Master Index of Archived Threads


Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

G-Fafif Nov 09 2010 12:23 AM

Any thought given, when calculating all-time rankings, to weighting seasons based on overall Met success? I get that this is based on who was ranked highest in a given season, but it strikes me that being the No. 3 Met in a lousy year isn't spiritually equal to being the No. 3 Met in a great year (or the No. 6 Met in a great year, for that matter). This occurs to me after recently having ascended through the ranks from Lenny Dykstra (five Met seasons, all of them winning, one of them the most magnificent of Met seasons) to -- with Hubie Brooks between them -- Bobby Bonilla (five Met seasons, four of them losing, the other a great one he had no positive impact on).

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 09 2010 05:02 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

I don't know the formula but it's already baked in.

Frayed Knot Nov 09 2010 06:53 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Yes, they are already baked in. The player's score he gets from finishing high or low on the ranks of his fellow Mets for a particular season is then multiplied by the number of team wins* that year. So a top of the list player in a 90 win season is rewarded 1.5x as well as his counterpart in a 60 win year. * Plus bonus points for any post-season advancement.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2010 06:55 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

The root of the formula is (R^2*W)/10 R is Ranking with a number one ranking equal 30 and a number 30 ranking equaling 1. W is wins by the team (pro-rated to 162 for strike- or weather-shortened years). There's also some adjustments made for playoff success. So, while Bob Ojeda's 1986 was not the best season by any Met ever (probably not in the top ten), that season got him the most points of any player in a single season. But it works a lot better in the macro than in the micro.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2010 08:07 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

I don't like that the best player always scores a 30 and the second best player always scores a 29. The ranking system wrongly assumes that the gap between any two players within a season ranked next to each other is always the same. The ranking system also wrongly assumes that, season to season, the performance of the best player (and second best player, and third best player, all down the line) is always the same. The best player on the 1980 squad shouldn't receive the same "30" that the best player on the 1986 squad received.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2010 08:08 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

We've had some leniancy in that system.

Frayed Knot Nov 09 2010 08:10 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Specifically to the Dykstra/Bonilla thing; - Dykstra's problem was that in his five seasons with the Mets two of them were partials and in the others he platooned much of the time. So, while he may have been on some great teams, he never wound up as being one of the top guys in any one of them ended up ranking as the 19th, 10th, 6th, 5th, & 19th best Mets on those squads. - Bonilla on the other hand had much higher ranks - he was voted 3rd, 1st, 3rd & 4th place in 1992-95, and then 27th best for his 'contributions' for 1999 - even though they were all sub-80 win teams.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2010 08:19 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Relative to the league, Bobby Bonilla was a two time All-Star with the Mets. Dykstra none. On the other hand, bb-r.com says Bonilla had 8.7 WARs for the Mets. Dykstra had 16.4.

Frayed Knot Nov 09 2010 08:45 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

The best player on the 1980 squad shouldn't receive the same "30" that the best player on the 1986 squad received. He might receive the same '30' but a very different score.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2010 08:50 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Frayed Knot wrote: The best player on the 1980 squad shouldn't receive the same "30" that the best player on the 1986 squad received. He might receive the same '30' but a very different score. Yes, but the different "final" score is based entirely on the performance of their teammates. Before adjusting for team W-L record, the best '86er should have a higher score than the best '80er. The ranking system overemphasizes team performance at the expense of the player's performance

Edgy MD Nov 09 2010 09:18 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

make up your own system.

Frayed Knot Nov 09 2010 11:25 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Before adjusting for team W-L record, the best '86er should have a higher score than the best '80er. The ranking system overemphasizes team performance at the expense of the player's performance Aren't those two sentences at odds with each other? - In the first you say that the team outcome should trump what the individuals did - and do so twice, and apparently do so automatically regardless of the accomplishments in question. - while in the next you claim that team performance is overemphasized at the expense of the player.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2010 12:06 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Before adjusting for team W-L record, the best '86er should have a higher score than the best '80er. The ranking system overemphasizes team performance at the expense of the player's performance Aren't those two sentences at odds with each other? - In the first you say that the team outcome should trump what the individuals did - and do so twice, and apparently do so automatically regardless of the accomplishments in question. - while in the next you claim that team performance is overemphasized at the expense of the player. Lee Mazzilli is the CPF highest ranking 1980 Met and therefore, is awarded 30 points. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=600 Dwight Gooden, the highest ranking 1985 Met, gets the same "30" that Mazzilli80 did, even though Doc85 turned in the best pitching season in franchise history and Maz80 wouldn't have been the 4th best player on the '85 squad. Doc's '85 was one of the most dominant pitching seasons in modern history while Maz80 wasn't even the best at his position. Yet they get the same "30". Only after adjusting for the performance of their teammates does Doc85 surpass Maz80. Doc85 scores higher than Maz80, but only because Doc had better teammates.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2010 12:08 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Before adjusting for team W-L record, the best '86er should have a higher score than the best '80er. The ranking system overemphasizes team performance at the expense of the player's performance Aren't those two sentences at odds with each other? - In the first you say that the team outcome should trump what the individuals did - and do so twice, and apparently do so automatically regardless of the accomplishments in question. - while in the next you claim that team performance is overemphasized at the expense of the player. Lee Mazzilli is the CPF highest ranking 1980 Met and therefore, is awarded 30 points. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=600 Dwight Gooden, the highest ranking 1985 Met, gets the same "30" that Mazzilli80 did, even though Doc85 turned in the best pitching season in franchise history and Maz80 wouldn't have been the 4th best player on the '85 squad. Doc's '85 was one of the most dominant pitching seasons in modern history while Maz80 wasn't even the best at his position. Yet they get the same "30". Only after adjusting for the performance of their teammates does Doc85 surpass Maz80. Doc85 scores higher than Maz80, but only because Doc had better teammates. I'm not against accounting for the team's performance, but the system, as is, overdoes it.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2010 12:14 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Frayed Knot wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Before adjusting for team W-L record, the best '86er should have a higher score than the best '80er.... Aren't those two sentences at odds with each other? - In the first you say that the team outcome should trump what the individuals did .... I wrote that the best '86er should have a higher score than the best '80er before adjusting for team record --- because the best '86er, whoever that may be, had a better season than the best '80er. They shouldn't both get the same "30" (see also above two posts for the rest of my response)

Edgy MD Nov 09 2010 12:16 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

We're going in circles here here. As you point out, Mazzilli's ranking of 30 would not have happened had he had he been on the 1985 team. Better teammmates typically generate more wins, but lower rankings. So Gooden's better score is not the product of better teammates, but better Gooden, standing out in a better field, and getting more points for it. Gooden scores higher, not because he had better teammates, but because he towered above better teammates. Gooden received 8,820 points. Mazzilli received 6,030. That's not a particularly accurate representation of their relative worth (Gooden is probably worth at least two Mazzes, not 1.46), but it's not that innacurate either, and we're talking about an extreme case.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2010 12:28 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Edgy DC wrote: We're going in circles here here. As you point out, Mazzilli's ranking of 30 would not have happened had he had he been on the 1985 team. Then Maz80 gets a "30" because he had lesser teammates than Doc85. You can't have it both ways. Edgy DC wrote: Better teammmates typically generate more wins, but lower rankings. So Gooden's better score is not the product of better teammates, but better Gooden, standing out in a better field, and getting more points for it. Because he had better teammates. Why didn't the '85 Mets lose 85 games? He didn't need Straw in RF or Keith at first to lead the league in strikeouts. Had Doc85 pitched the same season for the '64 Mets, he'd have the same stats other than W-L record. Yet the system would punish Doc64 because his first baseman would've been Krane instead of Keith.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2010 12:34 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Edgy DC wrote: We're going in circles here here. As you point out, Mazzilli's ranking of 30 would not have happened had he had he been on the 1985 team. Better teammmates typically generate more wins, but lower rankings. So Gooden's better score is not the product of better teammates, but better Gooden, standing out in a better field, and getting more points for it. Gooden scores higher, not because he had better teammates, but because he towered above better teammates. Gooden received 8,820 points. Mazzilli received 6,030. That's not a particularly accurate representation of their relative worth (Gooden is probably worth at least two Mazzes, not 1.46), but it's not that innacurate either, and we're talking about an extreme case. I'm not against adjusting for team performance. But I think that your argument is either flawed, or contrived just for contrary's sake. The system scores the players based on individual performance. (player score) And then a final adjustment is made to each player score for team performance. If you think that Maz80 should have the same player score as Doc85, then that's what you think.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2010 12:38 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

batmagadanleadoff wrote: If you think that Maz80 should have the same player score as Doc85, then that's what you think. That's not what I think. What are you talking about?

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2010 12:40 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Edgy DC wrote: If you think that Maz80 should have the same player score as Doc85, then that's what you think. That's not what I think. What are you talking about? Before adjusting for team performance, Doesn't Maz80 score a "30"? Doesn't Doc85 score a "30"? Edgy DC wrote: The root of the formula is (R^2*W)/10 R is Ranking with a number one ranking equal 30 and a number 30 ranking equaling 1. W is wins by the team (pro-rated to 162 for strike- or weather-shortened years). There's also some adjustments made for playoff success. So, while Bob Ojeda's 1986 was not the best season by any Met ever (probably not in the top ten), that season got him the most points of any player in a single season. But it works a lot better in the macro than in the micro.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2010 12:45 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

The only question is whether you deliberately obtuse are not, but I really dislike when you force an argument on somebody that they are not making. The number 30 is a factor, not a product.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2010 12:46 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: If you think that Maz80 should have the same player score as Doc85, then that's what you think. That's not what I think. What are you talking about? Before adjusting for team performance, Doesn't Maz80 score a "30"? Doesn't Doc85 score a "30"? The root of the formula is (R^2*W)/10 R is Ranking with a number one ranking equal 30 and a number 30 ranking equaling 1. W is wins by the team (pro-rated to 162 for strike- or weather-shortened years). There's also some adjustments made for playoff success. So, while Bob Ojeda's 1986 was not the best season by any Met ever (probably not in the top ten), that season got him the most points of any player in a single season. But it works a lot better in the macro than in the micro. There are only two variables in the rankings formula you posted. Doc85 and Maz80 have the same player rank (30), and are thus, distinguished only by the performance of their teammates.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2010 12:50 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

I'm done.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2010 12:53 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Edgy DC wrote: The number 30 is a factor, not a product. I don't follow. Can you explain?

Benjamin Grimm Nov 09 2010 01:12 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

The 30 is just part of the formula. Their actual scores, the products of the formula, is 8,820 points for Gooden and 6,030 for Mazzilli. It's those numbers that affect the all-time rankings.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2010 01:15 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The 30 is just part of the formula. Their actual scores, the products of the formula, is 8,820 points for Gooden and 6,030 for Mazzilli. It's those numbers that affect the all-time rankings. So then this isn't the entire formula (other than playoff adjustments)? EdgyDC wrote: (R^2*W)/10 R is Ranking with a number one ranking equal 30 and a number 30 ranking equaling 1. W is wins by the team (pro-rated to 162 for strike- or weather-shortened years). There's also some adjustments made for playoff success.

Frayed Knot Nov 09 2010 01:53 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Edgy DC wrote: I'm done. I'm lost.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2010 07:09 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

I'm done. I'm lost. You guys must be pulling my legs. I stand by my arguments. More than ever. Here’s the formula, per Edgy’s earlier post: The root of the formula is (R^2*W)/10 The formula has two variables: R = the player’s score for a particular season based on his ranking relative to his teammates. The highest ranking player receives a score of 30; the next highest ranking player receives a score of 29, etc. R cannot exceed 30 (R <=30). W = the number of wins by the Mets for the particular season under consideration. My interpretation of the formula is consistent with the following point totals for Maz80 and Doc85, also provided by Edgy: Gooden received 8,820 points. Mazzilli received 6,030. Thus: Maz80 = (30^2*67)/10 = 6,030 Doc85 = (30^2*98)/10 = 8,820 So …. 1) the system is flawed because, by ranking players from 1 to 30, assumes that the gap between any two players ranked immediately next to each other (same season) is always the same, thus compromising the system’s ability to compare players same-season. 2) collapsing the player rankings portion of the formula (R variable) to <=30 compromises the system’s ability to perform cross-season comparisons. In the Maz80 v Doc85 example, Maz80 = (30^2*67)/10 = 6,030 Doc85 = (30^2*98)/10 = 8,820 Doc85 scores higher than Maz80, but only because Doc85 had better teammates. Both Doc85 and Maz80 received a score of 30 for variable R. Variable W is the only variable that distinguishes Doc85’s score from Maz80. The system doesn’t reflect that relative to each other, Doc’s ’85 was a season for the ages and Maz80 was, deservedly, not selected for any end of the year 1980 all star teams. The better player won’t always be surrounded by better teammates. This is especially important here because the Mets, historically, have had more bad teams than good. To me, it makes no sense to score the best player, every season with a "30" (variable R) Placing a ceiling of 30 on variable R also compromises the system’s ability to gauge player performance, even if you''re not comparing one player to another. Gooden, in 1985, might’ve hypothetically been even better than he actually was. Suppose that Doc85 struck out an additional 50 batters over and beyond his actual total, and finished the season with an ERA a half a run lower than his actual ERA. The system wouldn’t recognize these hypothetical extra accomplishments even though the marginal value of the extra 50 K’s and -0.50 ERA might rank Gooden’s now make believe 1985 pitching season as the best all-time in the modern era. That's because the player rank portion of the formula (R) has a ceiling of 30. You might counter that Gooden’s additional success would yield the Mets additional wins, and that the W variable would increase Gooden’s ultimate score. But what if Doc’s hypothetical improvement was offset by Sid Fernandez, who hypothetically struck out 50 less batters and saw his ERA increase by half a run? Again, the best player won’t always be surrounded by better players, and the system shouldn’t need to rely on this assumption materializing in order to accurately gauge player performance. The system should also be as accurate in the extreme as it is with the mundane. The best systems always are. Besides, the extreme is where most interests primarily lie. I’d be more interested in the spectacular (Doc85, Piazza2000) and the spectacularly inept (Flynnanyseason) than to see how the system might, for example, distinguish Staiger77 from Phillips75.

G-Fafif Nov 09 2010 11:02 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

The formula might not take into account that Dykstra ruled and Bonilla sucked. But as Janet Jackson mentioned when Bobby Bo was receiving that first All-Star selection, that's the way love goes.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 10 2010 10:17 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

I'm done. I'm lost. You guys must be pulling my legs. I wrote the post referenced above to clarify what appeared to be some confusion: If you think that Maz80 should have the same player score as Doc85, then that's what you think. That's not what I think. What are you talking about? Before adjusting for team W-L record, the best '86er should have a higher score than the best '80er. The ranking system overemphasizes team performance at the expense of the player's performance Aren't those two sentences at odds with each other? - In the first you say that the team outcome should trump what the individuals did - and do so twice, and apparently do so automatically regardless of the accomplishments in question. - while in the next you claim that team performance is overemphasized at the expense of the player. I was referring to variable R The root of the formula is (R^2*W)/10 when I complained about Maz80 and Doc85 receiving the same "30". Having a disagreement is pointless when the opposite sides can't minimally understand the positions taken. And so I hope that my last post, if nothing else, at least clarified my position. My biggest gripe about the ranking system is that all best seasons collapse to a score of 30 (all second best seasons collapse to 29, etc). I think it's absurd to equate, as jujst one example, Maz80 and Doc85. Variable R is one of only two variables in the formula, and thus accounts for 50% of the formula, maybe even more because variable R is immediately squared. The system requires that players like Doc85 and Piazza2000 play for strong squads in order for it to generate the high rankings those player-seasons merit. A great player-season occurring within the context of a bad baseball team (Carlton72 is a classic example) gets the shaft, to a disproportionately higher degree than I think is merited. You can disagree. But by now, I'll assume that you understand the basis of my arguments. Because if you disagree while simultaneously claiming confusion, then the entire dialogue is pointless.

Frayed Knot Nov 10 2010 02:17 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

If your point is that our rather simple system provides a less than perfect measurement of All-time Met-ness then, well yeah, I think we already knew that.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 10 2010 07:53 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Frayed Knot wrote: If your point is that our rather simple system provides a less than perfect measurement of All-time Met-ness then, well yeah, I think we already knew that. Sure. You knew it all along. But still, I had to murder about nine cyber trees before you would give me any love. Grudgingly. I disagree with your comment, though. The system is not less than perfect. It's cocky doody is what it is. I gather that, from a cursory review, the system (R^2*W)/10 would rank Steve Carlton’s 1972 season Carlton72=(30^2*59)/10 = 5,310 lower than the following Mets seasons Maz80=(30^2*67)/10 = 6,030 Hendu80=(29^2*67)/10= 5,634.7 Maz79=(30^2*63)/10 = 5,670 Cleon66=(30^2*66/10 = 5,940 Carlton72 gets a 4% edge over Swan79 Swan79=(29^2*63/10 = 5,298.3 All because the crappy Mets teams that these Mets played for were a tad less crappier than the 1972 Phillies. The system doesn’t work.

Frayed Knot Nov 10 2010 09:22 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

batmagadanleadoff wrote: [Sure. You knew it all along. But still, I had to murder about nine cyber trees before you would give me any love. Grudgingly. No, because between answers which seemed both contradictory and only somewhat nothing to do with the questions I asked and the multiple posts tacked onto each other I had no idea where you were headed. I disagree with your comment, though. The system is not less than perfect. It's cocky doody is what it is. Yeah, well opinions vary. The system doesn’t work. Every system ever invented is merely an approximation of what the "true" answer is - especially when the basis of it is nothing more than opinion to begin with. Feel free to ignore this one if it offends you so.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 11 2010 07:54 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, well opinions vary.... Every system ever invented is merely an approximation of what the "true" answer is - especially when the basis of it is nothing more than opinion to begin with. I acknowledge the "opinion" element to ranking ballplayers. But you're using subjectivity to cover too many egregious sins. Defending a system that ranks Carlton72 lower than Hendu80 and just barely better than Swan79, to me, constitutes an absurd stretch of the imagination. Carlton's '72 is the highest rated WAR pitching season in the history of the NL (20th and 21st century). Any 2010 Met that receives a ranking of 26 or higher (variable R) will have outscored Carlton72. Thus, in all probability, the system will rank Johan10 and Dickey10 higher than Carlton72. (and three other 2010 Mets). But try telling Jerry Manuel that he had five ballplayers in 2010 that were better than Carlton72. FrayedKnot wrote: Feel free to ignore this one if it offends you so. Nice one. But again, if you think that Maz80 should get the same 30 that Doc85 gets, then that's what you think.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 11 2010 11:51 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Edgy DC wrote: I really dislike when you force an argument on somebody that they are not making. The number 30 is a factor, not a product. And what argument would that be? Edgy DC wrote: Gooden[85] scores higher [than Maz80], not because he had better teammates, but because he towered above better teammates. And Benitez02 scores 11% higher than Carlton72 (5,880 to 5,310) because of the way Armando towered over Estes and Mcewing, right? And would Doc85 have scored higher if he struck out an additional 50 batters in '85, and allowed a half a run less per game?

G-Fafif Dec 17 2010 10:41 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

I can suss out the logic, but still: Dave Kingman outranks Gary Carter?

Frayed Knot Dec 17 2010 10:58 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 17 2010 05:30 PM

Carter's spot has probably been the subject of as many questions/objections as anyone - except maybe for how Steve Trachsel (although no longer) got into the top 50. Kid's problem remains that, of his five seasons in orange & blue, only three were any good and the last was almost non-existent (28 hits, 2 HRs). Had his career taken a gentler slope downhill - instead of the off-the-cliff plummet it did take - so that he was able to merely crack the top 20 Mets in that final 1989 season he would have accumulated enough points to slip in ahead of Kong. But, alas, he got saddled as the 26th place finisher* that year and fell short. * Unfortunately, most of the discussions that went into deciding the ranks from past years were lost in a server crash a few years ago.

Edgy MD Dec 17 2010 10:59 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Yeah, I don't like that either, and neither would bb-r or fangraphs' versions of win shares. What we can perhaps do is --- once we have win share data going back to 1962 --- switch to that.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 17 2010 11:46 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Just giving everyone here a heads up that I'm not nearly done bitching about how terrible this ranking system is. I just took a rest is what I did. But now that this thread is seeing some action, I'll be postin' here soon.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 17 2010 11:56 AM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Of course though, when G-Fafif notes that Kingman ranks higher than Carter, he gets a polite and reasonable acknowledgement that, perhaps, Win Shares is better. But when I point out the overall absurdity of assigning a nebulous number 30 to someone for having the best season in a given year --- the same 30 whether it's for Gooden85 or Swan79, I get the runaround for nine or ten posts, heels dug in all the way deep to oppose whatever I might write.

seawolf17 Dec 17 2010 12:09 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Why is that so wrong? Kingman was better than Carter. Carter had ONE great year as a Met. He was very good in 1986, and then fell off the table. Kingman was very, very good in 1975-76, then very good in 1981 and led the league in homers in 1982. I'm not saying he's WAY better than Carter, but three spots is about right over 50 years. Part of the reason Carter's teams won were all the OTHER guys in the Top 50, too.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 17 2010 12:55 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

seawolf17 wrote: Why is that so wrong? Kingman was better than Carter. As already mentioned here, Carter was a productive Met for just his first two seasons. Beginning in 1987, he began to deteriorate rather rapidly, his skills eroding, as is typical of many, maybe most catchers, when they reach their early 30's. 1986 would be the last season where Carter was an impact player. But Carter's first two seasons as a Met were quite impressive. Carter was MVP caliber in 1985 though not 1986, the year that he thought he deserved to win the award). As an aside, I played the 1985 Strat-O-Matic set many times. (I was once an avid SOM player, but only up until the moment in life when I got a real adult job; 1985 was the last set I ever played). Anyways, I played in a few 1985 season NL all star leagues with my SOM buddies from back in the day. And in every single draft ever held (four, in total) Gary Carter was always the first player drafted. Everyone, including myself, coveted Carter85 over every other player, even Doc85! I can explain our preference for Kid: we all understood the concept of VORP, WORP and WARP on an intuitive level. Even though those formulas weren't yet formally invented, we were basing our drafts on our mutual ability to recognize that the difference between Gary Carter and the next best 1985 NL catcher was significantly larger than the gap between the best two players at any other position in the NL 1985. There simply wasn't another catcher who combined the dual abilities to defend the position like a gold glover and hit like an all star. Mike Scioscia, the consensus 2d best catcher edged Carter in AB and OBP, but had limited power and was a defensive liability. If I remember correctly, the next best defensive catcher hit like a backup shortstop, or at least the equivalent of a backup shortstop in an all star draft league. I'd give Carter the edge over Kingman.

Frayed Knot Dec 17 2010 02:22 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Dec 17 2010 02:41 PM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Of course though, when G-Fafif notes that Kingman ranks higher than Carter, he gets a polite and reasonable acknowledgement that, perhaps, Win Shares is better. No one ever suggested it wasn't. You seem to be confusing this little gimmick we've got going here as some kind of system that's being trumpeted as the final word on NYM history. It isn't and it never was anymore than our Schaefer PotG/Y is the final word in determining in-season greatness. It, like Schaefer, is a fun in-house thing which is totally voluntary and was actually born of several different projects that got going here separately which we at some point cobbled together as a way to determine the order of the players next to each poster's name. But when I point out the overall absurdity of assigning a nebulous number 30 to someone for having the best season in a given year --- the same 30 whether it's for Gooden85 or Swan79, I get the runaround for nine or ten posts, heels dug in all the way deep to oppose whatever I might write. Most of those "nine or ten posts" were yours, sometimes three or four in a row seemingly in answer to yourself and/or in contradiction. When three separate people chime in either with explanations or to say they're not sure where you're headed there's a chance that maybe it's you who weren't making yourself clear. So chime in all you want with suggestions, improvements, condemnations, but you might want to lose the martyr complex.

seawolf17 Dec 17 2010 02:22 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

So you're admitting he had one blammo year, then one good year, and then nothing, whereas Kingman gave the Mets a lot more over a lot more years. Bernard Gilkey did that too; had a dynamite 1996, a good 1997, and then meh. And as such -- and because those teams were bad -- he's 71st or whatever. Gary's earned his bump because of his teams; you could make the argument that he gave I love Gary too, but realistically, his ranking seems right to me.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 17 2010 03:13 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Kingman was an unusual player. From Kingman, I learned that it was possible for a player to excel at the most important offensive skill in baseball --hitting home runs-- while, perhaps, being an overall liability to his team. Kingman was so bad at everything else, at least with the Mets, that his other stats undermined, or neutralized the fact that he was hitting HR's more frequently than any of his peers. I'd give Carter the slight edge, notwithstanding that the Kid was essentially done after '86. But I'm not sure that I love Gary.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 17 2010 03:33 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Frayed Knot wrote: Most of those "nine or ten posts" were yours ... I wasn't addressing you. I know that you love me.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 17 2010 03:41 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Per BBref, Carter's lifetime Mets WAR --11.2 Kingman's lifetime Mets WAR -- 3.2 Carter's Mets AB's -- 2126 Kingman's Mets AB's -- 2323 Carter produced 1 Win Above Replacement for the Mets every 189.8 AB's Kingman produced 1 Win Above Replacement for the Mets every 725.9 AB's.

G-Fafif Dec 17 2010 05:14 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Fun little formula and the rather quiet denouement of his five years aside, Bill Price took a moment from being Bitter to recall the acquisition of Gary Carter, here. Goodness, that was a big trade, and goodness did Carter deliver for the next two years. He came, he saw, we conquered. Stood at that press conference podium, said he was saving that right ring finger for a World Series souvenir, and had it wrapping that finger within two years. If only every December acquisition worked like that.

Frayed Knot Dec 17 2010 05:28 PM Re: Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

Part of the reason we set things up the way we did was so that the 'answer' wound up being the sum of all the pieces and therefore things like popularity, recency, and/or personal feelings for or against particular players wouldn't play a role. So, yeah, part of the reason Carter is seen to be too low is that he was a likable player who was acquired in a great trade which was the final piece for the last great Met era - even if those memories tend to emphasize the good while ignoring the rest.