Good Mets Years vs. Bad Mets Years

[Frayed Knot]

If your point is that our rather simple system provides a less than perfect measurement of All-time Met-ness then, well yeah, I think we already knew that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: If your point is that our rather simple system provides a less than perfect measurement of All-time Met-ness then, well yeah, I think we already knew that.

Sure. You knew it all along. But still, I had to murder about nine cyber trees before you would give me any love. Grudgingly.

I disagree with your comment, though. The system is not less than perfect. It's cocky doody is what it is.

I gather that, from a cursory review, the system (R^2*W)/10 would rank

Steve Carlton’s 1972 season

Carlton72=(30^2*59)/10 = 5,310


lower than the following Mets seasons

Maz80=(30^2*67)/10 = 6,030
Hendu80=(29^2*67)/10= 5,634.7
Maz79=(30^2*63)/10 = 5,670
Cleon66=(30^2*66/10 = 5,940

Carlton72 gets a 4% edge over Swan79
Swan79=(29^2*63/10 = 5,298.3

All because the crappy Mets teams that these Mets played for were a tad less crappier than the 1972 Phillies.

The system doesn’t work.

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: [sure. You knew it all along. But still, I had to murder about nine cyber trees before you would give me any love. Grudgingly.

No, because between answers which seemed both contradictory and only somewhat nothing to do with the questions I asked and the multiple posts tacked onto each other I had no idea where you were headed.

I disagree with your comment, though. The system is not less than perfect. It's cocky doody is what it is.

Yeah, well opinions vary.

The system doesn’t work.

Every system ever invented is merely an approximation of what the "true" answer is - especially when the basis of it is nothing more than opinion to begin with.
Feel free to ignore this one if it offends you so.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, well opinions vary.... Every system ever invented is merely an approximation of what the "true" answer is - especially when the basis of it is nothing more than opinion to begin with.

I acknowledge the "opinion" element to ranking ballplayers. But you're using subjectivity to cover too many egregious sins. Defending a system that ranks Carlton72 lower than Hendu80 and just barely better than Swan79, to me, constitutes an absurd stretch of the imagination. Carlton's '72 is the highest rated WAR pitching season in the history of the NL (20th and 21st century).

Any 2010 Met that receives a ranking of 26 or higher (variable R) will have outscored Carlton72. Thus, in all probability, the system will rank Johan10 and Dickey10 higher than Carlton72. (and three other 2010 Mets). But try telling Jerry Manuel that he had five ballplayers in 2010 that were better than Carlton72.

FrayedKnot wrote: Feel free to ignore this one if it offends you so.

Nice one. But again, if you think that Maz80 should get the same 30 that Doc85 gets, then that's what you think.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: I really dislike when you force an argument on somebody that they are not making. The number 30 is a factor, not a product.

And what argument would that be?

Edgy DC wrote: Gooden[85] scores higher [than Maz80], not because he had better teammates, but because he towered above better teammates.

And Benitez02 scores 11% higher than Carlton72 (5,880 to 5,310) because of the way Armando towered over Estes and Mcewing, right? And would Doc85 have scored higher if he struck out an additional 50 batters in '85, and allowed a half a run less per game?

[G-Fafif]

I can suss out the logic, but still: Dave Kingman outranks Gary Carter?

[Frayed Knot]

Carter's spot has probably been the subject of as many questions/objections as anyone - except maybe for how Steve Trachsel (although no longer) got into the top 50.
Kid's problem remains that, of his five seasons in orange & blue, only three were any good and the last was almost non-existent (28 hits, 2 HRs). Had his career taken a gentler slope downhill - instead of the off-the-cliff plummet it did take - so that he was able to merely crack the top 20 Mets in that final 1989 season he would have accumulated enough points to slip in ahead of Kong. But, alas, he got saddled as the 26th place finisher* that year and fell short.







* Unfortunately, most of the discussions that went into deciding the ranks from past years were lost in a server crash a few years ago.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, I don't like that either, and neither would bb-r or fangraphs' versions of win shares.

What we can perhaps do is --- once we have win share data going back to 1962 --- switch to that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Just giving everyone here a heads up that I'm not nearly done bitching about how terrible this ranking system is. I just took a rest is what I did. But now that this thread is seeing some action, I'll be postin' here soon.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Of course though, when G-Fafif notes that Kingman ranks higher than Carter, he gets a polite and reasonable acknowledgement that, perhaps, Win Shares is better.

But when I point out the overall absurdity of assigning a nebulous number 30 to someone for having the best season in a given year --- the same 30 whether it's for Gooden85 or Swan79, I get the runaround for nine or ten posts, heels dug in all the way deep to oppose whatever I might write.

[seawolf17]

Why is that so wrong? Kingman was better than Carter. Carter had ONE great year as a Met. He was very good in 1986, and then fell off the table. Kingman was very, very good in 1975-76, then very good in 1981 and led the league in homers in 1982. I'm not saying he's WAY better than Carter, but three spots is about right over 50 years.

Part of the reason Carter's teams won were all the OTHER guys in the Top 50, too.

[batmagadanleadoff]

seawolf17 wrote: Why is that so wrong? Kingman was better than Carter.

As already mentioned here, Carter was a productive Met for just his first two seasons. Beginning in 1987, he began to deteriorate rather rapidly, his skills eroding, as is typical of many, maybe most catchers, when they reach their early 30's. 1986 would be the last season where Carter was an impact player. But Carter's first two seasons as a Met were quite impressive. Carter was MVP caliber in 1985 though not 1986, the year that he thought he deserved to win the award).

As an aside, I played the 1985 Strat-O-Matic set many times. (I was once an avid SOM player, but only up until the moment in life when I got a real adult job; 1985 was the last set I ever played). Anyways, I played in a few 1985 season NL all star leagues with my SOM buddies from back in the day. And in every single draft ever held (four, in total) Gary Carter was always the first player drafted. Everyone, including myself, coveted Carter85 over every other player, even Doc85! I can explain our preference for Kid: we all understood the concept of VORP, WORP and WARP on an intuitive level. Even though those formulas weren't yet formally invented, we were basing our drafts on our mutual ability to recognize that the difference between Gary Carter and the next best 1985 NL catcher was significantly larger than the gap between the best two players at any other position in the NL 1985. There simply wasn't another catcher who combined the dual abilities to defend the position like a gold glover and hit like an all star. Mike Scioscia, the consensus 2d best catcher edged Carter in AB and OBP, but had limited power and was a defensive liability. If I remember correctly, the next best defensive catcher hit like a backup shortstop, or at least the equivalent of a backup shortstop in an all star draft league.

I'd give Carter the edge over Kingman.

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Of course though, when G-Fafif notes that Kingman ranks higher than Carter, he gets a polite and reasonable acknowledgement that, perhaps, Win Shares is better.

No one ever suggested it wasn't.
You seem to be confusing this little gimmick we've got going here as some kind of system that's being trumpeted as the final word on NYM history. It isn't and it never was anymore than our Schaefer PotG/Y is the final word in determining in-season greatness.
It, like Schaefer, is a fun in-house thing which is totally voluntary and was actually born of several different projects that got going here separately which we at some point cobbled together as a way to determine the order of the players next to each poster's name.

But when I point out the overall absurdity of assigning a nebulous number 30 to someone for having the best season in a given year --- the same 30 whether it's for Gooden85 or Swan79, I get the runaround for nine or ten posts, heels dug in all the way deep to oppose whatever I might write.

Most of those "nine or ten posts" were yours, sometimes three or four in a row seemingly in answer to yourself and/or in contradiction. When three separate people chime in either with explanations or to say they're not sure where you're headed there's a chance that maybe it's you who weren't making yourself clear.
So chime in all you want with suggestions, improvements, condemnations, but you might want to lose the martyr complex.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Guest

[seawolf17]

So you're admitting he had one blammo year, then one good year, and then nothing, whereas Kingman gave the Mets a lot more over a lot more years. Bernard Gilkey did that too; had a dynamite 1996, a good 1997, and then meh. And as such -- and because those teams were bad -- he's 71st or whatever. Gary's earned his bump because of his teams; you could make the argument that he gave

I love Gary too, but realistically, his ranking seems right to me.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Kingman was an unusual player. From Kingman, I learned that it was possible for a player to excel at the most important offensive skill in baseball --hitting home runs-- while, perhaps, being an overall liability to his team. Kingman was so bad at everything else, at least with the Mets, that his other stats undermined, or neutralized the fact that he was hitting HR's more frequently than any of his peers. I'd give Carter the slight edge, notwithstanding that the Kid was essentially done after '86.

But I'm not sure that I love Gary.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: Most of those "nine or ten posts" were yours ...

I wasn't addressing you. I know that you love me.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Per BBref,

Carter's lifetime Mets WAR --11.2
Kingman's lifetime Mets WAR -- 3.2

Carter's Mets AB's -- 2126
Kingman's Mets AB's -- 2323

Carter produced 1 Win Above Replacement for the Mets every 189.8 AB's
Kingman produced 1 Win Above Replacement for the Mets every 725.9 AB's.

[G-Fafif]

Fun little formula and the rather quiet denouement of his five years aside, Bill Price took a moment from being Bitter to recall the acquisition of Gary Carter, here. Goodness, that was a big trade, and goodness did Carter deliver for the next two years. He came, he saw, we conquered. Stood at that press conference podium, said he was saving that right ring finger for a World Series souvenir, and had it wrapping that finger within two years.

If only every December acquisition worked like that.

[Frayed Knot]

Part of the reason we set things up the way we did was so that the 'answer' wound up being the sum of all the pieces and therefore things like popularity, recency, and/or personal feelings for or against particular players wouldn't play a role. So, yeah, part of the reason Carter is seen to be too low is that he was a likable player who was acquired in a great trade which was the final piece for the last great Met era - even if those memories tend to emphasize the good while ignoring the rest.