Master Index of Archived Threads


BIE 2.0

G-Fafif Jun 25 2010 08:43 PM

There was no question (or need for a question mark) eleven years ago. I'm thinking that we may be on the verge of something pretty special with their homegrown successors. Best Infield Ever 2.0, anyone?

Zvon Jun 25 2010 08:52 PM Re: BIE 2.0

Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover.

G-Fafif Jun 25 2010 08:59 PM Re: BIE 2.0

Zvon wrote: Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover. Z, I hope there are many, many opportunities to capture their likenesses as a unit over the next several years. Remember, the first Best Infield Ever was broken up at the end of its one year together once Olerud was allowed to walk to Seattle (he always did like to walk). It's early to be penciling in Tejada -- and assuming anything else -- but four homegrown infielders, two approaching their peaks, two getting better every day...man, I am so excited to watch them perform on both sides of the ball.

Gwreck Jun 25 2010 09:00 PM Re: BIE 2.0

G-Fafif wrote: There was no question (or need for a question mark) eleven years ago. I'm thinking that we may be on the verge of something pretty special with their homegrown successors. Best Infield Ever 2.0, anyone? Best all-homegrown infield? I may hate them but I think I'd concede that all-around the MFY infield is stronger. Also no slouches: Cincinnati, Texas, Milwaukee.

MFS62 Jun 25 2010 09:02 PM Re: BIE 2.0

Zvon wrote: Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover. NO! I don't want to see any picture of any Met on the cover of SI. Have you no sense of jinx history, man? Put 'em on the cover of The Rolling Stone, if you may. But not SI. Please. I beg you. Later

Zvon Jun 25 2010 09:07 PM Re: BIE 2.0

G-Fafif wrote: Zvon wrote: Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover. Z, I hope there are many, many opportunities to capture their likenesses as a unit over the next several years. Remember, the first Best Infield Ever was broken up at the end of its one year together once Olerud was allowed to walk to Seattle (he always did like to walk). It's early to be penciling in Tejada -- and assuming anything else -- but four homegrown infielders, two approaching their peaks, two getting better every day...man, I am so excited to watch them perform on both sides of the ball. I never understood how they could let that bat get away. Did we have a shortage on helmets or something? I'm very excited about this infield as well. Key here is Davis, who looks like he's been playing in the bigs for years already. He is one cool dude. If he can grow hitting wise, which I think he can and will,.......wow. Tejeda? 1) Wanna see more of him. He looks like he could be the answer to my prayers. 2) I'm all out of wows

Zvon Jun 25 2010 09:14 PM Re: BIE 2.0

MFS62 wrote: Zvon wrote: Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover. NO! I don't want to see any picture of any Met on the cover of SI. Have you no sense of jinx history, man? Put 'em on the cover of The Rolling Stone, if you may. But not SI. Please. I beg you. Later I don't do Sports Illustrated covers. But I will respect your wishes. I am superstitious myself.

G-Fafif Jun 25 2010 09:15 PM Re: BIE 2.0

Gwreck wrote: There was no question (or need for a question mark) eleven years ago. I'm thinking that we may be on the verge of something pretty special with their homegrown successors. Best Infield Ever 2.0, anyone? Best all-homegrown infield? I may hate them but I think I'd concede that all-around the MFY infield is stronger. Also no slouches: Cincinnati, Texas, Milwaukee. We're not there yet, I grant you (which is a major concession given my giddiness at the moment). Tejada's only been a second baseman for about ten minutes, but my, they look fantabulous afield, and with none of them over the age of 27, one is given to projections. How about Best Mets Infield Ever, defensively, since Olerud, Alfonzo, Ordonez, Ventura? Seeing as how Davis is already pretty good and no first baseman since Olerud (save for a half-season of Mientkiewicz when we didn't have a steady second baseman) has been more than barely adequate with the glove, I'll take that for now.

G-Fafif Jun 25 2010 09:18 PM Re: BIE 2.0

I wish Inside Sports had a longer heyday. For its first two or so years, the greatest sports magazine of modern times (and I won't accept Milwaukee, Cincinnati or Texas as a substitute).

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 25 2010 09:19 PM Re: BIE 2.0

G-Fafif wrote: How about Best Mets Infield Ever, defensively, since Olerud, Alfonzo, Ordonez, Ventura? Seeing as how Davis is already pretty good and no first baseman since Olerud (save for a half-season of Mientkiewicz when we didn't have a steady second baseman) has been more than barely adequate with the glove, I'll take that for now. I'll stipulate to that. The offense is almost a push too, and should favor this squad within a few years if Davis and Tejada continue to develop even a bit more.

G-Fafif Jun 25 2010 09:24 PM Re: BIE 2.0

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: G-Fafif wrote: How about Best Mets Infield Ever, defensively, since Olerud, Alfonzo, Ordonez, Ventura? Seeing as how Davis is already pretty good and no first baseman since Olerud (save for a half-season of Mientkiewicz when we didn't have a steady second baseman) has been more than barely adequate with the glove, I'll take that for now. I'll stipulate to that. The offense is almost a push too, and should favor this squad within a few years if Davis and Tejada continue to develop even a bit more. Never really worried about offense in singing the '99 infield's praises, particularly since offense was not Rey O's bag, baby. The other three guys had outstanding years in the middle of an outstanding offensive era, though none of them was a Reyes type, FWIW. Ventura was a monster most of that year, though Wright will (and has) put up comparable numbers. Davis is still learning to hit (a fast learner, he) and Tejada is a largely unknown quantity. We should be so lucky if they turn into Olerud and Alfonzo with the bat. But I'm not concerned with matching 1999's production in 2010 per se. I'm thinking we'll have this quartet around a while and we'll see what they become. That's assuming MFS62 doesn't walk under a ladder with Zvon's next SI cover tribute in hand.

seawolf17 Jun 26 2010 05:34 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Gwreck wrote: Best all-homegrown infield? I may hate them but I think I'd concede that all-around the MFY infield is stronger. Also no slouches: Cincinnati, Texas, Milwaukee. How is the MFY infield homegrown? I'm confused. The Reds' 3B is Scott Rolen, and Casey McGehee of the Brewers and Elvis Andrus of the Rangers came up through the Cubs' and Braves' systems, respectively.

G-Fafif Jun 26 2010 05:37 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Best all-homegrown infield? I may hate them but I think I'd concede that all-around the MFY infield is stronger. Also no slouches: Cincinnati, Texas, Milwaukee. How is the MFY infield homegrown? I'm confused. The Reds' 3B is Scott Rolen, and Casey McGehee of the Brewers and Elvis Andrus of the Rangers came up through the Cubs' and Braves' systems, respectively. I think 'Wreck is finding a nice thing to say about our infield in the face of those that might have better "Best" qualifications at the moment. I say why wait?

Kong76 Jun 26 2010 06:47 AM Re: BIE 2.0

MFS62 wrote: Zvon wrote: Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover. NO! I don't want to see any picture of any Met on the cover of SI. Have you no sense of jinx history, man? Put 'em on the cover of The Rolling Stone, if you may. But not SI. Please. I beg you. Later Michael Jordan was on 56 times and the Yankees over 60 ... jinx schminx ...

Edgy DC Jun 26 2010 06:53 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Thank you. As for best defensive Met infields, I celebrate the homegrowniness and projectivity certailny and all, but the class of 2006 was great. Sure Delgado was merely fair with occasional bouts of averageness, but Wright hadn't yet succumbed to the ninth-inning-yips, Reyes was coming fully into himself and Valentin --- coming late to the party and at a new position --- was nothing short of fantastic. Even fifth infielder Chris Woodward made me stand up with confidence.

G-Fafif Jun 26 2010 12:01 PM Re: BIE 2.0

Johan was on the cover right after he was acquired in 2008. And he gave up four runs in the first inning today. Jinx!

seawolf17 Jun 26 2010 12:13 PM Re: BIE 2.0

Was that a real cover? Neat.

Zvon Jun 26 2010 12:48 PM Re: BIE 2.0

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: G-Fafif wrote: How about Best Mets Infield Ever, defensively, since Olerud, Alfonzo, Ordonez, Ventura? Seeing as how Davis is already pretty good and no first baseman since Olerud (save for a half-season of Mientkiewicz when we didn't have a steady second baseman) has been more than barely adequate with the glove, I'll take that for now. I'll stipulate to that. The offense is almost a push too, and should favor this squad within a few years if Davis and Tejada continue to develop even a bit more. G-Fafif wrote: That's assuming MFS62 doesn't walk under a ladder with Zvon's next SI cover tribute in hand. lol G-Fafif wrote: Awsumness. Who needs a stinkin' cover? G-Fafif wrote: Johan was on the cover right after he was acquired in 2008. And he gave up four runs in the first inning today. Jinx! lmao. Classic.

Ashie62 Jun 26 2010 12:54 PM Re: BIE 2.0

Zvon wrote: Zvon wrote: Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover. NO! I don't want to see any picture of any Met on the cover of SI. Have you no sense of jinx history, man? Put 'em on the cover of The Rolling Stone, if you may. But not SI. Please. I beg you. Later I don't do Sports Illustrated covers. But I will respect your wishes. I am superstitious myself. Hey, my altar ego resembles that remark and the answer is idiot.

Ashie62 Jun 26 2010 12:55 PM Re: BIE 2.0

Davis, Tejada, Reyes, Wright. They do have a shot.

Zvon Jun 26 2010 12:58 PM Re: BIE 2.0

Ashie62 wrote: Hey, my altar ego resembles that remark and the answer is idiot. lolol. How come you guys aren't on the Twins bench?

G-Fafif Jun 27 2010 01:11 AM Re: BIE 2.0

While we wait for Davis, Tejada, Reyes, Wright to move into rarefied air and challenge for Best Infield Ever designation, I can report with confidence that becoming Best Homegrown Met Infield Ever will not be difficult to achieve. They may have achieved it already. No kidding. On Friday, the kids started their 13th game together as a unit. That places them SECOND in Met history already in that regard. Most games started by a homegrown Met infield: 15 -- Kranepool, Boswell, Harrelson, Foli 13 -- Davis, Tejada, Reyes, Wright 11 -- Kranepool, Boswell, Harrelson, Collins No other quartet with exclusive Met pedigree ever reached double-digits in games started. There have only been 11 others, actually (counting two that include Rey Ordonez, whom Elias recently noted was a St. Paul Saint before being signed by the Mets, but was for all intents and purposes homegrown). In chronological order of their debut, they are: Kranepool, Heise, Harrelson, Moock Kranepool, Heise, Harrelson, Boswell Kranepool, Boswell, Heise, Moock Kranepool, Boswell, Harrelson, Martinez Kranepool, Martinez, Harrelson, Foli Milner, Puig, Martinez, Boswell Magadan, Backman, Elster, Jefferies Donnels, Miller, Elster, Jefferies Donnels, Miller, Gardner, Jefferies Huskey, Alfonzo, Ordonez, Bogar Huskey, Bogar, Ordonez, Alfonzo In case you're wondering, "What about Wayne Garrett?" he came up through the Braves system, playing four seasons for their minor league teams before being Rule 5 drafted in December 1968. Best Rule 5 drafting the Mets ever made, I'm guessing...but he wasn't homegrown. HOWEVER, even if you want to consider the 24 different infield combinations that were constituted of Garrett and homegrown Mets or, in one case, a combination of homegrown Mets and players whose minor league development came elsewhere but made their MLB debuts as Mets, there's not a gargantuan obstacle for the current Fab Four to overcome. Most games started by those fellas: 50 -- Kranepool, Boswell, Harrelson, Garrett 23 -- Kranepool, Boswell, Martinez, Garrett 14 -- Milner, Boswell, Martinez, Garrett 13 -- Kranepool, Garrett, Harrelson, Pfeil (Wayne also logged one start as part of an around-the-horn that went Pemberton, Puig, Garrett, Boswell.) FYI, Bobby Pfeil was also a Met who made his MLB debut as a Met but wasn't technically homegrown. Others who filled out otherwise purebreed starting Met infields with that tag include Ron Hunt, Amos Otis, Gary Rajsich, Jason Hartdke, Shawn Gilbert, Marco Scutaro, Anderson Hernandez and Argenis Reyes. Also deserving a category of his own is Kaz Matsui, too established a player to be considered homegrown yet technically meeting the criteria of never having been with another MLB organization before he was a Met. Kaz was part of four otherwise all-homegrown Met starting infields, none for more than 9 games: Phillips, Garcia, Matsui, Wigginton Wigginton, Reyes, Matsui, Wright Brazell, Reyes, Matsui, Wright Jacobs, Matsui, Reyes, Wright While the first wholly Met-developed starting infield consisted of Ed Kranepool, Bob Heise, Bud Harrelson and Joe Moock (9/13/1967), props are due to two proto-homegrown infields. Each man made his MLB debut as a Met but all were originally signed by somebody else. On September 15, 1963, the Mets fielded, from first to third at Dodger Stadium, Dick Smith, Rod Kanehl, Al Moran and Jim Hickman. They lost to Sandy Koufax 1-0, the only run scoring on an errant pickoff throw by Roger Craig in the first inning with two outs. The runner who would have been out had the throw not gotten away was future Met Tommy Davis. On April 19, 1964, the first game the Mets ever won at Shea Stadium (on an Al Jackson shutout), Casey Stengel started Smith, Hunt, Moran and Kanehl. They'd get one more shot together on April 23, a loss to the Cubs, and that would be that. The next quasi-homegrown infield would materialize four times at the tail end of 1965: Kranepool, Hunt (originally Milwaukee Brave property), Harrelson and Collins. In conclusion: 1) When Keith Hernandez, Doug Flynn, Robin Ventura, whoever was doing his thing in the Met infield, I never gave the slightest thought to "gosh, too bad he's not homegrown." 2) Yet it sure is nice that our four starting infielders for the foreseeable future (as much as anybody can foresee in this game) are all Mets, all the time. And that they've either proven top-notch or are showing signs they will do so. 3) Wow, it sure is tough to develop a homegrown infield that lasts. At least it has been for us. 49 seasons and no homegrown infield has started together for more than 15 games! Even if you want to stretch the definition to allow players whose debuts came as Mets after minor league experience elsewhere, no homegrown-ish infield has started together for more than 50 games. Also, the Mets have never thrown a no-hitter.

Centerfield Jun 27 2010 05:59 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Are we talking defensively or overall? Defensively, the '99 team can't be touched by these guys. Overall, I'm with you guys that the potential is there, but it's nothing more than a pipedream at this point. Davis, for all his early success, has an OPS that is under .800 (.778). He's 23, and certainly can get better, but that's not a star by any means. At a position like first base, you'd like to see much more production. (And it's certainly not enough to be hitting cleanup). We all agree Bay has been lacking right? He's been better than Davis (.787). Tejada is even more of a stretch. Looking at his minor league stats, this guy has a .700 OPS in the minors. Again, he's 20 years old, and can get better. But in order to be a major league starter, he needs to hit better in the bigs than he has ever hit in his life.

Edgy DC Jun 27 2010 06:13 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Great job. I applaud the all-home-grown infield and happily consider my Mets dollar a contribution toward their care and feeding. I'm going to guess finding the best all-rule-five infield is a non-starter.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 27 2010 06:14 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Centerfield wrote: Tejada is even more of a stretch. Looking at his minor league stats, this guy has a .700 OPS in the minors. Again, he's 20 years old, and can get better. But in order to be a major league starter, he needs to hit better in the bigs than he has ever hit in his life. Without the power, Tejada's offensive ceiling is lower, granted... but OPS tends to significantly underrate what he does well with the stick-- getting on-base in powerless fashion-- by weighting on-base percentage and slugging as equal. His wOBA numbers (about .320-.325 for his minors stint) are a little bit fairer to his game. He's got a bit more room for growth (.304 wOBA in his short major-league stint, about .015 off the ML averages for middle-infielders), but he'll be better as he sees more major-league pitching, I suspect; he followed a similar track of floundering-then-adjustment-to-be-above-average-at-getting-on in the minors. But hell, if the lack of power stlll bugs you, look at the guy he's replacing, and realize that he's MUCH better with the glove, and MUCH cheaper. (Not to mention he's so adowabwy wittle!)

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 27 2010 06:36 AM Re: BIE 2.0

good work, Greg. The other night, with Thole catching and Pelfrey pitching, eveyone inside the cutout was a homegrowner.

Frayed Knot Jun 27 2010 06:51 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Plus you can make the (stretchy) argument that, on account of both Pagan & Bay passing through the NYM system (prior to leaving then returning), everyone on the field save for Francouer was "home grown". On a more general note; are Met fans getting overly giddy overly quickly over Tejada on account of his name being 'not Castillo' ? Of course they are - but he shows signs of being promising so let's enjoy it while things are going well.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 27 2010 07:12 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Plus you can make the (stretchy) argument that, on account of both Pagan & Bay passing through the NYM system (prior to leaving then returning), everyone on the field save for Francouer was "home grown". On a more general note; are Met fans getting overly giddy overly quickly over Tejada on account of his name being 'not Castillo' ? Of course they are - but he shows signs of being promising so let's enjoy it while things are going well. Well his not being Castillo means: 1) He's "ours." (The benefit of which is more ineffable than the other two things, but makes him more fun to cheer/talk about.) 2) He's cheaper, and will be for the foreseeable future. (Which means that even if he's performing at an equivalent level at present-- and that's underselling it-- he's more valuable.) 3) He's younger. MUCH younger. (Which means that even if he's performing at that theoretical equivalent level, he's likely to improve some, no matter how much lower his ceiling may be than Havens' or FernyMart's.) A team with Tejada on it and performing at even the level he's performed for the last month-- and that's a reasonable level of expectation for the rest of season, I think-- is a better team than one with this year's Castillo model in the same slot. Even Met fans who don't know their Fangraphs from their fanny sense that on some level, I think.

Frayed Knot Jun 27 2010 08:52 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Great list of reasons why Met fans are/should be more hopeful with Tejada than Castillo and look forward more to his future. But do you honestly think his being here for the dozen-plus games he's started in Castillo's place has made even as much as one game in the standings? And do take into consideration his barely .300 OBA, his 2 errors, and that triple-play he hit into.

Edgy DC Jun 27 2010 12:19 PM Re: BIE 2.0

I'm not sure why cheaper and younger should have much meaning, as his presence doesn't mean Castillo's age and price go away.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 27 2010 08:10 PM Re: BIE 2.0

Fair enough, Edge. But as far as performance, FK? Anemic bat aside-- and he's equaling, if not starting to surpass, This Year's Castillo-- the defense has been game-changing; Fangraphs' defense metrics (thanks to interpolation of John Dewan's +/-, getting less murky by the day) like his fielding to the tune of 21 fielding runs above average. My eyes don't disagree-- I can think offhand of at least three inning-ending DPs Castillo would not have turned, and his range-- especially laterally-- appears to be orders-of-magnitude better at this point. I'll take 2 errors every few weeks if it means that he's getting to a lot more balls than the other guy... which seems to be the case. Has he been worth a game in the standings? Run production/prevention-wise, it would take a historically good stretch to put up 1 WAR over the course of a 2-week period. Has he been a change for the better? My eyes and the stat sheet say yes.

Fman99 Jun 27 2010 08:21 PM Re: BIE 2.0

Tejada is great, Castillo sucks a fuckin cock. Put that in your fuckin fangraphs pipe. Sorry I am full of gin.

Frayed Knot Jun 27 2010 09:21 PM Re: BIE 2.0

I think any characterization of Tejada's defense over this short span as "game changing" is optimism gone wild. Wanting Tejada to be a vast upgrade over Castillo is vastly different from pretending that it's already the case.

Zvon Jun 27 2010 09:37 PM Re: BIE 2.0

G-Fafif wrote: In case you're wondering, "What about Wayne Garrett?" he came up through the Braves system, playing four seasons for their minor league teams before being Rule 5 drafted in December 1968. Best Rule 5 drafting the Mets ever made, I'm guessing...but he wasn't homegrown. I did not know he came from Atlanta. And he kicked some Brave ass in the '69 playoffs. G-Fafif wrote: Also, the Mets have never thrown a no-hitter. ....................soon baby.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 27 2010 09:38 PM Re: BIE 2.0

I think any characterization of Tejada's defense over this short span as "game changing" is optimism gone wild. Wanting Tejada to be a vast upgrade over Castillo is vastly different from pretending that it's already the case. I meant that the defense in relation to Luis Castillo's was game-changing... the upgrade, IOW. I miswrote. (I was going to let it go because it's minor, but if you'd like to split hairs: are you really bringing up his hitting into a triple play once as representative of his skill with... I don't know, anything?) Tejada has more power than Castillo NOW and he's got a 17-year-old's frame at age 20; he's also put up a .330 (and climbing) OBP compared to "OBP specialist" Castillo's .347*. He's put up the same amount of WAR and more Fielding Runs (both cumulative stats) in a fraction of the time on the field. I realize you're more or less playing devil's advocate here. Still... you're wrong. Parse my language all you'd like, but make no mistake-- he has been an upgrade. But "half-decent" represents a significant upgrade over "useless;" a lamed Castillo having a down year is useless, while Tejada's been half-decent (and as long as he keeps up a modest level of production offensively, he'll continue to be so). If you disagree about that... man, we're watching different games. *SSS Alert!

Zvon Jun 27 2010 09:41 PM Re: BIE 2.0

These fangraphics and dense metrics,....they frighten me and make me want to howl at the moon.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 27 2010 09:48 PM Re: BIE 2.0

Zvon wrote: These fangraphics and dense metrics,....they frighten me and make me want to howl at the moon. The guts underlying a lot of these stats are sometimes REALLY simple... there's just a lot of legwork to get the info. John Dewan's +/- stuff is all about range-- chart every ball hit at a dude, figure out how much ground he covers and how much he makes plays within that area, then compare to the league average (changes every year) to see where he stands compared to other left fielders, say. Sometimes, it's even simpler than counting plays-- Tom Tango's Fan Surveys just ask fans of each team to rate their own team's fielders (and anyone they feel they've seen a LOT of), and are a nice supplement to the Wizard-of-Oz-ish UZR and its ilke. Takes a little getting used to, granted, but it tells you a LOT more about a guy's fielding than fielding percentage, say.

Frayed Knot Jun 28 2010 08:02 AM Re: BIE 2.0

I meant that the defense in relation to Luis Castillo's was game-changing... the upgrade, IOW. I miswrote. (I was going to let it go because it's minor, but if you'd like to split hairs: are you really bringing up his hitting into a triple play once as representative of his skill with... I don't know, anything?) Tejada has more power than Castillo NOW and he's got a 17-year-old's frame at age 20; he's also put up a .330 (and climbing) OBP compared to "OBP specialist" Castillo's .347*. He's put up the same amount of WAR and more Fielding Runs (both cumulative stats) in a fraction of the time on the field. I realize you're more or less playing devil's advocate here. Still... you're wrong. Parse my language all you'd like, but make no mistake-- he has been an upgrade. But "half-decent" represents a significant upgrade over "useless;" a lamed Castillo having a down year is useless, while Tejada's been half-decent (and as long as he keeps up a modest level of production offensively, he'll continue to be so). If you disagree about that... man, we're watching different games. Yes I'm partially playing devil's advocate here, and of course Tejada is an upgrade over an injured Castillo, and of course at 20 y/o he's got the better future ahead of him. But just like CF's post earlier about how we shouldn't get too giddy and talk about Ike = Olerud yet, and like the premature cries from earlier seasons about how Argenis Reyes was the future, I just think that anyone not named Castillo is too quickly given credit for everything up to and including the sunrise based on the name alone. I don't believe the Met record would be even one game different had Castillo not gotten hurt and Tejada were still in Buffalo; I think the trade in offense is probably a wash at best (and not as good as Castillo v.2009) and the defensive upgrade is being exaggerated - turning DPs is one area I think both Castillo and Cora do quite well. My only point in bringing up the several errors (including dropping a peg from RF for a sure out) and the triple play is to imagine the reaction if Luis had done either much less both.

Edgy DC Jun 28 2010 08:07 AM Re: BIE 2.0

are you really bringing up his hitting into a triple play once as representative of his skill with... I don't know, anything? Representing nothing but itself, it's part of the current output that doesn't stack up against Castilllo as well as all that. Representing his skill, no, but I thought we were looking at performance.

G-Fafif Jun 28 2010 08:42 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Ensuing debate on offense notwithstanding, this was meant as an expression of exhilaration over the defense demonstrated thus far in their young career as a unit. The exhilaration continues here.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 28 2010 09:00 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Edgy DC wrote: are you really bringing up his hitting into a triple play once as representative of his skill with... I don't know, anything? Representing nothing but itself, it's part of the current output that doesn't stack up against Castilllo as well as all that. Representing his skill, no, but I thought we were looking at performance. Okay, then does it fairly represent even a sliver of his performance? Or does it represent a one-time, highly-luck-dependent result, into which the only performance components are that he smacked the living fuck out of the ball and isn't quite Usain-Bolt-ish enough to outrun a well-oiled 5-4-3? It's weird, I know, but save walk rate (and hitting into triple plays, apparently), there is literally no aspect of the game at which Tejada's bite-size performance has not equaled or surpassed Castillo's bite-size performance. I don't believe the Met record would be even one game different had Castillo not gotten hurt and Tejada were still in Buffalo... I'm having a little bit of an issue isolating plays on B-R this morning, but I'm pretty sure that Pelfrey doesn't have ten wins without him. My only point in bringing up the several errors (including dropping a peg from RF for a sure out) and the triple play is to imagine the reaction if Luis had done either much less both. Of course there are idiots who'd boo him for hitting into a triple play. Of course there are some who'd roll their eyes (full disclosure: my first instinct would be to do so) when Castillo drops something*. There are people who'd have traded Beltran after 2005-- hell, after 2006, even ('cause, y'know, he's a clutchless loser when he's not hitting multiple game-winning postseason home runs). Oddly, those guys who simply say Castillo sucks and Tejada looks good are right here. Just maybe not as right as they think they are. G-Fafif wrote: The exhilaration continues here. It's like you've got a mirror held up to my insides. GET OUT OF MY INSIDES, PRINCE! *One can make a convincing argument that it's more imperative for a fielder with diminished range to make a higher percentage of plays that he gets to than it is for a guy who gets to more grounders/liners/screamers/lollipops... but that's kind of irrelevant here.

Edgy DC Jun 28 2010 09:09 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Okay, then does it fairly represent even a sliver of his performance? Or does it represent a one-time, highly-luck-dependent result, into which the only performance components are that he smacked the living fuck out of the ball and isn't quite Usain-Bolt-ish enough to outrun a well-oiled 5-4-3? I think the point has been fairly made that it represents the sort of thing that gets distorted by the tired familiarity-breeds-contempt self-hating faction of the fanbase if it happens to Castillo, but is (rightly) taken in perespective when coming from a new face. I like Tejada and hope the Mets never trade for anybody again.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 28 2010 09:17 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Edgy DC wrote: I think the point has been fairly made that it represents the sort of thing that gets distorted by the tired familiarity-breeds-contempt self-hating faction of the fanbase if it happens to Castillo, but is (rightly) taken in perespective when coming from a new face. I like Tejada and hope the Mets never trade for anybody again. YAY! ME TOO!

Zvon Jun 28 2010 12:34 PM Re: BIE 2.0

These fangraphics and dense metrics,....they frighten me and make me want to howl at the moon. The guts underlying a lot of these stats are sometimes REALLY simple... there's just a lot of legwork to get the info. John Dewan's +/- stuff is all about range-- chart every ball hit at a dude, figure out how much ground he covers and how much he makes plays within that area, then compare to the league average (changes every year) to see where he stands compared to other left fielders, say. Sometimes, it's even simpler than counting plays-- Tom Tango's Fan Surveys just ask fans of each team to rate their own team's fielders (and anyone they feel they've seen a LOT of), and are a nice supplement to the Wizard-of-Oz-ish UZR and its ilke. Takes a little getting used to, granted, but it tells you a LOT more about a guy's fielding than fielding percentage, say. Seriously though. Thank you for posting that. Helps me evolve. I have a poster on the wall in my cave-office. It says: I WANT TO UNDERSTAND I was trying so hard here, but,sheeze, I guess I can never be 100% serious. I'll make the serious part bold

G-Fafif Jun 29 2010 11:57 AM Re: BIE 2.0

On page 1 of today's game notes, here, the world that doesn't read CPF or FAFIF learns that a Met record has just been tied regarding homegrown starting infields.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 02 2010 01:49 PM Re: BIE 2.0

I don't believe the Met record would be even one game different had Castillo not gotten hurt and Tejada were still in Buffalo; I think the trade in offense is probably a wash at best (and not as good as Castillo v.2009) and the defensive upgrade is being exaggerated - turning DPs is one area I think both Castillo and Cora do quite well. Belated rebuttal, with a massive assist from ESPNNewYork's Mark Simon and Baseball Info Solutions (and a massive SmlSamplSz warning): The folks at Baseball Info Solutions tell us Tejada had 19 balls hit to him in double play situations at second base this month. He turned 12 of them into twin killings, a conversion rate of 63 percent. That’s a significant improvement over Castillo’s 47 percent conversion rate (the major league average for a second baseman is 52 percent).

Edgy DC Jul 02 2010 02:01 PM Re: BIE 2.0

So, in theory, he's started three more doubleplays than otherwise Castillo wouldn't have executed. Considering, if Castillo hadn't gotten hurt, he still would be playing less, and one of those three would be handled by Cora (or Tejada!), it's less than three, and it's hard to believe that meaningfully translates into even one win. Going forward, terriffic. Trying to make much out of what's already happened though, is probably overexcitement. But yeah, I'm certainly comfortable with him staffing the position going ahead.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 03 2010 10:08 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Me too. Only, y'know... he won't be doing so. Master of the Secret Lobby wrote: "If Castillo was on the roster, it would be tough for Tejada to stay, as young as he is, at the major league level," Manuel said.

Edgy DC Jul 03 2010 11:53 AM Re: BIE 2.0

Well, that should be fine for now. He'll be back.