Right now it is safe to say that the Mets are at a fork in the road. They are both a team of budding superstars, and also a team of aging veterans. It is clear that while a solid nucleus is in place for many years to come, the Mets have a supporting cast that is in a dire need of a makeover. Within the next year or two the Mets will need to replace a 1st baseman, a Left fielder, a 2nd baseman, a Catcher, a #2 or #3 starter, a #4 or #5 starter, and a closer. Now the Mets will likely fill some of those holes via free agency, but it is unrealistic to believe that all of those vacancies can be filled that way. What that means for the Mets, is that they need some impact players to emerge from their farm system. Considering that much of their system was depleted this off- season finding these impact players could be a daunting task. This is what is basically left...
The Mets top 15 prospects:
1. OF Fernando Martinez
2. LHP Jon Niese
3. RHP Eddie Kunz
4. RHP Brant Rustich
5. 1b Mike Carp
6. RHP Robert Parnell
7. 1b- OF Nick Evans
8. 3b Danny Murphy
9. RHP Nathan Vineyard
10. RHP Dylan Owen
11. 1b Lucas Duda
12. SS Jose Coronado
13. RHP Nick Carr
14. RHP Scott Moviel
15. SS Rueben Tejada
There is a lot of upside in that group, but most of the prospect are a ways away from the majors. However the first 8 names or so on that list are playing double -A ball currently, as is Jose Coronado (#12). The reason that is significant is because the double- A Binghamton Mets have been hitting the cover off of the ball. Mike Carp, Nick Evans, and Danny Murphy, all have OPS' over 1.000, and combined have 8 HRs in only 11 games (4 by Carp, 3 by Evans, 1 by Murphy). Its not just the middle of the order that has been hitting however as top prospect and lead- off hitter Fernando Martinez has an OPS of .756 with 1 HR through 11 games as well, and Jose Coronado, who has very quietly surprised this season, has an OPS of .850 so far this year for the B- Mets. Their pitching has been a different story. Outside of Jon Niese, who has posted a superb .57 ERA and a .77 WHIP in 15.2 IP while striking out 14, the Binghamton pitchers have struggled. after a promising spring Robert Parnell has a 6.48 ERA, a 1.92 WHIP, and only 5 strike- outs in 8.1 IP. Top relief prospect Eddie Kunz does have 3 saves, but also has a 6.32 ERA in 4.1 IP. Brant Rustich has yet to pitch. With Mets on the verge of major personnel turnover on their major league roster the double- A B- Mets are a team to pay close attention to as the may soon be on the real Mets.
Other notable performers:
RHP Dylan Owen: 1.64 ERA, 1.09 WHIP, 9k, 11 IP ( Single- A St. Lucie)
1b Lucas Duda: .896 OPS, 1 HR, 11 Games, 44 ABs (Single - A St. Lucie)
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
State of the Met's Farm
After an off- season that decimated the Met's farm system the organization is looking at a crop of prospects in 2008 that is among the weakest in baseball. Outside of Fernando Martinez the Mets did not have one prospect in Baseball America's top 100, and not one on the fringe either. Instead the Met's now lack depth in the upper levels of their system at every position, but most notably in their starting pitching. Outside of Mike Pelfrey, who technically is not a prospect, their is not one other starting pitcher in the Met's system that figures to contribute at all in 2008 or in 2009. Martinez hopes to be in New York at some point in 2008, and even though he is the top left field prospect in all of baseball he should not be anywhere near Queens this year. Martinez is also the only position player above AA in the Met's system, that projects to be a major league starter down the road. Relief pitchers, however, seem to be the position of strength for the Mets right now. Eddie Kunz seems to be on the fast track to the majors, despite an inconsistent first year in which he posted a 6.75 ERA for the Brooklyn Cyclones. The Mets, as well as Baseball America who rank him as the Met's number two prospect, see him as the potential successor to Billy Wagner in the closer's role. Along with Kunz the Mets have Joe Smith, who will most likely start in AAA, and Robert Parnell, he is most likely a middle reliever at this point, who will begin in AA and probably see some time in New Orleans before the end of the season. Basically the success of the Mets organization rides on the shoulders of Mike Pelfrey and Fernando Martinez.
Mike Pelfrey was touted as the 20th best prospect last year by Baseball America, and fittingly had a dominant spring and won the fifth starter's spot in a landslide. Then it all fell apart. Pelfrey struggled immensely in two stints with the Mets last year, as he struggled to translate his spring success into victories in the regular season. Pelfrey pitched 72.2 IP last year. He faced 154 RHB and 131 LHB, so almost an equal amount, but LHB had an OPS of .906 against him while RHB posted a very modest .746 OPS against him. Even worse Pelfrey gave up 6 HR last year, but 5 of them to LHB. Part of his difficulty against LHB can certainly be attributed to the fact that four of the best hitters in the NL East are either left handed or bat left handed against RHP, Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Chipper Jones, and Jimmy Rollins. However four batters do not constitute a nearly .200 difference in OPS. Plain and simple Pelfrey was atrocious against lefties, and if he wants to have success as a major league starter he needs to fix that soon.
If Pelfrey doesn't pan out the Met's have a real problem on their hands because they have no stand- out starting pitchers after him. Jon Niese has progressed nicely through the system and will probably be in AA this year, but he projects as a back of the rotation starter at best. Recently converted reliever to starter Brant Rustich may also begin the year in AA, after he had a strong rookie year as a reliver pitching 22 IP between Kingsport and Brooklyn. Rustich is interesting, because his draft stock fell after injuries late in his college career, but before that he projected to be a first round pick. Baseball America is very high on him as well, and they think he has the stuff to be starter, but feel he is better suited as a reliever. The Mets managed to get some nice arms out of high school in last year's draft in Nathan Vineyard and Scott Moviel, but both are a while away and don't figure to contribute to the Mets for at least the next three years.
Overall the system is very thin, and while there are some strong latin prospects in the low minors, the Mets need to have a strong draft this June to replenish their system.
Mike Pelfrey was touted as the 20th best prospect last year by Baseball America, and fittingly had a dominant spring and won the fifth starter's spot in a landslide. Then it all fell apart. Pelfrey struggled immensely in two stints with the Mets last year, as he struggled to translate his spring success into victories in the regular season. Pelfrey pitched 72.2 IP last year. He faced 154 RHB and 131 LHB, so almost an equal amount, but LHB had an OPS of .906 against him while RHB posted a very modest .746 OPS against him. Even worse Pelfrey gave up 6 HR last year, but 5 of them to LHB. Part of his difficulty against LHB can certainly be attributed to the fact that four of the best hitters in the NL East are either left handed or bat left handed against RHP, Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Chipper Jones, and Jimmy Rollins. However four batters do not constitute a nearly .200 difference in OPS. Plain and simple Pelfrey was atrocious against lefties, and if he wants to have success as a major league starter he needs to fix that soon.
If Pelfrey doesn't pan out the Met's have a real problem on their hands because they have no stand- out starting pitchers after him. Jon Niese has progressed nicely through the system and will probably be in AA this year, but he projects as a back of the rotation starter at best. Recently converted reliever to starter Brant Rustich may also begin the year in AA, after he had a strong rookie year as a reliver pitching 22 IP between Kingsport and Brooklyn. Rustich is interesting, because his draft stock fell after injuries late in his college career, but before that he projected to be a first round pick. Baseball America is very high on him as well, and they think he has the stuff to be starter, but feel he is better suited as a reliever. The Mets managed to get some nice arms out of high school in last year's draft in Nathan Vineyard and Scott Moviel, but both are a while away and don't figure to contribute to the Mets for at least the next three years.
Overall the system is very thin, and while there are some strong latin prospects in the low minors, the Mets need to have a strong draft this June to replenish their system.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Run Residual
In the "Bill James Handbook 2008" Bill James projected John Maine to have a 12-11 record with a 4.05 ERA, and Oliver Perez to have a 9-12 record with a 4.69 ERA. Now after watching these two pitchers emerge into top of the rotation starters over the past two years I found it hard to believe that they would each take such a significant step backwards next year. The only explaination I could come up with for this bold prediction was that Bill James had found something that indicated that Maine and Perez over- achieved last year. I personally felt that they were both due for another step forward next year, but the god of sabermetrics disagreed with me, so I needed to statistically back up my hypothesis.
The ultimate goal of baseball is to score the most runs, and in order to score a run you need to gain four bases. So under this principle each base is worth 1/4 of a run. To confirm this number I took a SRS of 30 ML pitchers and divided their Runs Allowed by Total Bases (1b+2(2b)+3(3b)+4(HR)+BB+HBP). I found the mean ration to be .248 which is basically 1/4. I then devised a regression formula, R=TB/4. This formula gives you a predicted number of runs allowed, which allows you to find the residual value, observed(actual)- predicted Runs. A positive residual meant that the pitcher was actually a victim of bad luck and pitched better than his statistics indicated, and a negative residual meant that the player over-achieved. The r-sq. value of this regresion was .74, meaning that 74% of the data can be accounted for by this regression. I believe this value, however, would increase with a larger sample size.
While researching this stat further I found two pretty significant outliers. In 2007 Brad Penny gave up only 75 runs, but according to the regression formula he should've given up 88.25. However in 2006 and 2005 he had a +1.25 and a +4.5 run residual value meaning that his stats reflected the way he actually pitched in each of those years. The other outlier was Roy Oswalt, who had a +17.75 run residual in 2007. Unlike Penny, though, this was a trend for Oswalt who had had a +19.25 residual value in each of the prior two years. I found that in each of the three years (2007, 2006, and 2005) opposing batters had a babip of .285, .262, and .272, and an OPS of .637, .619, and .734 respectively. This indicated to me that Roy Oswalt was an unbelievably gifted pitcher when it came to stranding runners on base.
So now we finally get to the focus of this post, John Maine and Oliver Perez. Last year Maine gave up 90 runs, and in the regression formula he was predicted to have given up 90.25, a residual of -.25 meaning that Maine's statistics last year reflected his overall performance. His babip for last year was .281 which again means he was neither lucky nor unlucky. Perez also gave up 90 runs last year, but his predicted run total was only 86 giving him a residual of +4. This actually means that Ollie pitched better last year than his stats indicate, and his babip of .273 also reflects this belief.
Nothing I have found or calculated indicates that either one of these pitchers is due for a decline in performance next year. It seems more logical to believe that experience will only help these two young pitchers continue to improve as they have over the past two years. I have the utmost respect for Bill James and his sabermetric statistics, but in this case I think he is well off in his prediction, and basically I find it hard to imagine either of these two pitchers regressing next year.
The ultimate goal of baseball is to score the most runs, and in order to score a run you need to gain four bases. So under this principle each base is worth 1/4 of a run. To confirm this number I took a SRS of 30 ML pitchers and divided their Runs Allowed by Total Bases (1b+2(2b)+3(3b)+4(HR)+BB+HBP). I found the mean ration to be .248 which is basically 1/4. I then devised a regression formula, R=TB/4. This formula gives you a predicted number of runs allowed, which allows you to find the residual value, observed(actual)- predicted Runs. A positive residual meant that the pitcher was actually a victim of bad luck and pitched better than his statistics indicated, and a negative residual meant that the player over-achieved. The r-sq. value of this regresion was .74, meaning that 74% of the data can be accounted for by this regression. I believe this value, however, would increase with a larger sample size.
While researching this stat further I found two pretty significant outliers. In 2007 Brad Penny gave up only 75 runs, but according to the regression formula he should've given up 88.25. However in 2006 and 2005 he had a +1.25 and a +4.5 run residual value meaning that his stats reflected the way he actually pitched in each of those years. The other outlier was Roy Oswalt, who had a +17.75 run residual in 2007. Unlike Penny, though, this was a trend for Oswalt who had had a +19.25 residual value in each of the prior two years. I found that in each of the three years (2007, 2006, and 2005) opposing batters had a babip of .285, .262, and .272, and an OPS of .637, .619, and .734 respectively. This indicated to me that Roy Oswalt was an unbelievably gifted pitcher when it came to stranding runners on base.
So now we finally get to the focus of this post, John Maine and Oliver Perez. Last year Maine gave up 90 runs, and in the regression formula he was predicted to have given up 90.25, a residual of -.25 meaning that Maine's statistics last year reflected his overall performance. His babip for last year was .281 which again means he was neither lucky nor unlucky. Perez also gave up 90 runs last year, but his predicted run total was only 86 giving him a residual of +4. This actually means that Ollie pitched better last year than his stats indicate, and his babip of .273 also reflects this belief.
Nothing I have found or calculated indicates that either one of these pitchers is due for a decline in performance next year. It seems more logical to believe that experience will only help these two young pitchers continue to improve as they have over the past two years. I have the utmost respect for Bill James and his sabermetric statistics, but in this case I think he is well off in his prediction, and basically I find it hard to imagine either of these two pitchers regressing next year.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
How Many Games Will the Mets Win?
Now that the Mets have acquired Johan Santana (pending a contract agreement of course) most baseball analysts see the Mets as the NL East favorites, and many as the favorite to represent the NL in the World Series. This seems to be a fair expectation for the Mets who were the best team in the NL for 5/6 of the season last year, but it lacks statistical support. So then how many wins should the Mets, statistically, win?
Win Shares: Win shares is the Bill James statistic that measure how much each individual player contributes to a team win. Each win share is equal to 1/3 of a win according to James. The players below are who I expect to be on the Mets 25 man roster for the majority of the year.
Players Win Shares (2007)
Line Up
Jose Reyes -----------------24
Luis Castillo----------------16
David Wright---------------34
Carlos Beltran--------------25
Moises Alou----------------12
Carlos Delgado-------------13
Ryan Church---------------16
Brian Schneider -------------11
Bench
Ramon Castro---------------6
Endy Chavez (2006)---------13
Angel Pagan----------------5
Marlon Anderson------------4
Damion Easley--------------8
Starters
Johan Santana--------------17
Pedro Martinez (2005)-------19
John Maine----------------11
Olliver Perez---------------10
Orlando Hernandez---------9
Bullpen
Billy Wagner---------------12
Aaron Heilman--------------8
Duaner Sanchez (2006)-------6
Pedro Feliciano--------------6
Matt Wise------------------4
Scott Schowenweis-----------2
Jorge Sosa ------------------6
Total Wins-----------------99
I added up the total amount of win shares that each player on the current Mets' 25 man roster had in their last healthy year, which came out to 297 win shares, and divided that by three to estimate the total number of wins, 99. Obviously certain players will do better next year, and certain players will do worse, but it is probably safe to assume that the progression of players who are either still improving or who are due for a rebound year will offset the regression of certain injury prone or ageing players.
Pythagorean Record: Is used to calculate how many wins a team should have.
Formula: (Runs scored^1.83)/ ((Runs scored^1.83)+(Runs allowed^1.83))
Runs scored by current Mets' 25 man roster: 790
Runs allowed by current Mets' 25 man roster: 559
Pythagoren Winning Percentage: .653
Pythagorean Record: 106- 56
Once again only using players on the projected 25 man roster, and only using their last healthy year I found the Mets to win 106 games. Now the pythagorean record is only a projector of how many games a team should win and, unlike win shares, does not take the actual win total into account.
Both of the projected win totals will be skewed because it is impossible to project injuries, and the performance of the subsequent replacement player. You do not know who is going to step up and become a major contributor, nor do you know who will have a major drop- off year. Of the two methods the win share total is probably the more accurate projector, but the pythagorean record does give a good estimate of the team's potential. For comparison's sake the Philadelphia Phillies' current 25 man roster would only win 86 games by the win share method. This is probably a valid estimate considering the Phillies won 89 games last year and lost a major contributor in Aaron Rowand without really doing anything to make up for his departure. However they have a pythagorean record of 101-61, which means that a full season of Brett Myers and Kyle Kendrick with ERAs in the mid 3s and a full season of Cole Hamels pitching Cy Young caliber baseball would give them the potential to win 101 games, which is still 5 games worse than the Mets potential.
Overall 99 wins seems like a pretty logical projection for next year, but 106 is certainly not out of the question for a team as talented as the Mets. Either way all indicators point to a very successful season for the New York Mets.
Win Shares: Win shares is the Bill James statistic that measure how much each individual player contributes to a team win. Each win share is equal to 1/3 of a win according to James. The players below are who I expect to be on the Mets 25 man roster for the majority of the year.
Players Win Shares (2007)
Line Up
Jose Reyes -----------------24
Luis Castillo----------------16
David Wright---------------34
Carlos Beltran--------------25
Moises Alou----------------12
Carlos Delgado-------------13
Ryan Church---------------16
Brian Schneider -------------11
Bench
Ramon Castro---------------6
Endy Chavez (2006)---------13
Angel Pagan----------------5
Marlon Anderson------------4
Damion Easley--------------8
Starters
Johan Santana--------------17
Pedro Martinez (2005)-------19
John Maine----------------11
Olliver Perez---------------10
Orlando Hernandez---------9
Bullpen
Billy Wagner---------------12
Aaron Heilman--------------8
Duaner Sanchez (2006)-------6
Pedro Feliciano--------------6
Matt Wise------------------4
Scott Schowenweis-----------2
Jorge Sosa ------------------6
Total Wins-----------------99
I added up the total amount of win shares that each player on the current Mets' 25 man roster had in their last healthy year, which came out to 297 win shares, and divided that by three to estimate the total number of wins, 99. Obviously certain players will do better next year, and certain players will do worse, but it is probably safe to assume that the progression of players who are either still improving or who are due for a rebound year will offset the regression of certain injury prone or ageing players.
Pythagorean Record: Is used to calculate how many wins a team should have.
Formula: (Runs scored^1.83)/ ((Runs scored^1.83)+(Runs allowed^1.83))
Runs scored by current Mets' 25 man roster: 790
Runs allowed by current Mets' 25 man roster: 559
Pythagoren Winning Percentage: .653
Pythagorean Record: 106- 56
Once again only using players on the projected 25 man roster, and only using their last healthy year I found the Mets to win 106 games. Now the pythagorean record is only a projector of how many games a team should win and, unlike win shares, does not take the actual win total into account.
Both of the projected win totals will be skewed because it is impossible to project injuries, and the performance of the subsequent replacement player. You do not know who is going to step up and become a major contributor, nor do you know who will have a major drop- off year. Of the two methods the win share total is probably the more accurate projector, but the pythagorean record does give a good estimate of the team's potential. For comparison's sake the Philadelphia Phillies' current 25 man roster would only win 86 games by the win share method. This is probably a valid estimate considering the Phillies won 89 games last year and lost a major contributor in Aaron Rowand without really doing anything to make up for his departure. However they have a pythagorean record of 101-61, which means that a full season of Brett Myers and Kyle Kendrick with ERAs in the mid 3s and a full season of Cole Hamels pitching Cy Young caliber baseball would give them the potential to win 101 games, which is still 5 games worse than the Mets potential.
Overall 99 wins seems like a pretty logical projection for next year, but 106 is certainly not out of the question for a team as talented as the Mets. Either way all indicators point to a very successful season for the New York Mets.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Prospects
In a potential deal for Johan Santana the Mets could send any of the following eight players to the Twins. In an attempt to determine who of these players have the best trade and organizational value I will evaluate each one of them separately.
First we have the five "minor leaguers"
Fernando Martinez: The top prospect in the Mets organization is a product of both his tremendous upside, as well as his relative success at each level he has played at. At only 18 he was a staple in the AA Binghampton Mets lineup as predominantly a LF. While he is a capable defender, at one point he was considered a CF prospect, he is defined by his ability to hit the ball, especially for an 18 year old. He has a quick, powerful swing from the left side that demonstrates power to all fields. Despite his natural tools he did struggle at AA, batting .271, with a .336 OBP, and only slugging .377. In general his swing tends to have a bit of an "uppercut," which will hamper his ability to hit for average as his build resembles more of a line drive hitter than a Prince Fielder type power hitter. If he is still on the Mets next year he will most likely begin the year in AA Binghampton and probably advance to AAA New Orleans at some point during the season. Martinez has had some injury struggles, but if he reaches his potential he is probably a .290 hitter with 30+ HR power and 120 RBI ability, ETA- Mid 2009.
Carlos Gomez: The other OF prospect in the Mets organization saw significant time in the majors last year, and although he had a statistically poor stint he did show off his physical tools, and demonstrated why he is regarded as one of the Mets top prospects. Right now Gomez would be a defensive upgrade for any team in the league, and that slick defense along with his unbelievable speed would make him a capable major league OF currently despite his lack of offense. However Gomez is only 22 and he is still developing as a hitter. He has quick hands and a strong, at time viscous, swing that translate to power down the road. However currently he has a tendency to pull the ball too much, and until he can develop an ability to go the other way he will be overmatched offensively at the major league level. Gomez upside ranges but a reasonable prediction would have him at about a .280 hitter with 20- 25 HR power, and depending on where he bats around 90 RBIs, ETA- Mid 2008
Deolis Guerra: Like Martinez, Guerra was only 18 last year, so much of his hype is based off his upside. He spent last year at High A- ball St. Lucie, and despite only winning 2 games last year and having a 4.01 ERA he had a very good WHIP of 1.17 which was among the best in the Florida State League last year. Guerra's fastball sits in the low to mid 90s, and he has a very advanced change- up to go with it. The rest of his arsenal is lacking but as a 19 year old at AA Binghampton next year he will have plenty of time to develop his pitches. Guerra is so young and raw it is hard to predict what his numbers might look like, but he probably projects as a #2 starter at best, ETA- 2010.
Kevin Mulvey: The first Mets pick in the 2006 draft has turned out to be a good one. In his first full year in the organization last year he pitched extremely well at AA Binghampton and was among the top five pitchers in nearly every statistical category in the Eastern league last year. He also had a nice stint in AAA at the end of last year. Mulvey will be 22 going on 23 and although he will most likely be in AAA next year he will have a chance to compete for a spot in the rotation. Mulvey projects as a 3rd starter, but his command over all of the pitches in his arsenal may make him the safest bet of any pitcher in the mets organization. Mulvey projects to be a pitcher with a mid 3s ERA and 10- 15 win potential, ETA- 2008.
Philip Humber: Almost an after thought in the Mets organization, Humber lost a year of development to Tommy John surgery, but was probably the teams best minor league pitcher last year. In a traditionally hitter's league Humber was the best pitcher in the PCL leading the league in WHIP and among the league leaders in SO not to mention the near no hitter he threw late in the season. The thing that makes Humber unique is that his best pitch is not his fastball, but his curveball. When Humber is can command his curveball it is a devastating pitch, but on the contrary when he struggles with it he is going to be very hittable. Humber still has a lot of upside but he is probably at best a #4 pitcher, but like Mulvey he will have a shot this spring to make the rotation, ETA- 2008.
Although those are the five players most commonly associated with the trade for Santana, there is still a chance that one of these three major leaguers could be included as well.
Aaron Heilman: With the departure of Joe Nathan likely the Twins are definately in need of another bullpen arm/ candidate for the closer role. Heilman would fit a need for them, and could likely keep us from having to trade all five prospects.
Ryan Church: We have heard all along that the Twins want major league ready players. Although there is really no upside left with Church he is an underrated OF who is especially strong against RHP.
Mike Pelfrey: Looking at comments of Twins fans, they seem to be higher on Pelfrey than they are on Humber or Mulvey. Unless the Mets have deemed him untouchable, he is likely to at least be mentioned. (I still feel that Pelfrey has a ton of Upside but I'm not sure he will ever regain the ability he demonstrated last spring when he won the 5th starters spot easily).
Using those eight players here are three trade proposals that I think are fair for both teams:
1. Carlos Gomez, Deolis Guerra, Mike Pelfrey, Aaron Heilman
2. Ryan Church, Deolis Guerra, Kevin Mulvey, Mike Pelfrey, Aaron Heilman
3. Fernando Martinez, Mike Pelfrey, Philip Humber, Aaron Heilman
(Nothing Against Mike Pelfrey or Aaron Heilman, I just noticed that the Twins fans were very high on both of them)
First we have the five "minor leaguers"
Fernando Martinez: The top prospect in the Mets organization is a product of both his tremendous upside, as well as his relative success at each level he has played at. At only 18 he was a staple in the AA Binghampton Mets lineup as predominantly a LF. While he is a capable defender, at one point he was considered a CF prospect, he is defined by his ability to hit the ball, especially for an 18 year old. He has a quick, powerful swing from the left side that demonstrates power to all fields. Despite his natural tools he did struggle at AA, batting .271, with a .336 OBP, and only slugging .377. In general his swing tends to have a bit of an "uppercut," which will hamper his ability to hit for average as his build resembles more of a line drive hitter than a Prince Fielder type power hitter. If he is still on the Mets next year he will most likely begin the year in AA Binghampton and probably advance to AAA New Orleans at some point during the season. Martinez has had some injury struggles, but if he reaches his potential he is probably a .290 hitter with 30+ HR power and 120 RBI ability, ETA- Mid 2009.
Carlos Gomez: The other OF prospect in the Mets organization saw significant time in the majors last year, and although he had a statistically poor stint he did show off his physical tools, and demonstrated why he is regarded as one of the Mets top prospects. Right now Gomez would be a defensive upgrade for any team in the league, and that slick defense along with his unbelievable speed would make him a capable major league OF currently despite his lack of offense. However Gomez is only 22 and he is still developing as a hitter. He has quick hands and a strong, at time viscous, swing that translate to power down the road. However currently he has a tendency to pull the ball too much, and until he can develop an ability to go the other way he will be overmatched offensively at the major league level. Gomez upside ranges but a reasonable prediction would have him at about a .280 hitter with 20- 25 HR power, and depending on where he bats around 90 RBIs, ETA- Mid 2008
Deolis Guerra: Like Martinez, Guerra was only 18 last year, so much of his hype is based off his upside. He spent last year at High A- ball St. Lucie, and despite only winning 2 games last year and having a 4.01 ERA he had a very good WHIP of 1.17 which was among the best in the Florida State League last year. Guerra's fastball sits in the low to mid 90s, and he has a very advanced change- up to go with it. The rest of his arsenal is lacking but as a 19 year old at AA Binghampton next year he will have plenty of time to develop his pitches. Guerra is so young and raw it is hard to predict what his numbers might look like, but he probably projects as a #2 starter at best, ETA- 2010.
Kevin Mulvey: The first Mets pick in the 2006 draft has turned out to be a good one. In his first full year in the organization last year he pitched extremely well at AA Binghampton and was among the top five pitchers in nearly every statistical category in the Eastern league last year. He also had a nice stint in AAA at the end of last year. Mulvey will be 22 going on 23 and although he will most likely be in AAA next year he will have a chance to compete for a spot in the rotation. Mulvey projects as a 3rd starter, but his command over all of the pitches in his arsenal may make him the safest bet of any pitcher in the mets organization. Mulvey projects to be a pitcher with a mid 3s ERA and 10- 15 win potential, ETA- 2008.
Philip Humber: Almost an after thought in the Mets organization, Humber lost a year of development to Tommy John surgery, but was probably the teams best minor league pitcher last year. In a traditionally hitter's league Humber was the best pitcher in the PCL leading the league in WHIP and among the league leaders in SO not to mention the near no hitter he threw late in the season. The thing that makes Humber unique is that his best pitch is not his fastball, but his curveball. When Humber is can command his curveball it is a devastating pitch, but on the contrary when he struggles with it he is going to be very hittable. Humber still has a lot of upside but he is probably at best a #4 pitcher, but like Mulvey he will have a shot this spring to make the rotation, ETA- 2008.
Although those are the five players most commonly associated with the trade for Santana, there is still a chance that one of these three major leaguers could be included as well.
Aaron Heilman: With the departure of Joe Nathan likely the Twins are definately in need of another bullpen arm/ candidate for the closer role. Heilman would fit a need for them, and could likely keep us from having to trade all five prospects.
Ryan Church: We have heard all along that the Twins want major league ready players. Although there is really no upside left with Church he is an underrated OF who is especially strong against RHP.
Mike Pelfrey: Looking at comments of Twins fans, they seem to be higher on Pelfrey than they are on Humber or Mulvey. Unless the Mets have deemed him untouchable, he is likely to at least be mentioned. (I still feel that Pelfrey has a ton of Upside but I'm not sure he will ever regain the ability he demonstrated last spring when he won the 5th starters spot easily).
Using those eight players here are three trade proposals that I think are fair for both teams:
1. Carlos Gomez, Deolis Guerra, Mike Pelfrey, Aaron Heilman
2. Ryan Church, Deolis Guerra, Kevin Mulvey, Mike Pelfrey, Aaron Heilman
3. Fernando Martinez, Mike Pelfrey, Philip Humber, Aaron Heilman
(Nothing Against Mike Pelfrey or Aaron Heilman, I just noticed that the Twins fans were very high on both of them)
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Johan
About two months ago I examined the current "price" of pitching in baseball, and came to the conclusion that there are only two ways to acquire solid pitching, through player development and trades. It is becoming more evident every year that strong free agent classes are only a notion of the past, and that the lack of quality pitching in baseball today makes acquiring an established starter a very difficult task. Such is the predicament of the New York Mets currently. Faced with a rotation that lacks consistency, the Mets are making a hard push for probably the best pitcher in baseball right now, Johan Santana. Now in order to acquire this player the Mets are looking at a four or five prospect package in return, a move which would cripple their already weak farm system. So do the Mets sell the farm for a known ace, or do they put all their chips into their system with hopes to develop an ace of their own?
In baseball developing a player, in particular a pitcher, is pretty much a crap shoot. You never know when you are going to find the 15th round draft pick who dominates the league (Jake Peavey) or when you are going to draft the highly touted first round draft pick who is an absolute bust. In all honesty when looking at a draft it is a safe bet that any player you draft, in particular a pitcher, has a worse chance of making the major leagues as a consistent player, then of not reaching the majors at all. Between 1993- 2003 there were 58 pitchers selected with a top 10 pick in the June amateur draft. Only 33% managed to become a solid major league contributor by their fourth year. Last year none of the top 10 ERA leaders in all of baseball were drafted in the first round, and only three of the top ten pitchers in wins were selected in the first round. So what does this tell me? It tells me that a prospect is just that, a prospective major league player who, despite all the hype he may recieve, is nothing close to a sure thing. So basically the only chance to achieve good player development is to have a deep system, not neccesarily a system that has a few of the top prospects in the game, but a system that has depth at nearly every position throughout the organization. This depth is epitomized the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, how on a yearly basis can have a player emerge from their system to become an effective player, this year it was Reggie Willits, last year Jered Weaver, and so on and so forth back to when they won the World Series in 2002, with the help of september call- up turned phenom, Francisco Rodriguez a.k.a. K- Rod. This type of system should be the standard of every major league organization.
So how do the mets achieve this type of organizational depth by trading the majority of their farm? In all honesty they don't, but when looking at the current system, or at least in the upper levels of it, you basically see the reminants of an old, ineffective regime. While there are some highly regarded prospects in that group, it is probably in the best interest of the Mets to cut the ties with the old regime players and, beggining with the Kevin Mulvey draft, start to implenent a new system of player development. Despite it being very early on in their development it appears that the 2007 draft was a strong one for the Mets, and that the 2008 draft, which has the mets drafting twice in the top 22 picks, has the potential to be even better. Combine those two drafts with the strong Latin signing classes of the past two years, you have the foundation for a strong and deep farm system for the future.
I would love to see the Mets keep one of Martinez or Gomez out of the trade for Santana, but I would still do whatever it takes to acquire him. If the season started today the Mets would most likely begin with a starting rotation of Pedro, John Maine, Ollie Perez, El Duque, and Mike Pelfrey. Based solely on their individual seasons last year that would give the Mets starting rotation an average ERA+ of 117.2, which would most likely be tops in the NL. (This is assuming that the progression of the younger players is equal to the regression of the older players). It would also give the rotation an average of 2.52 Earned Runs per 5.86 IP. Now while the ER total is pretty good considering the Mets averaged 4.96 runs per game last year, the 5.86 IP is not. Basically the Mets current rotation would force their bullpen to record an average 10 outs a game, and based on the way the bullpen pitched last year, that worries me a great deal. Santana on the other hand pitched nearly an entire inning more than the current Mets rotation averaged last year, pitching 6.64 IP per game in a "down year" for him. Not even taking into account the high probability of a rebound year for Johan, or the effect of switching to the National League, Santana proves to be a significant upgrade in the area where our starting pitching was weakest. In short Santana will be 29 to start the season this year, and 7 years of Johan in his prime is the best thing for the Mets right now.
In baseball developing a player, in particular a pitcher, is pretty much a crap shoot. You never know when you are going to find the 15th round draft pick who dominates the league (Jake Peavey) or when you are going to draft the highly touted first round draft pick who is an absolute bust. In all honesty when looking at a draft it is a safe bet that any player you draft, in particular a pitcher, has a worse chance of making the major leagues as a consistent player, then of not reaching the majors at all. Between 1993- 2003 there were 58 pitchers selected with a top 10 pick in the June amateur draft. Only 33% managed to become a solid major league contributor by their fourth year. Last year none of the top 10 ERA leaders in all of baseball were drafted in the first round, and only three of the top ten pitchers in wins were selected in the first round. So what does this tell me? It tells me that a prospect is just that, a prospective major league player who, despite all the hype he may recieve, is nothing close to a sure thing. So basically the only chance to achieve good player development is to have a deep system, not neccesarily a system that has a few of the top prospects in the game, but a system that has depth at nearly every position throughout the organization. This depth is epitomized the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, how on a yearly basis can have a player emerge from their system to become an effective player, this year it was Reggie Willits, last year Jered Weaver, and so on and so forth back to when they won the World Series in 2002, with the help of september call- up turned phenom, Francisco Rodriguez a.k.a. K- Rod. This type of system should be the standard of every major league organization.
So how do the mets achieve this type of organizational depth by trading the majority of their farm? In all honesty they don't, but when looking at the current system, or at least in the upper levels of it, you basically see the reminants of an old, ineffective regime. While there are some highly regarded prospects in that group, it is probably in the best interest of the Mets to cut the ties with the old regime players and, beggining with the Kevin Mulvey draft, start to implenent a new system of player development. Despite it being very early on in their development it appears that the 2007 draft was a strong one for the Mets, and that the 2008 draft, which has the mets drafting twice in the top 22 picks, has the potential to be even better. Combine those two drafts with the strong Latin signing classes of the past two years, you have the foundation for a strong and deep farm system for the future.
I would love to see the Mets keep one of Martinez or Gomez out of the trade for Santana, but I would still do whatever it takes to acquire him. If the season started today the Mets would most likely begin with a starting rotation of Pedro, John Maine, Ollie Perez, El Duque, and Mike Pelfrey. Based solely on their individual seasons last year that would give the Mets starting rotation an average ERA+ of 117.2, which would most likely be tops in the NL. (This is assuming that the progression of the younger players is equal to the regression of the older players). It would also give the rotation an average of 2.52 Earned Runs per 5.86 IP. Now while the ER total is pretty good considering the Mets averaged 4.96 runs per game last year, the 5.86 IP is not. Basically the Mets current rotation would force their bullpen to record an average 10 outs a game, and based on the way the bullpen pitched last year, that worries me a great deal. Santana on the other hand pitched nearly an entire inning more than the current Mets rotation averaged last year, pitching 6.64 IP per game in a "down year" for him. Not even taking into account the high probability of a rebound year for Johan, or the effect of switching to the National League, Santana proves to be a significant upgrade in the area where our starting pitching was weakest. In short Santana will be 29 to start the season this year, and 7 years of Johan in his prime is the best thing for the Mets right now.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Production
Since the publication of Michael Lewis' eye opening book "Moneyball" sabermetrics have become the standard of player evaluation in baseball. The philosophies of most sabermetricians tend to stay away from the traditional stats of batting avg. ERA etc... and to emphasize a multitude of other statistics that measure more specific aspects of a player's game.
"Moneyball" focused on the the foremost sabermetric organization, the Oakland A's, and their revolutionary GM, Billy Beane. Beane and his many followers, many of whom are now GMs of their own teams, represent the norm in baseball nowadays. They believe that OBP and OPS are the best representation of an offensive player's value to his team. This is widely acknowledged to be a valid and effective strategy.
I am in 100% agreement with this philosophy, it is hard to ignore the results, but have one slight bone to pick with this general sabermetric belief. Sabermetricians and Billy Beane in particular tend to disregard speed and stolen bases as a useless asset. Now if a player steals 50 bases, but gets caught 30 times he is probably not making much of a difference to his team, but when players like Jose Reyes, Hanley Ramirez, Jimmy Rollins, and even David Wright to some extent, are creating 30- 60 extra bases on their own it is hard to discount its value. So I went looking for a statistic that takes SB into account, and really only found one, Runs Created, which to me felt like a very vague stat, how can you truly measure runs created by a player without watching every at bat and the inning that follows it. Unhappy with this estimated stat I set off to create my own statistic that effectively measures the importance of stolen bases to a team. I basically came up with a combination of OPS and RC, and I called it production or PROD. PROD, in my stat, was equal to the sum of Total Bases plus Walks plus Hit by Pitches plus Stolen Bases minus Caught Stealings divided by Plate Appearances, not At Bats because ABs don't take into account BB HBP and Sac hits. In short PROD= (TB+BB+HBP+SB-CS)/(PA). This formula gives a raw percentage which is equal to the number of bases a player averages per plate appearance. Then to adjust the data for park factor I divided the percentage by AIR, a baseball reference number that takes into account park and league factors historically, a number above 100 represents an offensive friendly enviornment and below 100 represents a pitcher friendly enviornment, and then divided AIR by 100 to get a value that set 1.00 as neutral rather than 100. So the entire formula is PROD= ((TB+BB+HBP+SB-CS)/(PA))/(AIR/100). I took the top ten Run Creators in 2007, and calculated their AIR adjusted PROD, for comparison.
(Note Miguel Cabrera and Alber Pujols tied for 10th in RC so there are actually 11 players listed)
Name----------- Prod
A- Rod---------- 0.676
Ortiz------------ 0.613
Ordonez--------- 0.594
Holliday--------- 0.554
Wright ---------- 0.598
Fielder---------- 0.601
Ramirez--------- 0.597
C. Pena---------- 0.655
Rollins----------- 0.526
Cabrera---------- 0.568
Pujols----------- 0.566
So A- Rod was the top offensive producer in the majors last year, averaging nearly .7 bases per plate appearance, shocker right, but Carlos Pena number 2? I was as skeptical as you, but after examining the numbers more closely it begins to make sense. Of the eleven players examined he was second in BB, his AIR was the lowest, but the most important number is 612, the number of PA he had last year, by far the least of the top run creators. When understanding this it is easy to see why his relatively low total of 307 TB allows for such a high PROD. rate. Other notable finds included NL MVP Jimmy Rollins and his AIR adjusted PROD. of .526 which was by far the worst, and NL MVP hopeful Matt Holliday who had a season which could possibly be considered as overrated due to the inflation of his stats by Coors field, and his low BB and SB rates.
While this is only a small sample of players I believe it is fairly indicative of the effectiveness of the PROD. stat and SB in general. Two players who had improved PROD. ranks over their RC ranks were David Wright and Hanley Ramirez who stole 34 and 51 bases respectively. Basically PROD. is an AIR adjusted variation of RC that takes into account SB, but I feel that it better quantifies the number that it produces, as a bases per plate appearance percentage rather than an estimated number of runs created.
"Moneyball" focused on the the foremost sabermetric organization, the Oakland A's, and their revolutionary GM, Billy Beane. Beane and his many followers, many of whom are now GMs of their own teams, represent the norm in baseball nowadays. They believe that OBP and OPS are the best representation of an offensive player's value to his team. This is widely acknowledged to be a valid and effective strategy.
I am in 100% agreement with this philosophy, it is hard to ignore the results, but have one slight bone to pick with this general sabermetric belief. Sabermetricians and Billy Beane in particular tend to disregard speed and stolen bases as a useless asset. Now if a player steals 50 bases, but gets caught 30 times he is probably not making much of a difference to his team, but when players like Jose Reyes, Hanley Ramirez, Jimmy Rollins, and even David Wright to some extent, are creating 30- 60 extra bases on their own it is hard to discount its value. So I went looking for a statistic that takes SB into account, and really only found one, Runs Created, which to me felt like a very vague stat, how can you truly measure runs created by a player without watching every at bat and the inning that follows it. Unhappy with this estimated stat I set off to create my own statistic that effectively measures the importance of stolen bases to a team. I basically came up with a combination of OPS and RC, and I called it production or PROD. PROD, in my stat, was equal to the sum of Total Bases plus Walks plus Hit by Pitches plus Stolen Bases minus Caught Stealings divided by Plate Appearances, not At Bats because ABs don't take into account BB HBP and Sac hits. In short PROD= (TB+BB+HBP+SB-CS)/(PA). This formula gives a raw percentage which is equal to the number of bases a player averages per plate appearance. Then to adjust the data for park factor I divided the percentage by AIR, a baseball reference number that takes into account park and league factors historically, a number above 100 represents an offensive friendly enviornment and below 100 represents a pitcher friendly enviornment, and then divided AIR by 100 to get a value that set 1.00 as neutral rather than 100. So the entire formula is PROD= ((TB+BB+HBP+SB-CS)/(PA))/(AIR/100). I took the top ten Run Creators in 2007, and calculated their AIR adjusted PROD, for comparison.
(Note Miguel Cabrera and Alber Pujols tied for 10th in RC so there are actually 11 players listed)
Name----------- Prod
A- Rod---------- 0.676
Ortiz------------ 0.613
Ordonez--------- 0.594
Holliday--------- 0.554
Wright ---------- 0.598
Fielder---------- 0.601
Ramirez--------- 0.597
C. Pena---------- 0.655
Rollins----------- 0.526
Cabrera---------- 0.568
Pujols----------- 0.566
So A- Rod was the top offensive producer in the majors last year, averaging nearly .7 bases per plate appearance, shocker right, but Carlos Pena number 2? I was as skeptical as you, but after examining the numbers more closely it begins to make sense. Of the eleven players examined he was second in BB, his AIR was the lowest, but the most important number is 612, the number of PA he had last year, by far the least of the top run creators. When understanding this it is easy to see why his relatively low total of 307 TB allows for such a high PROD. rate. Other notable finds included NL MVP Jimmy Rollins and his AIR adjusted PROD. of .526 which was by far the worst, and NL MVP hopeful Matt Holliday who had a season which could possibly be considered as overrated due to the inflation of his stats by Coors field, and his low BB and SB rates.
While this is only a small sample of players I believe it is fairly indicative of the effectiveness of the PROD. stat and SB in general. Two players who had improved PROD. ranks over their RC ranks were David Wright and Hanley Ramirez who stole 34 and 51 bases respectively. Basically PROD. is an AIR adjusted variation of RC that takes into account SB, but I feel that it better quantifies the number that it produces, as a bases per plate appearance percentage rather than an estimated number of runs created.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)