Vic Sage

yes, parnell sucked over the course of around 100 "high leverage" plate appearances. But he was pretty good over the course of 160+ medium and low leverage PAs, which metbot's new formula still ignores. I agree that he hurt more than he helped overall, but i would reiterate that THAT is not the standard. Surely, of the guys that showed up and played, he should be ranked in the bottom tier, but he DID show and play, and deserves ranking over guys that had a cup of coffee and were no more successful than he was in "high leverage" situations; they simply weren't given the opportunity to fail that he was given, based on his success in low-medium leverage situations. In other words, you've penalized him for failing in one situation, with no recognition of his success in others, while rewarding those who were never even given the opportunity to fail. again, i'm not arguing with your last list. i think its entirely defensible and rational... now. And i'm not a big Parnell fan either. I'm just saying.

m.e.t.b.o.t. wrote: the updated rankings as generated by m.e.t.b.o.t. are as follows: RankPlayerAdj WPAAdj PT%Score30Reyes18445%684829Beltran30724%665428Dickey-15157%558027Duda22983%527626Wright13344%517425Turner8004%494924Bay1964%458123Pelfrey-21097%446822Murphy8274%444821Pagan-1465%441720Tejada10783%432819Niese-16575%375518Gee-18376%366417Capuano-32136%311616Isringhausen11421%260715Davis12291%251514Acosta9901%246513Rodriguez10761%242312Thole-9223%240211Beato342%213710Harris-3702%20069Paulino-3642%17728Batista5491%15757Hairston3611%15726Young6841%15245Igarashi2011%14154Evans-4392%12263Pridie-8772%11472Buchholz771%9081Carrasco-10832%4740Baxter1200%461-1Byrdak-8081%375-2Schwinden-4131%301-3Herrera270%278-4Nickeas-2571%259-5Satin-490%182-6O'Connor-760%123-7Pascucci60%95-8Stinson-3550%61-9Martinez-1480%40-10Misch-2700%-50-11Emaus-4130%-52-12Hu-4410%-249-13Boyer-5980%-388-14Thayer-7460%-421-15Parnell-30332%-1171 that'll do, bot... that'll do. while i might argue that Byrdak and Parnell were do more consideration than Igarashi, Carrasco and Batista, i think that's splitting hairs over who is at the bottom of the list. overall, your new formulation seems to have produced a rational list.

well, comparing him to say..Jose Reyes, he didn't. But he still pretty much played above average level for SS. yeah, no. he didn't. July = ops+ 62; August = 63, and that's over a combined 100 PAs for the 2 months, which is 1/2 of the PAs you get from the "average level for ss". in other words, he was mediocre when he played, but he didn't play much. Guys aren't great when they don't play. Except Capuano. Apparently, according to m.e.t.b.o.t., the less he pitches the more he helps the team. So if he's out for the season, he becomes the team MVP. But when Reyes showed up, from 2005-2008, he was an MVP candidate and the kind of guy you could build around. the guy who has otherwise played 120-140 games? Not so much. Even when he produces at a great rate, as he did this past season, his 2nd half coincided with their decline from .500 team to stinky cheese. Winning a batting title on your ass is all well and good, but you don't win a division that way.

yes, that's why i think i can take him.

30. Reyes 29. Beltran 28. Dickey 27. Murphy 26. Wright 25. Duda 24. Bay 23. F-Rod 22. Gee 21. Niese 20. Capuano 19. Pagan 18. Turner 17. Tejada 16. Acosta 15. Thole 14. Pelfrey 13. Beato 12. Harris 11. Hairston 10. Davis 9. Young 8. Isringhausen 7. Parnell 6. Byrdak 5. Evans 4. Paulino 3. Pridie 2. Buchholtz 1. M.Batista 0. Vic Sage -1. Carrasco

m.e.t.b.o.t. considers metropolitan pitcher chris capuano's performance to be not particularly conducive towards winning. i would agree, but since the Mets had a losing record this year, i would suggest that this could be said of many of our regulars. But it's not our assignment to make a list of players whose play was conducive to winning, in absolute terms, but rather to rank this year's Mets players relative to each other (not to a theoretical construct called a "replacement player" that doesn't actually exist in our space-time continuum), about their relative contributions to THIS team, THIS year. And the notion that a guy who gave us 4 starts and 24 innings was the 15th biggest contributor to this year's team, while ignoring entirely a regular member of the rotation, who might be arguably ranked anywhere after Dickey among our starters, is just ludicrous. And if m.e.t.b.o.t generates ludicrous results, m.e.t.b.o.t should consider the scrap heap as a reasonable alternative. further evidence of this is that, so far, 5 forumites have listed their rankings and Capuano has been ranked 6th (twice), 7th, 9th and 13th (and i would concur on this 6-13 ranking range, as i've ranked him 11th below), while you've omitted him entirely (as well as a few other regulars, like Parnell and Byrdak). I think one needs to start with the guys that showed up and played, and then rank THOSE relative to each other, based on whatever reasonable criteria one can support, followed by guys who contributed in lesser roles. Obviously there is weighing of "greater contribution over a shorter period vs lesser contribution over a longer period" that goes on, but i still think one shouldn't diminish contributions by regulars because they fail to achieve some statistical (and purely theoretical) threshold. Yes, i was significantly less harmful to the Mets' chances of winning this season than Capuano was, but that doesn't put me among the top 30 Mets this year.

Edgy DC wrote: Well, you could set a lower bonus at 650. YOU could, but i wouldn't. As far as i'm concerned, it's a slippery slope. Sure you could give them a lower bonus at 650, and a lower bonus at 600, and at 550 too. My point to them would be "I'm already paying you $16.5m if you play less than a full season. If you want that big money bonus PLUS the addition of another year to the deal, then show up healthy and play a full season." I'm not even tying these particular bonuses to PRODUCTION... if he just shows up and plays, he keeps getting $18m and another year added to the deal. If he produces, too, he could add up to another $2m per season. I don't know, i think its more than fair. is it enough to get a deal done? Again, depends on his options. I'm with Monk, though... if he gets 7yrs/$140m guaranteed, i'll drive him to the airport.

yeah, i just read a lot of words and still don't know what m.e.t.b.o.t. is talking about. the fact is that Capuano took the ball. Whoever you think a "replacement" level pitcher is, it isn't certain that they would give you 30+ starts and 180+ innings and a 4.5 ERA and a 11-12 record. We've certainly had worse #5 starters before. In fact, i'm not certain that Capuano wasn't better than Gee, Pelfrey and Niese this year. Was Capuano's production great? no. Good? meh. But somebody had to take the ball and the notion that Young's 4 starts and 24 innings added more value to the Mets 2011 season than Capuano's 31 starts and 186 innings just doesn't pass the sniff test. Maybe m.e.t.b.o.t. should invest in a nose instead of more gears.

Any methodology that dismisses 30+ starts and 180+ innings because the stat you've devised placed Capuano significantly behind a pitcher who gave the team 4 starts and 24 innings (Young at 15), needs to have its parameters questioned. By this logic, i was also more valuable to the Mets this year than Capuano, simply by not playing for them at all.

Reyes has been in the majors for parts of 9 seasons. Out of those 9, he's had only 4 "full seasons" (2005-2008) where he's played at least 150 games. In each of those 4 seasons, he exceeded 700 PAs. So i don't think my proposal based on 700 PAs established an unrealistic expectation for a full-time leadoff hitter. I would only agree to move the threshold down to 650 if he was moved down in the batting order. I'm not particularly interested in Reyes for 600 PAs, when he has missed 20%-25% of the season... at least not for $17m-$20m/yr. And so I don't think the Mets should pay that unless we're getting prime/full-season production. If we do, he gets his money. If we don't, he still gets $16.5m, which ain't bad either. he just doesnt get to roll that into bonuses and additional years. would he take something like this? well, that depends entirely on his options.

i've mentioned my ideal proposal before, but it would work like this: 5 years / $16.5m guaranteed, with $1.5m bonus upon 700 PAs, and $2m in various performance bonuses - each year he reaches 700 PAs automatically extends the deal an additional year, for up to 3 additional years. If the 3 option years do not vest, they can be bought out for $2.5m each. minimum deal = 5 years / $90m max deal = 8 years / $160m This allows Reyes to get BETTER than "Crawford money" if he stays healthy and productive, which saves face for him and basically makes him a Met for life, while offering the Mets at least some downside protection if Reyes continues to break down every year. of course, 1 owner offering 7 years/$140m will likely blow such an offer out of the water.

And I think Pagans upside, and the possibility of that upside, is much greater than say Sizemore's or whoever we could get. that's just the crack talking. put the pipe down. Maybe a fly flew up his nose and is sitting on his brain. that made me laugh out loud. wait, were you talking about Pagan or Ceetar?

some of those guys are saying their teams won't be interested because OTHER teams will bid up the price too high. But the OTHER teams are also saying the same thing. this is like the Yogi-ism about the restaurant: "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too popular." or words to that affect. if injury concerns or reluctance to enter into a bidding war keep teams from getting involved, then no bidding war will ensue, meaning the price will stay low, which will get teams interested (because at the right price, Reyes is an attractive player), which will start the bidding war they were worried about in the first place. Nobody wants to SET the market (which is why Alderson isn't going to blow Reyes out of the water with an initial offer), but once offers and counter-offers start getting tossed around, the market will set itself, and teams will either deal themselves in our out at that point, regardless of all this puffery. if you think about for a second, though, we could probably see where the market is right now. All the teams in that article (including the Mets) would take Reyes at 5 years / $15m; lets assume that's the floor. Would any take him at 7 years / $20m (i.e., "Crawford money")? Unlikely, but not impossible. It only takes 1 buyer. But lets assume thats the top end. a mid-point is probably 6 years / $17.5m, which would scare off some teams, but probably not all. You could even add an option/buy out provision to bring the total package up a bit, plus incentive clauses that could all back into a "crawford" type deal, if Reyes was healthy and productive. Could the Mets do this? and should they? I don't know if they CAN, but if that's the market, i'd reluctantly agree they should. But at 7yrs+/$20m+ straight up, i'd understand if Sandy passed.

so what are the preferred defensive metrics of the SABR-gentsia these days?

i think Bucket was the bard of Joelmon free verse.

in celebration of our anniversary, The Bard offers these poetical blasts from our MOFO past: He called himself Newman And like the albumen You can find in the white of an egg, He was snotty and runny, And smelled kinda funny, An anus you could fill with a keg. There once was a poster named Ambla As well-liked as a member of NAMBLA With nary a friend, He stood alone till the end, With the nerves of a riverboat gambla There once was a lady, Ms. Met As in love as a lady could get She wanted Mike�s booty And so thought it her duty To dream of his butt, soaking wet! YGB was his tag and posting his bag as he jousted with Metfans illogical He fought with Ms. Met Her goat he did get She found his attitude rude, pedagogical They swashed and they buckled as the Forum all chuckled at their badinage, crude and rhetorical Ms. Met called for peace hoped the fighting would cease trumpeting truce that was truly historical And so all waited reply YGB's taunting to fly would it be something mean, allegorical? Or would he just be a "gentlemen", he Creating peace that was not metaphorical There once was a flamer named Winston who clearly had not gone to Princeton both foul and moronic his posts were a tonic composed of the feces he rinsed in Like Orwell's Winston of Yore from his book, "1984" He�ll be tied to a chair, not to go anywhere, so the rats could eat his faceful of gore or how about a haiku? locked in a basement made his view of the world quite subterranean Paulie Cee spouted bile in order to rile up those whom he deemed as Inferior But his mewling, instead stayed inside his head so the only one reamed was Interior Paulie carried Vendetta Like a Baretta To shoot at all those he abhorred He acted the prankster But was merely a gangster And on us derision he poured His many disguises He employed to get rises Out of those whose oxen he�d gored And when he finally started shooting Some fools started rooting But most folks just walked away, bored. There once was a guy, Paulie Cee Whose persona comprised a plurality he preached his religion with nary a smidgeon of intellect, or even morality haikus for Paulie: Negativity that dwells inside his spirit shouts, obscuring thought Politics aside� Fascist Fundamentalists? Not my cup of tea.

Edgy DC wrote: "was I someone's unwanted asshole?" would be a great sig line. It's important to have at least one asshole, I've always said. thus explaining my original invite, back in the halcyon days of our founding. i still have some of THE BARD'S poetry from my battles with his MOFOian foes, like Paulie Cee and Newman. I will see if he'll look up from his mead long enough to permit a reprint or 2.

but Monk... it totally didn't have unicorns!

just saw a trailer for M:I 4. I wonder if Elster88 is sporting a woody?

Hill talks about WARRIORS and THE DRIVER in the Village Voice... http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-10-26/film/night-and-the-city-walter-hill-on-the-warriors-and-the-driver/

well, i'm a little on the fuddy side, but i hope not so duddy. Conservative? Nope, never been accused of that. as someone who is an atheist with more than a dash of existentialism in my personal cosmology, and who often sees morality as contextual, a moveable feast if you will, and not about a priori absolutism, i realize i seem to be on the other side of this issue, but i don't think i am. because words have meanings, even if they're just contextual ones. honor is a concept that has a meaning in the martial context that sports emulate, to the extent sports are about a contest of both physical and mental abilities, about helping your team/country/tribe win, and individual sacrifice to achieve that goal. Ask a marine about honor... but beware that if you put "quotes" around the word, he'll knock your fucking teeth out. Now sports are not life and death, and baseball is probably less explicitly military than other sports, especially football (thank you, George Carlin), but the sports culture, from the original Olympiads to the World Cup, to any other event you care to mention, has always raised its athletes in the "no I in team" / combat + self-sacrifice" ethos. And in that context, honor has a meaning. it's not just "honor". And as i said before, if you simply compare Reyes' behavior to what you might idealize the behavior would be in that situation "I'm paid to play baseball. Fans came to see me play baseball. I already missed a quarter of the season this year, and i don't yet know if i'll be back next year, or ever. So I owed it to the fans, to my teammates, to the organization and to myself to go out and play every game, every AB, like its my last, and to come back with my shield or on it. If i win a batting title that way, great. If not, not. I don't play for awards." ... then the shortfall = degree of disappointment. i don't want to continue litigating the issue, but words have meanings, actions have consequences, and things matter.

Maybe I�m just getting old, but I would have held Jose Reyes in much higher esteem if he had played the full nine on the last day of the season, left it all out on the field, taking the risk and regardless of the outcome, walked away as a finisher, with honor and dignity. i said the exact same thing, except without the "maybe i'm just getting old" part, and i didn't have to get into a discussion of "finishing". And I think honor and dignity are concepts that speak quite eloquently for themselves, and those who try to muddy those waters are just rationalizing some less-than-honorable or otherwise less dignified behavior.

i just watched PUSH, with Chris Evans, which sets up a "HEROES" like cosmology with super-powered folks being rounded up and indoctrinated by the government. It definitely signals its intention to be a setup for a sequel, leaving the story unfinished. And it sucked enough for no sequel to be forthcoming.

[u:te82214v]ROY[/u:te82214v] NL: Kimbrel (atl) - this likely Rolaids winner should have the edge over teammate Freddie Freeman AL: Hellickson (TB) - Hellickson's 4.2 WAR and solid numbers should edge out pre-season fave 1bman Hosmer (KC) and slugger Mark Trumbo (LAA), and LAA closer Walden. I suppose Ivan Nova will get some support, too.

thread for player awards: you can either guess predictions or offer recommendations -- [u:2327gj8h]MVP[/u:2327gj8h] NL: R.Braun (mil) - toss up with Kemp; edge to Braun for getting his team to post-season AL: M.Cabrera (det) - with Bautista, Ellsbury and Verlander close behind; edge to the everyday player on a post-season team [u:2327gj8h]Aaron[/u:2327gj8h] NL: Kemp (LA) - practically won the triple crown; leader in almost every meaningful stat (with Braun close behind) AL: Bautista (Tor) - HRs and BBs are a potent combo; AL WAR leader, tied with Cabrera in OPS+ and Runs Created I wouldn't argue if either or both of these guys won the MVP, too. But, while in the past i rejected the criteria of "playing on a post-season team" that had crept into MVP voting over time, I have, since the creation of the "AAron" award, been willing to consider team success as an additional criteria for the MVP, and have given players on post-season teams a slight edge over the comparable AARON winners above, due to their impact on teams that made it to the post-season, as well as the additional pressure of playing for a playoff spot. The establishment of the AARON award also allowed me to consider pitchers more seriously for MVP (though the award's rules and past results always required voters to do so), since hitters have come to have their own award like pitchers do, and so there is no need to hijack the award (as i had often recommended in the past) to remedy the problem of there being no award for the best hitter in each league (That the AARON lacks the history and cache of the Cy Young does not mean the award doesn't exist). So i view Verlander's MVP candidacy as totally justifiable, too. [u:2327gj8h]Cy Young[/u:2327gj8h] NL: Kershaw (LA) AL: Verlander (Det) Both these pitchers won the pitching triple crown in their respective leagues this year; this is a no-brainer. [u:2327gj8h]Rolaids[/u:2327gj8h] NL: Kimbrel (Atl) - the SV leader also lead NL closers with WAR of 3; Hanrahan, Axford and Putz were close behind. Best setup guy was Kimbrel's teammate, Venters with a WAR of 3.7! He should get some consideration, but he won't. AL: Rivera (NY) - though Valverde had a few more SVs, Rivera led in all other categories, including ERA+, WHIP and WAR. ROY - i don't know who is eligible. Anybody?