metsmarathon

Carrasco 2.0 Bay 0.9 Tejada 0.1

Capuano 5.4 Reyes 1.7 Rodriguez 1.1 Murphy 0.6 Bay 0.6 Thole 0.6

Dickey 3.8 Beato 1.7 Duda 1.2 Turner 1.1 Reyes 0.8 Parnell 0.7 Isringhausen 0.7

Ceetar wrote: And the same level of performance will not likely be obtained. this year, according to fangraphs, there are 36 relief pitcher who have attained at least the same level of performance as krod, if not better. as you might expect, that list includes such luminaries as chris resop, kyle farnsworth and matt lindstrom. according to bbref, there are 39, including kevin gregg, chad qualls and luis ayala. i think it is not all that hard to get decent relief pitching on the cheap. again, look to the mets' own bullpen. izzy, buccholz, byrdak, beato. none of them are remotely expensive. and while none of them are quite as good as frankie, they're not enough worse than him to justify the $10M additional that frankie is paid, and they certainly are not so much worse than frankie to justify paying him $16M extra.

if the mets are unable to get more than 2 wins in return for their 17 million dollars, then it is either due to incompetence or gross misfortune. and the gross misfortune can strike either the new guy(s) or the reliever. so really, unless they bring in a guy who then gets his self badly hurt in some unforeseeable way, the only way the mets are not better without krod is through incompetence. you are right though. neither arod's nor mariano's salary has necessarily hurt the yankees' ability to spend their way to victory. you could make the argument that it keeps them from upgrading over swisher, or bringing in another solid starter, but lets pretend that it hasn't. until the mets show that they are willing to take the ceiling off of their payroll, spend money like they have no actual budget and all the money in the world, then i think it's just plain silly to pretend otherwise for the sake of an argument. i agree that the mets will make more money if they spend more money to win more games. but spending money to win less games will not have the same effect. it's not about getting the most economical players, but getting the best value. sometimes the best value is the most expensive player. never is the best value a $17M reliever. never. not when the same level of performance at the same position can be had for but a fraction of the price.

ah hell. one last thing. unless the mets start burning money in a giant copper pot on the old shea stadium home plate, the 17 million they pay frankie will cause some amount of money to unavailable to improve the team in another area. and i contend that the amount of money that would be unavailable to improve other areas of the team will be 9 million dollars. and the only way that having frankie on the roster next year does not end up hurting them is if they win the world series, and if they do, then it will be in spite of the extra 9 million dollars they have wasted on their closer above his actually performance level, and not because of it.

frankie is good. jason bay is not. frankie is worth one win more than jason bay. jason bay is not worth 16 million dollars a year. is frankie? he's not even close. jason bay is more damaging to the mets to the tune of one win. look, i don;t think you're fully grasping what i'm saying here. i'm not talking about what they save this year. i don't give a shit. if they want to save money this year, then they need to dump reyes, beltran, and frankie all three. the loss of two of those players will cost them a fair amount of wins. the other one is frankie. lets just look at next year. if frankie is on the team, he will be making $17M and giving them $8M of production. max. that is teh same thing as if the mets brought in another no-name yet competent reliever for $8M, and resigned luis castillo for another $9M, only to cut him in spring training. i don't care what their budget is next year, how their p&l shapes up, how they structure the team, or what free agents are out there. it's folly. pure unadulterated folly. if there is a way the mets can avoid that folly, they should do so.

mariano rivera is probably the best closer in the history of baseball, or is at least the best closer since the closer role has revolved solely around the save. in his best years, he typically hovers between 2 and 3 WAR. unless you've absolutely got the a-number-one-best closer in the game, you shouldn't spend more than 8 million dollars on the guy whose job it is to accumulate saves. and if you do spend more than 8 million dollars, you're a fool for going above 12, because unless your guy puts in a season-for-the-ages, he's not going to be worth it. how much do you think a good closer is worth? me, i think he's worth no more than a similarly performing guy whose job it is to collect holds. i think it's folly to give more than $8M to a reliever, because he's almost certainly not going to be worth it. i think you can find good enough relievers for much less. it happens all the time, in fact. i think that same money is better spent in other facets of the game, where the value received is much more in line with the money outlaid. also, just to return to teh level of expectations thing. this season we're paying luis castillo 12 million dollars to sit at home and watch sny. that i expect him to not make a single positive contribution to teh team does not in any way make those 12 million dollars any less than a shameful waste which drags down the ability of teh team to better compete within this season. it deosn't matter if the mets payroll is 20 million dollars or 300 million dollars. if they are choosing to spend 17 million dollars on a player who cannot reasonably be expected to return much more than 2 wins of value, they are wasting their money and damaging their ability to compete. they're already stuck paying jason bay 16 million dollars to maybe give tehm one win. but that was a prior regime, and an ultimately-bad decision which the current regime has inherited. it is not and should not be an incentive to repeat it. if i just went out and spent $40k on a truly piece of shit car, does it make sense for me to go out and spend another $40k on another car that's only slightly less shitty just because i already have the one littering the driveway? or should i maybe do a better job of reading up on my consumer reports & motor trend and find a better car, regardless of whether i have $20k or $60k to spend?

trading frankie isn't akin to mailing it in this season. it would cost us one win. trading reyes would be mailing it in. that would cost us 4+ wins at his current rate. trading beltran would be akin to mailing it in. that would cost us 2-3 wins. if you could trade away jason bay next year, and not get anything back, you would, right? i mean, i have to assume you would. he's only giving us one win. why would you not trade away frankie rodriguez who is brining in at most two wins? whether you expect 2 wins out of your 17 million dollar player or 5 wins, if you only get two wins out of him, you've just wasted 17 million dollars and hurt the team. it doesn't matter if those 2 wins come from your closer, your long man, your left fielder, or your backup pinch hitter. the current math says a 2 win player is worth $8M. if you bring in a $17M player, you better expect him to bring in at least 4 wins. know when the last time a reliever was worth 4 wins? well, interestingly enough it was frankie in 2004. if you think frankie's gonna go 86 innings with a 1.82 ERA (1.64 FIP) in 2012, i've got a nice fancy bridge and adjacent swampland i'd love to sell you. in 2003, eric gagne went nuts to teh tune of 4.5 WAR. you then have to go back to 1996 for mariano's 4.4 WAR. then 1991 for duane ward's 4.1 WAR. over 20 years, only 4 relievers have had seasons worth 4 WAR. that's the type of performance we'd be paying frankie for.

you probably think that frankie's been pretty good this year, and you might be right. but even so, fangraphs has him at 0.6 WAR to this point in the season, whereas baseballreference has him at 0.9. if we traded him away and did not thereby improve the on-field roster, we'd cost ourselves at most one single solitary win. we would avoid costing ourselves 17 million dollars next year spend on a player worth, in all likelihood, less than two wins. matt holiday is set to make 17 million next year. he's a solid 5-win player. that's about what frankie rodriguez' salary is worth. fangraphs has danny murphy at 1.3 WAR. think about that. you'd be paying 17 million dollars for half the production of daniel murphy. his agent must be thrilled. ok, maybe that's not fair. baseballreference thinks daniel murphy is only a 0.7 WAR player at this point in the season. doing the math... you'd be willing to pay daniel murphy 14 million dollars then. i think his agent would readily accept that. you don't want to waste an opportunity this year, but you say that you also don;t want to jeopardize next year. the single greatest thing the mets could do at this point to jeopardize next year is to bring back frankie rodriguez at 17 million dollars. he is simply not worth it. no closer is. the mets will have a budget next year. whether that budget is high or low is unknowable at this time. what is knowable is that they will probably spend the frankie rodriguez 17 one way or another. if they spend it on frankie, they will only be adding about two wins. consider this. this season, they are paying r.a. dickey, chris capuano, chris young, tim byrdak, ronny paulino, and taylor buchholz a total of 7.6 million. those players are worth 3.6 WAR combined. how much could be done with 17 million? jason bay is crippling the team no? he's making 16 million. he's worth either 0.1 WAR or 0.5 WAR, according to fangraphs and bbref respectively. would frankie be anything other than equally crippling? he's worth about one win more than jason bay. the mets would be paying 33 million dollars for three wins, max, unless jason bay turns things around in a big huge gigantic way. that's half the production the yankees are getting out of arod this year. for the same money. and i think we'd all agree that he's terrifically overpaid.

Bay 5.9 Pagan 1.1 Byrdak 1.1 Acosta 0.7 Harris 0.6 Tejada 0.6

but what would you expect to come home with?

holy shit, i'm in second place!?

Pelfrey 6.0 Beltran 1.9 Reyes 1.3 Pagan 0.4 Bay 0.3 Turner 0.1

Carrasco 2.9 Beato 2.3 Beltran 2.1 Reyes 1.4 Pridie 0.8 Tejada 0.5

Capuano 3.3 Pagan 2.1 Paulino 1.6 Acosta 1.2 Parnell 1.0 Tejada 0.8

Hairston 3.1 Turner 1.9 Byrdak 1.5 Beltran 1.3 Reyes 1.2 Isringhausen 1.0

the duda murphy wasn't the biggest play of the game, and it certainly wasn't the reason they lost. the homer to brooks conrad was hte single biggest nail in the metly coffin. heading into that at bat, the mets had an 89.9% change of winning hte game. that homer knocked them all the way down to merely a 42.3% chance! as we enter the tenth inning, the mets have a 50% chance of winning. were they to have made it to the eleventh, they would have retained that 50% chance. with two outs in the bottom of the tenth, the mets had a 46.6% chance of winning. diory hernandez hits a double and its down to 39.5%. now, if duda stays at first and allows the ball to get through to tejada, and presuming he throws out schaefer as we all expect to have happened, the inning is over, and we're back at 50%. but no. schaefer makes it to first, and hernandez is on third. the mets are down to a 36.6% chance of winning. the duda murphy increased the braves' chances of winning by about 3%, but the total swing was 13%. the balk, well, that gave the braves the win. so there you have it. duda's murphy, 3% or 13% depending on whether you want to look at comparing it to the expected result. i know a little mechanical guy who'd chatter endlessly about not presuming an expected result. the balk, 36.6%. the homer, 47.6%. but at least frankie didn't get the GF.

wow.

i think if you do a three division setup, the west is easy. if you're west of missouri, you're in the west. the central and eastern divisions are a little trickier. if you do it strictly geographically, then cleveland, toronto and pittsburgh are in the east, with atlanta and tampa in the west. i think it makes more sense to send toronto to the west, keeping atlanta in the east. 3 divisons, 10 teams each. i wasn't sure how you'd do the playoffs, then i read willets idea. which i love.

Parnell 3.0 Gee 2.1 Carrasco 1.7 Pagan 1.4 Reyes 0.9 Rodriguez 0.9

i think though that if you have a one-game playoff, then you will have a race for the top. it may not be nearly as intense, i'm sure, but being able to play against a team that just had a play-in game sounds like a bit of a carrot. its certainly better in my mind than a home-field advantage. last year in the AL there were no races. well, i can't be sure. but each playoff spot was decided by at least 6 games. assuming all the teams would have had the same records in a divisionless format, you'd have three teams within a game of first, playing for the extra rest and the opportunity to feast on a weakened opponent, and you'd have three teams within a game of the last spot, trying to get in or stay in. and now your 7th place team is only four games out, too. in the NL, the west had a race decided by two games. the loser, the padres, lost the wild card by one game. that would be lost in the new format as the pad's would've been the fifth team. but now you've got four teams within a game of the play-in game. the second place team would have something to play for here. and the sixth place team is only 4 games out of the last spot in the playoffs. drama abounds! this season, baseball prospectus predicts the red sox and yankees to finish with 97 and 92 wins, respectively, trailed a bit by the rays at 84 wins. it may ruin the suspense to say that the yankees would run away with the wild card, winning it by those 8 games over the rays. in the other divisions, the tigers' 87 wins trump the white sox' 83 in the closest divisional race, while in the west, texas dominates a weak field with 86 wins over the 77-win oakland a's. not much drama there, eh? no real reason for the yankees and sox to battle it out, right? only the tigers have any real reason to sweat. with no divisions, you still have the sox and yanks running away, but now they have a carrot. the rays are in the thick of things, a game ahead of the white sox for the last spot, while the rangers and tigers now play to avoid the play-in game. in the nl, we start to run into some trouble though. right now, we're set up for two division races with the phils and braves projected to 92 and 89 wins respectively, and the cards and brewers at 89 and 87 wins. the giants are laughing away with the west at 92 wins over the 82 win rockies. with no divisons, the phils and giants duke it out for the top spot, while the braves and cards try to avoid risking the one-gamer against the brewers. the reds finish 3 games out of the action with 84 wins. the fish sit back with the rockies at 82. this time, the drama is more with the teams that are in it, but the reds have the hope for some meaningful games. ... in football, there seems to be ht biggest advantage to winning your division. you get the bye and/or home field. that can have a big impact in a single game. in basketball and hockey, the advantage is really just in the opponents, hoping to play either the weaker team or the team with the more favorable matchup, as the extra home game in a 7 game series really isn't all that big imo. in a divisonless baseball playoff, i think you get more of the football-style advantage, as i believe the team that has to play-in to get in has a disadvantage going forward, provided that play-in is limited to a single game. if the wild card thing is a three-game series, then the top three teams could get iced sitting too long, while the wild card team just keeps humming along. a one-game series lets those games be the sole focus of a day. the next day the 2-3 matchup begins, and the following day the 1-WC matchup begins. the top seed gets an extra day to rest and align their rotation, giving them a real reason to fight for the top spot, in addition to playing a weakened or drained opponent. i'd also have them get rid of all the bullshit off days in the schedules so that the seven game series get done in much closer to seven days, but that's with or without realignment. and just think of all the amateur sports psychology you'd get to practice, debating endlessly whether the advantage goes to the wild card winner or the top seed, or maybe just the two and three seeds! sports talk radio fodder! finally something for espn to chatter on about! ... i see grimmy did some of what i was doing. how close is the sixth team in those years?

i actually like the idea of two 15-team leagues, with no divisions. i think the biggest argument against it is that - gott-im-himmel! - you might have a team in contention playing an interleague game in the last week of the season. how this is appreciably worse than a team playing an out-of-division game, well, i don't know. i guess you have the slight chance that the mets and reds could be battling for the wild card, but really, how often is that really a factor? besides, isn;t it only really important that all teh teams in contention face teh same things? and if your interleague game is in late september, or august, well, who the fuck really cares, so long as you still have to play the same amount of interleague games as anybody else. and that's what's important - that it would offer an opportunity to get a fairly balanced schedule both in-league and interleague. the current schedule is a joke. especially the interleague blocks. why the hell should those games be confined to special chunks of the season? wouldn't it be more interesting if every week there's an AL team in an NL park, or vice versa? each week, you have a special series. swell! i've also heard how absurd it would be if you have an AL team in the thick of the pennant race forced to go at a disadvantage by batting their pitcher. and all i can think is that, hey, wouldn't that add to the drama, and add importance to a key skill - hitting? i mean, you could just do the fuck away with teh dh altogether and make me super-happy. but really it is teh nl team who is at a disadvantage in the dh games, as their 9th best hitter is usually a defensive utilityman, not a dedicated stick guy. but regardless, so long as the AL team is competing against other AL teams who've had to bat their pitchers, what does it matter if it comes late in the season or early? i also think that with 5 teams making it per league, you've got at least six teams with something to play for. the first place team wants to feast on the weakened 4th/5th place winner who just had to use his best pitcher, if available, to advance through what i would hope would be a one-game playoff. the 2nd place team is desperately trying to climb into that catbird seat. the third place team will be playing to stay out of the play-in game, while the 4th place team will try their best to rise above it. the 5th place team will dig its teeth into that last spot, while the 6th place team will be clawing their way up, hoping against hope just to get a shot. in teh current system, your division winners could salt away their spots early, and have nothing to play for but the victory lap late into september. if the sawx and mfys run away with the nl east, then there's no wild card drama either. but if the 4-5 matchup is a one-game playoff, that adds a huge carrot to the pennant winner, and a big sigh of relief to the 3 seed. the longer that matchup is, the less impact it has, at least positively. a one-game, high drama play-in game would be a great way to kick off the playoffs, draw interest, and not ice the higher seeds. the one-seed would get the next series opener anyway, so its not like there would be any scheduling uncertainty.

Niese 3.5 Reyes 1.9 Rodriguez 1.3 Beltran 1.2 Pagan 1.1 Byrdak 1.0

+1