Master Index of Archived Threads


3-way challenge

Choose the statement that best describes your 2006 expectations of this made-up controversy:

Seo will be best, then Benson, then Heilman	3 votes
Seo will be best, then Heilman, then Benson	5 votes
Heilman will be best, then Seo, then Benson	5 votes
Heilman will be best, then Benson, then Seo	7 votes
Benson will be best, then Seo, then Heilman	0 votes

Johnny Dickshot Jan 22 2006 02:45 PM

If things stay as they are telegraphed now, one way of interpreting the Mets' last two deals is as a challenge between scattered teammates Jae Seo, Aaron Heilman and Kris Benson. Just so the winners can cackle "I told ya so" after the year and the losers know why they're licking their sores, give me your answer NOW. Who will have the best year in 2006? Seo, Heilman or Benson? No ties allowed. We'll use accepted measures of success -- a combo of ERA, IP, ERA+, WhiP, VORP, etc. Feel free to describe your reasoning.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 22 2006 02:48 PM

Nerts. Need to edit this bitch. Last option (cut off) is obviously: 1. Benson, 2. Heilman, 3. Seo.

SI Metman Jan 22 2006 02:57 PM

I'm going with the write-in. Benson will do well under Mazzone (doesn't everybody?) Heilman will be up and down but Seo won't prosper and will pitch like its 2004.

Edgy DC Jan 22 2006 03:31 PM

Zambrano is in this mix also somewhere. Dealing Seo re-opened a slot in the rotation for VZ. Dealing Benson reopened a slot for Heilman.

Hillbilly Jan 22 2006 04:27 PM

I vote for “Heilman will be best, then Seo, then Benson” Heilman and Seo both took steps forward last year, while Benson seems to have reached his potential and is pitching around career norms. So I expect his 2006 to be a lot like his 2005. In predicting between Heilman’s and Seo’s ability to continue to improve, I’ll go with my rooting interests and say the Mets held on to the right guy. Seo improves but starts off very poorly, and then has a nice run later in the year. Heilman takes big steps forward and at a times in 2006 will be the Mets “stopper”. Yeah that’s what I’m saying.

sharpie Jan 22 2006 04:58 PM

Heilman, Benson, Seo. I have no faith in Seo.

Zvon Jan 22 2006 05:35 PM

Hillbilly wrote: I vote for “Heilman will be best, then Seo, then Benson” I voted the same. But no indepth expanation here. Its just my wishful thinking. Ill tell ya, if Omar is worried about public perceptions and ex-players performances making him look like a dolt, he should be concerned. Im a big Omar fan and supporter and I hope by the AllStar break im not screaming: "BRING ME THE HEAD OF OMAR MINAYA!" For now, Ill keep the faith.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 22 2006 06:01 PM

And the early returns show that Mets fans think the Mets have done well. I think I'm gonna start a poll asking if the Mets are A) assholes B) boobs C) cheap D) Dodos E) Ex-cellent

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 08:39 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 22 2006 08:41 PM

Benson, Heilman, then Seo

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 08:40 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: And the early returns show that Mets fans think the Mets have done well. Thinking that Heilman is the best of the three does not necessarily mean thinking the Mets have done well. You're reading too much into it. The polls on liking the trades are in other threads.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 22 2006 08:46 PM

Elster88 wrote: ="Bret Sabermetric"]And the early returns show that Mets fans think the Mets have done well. Thinking that Heilman is the best of the three does not necessarily mean thinking the Mets have done well. You're reading too much into it. The polls on liking the trades are in other threads. I'd bet a lot of money that if the Mets had traded Heilman, and kept either Seo or Benson, there'd be more support for the one they kept and less support for Heilman in this poll. Some of those polled have said as much (Zvon's "wishful thinking" remark) and others wouldn't admit it if you set Lynndie Englund on their asses, but it's true nevertheless.

Rotblatt Jan 22 2006 09:34 PM

I went with Seo, then Heilman, then Benson. I think Seo will wind up somewhere between 2005 & 2003--say, a 3.50 ERA & a 1.20 WHIP. I'm guessing he'll thrive in LA--another big stadium, plus a guaranteed rotation spot for the first time in a while. I think Heilman will do well--probably about the same, with a slightly higher WHIP & a lot more strikeouts, but he'll bounce back and forth between the pen & the rotation, so his overall contribution will be less. If he were assured of a spot all season long, I'd go with Heilman 1st, then Seo, but I really have no faith in Willie. I think Benson will be his usual average self, but having to face a DH and being in the same division as the Yankees & Sox, I'm guessing an ERA around 4.40 or so & a WHIP of 1.33. By the way, my projection for Zito is about the same as my projections for Heilman & Seo.

Rotblatt Jan 22 2006 09:44 PM

Shit, I totally forgot that Mazzone is in Baltimore now.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 22 2006 10:09 PM

BTW, I also think Heilman has the best potential to turn in a kickass year.

Frayed Knot Jan 22 2006 10:25 PM

This challenge assumes that the trio at least all begin the year as starters on a semi-regular basis. 1) Heilman Great college career, high draft spot, good minor league career ... then stumbled in his first crack at the majors but is at the right age & situation to come into his own and showed last year that he's capable of doing just that 2) Benson An even better college & draft status but that was more than a few years and injuries ago. At this point I'm not sure that he'll get a whole lot better than what's been seen to date 3) Seo Maybe he really did "turn a corner", but a fastball/changeup pitcher who's lost something off the fastball due to injuries has a small margin for error -- particularly if he's the type to show a stubborn streak for adapting to new methods

Nymr83 Jan 23 2006 06:04 AM

Seo will be the best, he's flat out younger and better than Benson. Heilman will be next, better than Benson only because of his pitcher's park vs. the bandbox in Baltimore. i still think Heilman's time as a SP was a potential fluke last year and he'd be better off as a 7th or 8th inning guy. Benson will be last, he's not a bad pitcher but Baltimore won't be friendly to him. ----stats---- Seo 12-6, 30 starts, 180 innings, 175 hits, 40 walks, 10 hrs, 115k's, 3.10 ERA Heilman 10-8, 25 starts, 148 innings, 150 hits, 53 walks, 9 hrs, 135k's, 3.60 ERA Benson 8-12, 30 starts, 190 innings, 198 hits, 60 walks, 28 hrs, 125 k's, 4.55 ERA

Bret Sabermetric Jan 23 2006 06:54 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jan 23 2006 08:19 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: the type to show a stubborn streak for adapting to new methods Ah, yes, Peterson's new methods--the ones that screwed Heilman up good and proper, until he forgot about the "new method" and went back to his old delivery, right? I'll always like Heilman for asserting he knows more about his pitching than Peterson does, and proving it. Such assertiveness got him shitcanned for a while (I still can't believe the guy threw a one-hitter and found himself in the bullpen anytime during the next decade) but now he's on the verge IMO of having a big season. OE: I'm Allen Watson, the only Met I ever saw [url=http://www.ultimatemets.com/gamedetail.php?gameno=5916](April 18, 1999) [/url] go down 2-0 after two pitches.

duan Jan 23 2006 06:57 AM

how you measure it's important as Seo's in a great pitchers park but my basic instinct is to go Benson, Heillman, Seo.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 23 2006 09:24 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: I'd bet a lot of money that if the Mets had traded Heilman, and kept either Seo or Benson, there'd be more support for the one they kept and less support for Heilman in this poll. I think you're right about that.

Elster88 Jan 23 2006 09:29 AM

duan wrote: how you measure it's important as Seo's in a great pitchers park but my basic instinct is to go Benson, Heillman, Seo. Two votes for this one. Let's add it as a choice to the poll.

Frayed Knot Jan 23 2006 09:36 AM

]Ah, yes, Peterson's new methods No, I'm referring to Seo's reluctance to add another pitch to his repetoire when the 2-pitch system that had served him well in his pre-injury/amateur life was no longer cutting it, as well as the idea that fasting on the days he pitched maybe wasn't the brightest move in creation, and so on; clashes which existed prior to Peterson coming on the scene. Maybe he's past all that and last year's half season of success was a sign of things to come ... or maybe it isn't.

MFS62 Jan 23 2006 10:21 AM

Is that a definite maybe? Later

metsmarathon Jan 23 2006 11:38 AM

so how are we going to measure this come end of season, anyways? wins and losses? OPS against? ERA? ERA+? cy young votes?

Yancy Street Gang Jan 23 2006 11:44 AM

It may end up being very clear. One pitcher may be great, one may suck, and the other may be mediocre.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 23 2006 11:47 AM

And we'll all agree on everything, and it all ended happily ever after. Please, can I have one more story,Grandpa? Pretty please?

Yancy Street Gang Jan 23 2006 11:50 AM

My point was that there's little point in determining precisely how to measure the differences when the differences may be very apparent.

Rotblatt Jan 23 2006 12:18 PM

]My point was that there's little point in determining precisely how to measure the differences when the differences may be very apparent. Nah, let's get specific. I think ERA+ is a decent criteria, since it accounts for differences in ballpark & league, but WS or VORP take into account IP, which is vital. Personally, I think the batting WS for pitchers is a crock, so I'm thinking we should only use PWS if we want to use WS at all. Maybe VORP as our primary option, with PWS as a tie-breaker, followed by ERA+, then maybe K's? In 2005, that would have meant Seo almost across the board, despite his limited service time. That sounds right to me, but I think I'm probably Seo's biggest fan, so y'all might disagree. 2005 numbers Seo: 30.2 VORP, 10 PWS, 165 ERA+, 59 K Heilman: 26.5 VORP, 9.6 PWS, 132 ERA+, 106 K Benson: 22.5 VORP, 9.3 PWS, 101 ERA+, 95 K

Bret Sabermetric Jan 23 2006 12:26 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: My point was that there's little point in determining precisely how to measure the differences when the differences may be very apparent. I know. My point was that if this results in everyone on the CPF agreeing on something, this will be a first.

Elster88 Jan 23 2006 12:26 PM

If it gets to the point where it's difficult to judge who had a better year, that's when it can be called it a wash. IMO.

Rotblatt Jan 23 2006 12:36 PM

]I know. My point was that if this results in everyone on the CPF agreeing on something, this will be a first. Well, I kind of ruined that concept, huh? And washes are for wimps, Elster. If Seo, Heilman & Benson all have the exact same VORPs, PWS & ERA+, but Seo has 1 more K than Heilman, who has 1 more K than Benson, I'd like to be able to merciliessly rub it in to all the poor suckers who bet against me. But seriously, I wonder how many of us think that Heilman probably had a better 2005 than Seo? I'm guessing more than half, since Heilman was around for a lot longer than Seo. Looking at their numbers will help prove I'm righ--er, allow us to look more objectively at their 2006's.