Master Index of Archived Threads


All I ask. . .

Mex17 Nov 20 2007 03:05 AM

. . .is that they keep a) Fernando Martinez, and, b) trade only one of the Mulvey/Pelfrey/Humber trio when and if they make this move for a big time pitcher. Is this unrealistic?

smg58 Nov 20 2007 05:23 AM

Probably yes. One, because there's no guarantee that any big-time starting pitcher will become available. Two, because I don't see how you outbid all the other teams for a truly big-time starting pitcher without including Martinez, unless enough get put on the block to saturate the market. And that won't happen. But look at it this way. If Pelfrey is worth holding on to, then a rotation of Pedro/El Duque/Perez/Maine/Pelfrey is one you can win with provided that a) you significantly upgrade the pen, and b) you find a sixth starter who won't kill you. Last year's results notwithstanding, there no reason why either of those should be hard or necessarily painful to do.

Edgy DC Nov 20 2007 05:54 AM

It's too much to ask because, for every 10 fans that thinks Martinez is untouchable, there's seven that thinks GoGo is and 13 that think Milledge is. I think all three are, and I know that's too much to ask.

soupcan Nov 20 2007 07:41 AM

I don't get so worked up over 'can't-miss-prospects'. I used to but then realized that for every Nolan Ryan, Amos Otis, Ken Singleton and Kevin Mitchell there are a dozen David Wests, Alex Ochoas, Alex Escobars, Bill Pulsiphers, Tim Learys, Paul Wilsons, Octavio Dotels and Ryan Thompsons. Omar, trade whoever you need to and get us a frontline starter.

Edgy DC Nov 20 2007 07:45 AM

I don't get too worked up over front-line starters. They cost several prospects and there are plenty of Mickey Loliches and Victor Zambranos among them. Even a Bruce Berenyi or two.

soupcan Nov 20 2007 07:54 AM

Lolich was done by the time he got here, Bereyni had a career record of 29-40 when he got here. Neither guy was acquired for a top prospect anyway. I'll give you Zambrano. I'm talking about a 1 or 2 guy. Dontrelle, Bedard, Santana.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 20 2007 08:07 AM

soupcan wrote: I don't get so worked up over 'can't-miss-prospects'. I used to but then realized that for every Nolan Ryan, Amos Otis, Ken Singleton and Kevin Mitchell there are a dozen David Wests, Alex Ochoas, Alex Escobars, Bill Pulsiphers, Tim Learys, Paul Wilsons, Octavio Dotels and Ryan Thompsons. Omar, trade whoever you need to and get us a frontline starter. I've noticed the same thing. That's why I'd prefer to keep Milledge over Gomez and Martinez; he's at least had some success at the major league level. I think he's less of a "suspect" than the others.

Edgy DC Nov 20 2007 08:13 AM

I'm going to disagree. Eddie Williams, Jay Tibbs, and Matt Bullinger was a huge commitment at the time for Bruce Berenyi. Williams was the number four overall pick in the 1983 draft, already protected --- as a recent Faith in Fear posting reminds us --- instead of Tom Seaver from the free agent compensation pool. Berenyi was everything that Zambrano was --- an enigmatic guy with a devastating slider that hadn't quite gotten that breakthrough season in yet, but was valued because no hitter wanted to face him.

soupcan Nov 20 2007 08:29 AM

Perhaps Eddie Williams was highly regarded when drafted but just the fact that I don't remember him tells me that at the time he was traded he was not a guy ticketed for major league stardom. I used to pay attention back then. And I'll dispute Berenyi and Zambarano being comparable as well. Zambrano was 28 when acquired and had gone 35-27 over his four years with a Tampa Bay club that had a record of 250-396 during his time with them. Berenyi was a year older than Victor and had a career W/L of 32-47 (I calculated wrong in my earlier post) with a Reds team that was almost .500 (290-304) during his tenure. Victor was winning with a bad team, Bruce was struggling with a struggler.

Edgy DC Nov 20 2007 08:35 AM

Wins? Losses? Bleah. Look at those ERA+ numbers. Williams was the fourth pick of the June 1983 draft. He couldn't have been without real value by June 1984.

soupcan Nov 20 2007 08:41 AM

You and I debated Jeff Kent's 'greatness' some time ago and I kept bringing up RBIs and you kept 'bleah'-ing those as well. Individual wins/losses is a valid statistic, especially when weighed against a teams total record.

Edgy DC Nov 20 2007 08:55 AM

It's a misleading statistic as well. It has to do with luck and run support as well as performance. Jerry Koosman 1974 15-11, 3.36 ERA, 107 ERA+ 1975 14-13, 3.42 ERA, 101 ERA+ 1976 21-10, 2.69 ERA, 122 ERA+ 1977 8-20, 3.49 ERA, 106 ERA+ Now, 1976 he was at his best and his wins reflected that, but what changed from 1974 and 1975 to 1977 --- Jerry's team and his luck, or Jerry himself? We have so many clarifying tools to work with now. Why cling to one so clouded in ambiguity? I'm sure I can find articles in major papers describing how highly regarded Bruce Berenyi was --- probably more than I can find on Victor Zambrano. I don't remember the Jeff Kent discussion. I like Kent's play.

soupcan Nov 20 2007 09:17 AM

They all have to with luck. Maybe one is a bit more accurate than another but there are enough variables with all of them. I like wins and losses. Say what you want but good pitchers win and bad pitchers lose (Steve Carlton '72 Phillies). I don't know how else to explain Koosman's numbers except to say that the '77 team was the worst of the bunch. Berenyi articles aside, I don't think Williams was considered to be a big deal. Maybe because of Abner who was drafted in '84 (from Mechanicsburg, PA - knew that without looking it up - see I told you I used to pay attention back then)? RE: Kent - we were talking about him being one of, if not the, greatest hitting secondbasemen of all-time. You disagreed.

Edgy DC Nov 20 2007 09:29 AM

="soupcan"]They all have to with luck. Maybe one is a bit more accurate than another but there are enough variables with all of them. I like wins and losses. Say what you want but good pitchers win and bad pitchers lose (Steve Carlton '72 Phillies). What I want to say is that's untrue. Good pitchers tend to win. Bad pitchers tend to lose. But exceptions are everywhere while we have better measures of goodness and badness that correct for those factors that corrupt wins and losses. ="soupcan"]I don't know how else to explain Koosman's numbers except to say that the '77 team was the worst of the bunch. Exception number one. ="soupcan"]Berenyi articles aside, I don't think Williams was considered to be a big deal. Maybe because of Abner who was drafted in '84 (from Mechanicsburg, PA - knew that without looking it up - see I told you I used to pay attention back then)? We'll have to get 1983 Little Falls manager Mike Cubbage on the phone. ="soupcan"]RE: Kent - we were talking about him being one of, if not the, greatest hitting secondbasemen of all-time. You disagreed. Kent's a great hitter and I felt that way when the Mets dealt him. Greatest is tough row.

soupcan Nov 20 2007 09:40 AM

="Edgy DC"]What I want to say is that's untrue. Good pitchers tend to win. Bad pitchers tend to lose. But exceptions are everywhere while we have better measures of goodness and badness that correct for those factors that corrupt wins and losses. Okay - tend. I'll still take a pitcher who has a winning record and higher ERA over 4 years with a bad team than a pitcher with a lower ERA and a losing record over 4 years with a mediocre team. ="Edgy DC"]We'll have to get 1983 Little Falls manager Mike Cubbage on the phone. Sounds good - I'll defer to him. ="Edgy DC"]Kent's a great hitter and I felt that way when the Mets dealt him. Greatest is tough row. I can't go there again.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 20 2007 09:47 AM

I don't really see how Bruce Berenyi is relevant here. When the Mets got him he was youngish and talented. More like an Oliver Perez than a Johann Santana. Nobody considered him a "front line starter" which is the term that was used at the beginning of this conversation. I don't think anyone wants to see Milledge or Martinez or Mulvey traded for another Bruce Berenyi. But if there's a chance to get an established successful starter like Santana or Haren, then that's a different story.

Edgy DC Nov 20 2007 10:04 AM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Nov 25 2007 11:49 AM

He was a we'll regarded potential front-line starter, capable of enticing periods of excellence, that inspired Frank Cashen to put together an offer simiar to the one Jim Duquette put together 20 years later. Most importantly, he's the kind of guy we might get for a similar package today, and therefore an object lesson.

Valadius Nov 20 2007 10:18 AM

I would hope and pray that we hold onto Martinez and Mulvey. The other name that we should also be paying attention to is Deolis Guerra.

RealityChuck Nov 25 2007 10:21 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Now, 1976 he was at his best and his wins reflected that, but what changed from 1974 and 1975 to 1977 --- Jerry's team and his luck, or Jerry himself? We have so many clarifying tools to work with now. Why cling to one so clouded in ambiguity? Because the other tools are just as ambiguous. They don't answer the question you yourself just asked: what changed. The numbers indicate a change, but what actually changed?

smg58 Nov 25 2007 10:57 AM

Valadius wrote: I would hope and pray that we hold onto Martinez and Mulvey. The other name that we should also be paying attention to is Deolis Guerra. BA rated Guerra as the Mets #2, ahead of even Gomez. I don't see it, but if that's a commonly held belief around the league then I think he's being overvalued (i.e., the kind of guy you include in a deal).

Edgy DC Nov 25 2007 01:48 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 29 2007 11:23 AM

="RealityChuck"]Because the other tools are just as ambiguous. No, they're not. Other tools are not nearly subject to such artbitrary fates as a bad team or a better team that doesn't support you. I'll answer my own question. In 1974, Jerry Koosman pitched for a Mets team that scored 3.53 runs per game, or 85% of the league average. Awful. In 1975, those Mets improved to a still bad 3.99 runs per game, or 97% of the league average. In 1977, they ricocheted down to 3.62 as the rest of the league went up, which was an average of a stinky 82.2% of league average. His run support in 1974 was better than that of his pitching mates, though, as the Mets threw up 3.91 runs per game on average (94% of the league average) in his starts. In 1975, the support dropped to 3.97 runs (slightly less than his team average and 96% of the league average. In 1977 --- brace for it --- his average run support was 3.21 runs per game, 73% of the league average, which was trending up. His median run support was two runs. What do you do with two runs? The answer is that you lose a lot of games, maybe even 20. Koosman did. With a slightly better than league average ERA, even Carlton might have. Nineteen-seventy-two wasn't an example in how wins are fairly awarded to the right pitchers, but an anomoly. Look at the three seasons described. Season ERA ERA+ Run Support League RPG Exp. Win% Exp W-L Actual W-L 1974 3.36 107 3.91 4.15 0.502 13-13 15-11 1975 3.42 101 3.97 4.13 0.513 14-13 14-13 1977 3.49 106 3.21 4.4 0.406 11-17 8-20 ERA+ suggests that Koosman pitched almost exactly as effectively in 1974 as in 1977. In one season, he was 15-11; in the other, he was 8-20. The numbers show that the difference between the two teams in supporting him was vast. I refuse to believe he had some sort of intangible mettle in 1974 that he didn't have in 1977. What he didn't have was the modest offensive seasons of Rusty Staub, Cleon Jones, and John Milner.

Edgy DC Nov 29 2007 07:38 AM

I worked really hard on that post.

Valadius Nov 29 2007 11:06 AM

Koosman has always been underrated.

Nymr83 Nov 29 2007 11:20 AM

Edgy DC wrote: I worked really hard on that post. yeah but you are so obviously right that i didn't feel it neccessary to add anything. I can only hope that any dinosaur who considers Wins an important pitching stat is kept far, far away from any decision-making for the Mets.

soupcan Nov 29 2007 12:35 PM

No worries there tough guy, I'm just a simple insurance agent.