Master Index of Archived Threads


Baseball Prospectus Knocks Mets Management

Rotblatt Apr 02 2006 08:02 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 03 2006 09:51 AM

. . . and really, [url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4931]they[/url] make some good points. On the other hand, the idea that replacing Mientkiewicz with Delgado (not to mention upgrading our bench) will net us only 10 runs is just silly. As is the idea that we're only one win better than we were over a year where we drastically underperformed our pythagorean record. ]NL East I’m not picking against the Braves, and if this is the year that turns out to be a bad idea, I’ll live with it. The three teams atop this division are reasonably close in talent, so I’m going with the team with the best management. Even without Leo Mazzone, the Braves return Bobby Cox and John Schuerholz, two men who have a track record virtually unmatched in baseball history. Consider the actions of the NL East contenders over the past week. The Mets have yanked Brian Bannister essentially up from Double-A to be their #5 starter, more or less because he looked good in spring training. This is in lieu of using Aaron Heilman, who has the repertoire of a starter and has been ready for a rotation job for a while. This also entailed sending down Heath Bell, who’s probably a better pitcher than any Mets reliever save Billy Wagner. Braves 90 72 748 665 Phillies 86 76 841 763 Mets 84 78 732 685 Marlins 71 91 632 699 Nationals 62 100 562 691 Silly, silly silly. This is their way of trying to justify picking the Braves because "they always win." And thinking we'll fall to third to the Phillies? That's just crazy. I'm awfully rah-rah today after going to the Fans Spring Training thing at Shea today. Pretty fun. Delgado hits balls far.

Nymr83 Apr 02 2006 08:19 PM

]Baseball Prospectus Knocks Mets Management... Bret Sabermetric will be renewing his subscription now. As far as the substance of the article goes... i disagree with the # of runs they say we'll score but i don't think this team is much better than last year. In january we looked alot better but then we trade Seo and Benson and now we're using Bannister in the 2nd game of the season while Pedro's injury is a bigger questionmark than we thought it would be at the end of last year. I think we'll win 88-89 games, the way that luck goes a projections of 84 isn't far off either.

Edgy DC Apr 02 2006 08:29 PM

With a 5.59 ERA in 42 games for Heath Bell last year, he's going to have a hard time backing up that "better pitcher than any Mets reliever" argument. To say so a sentence after praising Aaron Heilman, is, well... beneath the standards of reason that Prospectuas typically prides themselves on.

Nymr83 Apr 02 2006 09:44 PM

They don't see Heilman as a reliever so he doesn't count. Duaner Sanchez is probably better than Bell.

Edgy DC Apr 02 2006 10:15 PM

As long as we're making broad, X-is-better-than-Y, statements that Prospectus generally avoids, I don't see how there can be an argument that Duaner isn't better. Or probably isn't better. Or that Heilman shouldn't count. He flourished as a reliever, and he's still assigned to be one. I like Bell and his massive thighs and I hope he contributes a lot to the 2006 Mets.

Nymr83 Apr 02 2006 10:36 PM

i said probably because i didnt feel like arguing, but if you want to hear it fine, Sanchez is better than Bell. Period. I'll still give them a pass on Heilman because they're right, he shouldnt be a reliever with the current roster.

Frayed Knot Apr 02 2006 10:40 PM

I think the Bell thing prolly stems from their observation that he had a high BABiP (BA on Balls put into Play) last year which sometimes is a sign that it will come down this year simply based on random chance and in turn will improve his other numbers like ERA. And they may be right although; a) it's questionable whether that's enough to get him to Sanchez/Heilman territory - and b) BP often takes the annoying stance of acting as if their projections are already fact and the rest of us merely have to stay tuned and see to what degree. IOW, let's actually see Heath Bell have a solid month in the pen - much less a whole season - before we start pronouncing him the stopper-in-waiting out of what looks to be a solid pen.

Edgy DC Apr 02 2006 10:50 PM

All well taken, and I think Bell can flourish, but two good-if-not-excellent seasons under under Sanchez's belt as something of a workhorse, plus being two years younger, are hard to project away. The new picture of Sanchez suggests he's trimmed (or pinned back) the octopus on his head. He seems to be wearing eyeliner though.

Rotblatt Apr 03 2006 07:22 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: I think the Bell thing prolly stems from their observation that he had a high BABiP (BA on Balls put into Play) last year which sometimes is a sign that it will come down this year simply based on random chance and in turn will improve his other numbers like ERA. And they may be right although; a) it's questionable whether that's enough to get him to Sanchez/Heilman territory - and b) BP often takes the annoying stance of acting as if their projections are already fact and the rest of us merely have to stay tuned and see to what degree. See, that's the weird thing--Heilman is projected to suck this season by their system. When I saw their forecasts, I honestly thought they'd be all "Heilman's overrated" but they've done the total opposite. I agree that Bell hasn't proven anything and hasn't particularly impressed when he was up. I DO think he'd be better than Julio, however, which would make him our second best reliever after Wagner (assuming that Heilman's in the rotation).

Bret Sabermetric Apr 03 2006 07:49 AM Re: Baseball Prospectus Knocks Mets Management

Rotblatt wrote: .I'm awfully rah-rah today ....Pretty fun. Delgado hits balls far. Yeah, you're pretty rah-rah today. It's perfectly reasonable to project the season as they do, and only rah-rah LGM YGB ISA* emotional overload compels you to believe otherwise. It's going to be a race this year, which is more than I've been able to say the last few seasons, but I don't trust a dumb, stubborn ex-Yankee newbie manager to emerge from a tight race triumphant. Willie will find some way to fuck this up, and to deflect the blame onto injuries, the skill of other teams, luck--the usual suspects. *It's Spring Awready

duan Apr 03 2006 07:52 AM

also that's just Joe Sheehan's opinion not Baseball Prospectus' as a whole. If you look at both their Pecota predicitions, and Clay Davenport's stuff they have the Mets first with the Phillies very close. Everyone knows it's going to be a tough race. For me the big outlier is going to be how good/bad the expos (still expos to me!) & marlins will be - and who puts them away consistently. Someone could very easily win 100 games in this division.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 03 2006 08:07 AM

Essentially what BP (or JS) is faulting the Mets management for is an inability to recognize talent on their pitching staff (Heilman and Bell and by implication Seo and Benson) which I agree with. The Mets and Braves and Phils have similar talent levels but dissimilar management track records, and it's extreme optimism to believe that's going to change just because you want it to. If you have the budget to add a Delgado, you'll be protected from your fuckups better than other clubs who don't have that option, but you're working at a severe handicap if your management consistently makes the wrong personnel moves in which an functional brain is required. That's how I read it, anyway. I support putting Bannister in the rotation, btw (am amazed that they couldn't contrive a way to spin Lima as a viable starter, in fact) and am pleased that honorable Matsui committed hari-kiri, thus saving the Mets from further stupidity, but there's just too much sheer stubborn dumbness there to overcome, I think.

Rotblatt Apr 03 2006 10:03 AM Re: Baseball Prospectus Knocks Mets Management

]It's perfectly reasonable to project the season as they do, and only rah-rah LGM YGB ISA* emotional overload compels you to believe otherwise. It's going to be a race this year, which is more than I've been able to say the last few seasons, but I don't trust a dumb, stubborn ex-Yankee newbie manager to emerge from a tight race triumphant. Willie will find some way to fuck this up, and to deflect the blame onto injuries, the skill of other teams, luck--the usual suspects. I hear you, Bret, and like I said, I'm a little rah-rah at the moment. I just think even if Willie's impact is as great this year as it was last year (and it was pretty significant last year, IMO), we STILL have a better team than we did last year--and I think the difference is greater than 1 win. I also can't see the Braves managing 90 wins again. I doubt even a rebounding Renteria will be as valuable as Furcal 2005, and I think Andruw, Chipper & Franceour are all headed for some measure of decline. And their pen is weak. Anyway, while his critique of the Mets was spot on, it looks to me like this dude just pulled numbers out of a hat.

cleonjones11 Apr 03 2006 10:08 AM

I'm giving the Mets 94 wins. Why isn't Heilman a number 3 starter on this team? i understand Trachsel has seniority but...

Johnny Dickshot Apr 03 2006 10:15 AM

duan wrote: Everyone knows it's going to be a tough race. For me the big outlier is going to be how good/bad the expos (still expos to me!) & marlins will be - and who puts them away consistently. Someone could very easily win 100 games in this division. That's a good point I overlooked. Pretty much everyone has them 4 and 5 but how buried they will be is a question. The thing I don't get is how little love the Phillies seem to be getting. Sure they have a few questions about pitching & closer, etc., but they're going to score like George Michael at a rest stop. I can't see where on paper, the Braves are favored over them, and only fandom keeps me saying they'll finish behind us (I think it'll be us & Philly 1&2 and very close).

Edgy DC Apr 03 2006 11:33 AM

Which could be a bloody pennant race --- New York fans driving down in August, puking all over that pretty new ballpark, getting their cars tampered with in the lot.

RealityChuck Apr 03 2006 12:26 PM

Remember: PECOTA = Pull Every foreCast Out of The Ass. Ultimately, PECOTA numbers are just wild guesses dressed up to look precise.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 03 2006 01:15 PM

RealityChuck wrote: Remember: PECOTA = Pull Every foreCast Out of The Ass. Ultimately, PECOTA numbers are just wild guesses dressed up to look precise. Interesting if you could back that up in any way. The thing about Sabmetricians that you (and folks like you hostile to any sort of quantification) conveniently forget is that if their predictive stats worked out even only approximately as well as random bsing, not only would they be thoroughly discredited in the larger baseball community, but the sabrmetricians themselves would abandon all the fun times programming computers, crunching numbers on calculators, applying mathematical formulae, etc. eventually. I mean, Chuck, we all understand who's got the sweeter deal here--us, indoors, fretting over this tedious donkey work, or you, sitting outdoors, drinking beers and speculating wildly on trends and patterns without a care about supporting your arguments. You win hands down. But we continue because we've discovered so much useful knowledge (which you have grudgingly accepted into your working vocabularies, without ever acknowledging that you had rejected it vilely when it first appeared) and because, simply and generally, sabrmetrics works. All you have to offer is "No, it doesn't work" because it displeases your aesthetic to say so.