Acuna as CF?

[roger_that]

With all the controversy raging over the Mets' best option, of several mediocre to poor options, in CF at this point and going forward, I haven't heard that much lately about playing Acuna in CF, not since early in the season.

Why is that? Did he display ineptness fielding the position? If so, I missed that.

It can't be his offensive game, since compared to the other options, he's at least as good a hitter as Taylor or Mullins, and one heck of a lot better than the departed Siri. With some room to grow. And he's certainly the fastest baserunner on the team.

So why is he out of the discussion, do you suppose?

[Edgy MD]

I think it is more true that (1) he hasn't hit enough to play regularly, and (2) they see him as a superior infielder, and so saw more value in playing him at second and McNeil in center than vice versa.

I don't think that is the last word, but it appears to be the authoritative word for now.

[kcmets]

So why is he out of the discussion, do you suppose?

 

I don't know why you feel the need to dish out stale fish

for the sake of dishing. He's played like 3 innings in CF.

Yay, let's pencil him in in 2016 as the starting CF.

Or is that a bad idea, does anyone suppose?

Suppose it's a good idea, why didn't they think of it sooner?

[kcmets]

I'm just posting for ya.

[roger_that]

I thought McNeil didn't get high marks for his ability to play CF. Personally, he's looked fine to me, but I think someone posted here recently that he was -5 runs in CF, which (if I remember right) is terrible considering how little McNeil has played in CF.

Acuna, OTOH, certainly doesn't lack for foot speed, and I thought he was a decent outfielder--at least I haven't heard anyone running him down.

I'm not campaigning for him to be the Mets' CFer or anything. It's just puzzling that he doesn't appear to be in the mix considering that Taylor and Mullins haven't earned "everyday CFer" status to say the least.

Maybe I just haven't been listening.

[roger_that]

Yay, let's pencil him in in 2016 as the starting CF.

 

 

I think Yoenis and Curtis have 2016 CF covered, thanks.

[kcmets]

Well, the 2016 typo has taken the wind from my sails.

[Gwreck]

he's at least as good a hitter as Taylor or Mullins

 

No, he isn’t. And he certainly hasn’t been this year, as the numbers show.

[roger_that]

he's at least as good a hitter as Taylor or Mullins

 

No, he isn’t. And he certainly hasn’t been this year, as the numbers show.

 

We're talking about replacing a #9 hitter with another #9 hitter, right? Acuna has potential to improve. Taylor not so much, and Mullins has shown no signs of improvement in his Mets tenure. It just seems a bit odd that he's dropped out of the discussion entirely.

[ashie62]

Cody Bellinger for CF anyone?

[Gwreck]

Acuna has potential to improve. Taylor not so much, and Mullins has shown no signs of improvement in his Mets tenure.

 

What does this mean? Taylor had a .941 OPS in August after being terrible at the plate earlier, and also has hit in his limited September action. That’s improvement, yes?

 

It just seems a bit odd that he's dropped out of the discussion entirely.

 

C’mon. Acuna is not a natural centerfielder, he’s a valuable pinch runner and defensive replacement on the infield, and he doesn’t hit. Mullins might be well be awful this year but he does have actual past major league success, and Taylor is far and away the best defensive option there.

It’s not at all “odd” that Acuna’s not been a primary consideration for center. I think there is

*maybe* a colorable/fringe argument for playing Acuna a bit more but this is not some obvious thing being missed.

[roger_that]

Well, we know what Taylor is. Very recently there were calls for his head here on this website. He has his moments offensively, but his MLB track record says he's a glove but no bat. Mullins has a good year on his MLB resume but that year is pretty far in the past and we may never see its like again. Acuna has not shown that he can't become a good MLB hitter but now he seems to be permanently relegated to a pinch running role.

I'm not arguing he should be the Mets regular CFer. He just seems forgotten in Mendoza 's plans.

[Edgy MD]

I don't think we know what anybody is.

We recognize trends and patterns and conclude likelihoods from them.

[The Hot Corner]

As KC stated, Luisangel Acuna has a grand total of 3 innings minor league experience in CF.

Just because a player is fast and is a good defensive infielder doesn't mean they can play the outfield (particularly CF) at the major league level.

[MFS62]

Cody Bellinger for CF anyone?

 

Ding

Ding

Ding

I wanted him before this season started, if for no other reason that if he were on the Mets, he wouldn't have to hit against them.

Later

[MFS62]

Just because a player is fast and is a good defensive infielder doesn't mean they can play the outfield (particularly CF) at the major league level.

 

Not all, but it does take a blend of speed, quickness and arm that many shortstops have. Casey Stengel recognized those skills can be transferrable.

The most famous example of someone who made the transition successfully was Mickey Mantle, and he was followed on the MFYs by Bobby Murcer and Tony Kubek. And The tigers moved Mickey Stanley from center to short for a World Series.

It can be done. You just have to have the right person.

Later

[roger_that]

I don't think we know what anybody is.

 

Sure we do. We know how old Taylor is, and how often players improve after that age (hint: starts with "n," has a "v" in the middle, ends with "r" and there are two "e"s in there) and we know how old Acuna is, and how often players improve from that age on (this one I'll reveal openly: "all the time").

Now if you want to get into a discussion of epistemology, and whether anything is truly knowable, and if not, why not, and so on, have at it. I'm always up for a spirited discussion.

And again, I'm merely noting that Acuna's ability to play CF was often cited by the Mets in the spring as a viable possibility, given his tools and the team's needs, but was dropped shortly into the season. I'm wondering if he misplayed some balls, showed some awful fielding traits, had a weak throwing arm or what. Seems to me our need for a good CFer just got more and more severe as the season went on, and Acuna sat on the bench. Wasn't he sent back to AAA in part to get some reps in the outfield? Did he? Did that experiment fail? When he went to Syracuse, did he in fact play CF, or am I misremembering?

OK, I looked it up: Acuna played 13 games at SS in AAA, 7 games at 2B, 6 games in CF, 1 game at 3B. If this was an experiment in making a CFer out of him, it was far from whole-hearted.

The previous year, BTW, he played 31 games in CF in AAA. So this statement of fact

 

As KC stated, Luisangel Acuna has a grand total of 3 innings minor league experience in CF.

 

is off by quite a bit, as is the authority which it cites.

[Edgy MD]

I don't think we know what anybody is.

 

Sure we do. We know how old Taylor is, and how often players improve after that age (hint: starts with "n," has a "v" in the middle, ends with "r" and there are two "e"s in there) and we know how old Acuna is, and how often players improve from that age on (this one I'll reveal openly: "all the time").

 

Taylor's age is a data point. It is not what he is. This should be obvious.

You can condescend all you want, but no, it is utterly untrue that players never improve at or after Taylor's age. There are any number of examples. This should be obvious.

It is also utterly untrue that players improve all the time at or before after Acuña's age. There are any number of examples. This should also be obvious.

It is additionally obvious that being condescending to your interlocutor means you know that your argument is terrible, so you try to get by being cool and snotty instead.

[The Hot Corner]

I stand corrected. Acuna has 3 innings of MLB experience as a CF. That being the case, if the Mets desired to pursue Acuna play a significant role in CF, then they should have played him there in Syracuse. I don't believe that the middle of a playoff race, is the proper time for a player to be learning a new position. Edited September 27, 2025 by The Hot Corner

[kcmets]

The middle of a playoff race, is no time for a player to be learning a new position.

 

Why do you suppose that it's not? hahaha...

Edited September 27, 2025 by kcmets

[The Hot Corner]

Oops. Edited my response during your post sorry KC. Trying to post from on my phone from Alaska is not very efficient.

[kcmets]

I'm just clowning around.

[roger_that]

I don't think we know what anybody is.

 

Sure we do. We know how old Taylor is, and how often players improve after that age (hint: starts with "n," has a "v" in the middle, ends with "r" and there are two "e"s in there) and we know how old Acuna is, and how often players improve from that age on (this one I'll reveal openly: "all the time").

 

Taylor's age is a data point. It is not what he is. This should be obvious.

You can condescend all you want, but no, it is utterly untrue that players never improve at or after Taylor's age. There are any number of examples. This should be obvious.

It is also utterly untrue that players improve all the time at or before after Acuña's age. There are any number of examples. This should also be obvious.

It is additionally obvious that being condescending to your interlocutor means you know that your argument is terrible, so you try to get by being cool and snotty instead.

 

Bolstering your own snotty comments with the repetition of the word "obvious" doesn't actually make for a stronger or a truer comment--quite the opposite, in fact. I won't trouble you to provide examples of players whose career seasons occur after Taylor's current age. I'm sure you can provide them, if I make you hunt through the record book long enough, but it's a reliable rule that the vast majority of career years take place before age 30, and he's well into his decline phase now. So while you're fatuously claiming that "it is utterly untrue" you're relying on the rare exception that proves the rule. Likewise with players improving after Acuna's age--you can nitpick a few exceptions, but the vast majority of career seasons occur between Acuna's current age and Taylor's, and no matter how many "obviously"s you attach to your confident attempts to squelch me, you're still making a feeble argument.

Thanks for finding me "cool," however. I appreciate the compliment.

[Edgy MD]

No, that is a iie. It is lie after lie after lie. It is a lie of a thesis with lying statements supporting it. Just shameless lying.

Somebody presenting evidence that you are wrong is not "nitpicking." It would be just you demonstrably shown to be wrong. You are so aware of how wrong you are that you attempt to dismiss evidence by belittling my character before I have even presented anything. What obvious knowledge of guilt you present.

Please do not do that anymore.

You can deflect, but that is grossly dishonest. You know this. Please cease from this path utterly.

[Benjamin Grimm]

An exception never proves a rule. In fact, it DISproves it.