Undercover Angel

[Ceetar]

Same with Sheffield, who played LF with a "Wait until the ball starts rolling and then pick it up" approach. If he got lucky and hit a pitch hard, he could hit it hard, and he did have a hot week or two, but mostly was a squibb single guy and relied on his former 'presense' to get a lot of walks.[/quote:1fs92ql5]

I had no problem with Sheff's ability last year. Durability was another issue, but it was no secret that he was 40 years old, and compared to most other 2009 Mets, Sheff was relatively healthy.

Offensively, Sheff was one of the best 2009 Mets, rate-wise. He hit as many HR's as David Wright did, in about half the number of plate appearances. Sheff is still pretty good at hitting major league pitching.[/quote:1fs92ql5]

The problem is most of his offense seemed to come in spurts. He got some good swings on balls for a week, then went back to squibbing singles, walking, and just plain doing nothing.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I edited my post at the same time that you were responding. Not that my changes should effect this exchange. Just so you know.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The problem is most of his offense seemed to come in spurts. He got some good swings on balls for a week, then went back to squibbing singles, walking, and just plain doing nothing.[/quote:o1v0fz12]

If you subtract from the statistical record, every single out Sheffield made last year, he would've batted 1.000.

If every 2009 Met hit just like Sheffield did, the Mets might've won the division running away.

[Frayed Knot]

The problem is most of his offense seemed to come in spurts. He got some good swings on balls for a week, then went back to squibbing singles, walking, and just plain doing nothing.[/quote:3o3vmgkr]

This just in: Hitters are streaky!

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

The problem is most of almost every ML hitter ever's offense seems to come in spurts. They get some good swings on balls for a week, then go back to squibbing singles, walking, and just plain doing nothing.

(Fixed)

[Guest themetfairy]

Modest.

I consider that optimistic. But since he threw that ball to D-Dad last summer, I'm giving him benefit of the doubt.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I see Pagan as the Mets fourth outfielder, pinch hitter off the bench, and late inning defensive sub for Bay. I think he can be very useful in that role.

[ashie62]

4th outfielder...and first in line upon first OF injury

valuable

[batmagadanleadoff]

It's too bad that Pagan is primarily a left and centerfielder and that the Mets have seemingly committed to giving Francouer most of the right field at bats. Pagan is a better hitter than Frenchy.

If Pagan is a fourth outfielder, then Frenchy is a fourth and a half outfielder.

[Frayed Knot]

I'm sure Pagan can play RF if needed. But I also think he needs more than several partial seasons before we can know what he is.

In the meantime he's worth keeping around unless he can be spun off to someone who sees him as a full-time CFer. Dealing him as a part-timer isn't going to net you much in which case he's more valuable hanging around Queens.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Pagan ... needs more than several partial seasons before we can know what he is.[/quote:2tzxowyv]

Maybe, but Pagan has improved with every single season. I'm curious, but how many more seasons do you need to figure Frenchy out? I don't need any more, but if you need more time to figure out the declining Frenchy, why do you meanwhile give him the benefit of the doubt over Pagan?

[Ceetar]

Players _do_ improve, and Francoeur certainly didn't 'decline' last year. Fluke? Probably. But not definitely.

In a 'perfect' world, Francoeur has a hot April and May, reverts, and Fernando Martinez is ready in June, tears up the league, wins Rookie of the Year honors as well as World Series MVP.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Players _do_ improve, and Francoeur certainly didn't 'decline' last year. Fluke? Probably. But not definitely.[/quote:1qo9jhwg]

True, but it's not fair to to credit Frenchy for his very good "partial" Met season while simultaneously dismissing Pagan's just as good if not better partial Met season.

[Frayed Knot]

Pagan ... needs more than several partial seasons before we can know what he is.[/quote:23np580l]

Maybe, but Pagan has improved with every single season. I'm curious, but how many more seasons do you need to figure Frenchy out? I don't need any more, but if you need more time to figure out the declining Frenchy, why do you meanwhile give him the benefit of the doubt over Pagan?[/quote:23np580l]


Point is that Francoeur has several complete seasons and 3,000 PAs so far vs nothing but partials for Pagan and only 800, nearly half of which came this year. Now maybe the more established record for Francoeur could be considered a bad thing rather than a good - although Francoeur is the one 2-1/2 years younger
And for all of Frenchie's famous lack of walking, Pagan's career rate of .050 is barely better than JF's .040
Their slugging (IsoP) rates are virtually identical - something maybe propped up by Angel's possibly freakish triple rate this season.

[batmagadanleadoff]

And for all of Frenchie's famous lack of walking, Pagan's career rate of .050 is barely better than JF's .040[/quote:v75mmz97]

According to Baseball Reference, Pagan's lifetime walk rate is .074%; Francouer's is .047%. They're not close. Pagan's slightly below league average while Francouer is dismally bad. Pagan's walk rate is almost 60% better. Pagan's lifetime OWN% is .540; Francouer's is .461. Pagan creates 5.4 runs per game (lifetime); Francouer creates 4.6. If the Mets had to choose between the two, offensively Pagan helps the Mets ... Francouer doesn't.

[MFS62]

I votes won't survive the season.
If he continues to make baserunning mistakes, the fans will lynch him - literally.
He's the perfect example of why baseball should institute the designated thinker.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm going to go out on a limb right now and bet (yup, my Mr. Met lunchbox on the line again) that Met fans will not literally lynch Angel Pagan, under any circumstances.

[Frayed Knot]

And for all of Frenchie's famous lack of walking, Pagan's career rate of .050 is barely better than JF's .040[/quote:bp0jrykz]

According to Baseball Reference, Pagan's lifetime walk rate is .074%; Francouer's is .047%. They're not close. Pagan's slightly below league average while Francouer is dismally bad. Pagan's walk rate is almost 60% better. Pagan's lifetime OWN% is .540; Francouer's is .461. Pagan creates 5.4 runs per game (lifetime); Francouer creates 4.6. If the Mets had to choose between the two, offensively Pagan helps the Mets ... Francouer doesn't.[/quote:bp0jrykz]

A Pagan Career BA = .281
A Pagan Career OBA = .331
That was .050 when I went to school - although admittedly that was a while ago

[batmagadanleadoff]

And for all of Frenchie's famous lack of walking, Pagan's career rate of .050 is barely better than JF's .040[/quote:166dqcmj]

According to Baseball Reference, Pagan's lifetime walk rate is .074%; Francouer's is .047%. They're not close. Pagan's slightly below league average while Francouer is dismally bad. Pagan's walk rate is almost 60% better. Pagan's lifetime OWN% is .540; Francouer's is .461. Pagan creates 5.4 runs per game (lifetime); Francouer creates 4.6. If the Mets had to choose between the two, offensively Pagan helps the Mets ... Francouer doesn't.[/quote:166dqcmj]

A Pagan Career BA = .281
A Pagan Career OBA = .331
That was .050 when I went to school - although admittedly that was a while ago[/quote:166dqcmj]

Happy New Year!

The walk rate isn't calculated by subtracting BA from OBA; the two averages have different denominators. BA is a percentage of official at-bats, while OBA is a percentage of plate appearances. Thus, walks (among other things) are included in the denominator of OBA, but not BA.

But for the record, their walk rates, as a percentage of official at bats only are .081 (Pagan) v. .050 (Francouer). By this method, Pagan's still better by about 60%, a considerable difference, mainly because Francouer is bad - unacceptably bad.

Here's their relevant lifetime numbers:

[u:166dqcmj]Pagan[/u:166dqcmj]
PA 829
AB 752
BB 61

[u:166dqcmj]Francouer[/u:166dqcmj]
PA 2940
AB 2742
BB 138

[smg58]

Pagan has a career OPS of .805 against righthanded pitching, while Francoeur's career OPS against righties is .710. The splits are more or less inverted against lefties (.717 vs. .827). It looks like an obvious platoon to me, but we'll see how things play out. Neither guy is perfect, but we can get at least average production out of right field, and we're covered if one of them tanks.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Pagan has a career OPS of .805 against righthanded pitching, while Francoeur's career OPS against righties is .710. The splits are more or less inverted against lefties (.717 vs. .827). It looks like an obvious platoon to me, but we'll see how things play out. Neither guy is perfect, but we can get at least average production out of right field, and we're covered if one of them tanks.[/quote:1hbf8h22]
I agree. But a RF platoon split where Pagan starts against RHP and Francouer against LHP means that Pagan will be getting about 75% of the RF starts. Based upon my earlier posts, this is obviously fine by me. But going into 2010, I don't think that the Mets intend to use Francoeur so little.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Here's an excerpt from Joe Posnanski's LVP's piece (Least Valuable Players):

NATIONAL LEAGUE LVP: Milton Bradley, Cubs ALSO CONSIDERED: Emilio Bonifacio, Florida, Jeff Francoeur, Braves/Mets; Jason Kendall, Milwaukee; Russell Martin, Dodgers; Edgar Renteria, San Francisco; Alfonso Soriano, Cubs It is entirely unfair to put Francoeur in the also considered department ... I know this. Francoeur was good for the Mets after he was traded. But I unfairly include him because: 1. He was so legendarily bad with the Braves -- .250/.282/.352 -- that he was well on his way to winning the award before getting traded to the Mets. 2. He was so good with the Mets -- .311/.338/.498 -- that the Mets undoubtedly believe that he is back to being the guy who was on the cover of Sports Illustrated. They will now be inspired to spend considerable money and effort to keep him in New York. And, hey, they could be right. He could be the player he was in the second half... and from everything I know about Francoeur, I hope that is what happens. He seems to be a great guy. However, I would be remiss if I did not point out: They also could be wrong -- after all, over his last 2,500 at-bats Francoeur has an 89 OPS+ and the defensive numbers seem to indicate that he has regressed into a below average outfielder. Francoeur could be a Riddler-like trap, and the Mets could be just about ready to fall in. But he was not LVP. The worst hitter in the league was Bonifacio....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/11/19/anti.awards/index.html