A Close Look at Díaz

[Edgy MD]

1. He looks like he has no confidence out there, like he's waiting for an anvil to drop on him.

2. Neither his fastball nor his slider are what they were in 2022.

3. Interestingly, and somewhat (if only somewhat) encouragingly, both pitches tend to improve over the course of an outing, with the fastball getting more legs and the slider getting more bite.

4. Unfortunately, he has to go deep into an outing to get to that point, and if your closer is going deep into an outing, things are already bad.

5. Unfortunately as well, even though both pitches tend to improve over the course of an outing, neither quite get there, with the slider having a dip at the tail, rather than that frisbee movement that had batters chasing it a foot and a half away.

6. With less movement, he has to throw more strikes. Nobody's chasing anymore.

7.

They really need to reign in the hype over Diaz. It's embarrassing.

They really do. Entrance music in general just sets people up to fail.

8. I think he'll get it back. Most of it, anyhow. He just needs to find confidence in his legs again. In the meantime, though, he might do a lot of damage to the team if they keep relying on him. They need to mix things up at the back end.

[metirish]

Diaz doesn't seem to have any faith in his fastball

[Edgy MD]

He really owned his shit in the post-game interview, I thought. And I admired that he kept battling after those two rough non-calls, with mostly fumes left in the tank.

[Cowtipper]

In his time with Seattle, his save percentage was 90%. With New York, it has been 82%, with just one year (2022) eclipsing the 90% mark. Even in 2020, when he "looked" great with a 1.75 ERA in 26 appearances, he blew four of his ten save opportunities.

2022 was the anomaly; Diaz has been on the decline since leaving Seattle.

[Edgy MD]

"Decline" suggests a consistent trend, though, and that's not really what's happening.

[Cowtipper]

I think it has been consistent. Like I said, 2022 was excellent, but a one-off. Relative to his time in Seattle, the rest of his career with New York has been ho-hum. Compare his statlines between the two teams:



His ERA with NY is more than half-a-point higher and his ERA+ is 30 points lower. Those are both significant. His WHIP is also up noticeably, and his H/9, BB/9 and HR/9 are up, as well.

[Edgy MD]

He missed all of last season. He hasn't missed this year. That, by definition, isn't consistent.

You are showing totals and not a year-to-year trend.

[Fman99]

I think he's looked mostly pretty good this year. Last night he couldn't spot any pitches for strikes. He only even really got the first out because Schwarber is terrible.

[Cowtipper]

He missed all of last season. He hasn't missed this year. That, by definition, isn't consistent.

You are showing totals and not a year-to-year trend.

Missing a season isn't a symptom of decline? Well in that case, why don't guys just play every three years then?

(And while we're debating the decline or lack thereof of Diaz, make sure to check out "Guess that Met" and make a few guesses.)

[Edgy MD]

Again, that's not how a trend is understood or represented. And no, missing a season is not representative of a consistent trend if a guy returns the next season. That is the reversal of a trend.

A trend is presented on an graph with two axes, frequntly with units of time (years, quarters, months, or such) on the X axis and productivity (sales, output, wins) on the Y axis.

What you presented are two totals. Those totals would look very much the opposite if 2019 was included in the first block, which is just as credible and just as misleading in framing as a consistent trend when the data is still piled into two lumps. It's not consistent at all.

This is a trend:



This is a trend:



Also a trend:

[Cowtipper]

Trends result in totals, so I'm not wrong.

List of Mets closers by NY career ERA+ (min. 100 G and 15 SV):

Addison Reed: 194
Billy Wagner: 183
Armando Benitez: 159
Adam Ottavino: 148
Jesse Orosco: 133
John Franco: 132
Braden Looper: 131
Francisco Rodriguez: 129
Edwin Diaz: 126
Skip Lockwood: 126
Randy Myers: 126
Bob Apodaca: 123
Jeurys Familia: 119
Doug Sisk: 117
Seth Lugo: 115
Ron Taylor: 115
Tug McGraw: 114
Danny Frisella: 113
Roger McDowell: 112
Neil Allen: 102
Bobby Parnell: 102
Jenrry Mejia: 99
Anthony Young: 98

People are buying the illusion and hype of Diaz, but he is right there with Myers and Lockwood. Slightly worse than F-Rod, slightly better than Apodaca. Good names, worth remembering, but not worth all the fanfare that Diaz has received. Myers can't even get into the Mets Hall of Fame project I run on another website, which is as big Hall as it gets, so maybe Diaz isn't that great, after all.

I'd say you're grasping at straws because you invested a lot of "liking" and "hope" into Diaz and you don't want to be let down.

I want to be wrong, but I've called the demise of A LOT of Mets long before many fans were willing to admit it, so I have a history of being correct.

[MFS62]

I'm not sure if it is still physical or mental.
I don't think he is confident about his leg yet and not fully using it like he used to.
When he feels it it is fully healthy, his leg drive, and velocity, will return.

But nobody can predict when (if) this may happen.
Later

[ashie62]

Can Butto close? All in gest

[ashie62]

I'm not sure if it is still physical or mental.
I don't think he is confident about his leg yet and not fully using it like he used to.
When he feels it it is fully healthy, his leg drive, and velocity, will return.

But nobody can predict when (if) this may happen.
Later

Best take imho

[Edgy MD]

Trends result in totals, so I'm not wrong.

I don't think you understand, but totals aren't trends until they are broken into units whose differences can be compared.

It takes more than two units to plot a trend. The first is a starting point, so there is only one change. One difference What a trend is is a consistency in change, and there can be no consistency across a unit of one.

You cannot have a "trend" between two points — certainly not one that has any meaning.

This is the actual trajectory of Mr. Díaz' career.



Red seasons represent his time with the Mariners. Blue seasons represent his time with the Mets.

As can be gleaned, his performance has risen and fallen, like most relievers, but no consistent year-to-year trend emerges whatsoever.

I'd say you're grasping at straws because you invested a lot of "liking" and "hope" into Diaz and you don't want to be let down.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Please don't presume to analyze me, and please don't use quotes to represent me in terms I have not written or spoken.

I want to be wrong, ...

About the trend you claim you've isolated, you are certainly wrong.

...but I've called the demise of A LOT of Mets long before many fans were willing to admit it, ...

1. You're changing your argument from isolating a trend to calling a demise. (Is Edwin Díaz about to die?)

2. You're propping up a straw man.

3. You're citing evidence not in the record.

... so I have a history of being correct.

About what? About recognizing that all athletes fail and all careers end eventually? Because that's hardly an insight.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Diaz's 2022 season was one of the all-time best ever for a reliever. Of course it was an outlier. Expecting Diaz to repeat that season, even if he'd never had a season wipe-out injury last year would be like having expected Roger Maris to top 60 HR's several more times.

I have no idea how effective Diaz'll be going forward, but I'm certainly not gonna hold him to the standard he set in 2022.

[Edgy MD]

Nor am I.

[Edgy MD]

One thing we can take from the data above, though, if we are willing to accept both bWAR and extrapolation at face value, his 2020 season was even more productive than 2022, relative to the length of the season.

[Edgy MD]

Diaz's 2022 season was one of the all-time best ever for a reliever. Of course it was an outlier. Expecting Diaz to repeat that season, even if he'd never had a season wipe-out injury last year would be like having expected Roger Maris to top 60 HR's several more times.

I have no idea how effective Diaz'll be going forward, but I'm certainly not gonna hold him to the standard he set in 2022.

Ron Darling just said more or less the same thing on the game introduction. "Twenty twenty-two was an historic year. Let's not compare him to 2022. He may never get to that level again. That doesn't mean ... something something something ... ."

[Cowtipper]

Trends result in totals, so I'm not wrong.

I don't think you understand, but totals aren't trends until they are broken into units whose differences can be compared.

It takes more than two units to plot a trend. The first is a starting point, so there is only one change. One difference What a trend is is a consistency in change, and there can be no consistency across a unit of one.

This is the actual trajectory of Mr. Díaz' career.



Red seasons represent his time with the Mariners. Blue seasons represent his time with the Mets.

As can be gleaned, his performance has risen and fallen, like most relievers, but no consistent year-to-year trend emerges whatsoever.

I'd say you're grasping at straws because you invested a lot of "liking" and "hope" into Diaz and you don't want to be let down.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Please don't presume to analyze me, and please don't use quotes to represent me in terms I have not written or spoken.

I want to be wrong, ...

About the trend you claim you've isolated, you are certainly wrong.

...but I've called the demise of A LOT of Mets long before many fans were willing to admit it, ...

1. You're changing your argument from isolating a trend to calling a demise. (Is Edwin Díaz about to die?)

2. You're propping up a straw man.

3. You're citing evidence not in the record.

... so I have a history of being correct.

About what? About recognizing that all athletes fail and all careers end eventually? Because that's hardly an insight.

You can be as reductive as you want, or change the goalposts if you want, but the crux of what we are analyzing is whether Diaz, at 30, supposedly in his peak, is on the decline. Not "that all athletes fail and all careers end eventually." Hence, your statement is largely a non-sequitur. Diaz has not been the Diaz we saw in Seattle since he was in Seattle. He gave us one off-year—a good one, in 2022—but beyond that, he has been largely underwhelming, especially considering what we thought we were getting, and what he is being paid, which is about $20 million a year. Raisel Iglesias, never an All-Star, has earned at most $16 million a year...and he has a 206 ERA+ with his current team. Josh Hader, though himself proving to be inconsistent, has a career 161 ERA+, compared to Diaz's 138, and he has never earned more than $19 million in a year. Diaz is proving to be a waste of money.

I don't say "trade him," but see him for what he is. He's just not as good as he once was. He is post Anaheim Francisco Rodriguez (a significant step down). It is what it is. And since he's been so up-and-down throughout his career, that's a pretty rough trend, isn't it? A trend of inconsistency is no sign of greatness. If we can't expect him to be great from one year to the next, how great can he actually be?

Timmy Trumpet is cool and fun and brings energy. But when a guy is a letdown, he's a letdown. And Diaz certainly hasn't lived up to the hype. 2022 was just one year....he's been with us for six now.

[Cowtipper]

Also I called the collapse of deGrom long before anyone else did.

[Cowtipper]

One thing we can take from the data above, though, if we are willing to accept both bWAR and extrapolation at face value, his 2020 season was even more productive than 2022, relative to the length of the season.

Who cares what bWAR says, he blew saves at a 40% rate in 2020. If a player's not doing his job correctly, no amount of sabermetric mental gymnastics will make him "good." WAR is a flawed metric and should be looked at as a frivolity, not a reliable means to gauge...anything.

[Edgy MD]

(1) Clearly, I care. If you don't, you don't.

(2) All statistics are flawed (saves and blown saves included, perhaps more than most), but merely saying so doesn't clarify anything.

(3) He did do his job. Correctly.

(4) There is no trend, by any statistic.

[Edgy MD]

You can be as reductive as you want, or change the goalposts if you want,

I'm not being reductive. I'm not changing the goalposts. (Do you know what these terms mean?) I'm citing data to demonstrate that the trend you claim to have existed across Díaz' Mets career doesn't actually exist across his Mets career.

So please stop writing false things about me.

[Edgy MD]

Also I called the collapse of deGrom long before anyone else did.

This seems obvious, but ...

(a) you are again citing evidence not in record;
(b) you cannot cite "anyone else," unless you've somehow polled everyone else, which I feel comfortable believing you haven't;
(c) predicting a player will decline coming off of a peak as high as deGrom was on is the very easiest prediction in the world. To think this would be somehow impressive to me, had this been in record here, is mistaken.