They succeed, to put it concisely. If everyone was capable of putting into practice what Murphy did last year, baseball would be a far different game, with a lot more offense. Fortunately for pitchers, most hitters can't. Since Murphy can, he'll succeed. What his minor league numbers show, IMHO, is that it has taken him time to develop and learn and to reach this point. For that reason, I put greater emphasis on what he has shown me he can do and the approach he uses, then on the data from earlier points in his development.
I may be wrong. Those of you who are going by the full range of his minor league career obviously believe I am. We'll see.
What adjustment factor are you using for your MLEs now? Your MLEs are no longer a little lower than everyone else's- they are a LOT lower.
Yep. It's certainly no slight to be compared to Catalanotto or Walker. Managing expectations, however, is important when dealing with a guy like that - you can't expect him to be Rusty Greer. You're just happy if he turns out to be. Platooning with Tatis and giving Ryan Church some days off (sliding Tatis to RF) would be a perfect role for Murphy - if he hits the cover off the ball again this year, maybe he gets a clear shot at the job in 2010.
What adjustment factor are you using for your MLEs now? Your MLEs are no longer a little lower than everyone else's- they are a LOT lower.
I was always between DT and Chone/Sackmann, I've just moved a little more towards the lower end overall. In essence, good player MLEs tend to be closer to the latter while lesser player MLEs towards the former.
Well, I would certainly hope that if he is repeating what he did in 2008, by June, at least, he's getting a lot more ABs than that suggests. It sure as hell shouldn't take them until 2010 to get the message.
Remember Jason Phillips' rookie year? Great numbers, especially for a catcher. If you looked at how he did it, you just knew that it wasn't sustainable, and that he wasn't going to be a great or even a good player.
Sometimes, the numbers (minor league or major league) don't tell you what you need to know. You look at how he does it. And Nick Evans just can't handle major league heat from RHPs. He gets beat inside. He's 22, OK. So maybe he can adjust somehow and get rid of that hole without opening up another one. I doubt it, but right now I see a platoon player. A useful platoon player, mind you, but . . . when you are taking the smaller half of the platoon, how big a role or important player is that?
I give Evans the benefit of the possibility of development -- but what he is right now is not half the player Daniel Murphy is.
Anyone who bought the Baseball Forecaster the next year and drafted Phillips probably wanted to kill Shandler- what he said about Phillips (in his own way) was not too dis-similar to what you are saying about Murphy- yes he said, Phillips' MLB #s were quite a bit better than his minor league track record, but here is why I think he really is this good...
That prediction didn't work out so well
I agree with Sam's scouting report. But, I will also say that we are talking about small samples, the on-field results are not hugely significant, and even the wisest scout would find it difficult not to be swayed by those results when they are so disparate. If Murphy hit .230 and looked just as good, we wouldn't be talking about Todd Walker, we'd be talking about Lenny Harris
I just don't think Murphy is ever going to hit for enough power to be a good player in the outfield. Evans has more pop and I could see him being a 20-25 homer guy consistently.
Murphy deserves credit for his performance in the big leagues but Evans, IMO, is just a good a prospect as Murphy, and neither is as good as Sam is thinking.
Sam knows that, he's just going by what his eyeball told him in each ones' brief MLB experience to date. Murphy LOOKS like a better hitter against RHPs than Evans (To Sam anyway)- and Evans certainly got his head handed to him in his 50 mlb PAs against RHPS...
The difference, of course, is that I'm not trying to sell anyone anything. My opinion is available free of charge, and it's clear I have persuaded absolutely no one to abandon their orthodoxy. Which is fine; it'll be all the more satisfying to have been willing to go out on a limb so determinedly and (IF it turns out that way) be right.
The thing is that, IMHO, not all minor league performance is created equal, in the absolutely critical sense that it translates equally into projecting forward into useful major league talent. Russlan obviously agrees with this premise (# 48) -- because in some ways, at least, he believe that Nick Evans is the more projectable player because hs is younger, "looks like the better athlete," and "has more pop." Fine. I see it the opposite way, but it's the premise in which I'm interested: similar bottom-line numbers don't necessarily mean two players project to equivalent succes in the majors.
To me, Murphy is far more projectable because of his pitch recognition and selectivity at the plate, being a left-handed hitter, and his proven ability to hit to all fields. That is a combination of skills that I believe translates into success for a hitter -- it is extremely difficult for pitchers to find ways to deal with that combination, all but those with the most overpowering stuff. And if the only guys who can consistently get Daniel Murphy out are the Jake Peavys of the league, he'll do just fine. Daniel Murphy doesn't need to be a 25/30 HR guy to be a .400/.450 hitter; he only needs to have 15-20 HR power and 40 2B pop to do it, and I think he does.
Of course I'm going by observation. That sure as hell ought to be the basis on which any baseball fan makes judgments about players, shouldn't it? We all combine reliance on statistics and data around here, but we're not blind, either. I can see that Nick Evans gets beat by even reasonably decent major league fastballs from RHPs. Am I supposed to pretend I don't see that? I can see that Daniel Murphy doesn't swing at bad pitches, works the count in his favor, is able to recognize what pitchers are trying to do throughout his ABs, and I see a veterans' approach in a rookie, and I have no doubt a successful hitter is there. And I'm going to say it, and you all are totally free to maintain your skepticism.
I will be right about Daniel Murphy. And I hope to hell that Nick Evans continues to develop, so I end up being wrong about him.
I hope so.
Sigh.
I think that the concept of sunk cost is properly identified here but I think its being improperly applied. We all agree Luis Castillo sucks. He sucks. He got the contract, and its over. At this point, he's going to get the money, so the amount of money he is making is entirely irrelevant. Its not a reason to play him but its also not a reason NOT to play him.
Looking at it for what it is, I don't mind Castillo. The Mets were 2nd in the NL in runs last year IIRC -- if he bats 8th or bats 9th to turn the lineup over, with that good OBP and ability to work the pitcher a little bit, he won't, by himself, kill us. The fact that hes making a shitload of money hurts our feelings but it is not an additional reason to cut him or sign someone else to play his position. Cast as an 8 or 9 hole hitter, Castillo ought to be fine.
Also, I'm all for trading him instead of cutting him, but basically, he shouldn't be on the roster much longer. "Cut him" means, get rid of him, up to and including a straight cut.
It could be that 2008 was a wasted year because of knee surgery and a healthier Castillo is close to average defensively. I'd be more inclined to agree with that notion if most defensive metrics said that he was good in 2007.
Granted, Castillo is a below-average player and the contract is an atrocious value. We all get that. But if there's a chance that he could bounce back (in which case he's easier to trade during 2009 or after), it's worth giving him a few months to see what happens. Then cut him in June or whatever if he's still a stiff.
2008: -8
2007: -2
2006: 0
2005: 5
I have Castillo projected to hit 279/351/348.
He's far from a plus, especially if his defense stays bad, but given that he probably won't fetch what the Mets need in a trade, I'd be inclined to hang onto him a bit.
Sorry, but color me unconvinced. You're concluding that he "*can* play it" based on 17 minor league games, plus a dozen or so AFL?
How about 'the most likely thing to happen' then?
02: -2.0
03: 9.5
04: 5.7
05: 10.7
06: 1.4
07: 7.4
08: -10.8
Career: 3.9
Good fielder who had a bad year.
UZR is "over adjusted".
I think the Mets should play Castillo unless they can trade him and bring in someone who is considerably better. Maybe sign someone like Cora who wouldn't be a total embarrassment as a replacement for Castillo if he doesn't play better.
2005: 4 DRS
2006: -2
2007: -5
2008: -8 (in 87 games)
This decline fits really well with an "expected aging curve".
I do think he'll bounce back because he'll be healthier and will be in better shape because he'll be able to work out instead of recovering from surgery. Still, I can't blame Dial for being pessimistic.
It's not like the 2nd base options prior to Castillo were that great, or the non Murphy alternatives are that great.
Like I said, if he's taking up a more important spot, at the start of the season, then it's another story.
Heh....I love it when Mets fans set the bar as the performance of Phillies.
Chris, I'd be interested to see these. I don't mean that in a "prove it!" sort of way, I don't have a horse in this race - just genuinely curious. Thanks.
While this can be overdone, and it is more applicable to minor league performance (where the quality of competition is more uneven) than major league performance, Sam's basically right.
-- MWE
UZR takes a few million things into account that have been basically, unchecked.
Edited for clarity to appease Dial.
Edited for clarity to appease Dial.Wouldn't you like for Pedro Feliz to play as well as David Wirght, or Cole Hamels to pitch as well as Johan Santana, or Shane Victorino to be as good as Carlos Beltran, or Ryan Howard improve to Carlos Delgado levels?
Wouldn't you like David Wright to have as many post-season RBI's as Pedro Feliz?
Am I the only person who thinks Castillo has a real shot to move back into the mid-90 OPS+ range? I think he in particular is a player with an offensive value tied up strongly in batting average.
If Castillo is a true talent .250 hitter now, that's a terrible offensive player. But if he did nothing more than not have a very low-spike BA relative to the rest of his career and stayed healthy enough to play 130ish games, we could tolerate a reasonable age-related decline on defense.
I recognize that it's often oversold as a factor, but Castillo sees a lot of pitches, and I think that adds value beyond his raw numbers. It makes Reyes a better threat on the bases, and gives the middle of the lineup more looks at a pitcher's stuff.
Castillo as a .290/.370/.350 hitter with below-average (but not Lead Glove) defense is not a problem player, even though he's overpaid a little. If 60% of the time the Mets start their first inning with a fast runner on base and less than 2 outs for Wright and Beltran, we're talking about of a lot of first-inning runs.
What percentage of the time does a team win games if it is the first to score a run?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main