Master Index of Archived Threads


Mets defense historically bad

Vic Sage Jun 05 2019 07:59 AM

interesting analysis: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonyblengino/2019/06/05/the-mets-defense-is-historically-bad/#3dd9e7703ead

Ceetar Jun 05 2019 08:12 AM Re: Mets defense historically bad

I'm skeptical on those made up metrics. Interesting though, yes. The Mets defense has been bad, made worse by injuries. Historically bad? Also, it seems sneaky to call something historically bad when you can only go back to 2015. Using the expected averages is interesting. I frequently look at those myself, you can load up the game on statcast and see them batter by batter, live. But breaking it down by head to head matchups seems to really delve into small sample size stuff. I'm not sure that tracks. But the expected stuff is also still a work in progress. It's ONLY taking into account Launch angle and exit velocity for example. I don't think it's even factoring in pitch selection, location, ballpark, wind factors, shifting, etc. We already know Citi Field suppresses exit velocity, which means all the expected stats at Citi Field will be slightly lower. Does that actually mean they're easier to field, or is the exit velocity suppression something different that doesn't reflect in the fielding?

Edgy MD Jun 05 2019 10:37 AM Re: Mets defense historically bad

Yeah, but ... bad. The idea seemed to be to eat it most of the way around the diamond, and make up for it offensively. That's not happening. It's hard to call the defense historically bad, because the strikeout rate is like 250% of the rate in 1908, to pick a year, but it's costing them games, certainly.

Ceetar Jun 05 2019 12:14 PM Re: Mets defense historically bad

It's weird to me that the Phillies are rated well defensively on Fangraphs, they looked like a disaster head to head. Team-wide, and this is still small sample as it's probably barely into June yet, hasthe Mets 29th, ahead of the Mariners and a tick behind the Nationals. Most of the Mets damage actually seems to be framing, and 'runs saved'. Their range is 20th, just a tick below average. There are so many components to it, it's hard to break down, but it seems like it might be more an issue of making the right decisions on balls, not turning DPs, fielders choices, Rosario errors, than balls squeaking through. 'Fixing' Rosario would be huge. Might honestly be the difference between 'extremely poor, damaging defense' to 'passable'. Especially if Thor finds his slider and the Mets pitching allows fewer balls in play like they did last year. Also Nimmo back over these guys playing LF.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 05 2019 12:18 PM Re: Mets defense historically bad

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, but ... bad. The idea seemed to be to eat it most of the way around the diamond, and make up for it offensively. That's not happening. It's hard to call the defense historically bad, because the strikeout rate is like 250% of the rate in 1908, to pick a year, but it's costing them games, certainly. Oh c'mon. Use your head, ferchrissakes. When the author says "historically", you know he means the seven years for which his data exists.

Ceetar Jun 05 2019 12:54 PM Re: Mets defense historically bad

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, but ... bad. The idea seemed to be to eat it most of the way around the diamond, and make up for it offensively. That's not happening. It's hard to call the defense historically bad, because the strikeout rate is like 250% of the rate in 1908, to pick a year, but it's costing them games, certainly. Oh c'mon. Use your head, ferchrissakes. When the author says "historically", you know he means the[CROSSOUT] seven years [/CROSSOUT]for which his data exists. four and a half.

smg58 Jun 05 2019 01:14 PM Re: Mets defense historically bad Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 05 2019 01:53 PM

According to the Fielding Bible, we are at -50 runs saved on the year. That's at the bottom of the National League, although the Mariners are worse. It's worth pointing out that the next worst team in the NL is the Nationals at -30, and then the worst team after that is the Pirates at -9 -- so we are a LOT worse than most of the league, if not necessarily "historically bad." We have the worst defense at the pitching position, the second worst defense at the shortstop position (apparently Trea Turner is an even bigger liability than Rosario), and we are bad at shifts, too. Our -7 at catcher is tied for worst. Where are we above average? Believe it or not, at first base (Smith is a +2 and Alonso -- yes, Alonso -- is a +1). Jeff McNeil is on the good side of average at three different positions, but the team is negative overall at all three. J. D. Davis has a remarkably bad rating (-9) for limited work at third. Our outfield is at -6 overall, which is not unacceptable, but Lagares hasn't done anything to bring that number up and neither did Broxton. Conforto has held his own at a +1 though.

Edgy MD Jun 05 2019 01:23 PM Re: Mets defense historically bad

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, but ... bad. The idea seemed to be to eat it most of the way around the diamond, and make up for it offensively. That's not happening. It's hard to call the defense historically bad, because the strikeout rate is like 250% of the rate in 1908, to pick a year, but it's costing them games, certainly. Oh c'mon. Use your head, ferchrissakes. When the author says "historically", you know he means the seven years for which his data exists. Is there anything I write — anything at all — that doesn't really get up your ass and burn? I'd really like to spare you that.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 05 2019 08:02 PM Re: Mets defense historically bad

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, but ... bad. The idea seemed to be to eat it most of the way around the diamond, and make up for it offensively. That's not happening. It's hard to call the defense historically bad, because the strikeout rate is like 250% of the rate in 1908, to pick a year, but it's costing them games, certainly. Oh c'mon. Use your head, ferchrissakes. When the author says "historically", you know he means the seven years for which his data exists. Is there anything I write — anything at all — that doesn't really get up your ass and burn? I'd really like to spare you that. Oh c'mon. There's nothing going on here. You debate my posts at least as often as I debate yours, and probably more. I didn't make it a personal thing when a few days ago, you spent several posts challenging my idea that a 36 year old who misses the last half of the last season might bring about his decline, even if that hiatus wasn't injury related. I didn't make it personal when you ended the dispute with a non-responsive post that you then weaseled out of explaining. I just let it go and walked away. Because what's the point? Like you would ever concede any point to me. And I didn't make it personal a month or two ago when you raised the absurd challenge to my statement that the Dodgers tend to have the highest team payrolls. You wanna know what really burns me? When my posts about Travis d'Arnaud's wrist-cock technique get red-lit and then, altogether disappeared -- when I never even heard of a thing called the wrist-cock technique in the first place until I read it in one of your own posts.

Edgy MD Jun 05 2019 08:09 PM Re: Mets defense historically bad

You're not debating. You're abusing. And you're so morally lost that you don't even care to know when people are in agreement with you. How miserable.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 05 2019 08:17 PM Re: Mets defense historically bad

Yeah sure. Because red-lighting my wrist-cock technique posts is not abuse. Or suspending me for using the "count" word is not abuse when there were dozens of instances of posters using that word throughout the whole history of this forum before me. Instead, you invent a rule after the fact that applies only to me, and then execute it retroactively. No, abuse is when someone challenges your posts. Don't make me laugh. Like anyone here was even remotely treated with the level of malicious and unjustified abuse that I had to endure when I first joined this forum. It's a wonder why I ever bothered to stay this long. I guess this is the part where you'll call me a martyr now.

Edgy MD Jun 05 2019 08:22 PM Re: Mets defense historically bad

I'm clearly not making you laugh.

nymr83 Jun 05 2019 08:33 PM Re: Mets defense historically bad

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, but ... bad. The idea seemed to be to eat it most of the way around the diamond, and make up for it offensively. That's not happening. It's hard to call the defense historically bad, because the strikeout rate is like 250% of the rate in 1908, to pick a year, but it's costing them games, certainly. Oh c'mon. Use your head, ferchrissakes. When the author says "historically", you know he means the seven years for which his data exists. there are so many worse things to complain about i agree, but a better phrase might have been "worst in recent memory" or something like that. "historically" to me definitely has the connotation of "in baseball history"

Frayed Knot Jun 06 2019 03:28 AM Re: Mets defense historically bad

Maybe the author meant to say that the NYM defense is hysterically bad ... although I'm rarely laughing. What the eyeball test tells me is that, while we don't seem to have many iron-handed klutzes out there (Rosario's one stretch aside), as a group they also seem to steal very few outs. Even the injuries-forced upgrade to supposedly good-gloved CF'ers -- Lagares, Broxton, Gomez -- has resulted in very few hits-into-outs to balance out the occasional outs-into-hits and/or the '50/50' type of plays which this squad appears to make at a well under 50% clip.

bmfc1 Jun 07 2019 08:01 PM Re: Mets defense historically bad

https://sportsinfosolutionsblog.com/2019/06/07/mlbs-best-positioned-infields/ This was a point of emphasis for Brodie Van Ego--all spring I saw DiSarcina position the IF and Rojas position the OF. Whenever a ball would just get through or fall-in the coaches would meet to discuss. Yet, they still are bad at it.