Master Index of Archived Threads


Wait, THEY were Mets!? Per The Athletic

stevejrogers May 09 2020 06:12 PM

[url] https://theathletic.com/1516315/2020/05/06/the-all-wait-they-were-on-that-team-players-for-every-mlb-franchise/?source=user_shared_article [BLOCKQUOTE] By Grant Bradshaw Mets POSITION PLAYERS CAREER WAR WAR WITH METS DIFFERENCE SP Warren Spahn 92.5 0 92.5 SP Frank Tanana 57.1 0.7 56.4 SP Orel Hershiser 51.4 1.9 49.5 SP Mickey Lolich 47.9 1 46.9 SP Bob Friend 46.8 -0.5 47.3 RP Ricky Bottalico 6.2 1.1 5.1 RP Clem Labine 14.3 -0.1 14.4 RP Mike Marshall 17.2 0.6 16.6 RP Ralph Terry 13.2 0.2 13 C Yogi Berra 59.5 -0.1 59.6 1B Gil Hodges 43.9 0.6 43.3 2B Roberto Alomar 67 0.4 66.6 SS Garry Templeton 27.9 -1.1 29 3B Joe Torre 57.6 1.9 55.7 OF Rickey Henderson 111.2 1.3 109.9 OF Willie Mays 156.2 1.6 154.6 OF Duke Snider 66 1.2 64.8 DH Richie Ashburn 64.4 2.1 62.3 Total 987.5 OK, this was a tough one. Do you count Mays? It's ridiculous that he was on the Mets, but it doesn't surprise you. He had, er, memorable World Series moments with them. Do you count Henderson? It's certainly not the first team that you think of when you remember his career, or the second or third. But he had an NLDS against the Diamondbacks that was absolutely scintillating. Is this just about legends with a detour that you've forgotten? Or is it about random and unexpected team-player connections? In the end, I'm leaving both on, if only because the Mets would have had awesome outfielders to take their place, so it's not like I'm rigging it in their favor. If you eliminate Mays and Henderson, you have Richie Ashburn, Gary Sheffield and Bobby Abreu to take their place. They also have Dean Chance as a sixth starter and Adrián González on the bench. This a great wait-they-were-on-that-team lineup. If you adjust for them not existing until the '60s, this might be the best of all 30 teams. [/BLOCKQUOTE]

Fman99 May 09 2020 08:46 PM Re: Wait, THEY were Mets!? Per The Athletic

Ok, let's remember how historically bad Alomar was as a Met. And unlike most of the dudes on this list, he was supposed to still be pretty good when we got him. Except NOOOOOO

LWFS May 09 2020 10:31 PM Re: Wait, THEY were Mets!? Per The Athletic

Hey-wait-he-was-on-that-team is, like, our brand, at least as much as "starting pitching" and almost as much as "great big-head mascot."

Edgy MD May 09 2020 11:02 PM Re: Wait, THEY were Mets!? Per The Athletic

Garry Templeton can't touch Tony Fernandez, who got 45.3 career WAR, but only 0.2 with the Mets.

batmagadanleadoff May 09 2020 11:03 PM Re: Wait, THEY were Mets!? Per The Athletic

Ricky Bottalico? One of these things is not like the others.

LWFS May 09 2020 11:27 PM Re: Wait, THEY were Mets!? Per The Athletic

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=36663 time=1589086994 user_id=68] Ricky Bottalico? One of these things is not like the others.

Then who? Isringhausen or Aguilera may be more obvious WAR-underachievers, but... they were pretty legit Mets, no?

batmagadanleadoff May 10 2020 12:07 AM Re: Wait, THEY were Mets!? Per The Athletic

=LWFS post_id=36665 time=1589088434 user_id=84] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=36663 time=1589086994 user_id=68] Ricky Bottalico? One of these things is not like the others.

Then who? Isringhausen or Aguilera may be more obvious WAR-underachievers, but... they were pretty legit Mets, no?


The team lists are comprised of players with the greatest disparities between the bulk of their careers where they were commonly associated with one team and their tail ends where they were associated with some other team. So players like Warren Spahn and Yogi Berra top the Mets list as they were all-time great, inner-circle HOF'ers before they came to the Mets at the end of their careers, and where their tail-end accomplishments, by even the most optimistic Mets-centric stretch of the imagination, were quite forgettable. The author uses bWAR as one criteria and the difference between Bottalico's Mets WAR and his career WAR (difference WAR) is very small compared to all of the others on the Mets list -- Bottalico's is the only difference WAR in single digits on the Mets list.



Also, Isringhausen and Aguilera aren't even up for consideration because the lists aren't about young players that got away and went on to have fabulous careers somewhere else -- like Lou Brock, for example, or Amos Otis if we're talking about Mets. We're talking strictly tail-enders who didn't do anything memorable either statistically or on the field with their tail-end teams.



I recommend that you read the entire intro to the article, if you haven't, because the excerpt posted at the top of this thread doesn't quite explain what the author is shooting for.

Edgy MD May 10 2020 05:59 AM Re: Wait, THEY were Mets!? Per The Athletic

Edgy MD wrote: Garry Templeton can't touch Tony Fernandez, who got 45.3 career WAR, but only 0.2 with the Mets. So he gets nixed because his career continued after the Mets? Although, so did Alomar's.

nymr83 May 11 2020 07:15 AM Re: Wait, THEY were Mets!? Per The Athletic

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=36666 time=1589090878 user_id=68] I recommend that you read the entire intro to the article, if you haven't, because the excerpt posted at the top of this thread doesn't quite explain what the author is shooting for.

I strongly recommend The Athletic to everyone, but isn't the article you are telling him to read behind a paywall?

Chad ochoseis May 11 2020 07:43 AM Re: Wait, THEY were Mets!? Per The Athletic

Hey-wait-he-was-on-that-team is, like, our brand, at least as much as "starting pitching" and almost as much as "great big-head mascot." This is something I've often wondered about when I run out of other things to wonder about. Is this true, or does it look that way because we pay more attention to the Mets and because self-flagellation is also part of our brand? Keith Hernandez was an Indian. Jerry Koosman was a Phillie. Mike Piazza was an Athletic. Tom Seaver was a Red Sox, and the only reason why we all remember that is the whole 1986 WS opposing bench story. It was an active marketing strategy to pursue over-the hill New York legends in the beginning, but that ended with Willie Mays.

cal sharpie May 11 2020 08:01 AM Re: Wait, THEY were Mets!? Per The Athletic

Duke Snider was listed there as a DH but of course he never filled that role.

G-Fafif May 11 2020 09:19 AM Re: Wait, THEY were Mets!? Per The Athletic

Chad ochoseis wrote: Hey-wait-he-was-on-that-team is, like, our brand, at least as much as "starting pitching" and almost as much as "great big-head mascot." This is something I've often wondered about when I run out of other things to wonder about. Is this true, or does it look that way because we pay more attention to the Mets and because self-flagellation is also part of our brand? I once heard a fellow blogging-type talk about Mets fans' allegedly unique intense interest in their up and coming minor leaguers and thought there's no way we're the only fans who get excited over prospects or let down by youngsters who don't pan out. Same for this sort of thing. We had Bobby Abreu late in his career? Who didn't?