Mid-Winter Temperature

[Centerfield]

We've done the individual transactions. What are your feelings about the off-season moves as a whole?

This poll assumes no further significant moves are made. We can re-assess at the end of the winter, especially if they still have a big move in them.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I went with neutral. I wish they had done more, but it may turn out that what they've done is sufficient to win a championship. Time will tell.

I don't think they'll be a raging hot as they were in August and into September, but if they're not as stone cold as they were in June and much of July, it could balance out. The Mets hit 177 homers in 2015. If they can get roughly the same number in 2016, but more evenly spread out over the six months of the season, and the starters stay (mostly) healthy, then things can turn out okay.

I don't worry about what the Chicago Cubs have done. The Mets will only play them six or seven times in the regular season, and perhaps not at all in the postseason. And even if they do meet in the NLDS or NLCS, I still think the Mets can beat them in a best-of-five or best-of-seven series. It will depend on the pitching.

[seawolf17]

I'm decidedly neutral.

And waiting for more.

[nymr83]

neutral, but really need more info

[dinosaur jesus]

I'm bullish. This is probably a minority opinion here, but I really like the Staub-for-Lolich trade. As great as the Mets pitching has been, they've always missed that strong fourth starter. Lolich may be fat and old, but he was never exactly a track star. At worst, he fills that spot capably until the kids--Swan, Espinosa, and my guy Jackson Todd--get up to speed. Sure, I'll miss Rusty. But when you've got Dave Kingman, John Milner, Bruce Boisclair, Mike Vail, Del Unser, and Billy Baldwin manning your outfield, with Lee Mazzilli and Leo Foster knocking at the door, I think those big shoes will be filled and then some. It's an embarrassment of riches, really.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Is it really January 1976? I'm confused. If I'm twelve years old, why do I see grey hairs in my beard when I look in the mirror?

[dinosaur jesus]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Is it really January 1976? I'm confused. If I'm twelve years old, why do I see grey hairs in my beard when I look in the mirror?

Tell me about it. As long as there's baseball, though, I'll always be twelve years old at heart.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I took neutral but easily could have clicked dislike.
I haven't shaved for a few days so put me in the grey camp too.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm giving it qualified approval: As LWFS said, the floor was raised and that ought not to be overlooked.

Was hoping they'd trade Hovvey in a Blockbuster bringing back a young hitter at CF or SS; instead they Moneyballed the whole thing and I think if it works it's clever. Benefit of that is they leave open the possibility to deal Hovvey in a Super Blockbuster this summer.

A little disappointed also that the ways they improved don;t appear to dramatically improve them where they needed to improve defensively. It may not be better at all in fact and so that's a worry.

Still think they oughta convince Byrd to take a reserve OF/1B role. I'd really like that.

[Centerfield]

To no one's surprise, I went with dislike. Only the Walker trade and the fact that we have not signed any bad, crippling contracts keeps me from clicking "hate".

If the Mets had done nothing but return the October team, I think we would be looking at a 100+ win juggernaut. Instead, we have a team that can win 90 games and the division, but with very little margin of error. But I get it. Doing that would have cost money. And the Wilpons don't have any.

But even if they didn't have the capability to increase payroll, even the resources that we have could have been re-allocated to bring in more impact players. You just have to be able to sign multi-year deals. And some players are worth the risk.

I'm trying to separate out the absolute venom I feel toward the owners. I'm trying to not let the fact that we likely won't operate as a big market team for years to come color my assessment of the off-season, but even that aside, I think this off-season is a major disappointment.

The only saving grace is that it's only January 5. And there is still time to do something. However unlikely as it may be.

[TransMonk]

I'm in the dislike club, but only slightly away from neutral.

I would be more neutral until I look at what the Cubs have done. THAT looks like a team playoff team which has made strides to put themselves over the top.

I'm not saying the Cubs model will work (not saying the Mets model won't, either), but Chicago gets the "A" for effort.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't worry about what the Chicago Cubs have done. The Mets will only play them six or seven times in the regular season, and perhaps not at all in the postseason. And even if they do meet in the NLDS or NLCS, I still think the Mets can beat them in a best-of-five or best-of-seven series. It will depend on the pitching.

I strongly agree with this part. If the Mets can get into the post-season beyond that one and done game, I think they're as good a bet as any other team to go all the way given their unbelievable starting pitching depth. The issue, to me, is whether they can get into the playoffs to begin with.

I'm somewhat disappointed by the Mets off-season but not even remotely surprised at the kinds of moves the Met did and didn't make. I totally expected it, as well as all the double talk and bullshitting that went with it ---a new Mets tradition--- like that they're ready to increase the payroll but, you know, they didn't because there's no one out there worth spending money on. I like how the front office and its defenders shitcanned Cespedes this off-season because he's not as good as, I dunno, peak Barry Bonds. And he might be older than he claims to be. All the while missing the irony that if Cespedes was certifiably younger, and as good as the front office implies he ought to be to be worth pursuing, he'd be even that much more unattainable and that much more beyond the Mets puny budget. And it'd be even less likely that the Mets'd re-sign him.

[Guest d'Kong76]

TransMonk wrote: I look at what the Cubs have done. THAT looks like a team playoff team which has made strides to put themselves over the top.

I can't help but keep circling back to this point.

[Ceetar]

like.

I think fans are under-selling the improvement inherent in the middle infield defense. they're minor upgrades offensively, though still upgrades, which is where the bigger holes were, but defense was iffy too and this is a valuable upgrade.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Thing is, I'm not sure how great an improvement there really was to the D. Let's be charitable and say it went from "Sucky" to "Less Sucky." I was hoping for "weakness" to "strength."

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Thing is, I'm not sure how great an improvement there really was to the D. Let's be charitable and say it went from "Sucky" to "Less Sucky." I was hoping for "weakness" to "strength."

That applies to SS but Walker is better than Murphy and probably at least "okay" at second. Two marginal increases combine to be fairly significant, and couple that with the talented pitching staff that already minimizes balls in play and it becomes significant.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: If the Mets had done nothing but return the October team, I think we would be looking at a 100+ win juggernaut. Instead, we have a team that can win 90 games and the division, but with very little margin of error.

Let's assume for the moment that Walker for Murph was essentially a neutral swap and take the pessimistic view that the additions of deAza + Cabrera add nothing that you wouldn't get from Kirk and/or Kelly Johnson; the only real loss from October '15 is Cespedes to whom you're assigning a 10+ win gap.
That's not very likely under the best of circumstances.

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: Centerfield wrote: If the Mets had done nothing but return the October team, I think we would be looking at a 100+ win juggernaut. Instead, we have a team that can win 90 games and the division, but with very little margin of error. Let's assume for the moment that Walker for Murph was essentially a neutral swap and take the pessimistic view that the additions of deAza + Cabrera add nothing that you wouldn't get from Kirk and/or Kelly Johnson; the only real loss from October '15 is Cespedes to whom you're assigning a 10+ win gap. That's not very likely under the best of circumstances.

That does seem like a lot.

For what it's worth, it's not Walker for Murph. The net there is Walker for Niese and Murph, essentially. We've also lost Clippard, though I guess Blevins offsets that a bit. But you're right, the net loss of Cespedes is probably not close to 10 games.

Maybe it would have been 95 wins then.

But I tell you, come September, we are going to want those 5 wins.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: But I tell you, come September, we are going to want those 5 wins.

Cespedes, in by far his best year, produced 6.7 fWAR. he's projected for half that. Even if you split the difference to get your 5 wins, that's above replacement level, something that probably won't be what the Mets produce in the outfield. Hell De Aza's probably good for about 2 if you just gave him the whole season. Adding Cespedes to the current mix of outfielders definitely improves them, but it's nowhere near 5 wins.

[Centerfield]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Thing is, I'm not sure how great an improvement there really was to the D. Let's be charitable and say it went from "Sucky" to "Less Sucky." I was hoping for "weakness" to "strength."

That's kind of where I am with the offense. I feel like we replaced out the Campbells and Mayberrys with guys who are less sucky. And that's ok I guess.

But I was hoping for "awesome".

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: But I tell you, come September, we are going to want those 5 wins. Cespedes, in by far his best year, produced 6.7 fWAR. he's projected for half that. Even if you split the difference to get your 5 wins, that's above replacement level, something that probably won't be what the Mets produce in the outfield. Hell De Aza's probably good for about 2 if you just gave him the whole season. Adding Cespedes to the current mix of outfielders definitely improves them, but it's nowhere near 5 wins.

That's a fair point. I'm not convinced that WAR (I don't know what fWAR is) translates win for win like that. I feel like impact players make more of a difference than what their WAR may indicate. (Familia had a WAR of 2.7. I don't believe we win 87.3 games without him). But I have no way of proving this.

My post was based on the objective stat "gut feel". And dammit if that second half team didn't feel like it could win 120.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I appreciate everyone's knowledge and interest in all things stats
wise but I really have problems with people thinking that using such
measurements they can within a game or two predict what adding
one player or subtracting another will produce win's wise.

It's still a game, balls go through legs and stuff. If it wasn't, they
can just run the season on a super-computer and why waste three
hours every night watching the game?

[Frayed Knot]

WAR is an estimate. No one is claiming that it's an absolute predictor or a sub for the games themselves (and if someone does then please pick up the nearest blunt object and drop it on his head).

As to the notion of winning 87.3 games without Familia, remember that you're not measuring (estimating really) the team suddenly minus Jeurys, it's estimating the gap between what he gives you over and above what you'd get from a run of the mill replacement for him. Said replacement likely gives up more runs and hits - and exactly when and how those runs show up (Kase's point) will of course matter, maybe most especially with a closer. But since you can't predict when and how (maybe the replacement gives up more runs but only when we're leading by even more and so he never blows a game) you take historical standards of how many extra runs scored/prevented relate to how many extra wins over the long haul.
So while WAR doesn't prove anything, it can act as a pretty good counter to a fan's dream that adding Player X "would be worth 15 wins to us next year!!!!" Cuz even if Mr. X is Babe Ruth come back to life, that's probably more than a bit of wishful thinking.

And, yeah, that second half did feel like a 120 win team. But that doesn't mean that simply assembling the same crew again would mean they'd win at the same rate.

[Vic Sage]

dislike.

I think Cabrera is actually a step down offensively from Flores at this point based on their respective career trajectories, and Cabrera's defensive edge seems slight, based on Flores' second half defensive improvement. Sure, Walker is a defensive upgrade at 2b, but not a huge one, given his limited range. And offensively, they're practically a wash (Walker with more SLG and Murphy more OB). Then throw in the $6m for DeAza, $7.25m for Colon and $4m for Blevins and one has to wonder whether a significant chunk of the money we're spending for all these guys couldn't have been put to better use by acquiring an impact hitter, given our incredibly limited resources, and using younger and cheaper players to fill those backup positions. For example, i'd rather have gone into the season with Flores and Herrera up the middle (or Tejada/Flores), Niese as the 5th starter and Heyward in CF rather than what we've ended up with. In other words, the Mets have spent over $25m for next season (while dumping Niese's $10m contract), and we've picked up a situational LHRP, a 5th starter (until Wheeler comes back; then Colon is a long man), a 4th OFer (who'll get starter's minutes because Lagares sucks), and a mediocre DP combo that isn't significantly better than what we already had last year. And the only other move they are likely to move is to pick up a RH OFer/1bman for depth, like Pearce or Raburn.

The only thing that is keeping me from "hate" is that there's still time to fix this... not that i expect them, too, but i can wait.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: I appreciate everyone's knowledge and interest in all things stats wise but I really have problems with people thinking that using such measurements they can within a game or two predict what adding one player or subtracting another will produce win's wise. It's still a game, balls go through legs and stuff. If it wasn't, they can just run the season on a super-computer and why waste three hours every night watching the game?

it's all probabilities and likely outcomes.

I can run numbers and tell you that the odds of pulling three straight Jacks from a random draw from a deck is .02% but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen or that the time it actually happens isn't any less fun to watch.

WAR (fWAR being Fangraphs specific implementation of the idea) is generally an estimate of how much value a player added more than a predictive tool. If you played out 2015 10,000 times Cespedes' contributions would be worth 6.7 wins. The variation comes from all the stuff he can't control. Who gets on in front of him, what pitchers he gets to face, etc.

To go a little more granule with it, think about a Home Run. Great feat. great value. lots of fun. It can be worth 1-4 runs to the team due to factors pretty much entirely out of the actual batters control. If you add up every run scored ever and divide by every home run, you get something like 1.9 runs. So that's how much you get credit for in the WAR formula. Sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less. But that all depends on something outside the hitters control. You don't really know who's going to be on base when a hitter comes up, so you estimate the value of a home run and figure it all balances in the end. Some will be 1 runs, some 4, and over all it'll be roughly the 1.9.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Thanks, and really I understand more about all that than it might seem.
I was reacting to something up there where you said Cespedes improves the
the team, but then go on say but not by how many. There is a bit of voodoo
to it all in addition to probability and three jacks at a sit down card game.

Everyone who ran numbers and came up with win totals for the Nationals in
2015 and were within a win or two please report to Window 3 for your prize.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: I was reacting to something up there where you said Cespedes improves the the team, but then go on say but not by how many. There is a bit of voodoo to it all in addition to probability and three jacks at a sit down card game. .

Well, it's complicated for all those reasons.

For one, I think Cespedes comes down closer to a 4 win player next year. And who would he be replacing? Are we just handing him Center Field and rolling with it? Lagares was worth only 1 win last year, though it wasn't a full season for him. 435 PA, which is like..75%? so maybe he gets up to 1.5 wins and suddenly we're talking like 2.5 wins different. That's fine and all, but I'm not sure I want to pay $20+ million for that in Cespedes who's not really a center fielder, particularly long term, and that's betting on no improvement from Lagares or other replacement.

It's difficult to predict and plan. The Mets may not have as many jacks in the deck, but at least they pulled out most of the jokers.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ceetar wrote: I'm not sure I want to pay $20+ million for that in Cespedes who's not really a center fielder

Well apparently no one does so far... and that might be a good thing.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'm not sure I want to pay $20+ million for that in Cespedes who's not really a center fielder Well apparently no one does so far... and that might be a good thing.

That's true, but some team could get crazy/desperate still. We've got 45 days or so left. Be interesting to see where he ends up, money wise.

[Lefty Specialist]

Neutral. I don't think they're done yet. They haven't done anything mindbogglingly stupid which, for an team that has Jeff Wilpon in its org chart, is a bonus.