You're The General Manager

[Guest Edgy DC]

Mike Marshall, though, with 200 innings out of the pen... hard to pass up.

[batmagadanleadoff]

That would render Garvey no better than the third best 1974 Dodger. Did we miss any other '74 Dodgers better than Garvey? (covering a copy of SI in 1974 not required)

[ashie62]

Edgy DC wrote: Reyes is not "known mostly for getting hurt and choking in September." And he's not comparing them. MFS62 was.

Reyes is not mostly known for getting hurt and choking in September?

Do you watch the games?

Do you live to be "correct" to validate yourself or do you just take special pleasure in busting my azz

[HahnSolo]

Andy Messersmith: 20-6, 2.59 (132 ERA+), 292 IP (!), 1.09 WHIP, 13 CG, 221 Ks.

[ashie62]

It's official Shelly Duncan is an FA....LF option? just kidding

On the not kidding front the Dodgers are in the Halladay derby

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

Ashie62 wrote: Reyes is not mostly known for getting hurt and choking in September?

No, he's not. He's mostly known for being an absolute stud shortstop, probably the second best in the league over the course of his young career. And while it's premature to put him in the HoF, it's not premature to look at him and realize that if he keeps up what he's doing for long enough, he will be a hall of famer. According to B-R's HoF stats, he's about a third of the way there already. 2006, 2007 and 2008 are three hall-caliber seasons. Will he need five or six more? Sure, but he's only going into his age-27 season; and while no one can accurately project any player ten years ahead, I think there's more than an outside chance that when you watch Reyes play, you're watching a future hall of famer entering his peak.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Ashie62 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Reyes is not "known mostly for getting hurt and choking in September." And he's not comparing them. MFS62 was. Reyes is not mostly known for getting hurt and choking in September? Do you watch the games? Do you live to be "correct" to validate yourself or do you just take special pleasure in busting my azz

Yeah, I watch the games. Let's deal with the facts instead of my issues. Reyes is not known mostly for getting hurt and choking in September.

[metsmarathon]

Edgy DC wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Reyes is not "known mostly for getting hurt and choking in September." And he's not comparing them. MFS62 was. Reyes is not mostly known for getting hurt and choking in September? Do you watch the games? Do you live to be "correct" to validate yourself or do you just take special pleasure in busting my azz Yeah, I watch the games. Let's deal with the facts instead of my issues. Reyes is not known mostly for getting hurt and choking in September.

i think right now, he's known for being hurt. but until this year, he was known for handshakes, dances, and being one of the most electrifying and exciting players in the league.

[ashie62]

Reyes is most recently known for being injured and choking in September 2007 & 2008

I disagree with you 100 percent. Nice we live in a semi-free country

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, nice to blow everything out of proportion and insinutate that to disagree with you is to somehow oppress you.

First it's that I have issues, now you're decrying impositions on your freedom. Is this how you intend to press your point?

[metsmarathon]

if you think living in a free country means that nobody will argue with you when you're wrong wrong wrong, you've gotta get a new dictionary.

[MFS62]

Russell Martin, C, Dodgers: With nine arb-eligible players, plus an owner embroiled in a messy divorce, LA is looking to cut costs. Though Martin is only 26, his stats have been trending downward for two seasons. He made $3.9 million this year and had just 26 extra-base hits, so his 2010 salary could outweigh his production.

That's from Buster Olney's blog this weekend. I'd definitely jump on getting him even if it means he'll be making about $6 million. If we're spending that much on a catcher, rather it be on him than Molina. Like Buster said, he's 26 and I just think he had a down year. And this opens up a spot for Figgins (see my post).

So, add Castillo for Martin to my GM moves. And delete signing Barajas.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yes. It's disgraceful how long it's been since the Mets have suited up a Canadian. The last one, if my history is correct, was punchless third-string shortstop Brian Ostrosser in 1973.

It's strange. The Mets always seem to have their share of Canadian prospects, but none of them ever seem to blossom.

We can sit around forever waiting for Jean-Luc Blaquiere (.238 in Savannah this year) or we can be pro-active and correct this injustice.

[metirish]

Hold on while I go and look for MFS62's previous posts.......you're asking alot there mate

[metirish]

Bill Jmaes rates Martin as one of the players that will do better next season in his Strong Seasons Leading Index with a score of 24....

A score of 24 or higher indicates a better-than 50% chance the player will sustain or improve the following season

http://waswatching.com/2009/11/20/thtjames-posada-not-to-match-09-in-10/


I got this form a Davidoff article so thanks Ken

Strong Seasons Leading Index


It incorporates

1) age,
2) 2009 OPS compared to career OPS;
3) something he calls "Adjusted Ball in Play average," which is like BABIP but gives extra credit to power hitters (since they hit the ball harder, their BABIP is less likely to vary - a pretty cool tweak);
4) comparing a player's 2009 runs scored and RBI to the '08 totals;
5) a player's strikeout/walk ratio in '09;
6) speed, utilizing a formula he designed; and
7) a basic premise that all players' numbers gravitate toward the league average.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Guest

[Benjamin Grimm]

I see that the Mets don't anyone in either category, most likely to improve or least likely to improve. (I was afraid we'd see David Wright in that latter category.)

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I see that the Mets don't anyone in either category, most likely to improve or least likely to improve. (I was afraid we'd see David Wright in that latter category.)

Speaking of improvement, check out some of the similar players baseball-reference lists for Daniel Murphy:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/murphda08.shtml

Adam Lind and Lee May.(and even Norm Siebern)
The guy had 54 XB hits last year.
I think playing the outfield messed with his head. After moving to first base permanently, he settled down, and so did his swing.
I don't understand the crying need (callers and hosts on NY sportstalk radio) for an upgrade there as opposed to addressing other needs first.
Just sayin'.

Later

[ashie62]

metsmarathon wrote: if you think living in a free country means that nobody will argue with you when you're wrong wrong wrong, you've gotta get a new dictionary.

I don't believe I'm wrong, I was ending my participation in the discussion.

[ashie62]

And Adam Rubin has Fernando Martinez on the waiting to be traded line

If true, I'm thinking established corner outfielder

[smg58]

He's capable of helping next year's team, and I'm worried that because he had a bad first month in the majors and then got hurt we'd be selling low. I'd be careful with him.

[ashie62]

Ashie62 wrote: And Adam Rubin has Fernando Martinez on the waiting to be traded line If true, I'm thinking established corner outfielder

or maybe Josh Johnson?

[batmagadanleadoff]

That would render Garvey no better than the third best 1974 Dodger. Did we miss any other '74 Dodgers better than Garvey? (covering a copy of SI in 1974 not required)

Apropos to last Fall's discussion of the wretched 1974 MVP ballot won by Steve Garvey, here are the Baseball Reference WAR ratings for the top 10 ranking 1974 Dodgers. According to the BR notes for its WAR formula, a score of 8 or higher is indicative of an MVP caliber season; a score of 5 or more is all-star quality.

1. Jimmy Wynn -------8.6
2. Andy Messersmith--6.6
3. Ron Cey ------------5.2
4. Steve Garvey-------5.1------NL MVP
5. Willie Crawford ----4.1
6. Davey Lopes ------4.0
7. Joe Ferguson -----3.9
8. Bill Buckner--------3.7
9. Bill Russell ---------3.2
10. Mike Marshall-----3.1 -----NL CY YOUNG AWARD WINNER


I was reminded of this old thread while reviewing Jon Matlack�s 1974 season. Matlack�s '74 W-L record was a disappointing 13-15 mark that did not reflect his pitching excellence that season. It would be expecting too much from a mid-�70�s voting pool to look beyond Matlack�s subpar won-loss record in order to account for the awful run support that plagued Matlack all season long .... especially a voting pool with the collective mindset to award the 20th or so best player in the league with the MVP. Not surprisingly, Matlack didn�t receive a single vote in that season�s Cy Young Award balloting. He should have. Matlack might�ve been the NL�s best pitcher that season. He wasn�t any worse than third or fourth, and unquestionably superior to CY winner Mike Marshall. Here are some selected 1974 stats for Matlack:

WAR---------------8.6(MVP RANGE)-----------------1st among NL pitchers
ERA----------------2.41------------------------------------3RD
ADJ ERA----------149-------------------------------------3RD
K�s------------------195--------------------------------------4TH (TIE)
SHUTOUTS------7------------------------------------------1st
WHIP---------------1.12--------------------------------------3rd (The top 3 pitchers were separated by 2/100 of a point)

ADJ PITCHING WINS ------3.9---------------------------2nd

[Guest Edgy DC]

Not to disagree, but a lot of value scoring systems convert runs (created of saved) into wins, which is grossly unfair to top relief pitchers, because the runs they save tend to be difference-makers.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: Not to disagree, but a lot of value scoring systems convert runs (created of saved) into wins, which is grossly unfair to top relief pitchers, because the runs they save tend to be difference-makers.

You can disagree. Disagreeing is more fun than agreeing. So was it fair to Matlack when he gave up one earned run in a 10 inning complete game outing on closing day and took the loss?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN197410020.shtml

Or when he limited the division winning Pirates to two runs in eight innings in his previous start, but took the loss because the Mets scored just one?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN197409270.shtml

Or a 7 inn/1 run no decision on 4/14/74?

Or 8 inn/2 runs against the World Champ Dodgers featuring MVP Steve Garvey, the 25th best player in the league on 6/14/74?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Oh, I really don't disagreee. I just think Marshall was better relative to his teammates than he appears in that list. I'm not sure how win shares are calculated by BB-R.com, but I find relievers to be disproportionately scrod in many "win shares" systems.

To review: Marshall was more valuable than Bill Buckner, to my thinking, but not Matlack.

[metsmarathon]

baseballreference has mike marshall at a 0.3 WPA for 1974. he went 21-12 in save opps, with 9 holds. so, basically, with the game on the line and a small lead, he went 30-12, a horrible success rate if you relate it to relievers of today. sure, there were prolly a lot more 1-run save and hold opportunities than we see today, but still, that's not terribly good. also, given 75 inherited runners, he allowed 31 to score, a 41% IS rate. (league average in 74 was 37%; in 2010, league average is 32%)

[batmagadanleadoff]

The top 20 WAR's for NL pitchers (1970-present)

Matlack has the highest rated WAR season for a pitcher with a losing record. He deserved to win at least 20 games in '74.

Wherever a pitcher scored the highest WAR in a particular season but did not win the Cy Young Award, the actual winner is noted.

1. Steve Carlton/PHI ---------12.2--1972
2. Dwight Gooden/NYM-------11.7--1985
3. Tom Seaver/NYM------------9.5--1973
4. Steve Carlton/PHI-----------9.4--1980
5. Fergie Jenkins/CHI----------9.2--1971
6. Tom Seaver/NYM------------9.2--1971
7. Phil Niekro/ATL--------------9.1--1978---(Gaylord Perry/SD 4.7 WAR -- failed to crack top 10 -- ERA champ Craig Swan ranked 4th)
8. Randy Johnson/ARI---------8.8--2002
9. Greg Maddux/ATL-----------8.8--1995
10. Rick Reuschel/CHI----------8.7--1977---(Steve Carlton/PHI 5.8 WAR, 6th)
11. Bob Gibson/STL-------------8.7--1970
12. Jose Rijo/CIN----------------8.6--1993---(Greg Maddux/ATL 6.2 WAR, 2nd place)
13. Jon Matlack/NYM------------8.6--1974---(Mike Marshall/LA 3.1 WAR)-------(WL 13-15)
14. Phil Niekro/ATL--------------8.5--1977-------(WL 16-20)
15. Dave Roberts/SD------------8.5--1971-------(WL 14-17)
16. Randy Johnson/ARI---------8.4--2001
17. Kevin Brown/SD-------------8.4--1998---(Tom Glavine/ATL 5.6 WAR 5th)
18. Greg Maddux/CHI-----------8.4--1992
19. Steve Rogers/MON----------8.4--1982---(Steve Carlton/PHI 5.7 WAR, 5th)
20. Randy Johnson/ARI---------8.2--1999

[Guest Edgy DC]

metsmarathon wrote: baseballreference has mike marshall at a 0.3 WPA for 1974. he went 21-12 in save opps, with 9 holds. so, basically, with the game on the line and a small lead, he went 30-12, a horrible success rate if you relate it to relievers of today. sure, there were prolly a lot more 1-run save and hold opportunities than we see today, but still, that's not terribly good. also, given 75 inherited runners, he allowed 31 to score, a 41% IS rate. (league average in 74 was 37%; in 2010, league average is 32%)

I'm just going to go with the guess that he was put in a lot more difficult situation with less of a net.

It's very usage-dependent. In 2010, If a guy comes in with one out and a runner on first, he may get one out but allow the runner to third, before getting replaced and the next releiver, who allows that runner to score.

If Mike Marshall comes in with the same situation, he stays in for the duration of the inning with the same events transipiring. He has yielded 100% of his runners to score while the 2010 pair of guys have yeilded only 50%, because one of the guys got out of there without coughing up a run. Right?

As for saves, well, yeah, failing in 28.6% of your save situations is bad, but he's a guy pitching 1.96 innings per appearance (and perhaps more in his save and hold situations) while Mariano Rivera 2010 pitched 0.99 innings. And of course, we're talking about carrying almost three times as many innings for your team.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Here are the 1974 NL pitching leaders for WPA.

If Mike Marshall comes in with the same situation, he stays in for the duration of the inning with the same events transipiring. He has yielded 100% of his runners to score while the 2010 pair of guys have yeilded only 50%, because one of the guys got out of there without coughing up a run. Right?

How does WPA account for inherited runners? If Marshall enters with an inherited runner on second base and two outs, and then immediately gives up a run scoring double, is Marshall debited with the entire run scoring event ... or is the prior reliever also charged with a portion of the run scoring event? Whatever it is, I'm guessing that the disparity between Marshall's 0.3 and the leaders' scores is too large to rack it up to unfairness.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Here are the 1974 NL pitching leaders for WPA. If Mike Marshall comes in with the same situation, he stays in for the duration of the inning with the same events transipiring. He has yielded 100% of his runners to score while the 2010 pair of guys have yeilded only 50%, because one of the guys got out of there without coughing up a run. Right? How does WPA account for inherited runners? If Marshall enters with an inherited runner on second base and two outs, and then immediately gives up a run scoring double, is Marshall debited with the entire run scoring event ... or is the prior reliever also charged with a portion of the run scoring event? Whatever it is, I'm guessing that the disparity between Marshall's 0.3 and the leaders' scores is too large to rack it up to unfairness.

I haven't bothered to look to see how BR calculates WPA, and how the formula accounts for inherited runners. But I'm wondering if defending Marshall's WPA on the supposed unfairness of a reliever entering mid-inning to strand some other pitcher's runners is much ado about nothing. Even if the WPA penalizes a reliever who allows inherited runners to score, this should be offset by the higher score a reliever will earn when he does strand inherited runners.