A couple of posts last week by the fine writers over at Me and Pedro got me thinking about stolen bases. Through the 90s and the first half of this decade, a combination of sabermetric influence and an increase in power has lead to a greater awareness of the negative consequences of stolen base attempts (getting caught). Over the last couple years, it seems to me that teams are starting to run a bit more, but have also gotten smarter and aren't making as many foolish outs on the basepaths. Is it true? I decided to take a look at the trend for two stats over time: stolen base attempts per game and stolen base %. I looked at all the data going back to 1951, the first year that MLB kept track of times "caught stealing."

Here's the average stolen base attempts per game per team across MLB:

The blue dotted line is the average for every season from 1951-2007. The purple line is a five year trailing average, which helps smooth out some of the random year-to-year fluctuations, so we can focus on the long-term trends. Basically, there was a steady, slow growth in the 50s and 60s, followed by a huge increase in the 70s. I won't try to speculate on what the cause was. The rate remained high through the 80s, but then fell slowly through the 90s, followed by a steeper drop from 2000-2005. Over the last two seasons, stolen base attempts increased slightly, possibly signaling an end to the long decline phase. That makes sense because overall offensive levels are down a little.

This next chart tracks the success rate of stolen base attempts over the same time period:

Interesting. Generally, it's considered that the break-even success rate in today's game is around 70%, but it varies a little based on the offensive level at the time (in other words, if homeruns are common, the cost of losing a baserunner is higher). This chart shows a surprisingly consistent upward trend over the last 50+ years. The 5-year average takes a few dips, but the general trend has been steadily ticking upward since 1951. Very interesting. One question this raises is whether this can continue to climb indefinitely. The rate has been pretty steady since the late 80s, at around 69-70%. In 2006, a new record was set at 71.4%. But, 2007 was almost literally off the chart, with a 74.4% rate. That's a huge increase! So far this year, the rate is 72.7%. It's a little early in the season to draw any conclusions, but it seems likely that there will be a bit of a contraction this year.

I think the most interesting thing about these two graphs is that they don't seem to have any relationship. It seems natural to assume that there's a relationship between how often players try to steal and how often they'll get caught. This certainly seems true on the individual level. Carlos Beltran has always had a high success rate, but that's because he chooses his spots wisely. I'm pretty sure that if you asked Beltran to double his steals, he'd respond that he could, but he'd get caught much more often. But, on the macro level, this hasn't happened. SB% has consistently risen whether teams are attempting steals more often or less often. From 1971-1976, there was a huge 64% increase in stolen base attempts, but those attempts were apparently no more risky than they'd been in the past - the success rate actually went up. I guess the explanation is that the change in attempts is mostly explained by the abilities of the players at the time, not by a shift in strategy. It seems that the players were just faster (or the catchers had worse arms), so they were able to steal more bases, while maintaining the desired success rate.

That doesn't answer the question of why the success rate has consistently gone up over time. I'm not sure what the answer is.

Out of Order
Kudos to Gary Cohen, who seemed to be the only person at Shea yesterday who understood what happens when a team bats out of order. For those who weren't watching, in the ninth inning of the Mets' blowout of the Reds, the Reds accidentally switched their #8 and #9 hitters. Dusty Baker was confused. Willie Randolph was confused. The umpires were confused. Lots of time was wasted as they all convened multiple times to figure out what was supposed to happen. Cohen, on the other hand, immediately understood what was supposed to be happening and was baffled as to why the umpires didn't. He also correctly pointed out that Willie screwed up by not waiting until the Reds got a baserunner before notifying the umpires.

Retrosheet has a history of past occurrences of players batting out of order. Assuming the Retrosheet list is complete, there have been 8 occurrences over the last ten years. Amazingly, Dusty Baker's teams have been responsible for three of the eight. That's pretty sloppy.

New documentary about Bobby V in Japan:

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/04/bobby_valentine_on_his_new_tri.html#more

Interesting article on stadium subsidies:

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/april-04-08/a-closer-look-at-stadium-subsidies

If I was the owner of the Toronto Blue Jays, I'd have already called GM J.P. Ricciardi into my office for a bit of a screaming session, starting out with "Why the hell did you throw away $8 million on Frank Thomas?"

During the offseason, the Blue Jays re-signed future Hall of Famer Frank Thomas. The contract called for Thomas to make $8 million in 2008 and contained a $10 million option for 2009 that would automatically vest if Thomas amassed 304 plate appearances this year. This past weekend, the Blue Jays released Frank Thomas. They're still on the hook for the full $8 million, but no longer have to worry about him playing enough to earn the 2009 salary.

There are three possible explanations for this situation:

1. J.P. Ricciardi made a stupid decision during the offseason.
2. J.P. Ricciardi made a stupid decision this weekend.
3. Something significant happened in between those two points in time so that the contract made sense in the first place, but now seems so bad that it's not even worth giving Thomas a little more time to turn around his season.

And if I'm the Blue Jays owner and I'm out $8 million, I need to hear Ricciardi make a convincing case for #3. I don't see it. Was Thomas bad over his first 16 games? Definitely. But, Thomas has always been a slow starter; his career stats in April are significantly worse than for any other month. Over the last few years, he's been particularly bad. Before his release, Thomas had 72 plate appearances this season. Here are his stats through his first 72 plate appearances of each of the last three years:

year H 2B HR BB SO avg obp slg ops
2008 10 1   3 11 13 .167 .306 .333 .639
2007 12 2   2 10 13 .197 .319 .328 .647
2006 11 2   4   7 10 .169 .250 .385 .635

Those three lines are virtually identical. After a horrible start in 2006, he went on to have a very productive season, finishing with a .926 OPS and 39 homers, good enough for fourth place in the MVP voting and a contract from J.P. Ricciardi. After that horrible start in 2007, he went on to have another productive season, finishing with a .377 obp and a .480 slugging percentage, good enough for a new $8 million contract from J.P. Ricciardi. Now, after a virtually identical start, that same J.P. Ricciardi has decided that Frank Thomas is worthless?

This article on Slate makes it clear that the only reason I'm not in the major leagues is because I was born in May instead of August.

Jokes aside, this article actually contains some really interesting findings.
"Since 1950, a baby born in the United States in August has had a 50 percent to 60 percent better chance of making the big leagues than a baby born in July."
The reason for this is that July 31 has been the cutoff for "age" in little league, so kids born in August are the oldest in their leagues. It makes sense, but I'm surprised. I assumed that all future major leaguers would've dominated in little league even if they were a little young for their "age."

Don't Tase Al Reyes, bro!

There's an article on CBSSports about how amazing Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA in 1968 was.

Don't get me wrong, it was a great season. One of the best in the modern era, maybe the best. Gibson had a 1.12 ERA. He pitched over 300 innings. If he had thrown 1.3 more innings, he would have averaged 9 per start (he went over 9 on multiple occasions).

But, the 1.12 ERA mostly looks so amazing because of the depressed offensive levels that year. In the NL that year, the entire league had a 2.99 ERA; the AL had a 2.98 ERA. Just for a point of reference, the league ERAs last year were 4.43 and 4.50. If you make a list of the top ERA seasons since 1920, 9 of the top 50 seasons occurred in 1968, maxing out with Bob Veale and Stan Bahnsen at 2.05.

Baseball Reference has a statistic called ERA+, which adjusts ERA for league conditions and park effects. Gibson's season only ranks 4th in the modern era. Here's the top 6:

Pedro 2000 - 291
Maddux 1994 - 271
Maddux 1995 - 262
Gibson 1968 - 258
Pedro 1999 - 243
Gooden 1985 - 228

Pedro tops the list. In 2000, he had a 1.74 ERA. The league ERA was 4.91. Adjusted for Fenway, it's 5.07.

Gibson supporters will point out that he pitched far more innings than those other pitchers. But, he pitched in an era when everyone pitched more innings. In 1968, the average NL starter pitched 6.8 innings per game. In 2000, the average AL starter pitched 5.8 innings per game. Here's how the pitchers above did compared to their league (and how many games they started):

Pedro 2000 - 29 gs, 29% better than average ip/gs
Maddux 1994 - 25 gs, 33%
Maddux 1995 - 28 gs, 26%
Gibson 1968 - 34 gs, 32%
Pedro 1999 - 30 gs*, 23%
Gooden 1985 - 35 gs, 26%

Gibson does well here, the only pitcher who beats him on ip/gs% is 1994 Maddux, and it's very close. But, his edge against the rest of the pack seems a lot less significant than it does when you just look at the raw totals. Pedro also deserves to be knocked down a notch for his lack of durability. He only started 29 games in 2000, and had 29 starts and 2 relief appearances in 1999. Maddux's GS look low, but those were strike-shortened seasons. Does he deserve less credit? It's hard to say. It's not his fault that the seasons were shorter, but it's somewhat easier to deviate from the norm over shorter periods (in other words, if the season was only 1 day long, someone could have a 0.00 era).

In conclusion, Gibson clearly had one of the greatest pitching seasons of all time. There's a very good argument that it was the best. But, there's also an argument for 2000 Pedro or 1994 Maddux. Gibson had one of the best seasons ever; he was also lucky enough to have it during an incredibly favorable year for pitching statistics.

Why No Pedro?
I realize part of the blame goes to Delgado for his error, but what the hell was Willie thinking in the 7th inning? Why is Scott Schoeneweis his go-to lefty specialist? Where's Feliciano?
Then in the 8th, Utley and Howard came up again in a critical spot, this time against a struggling Heilman. And Willie still doesn't use Feliciano?

Here's everyone's OPS against left-handed hitters along with K/BB ratio over the last 2 years:

Feliciano ----- .541 - 74/16
Schoeneweis - .659 - 36/22
Heilman ----- .698 - 67/33

Feliciano has clearly been better against lefties. Why isn't he the one to face Utley & Howard in a critical spot? Isn't it an obvious decision?

[UPDATE - as indicated in the comments, it turns out that Feliciano went to PR on Monday to attend to a family emergency and a delay on his return flight caused him to miss the game. Sorry Willie, all is forgiven.]

This doesn't solve the short-term pitching problem, but I'm still glad to hear this news from Ken Rosenthal:

Come June or July, the Mets still figure to be the No. 1 choice of free-agent right-hander Freddy Garcia, who is recovering from major shoulder surgery. Garcia is good friends with Santana, a fellow Venezuelan, and they share the same agents. When Garcia visited the Mets camp this spring, Pedro Martinez grabbed a piece of paper, waved to Garcia and jokingly demanded that Mets GM Omar Minaya give him a pen, saying, "Here's the contract, here's the contract."

Credit to The MZA for finding this gem from 2001, in which Mets pitching coach Charlie Hough lavishes some- in hindsight- outrageous praise:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E5DA1639F93BA15755C0A9679C8B63&scp=2&sq=mike+piazza+hair&st=nyt

Bill James answers (lots of) questions at Freakonomics.
He made an interesting proposal:

My pet project is a rule to limit pitching changes in the late innings. My rule, specifically, would be this:
1) Each team is entitled to one unrestricted pitching change per game.
2) With the exception of that one unrestricted change, no pitcher may be removed from the game in mid-inning unless he has been charged with allowing a run in that inning. With an exception for injuries, of course.

When you propose a rules change like that, people say, "Oh, you’re changing the way the game has always been." That’s nonsense. In 1970 major league teams used 1.75 relievers per game. In 1990 they used 2.02 relievers per game, and in 2007 they used 2.97 per game — and the rate of increase in this area is still accelerating.

I'm generally wary of any rules changes, but this would be a way of speeding up games a little and would merely be combating a very recent innovation in the game that is generally annoying. I think it's probably a little too restrictive, but some limitation on reliever substitution would probably benefit the game, even something as simple as requiring that a reliever face at least 2 batters (unless the inning ends).

Cool feature on Baseball Reference that lets you look at the year-by-year Opening Day lineups for any team.

I realize a lot of fans aren't excited about Ryan Church being our right fielder, but here's the bunch of clowns that have manned the position on Opening Day over the last 14 years, along with their OPS+ for the season (100 = league average, and a starting right fielder should really be above average):

1994 Jeromy Burnitz 79
1995 Carl Everett 110
1996 Butch Huskey 101
1997 Carl Everett 91
1998 Butch Huskey 85
1999 Bobby Bonilla 48
2000 Derek Bell 98
2001 Darryl Hamilton 68
2002 Jeromy Burnitz 80
2003 Jeromy Burnitz 105
2004 Karim Garcia 68
2005 Eric Valent 50
2006 Xavier Nady 102
2007 Shawn Green 104

1 Down, 161 To Go

What more could we ask for on Opening Day? Johan delivers seven strong innings. David Wright hits a 3-run double. Mets win 7-2.

Can Pedro get the job done tonight?

Did Beane Blow It?

A few months ago, Billy Beane decided that the A's chances weren't good in '08 and went into dump mode. He traded ace Dan Haren to Arizona for a huge package of prospects and sent offensive stalwart Nick Swisher to the White Sox for two top pitching prospects. Both packages seemed like pretty good hauls, but most of the media coverage just took his word on the premise behind the trade. But, as Opening Day approaches, I think it's fair to ask whether the A's could've been a playoff team with Haren and Swisher.
Most people have treated the Angels as the runaway favorites in the division, but injuries are taking their toll. John Lackey is out until at least mid-May. Kelvim Escobar has a shoulder tear and may be out for the season.
Meanwhile, the Bedard acquisition got a lot of people excited about the Mariners, but their lineup is very weak. I don't think they're nearly as good as most people think.
On the other hand, the A's are better than most people think.
These PECOTA-based projected standings have the Angels at 87 wins, the A's at 80, and the Mariners at 75.
I'll be generous to the Angels and assume that Lackey makes the 25 starts he's predicted to. But, if we take Escobar out and replace him with Adenhart/Moseley, the Angels fall to about 85 wins.
The Mariners prediction seems low. PECOTA unjustifiably hates Ichiro. But, Ichiro doing his usual thing only brings them up to 79 wins. I still think that's a little low, but nothing about the projections seems totally out of whack, so I think it's fair to say this is a 79-84 win team.
So, let's look at these 80-win A's. Most of the projections look pretty reasonable. Adding Haren back to the team would add about 4 wins and adding Swisher back would add 3 or 4. So, if the A's hadn't gone into dump mode, it would be fair to project them as an 87 win team. They would be far from a lock to win the division, but there's an argument that they'd be the favorite. If they did make the playoffs, they'd most likely be the worst of the AL playoff teams, but Beane is a believer in the "crap shoot" theory regarding the postseason, so it seems they should have rolled the dice.

"That's a good name."
-Omar Minaya on newly released Claudio Vargas
It seems like I identify some crappy player the Mets should sign on a daily basis. For once, the Mets seem to share my interest. According to the Post, the Mets "will have a strong interest" in Claudio Vargas. He's nothing more than a 5th starter, but that's all the Mets need right now. If the team signs him, we'll be spared the sight of Mike Pelfrey every five days. Vargas is a flyball pitcher, which works well in expansive Shea and seems to be Omar's kind of thing.

Predictions
team wins for the season:
BOS 96
NYY 95
TAM 83
TOR 82
BAL 62
CLE 94
DET 93
CHW 75
KCR 73
MIN 70
LAA 87
SEA 82
OAK 78
TEX 71

NYM 94
PHI 89
ATL 86
WAS 72
FLO 70
CHC 90
MIL 89
CIN 82
HOU 75
STL 71
PIT 70
ARI 88
LAD 85
COL 85
SDP 80
SFG 63

Go to Sportsbook right now. Take the over on the Rays and the under on the Giants.

I'm still hoping Omar can somehow land a better right-handed outfielder, but MetsGeek makes the case for Reed Johnson.

Oh, there was some baseball played this morning. Congratulations to the Red Sox. Hooray baseball!

Are fans allowed to root against their teams in spring training? I think so.
I'm glad Pelfrey got lit up by the Cardinals yesterday. It seems that the Mets have finally realized that they have a hole at the fifth spot in the rotation. I still don't understand why Sosa doesn't seem to be under consideration.

Unrelated link - cool study at Met's Refugees showing that Randolph fails to properly take advantage of lefty/righty match-ups with his bullpen. Come on Willie, even Montgomary Burns knows it's what any good manager would do.

The Nationals released John Patterson yesterday. This seems to indicate that he isn't close to ready, but he's still an intriguing reclamation project. And Omar Minaya is the one who acquired Patterson for the Expo/National franchise in the first place, so this might be an option for the Mets.

Jim Leyland on "clubhouse chemistry":
"All that is so far overrated. The worst word ever used is 'chemistry.' That's something you take in school. That's a class you take."

From Jon Heyman:
"As Dylan Ratigan of CNBC pointed out, the Yankees paid more for Alex Rodriguez than JP Morgan paid for Bear Stearns."

The Goomzin Bros had company at all those Trashel games...

http://homerderby.com/archives/1997

5th Starter

It's been pretty obvious since El Duque's spring training arrival that he's on his last legs. I think signing Kyle Lohse for $4+ million would've been a nice way to at least guarantee mediocre performance out of the fifth spot in the rotation. Bartolo Colon would've been a nice (if unreliable) option. I'm not sure if there are any trade candidates out there, but the Brewers seem to have excess pitching and I'm sure the new Pirates GM would be happy to be rid of Matt Morris's salary (happy enough to throw in Xavier Nady?).

If no trade is made, the assumption is that Mike Pelfrey will be the 5th starter. Why? Mike Pelfrey has done nothing in his career to make us think he's ready to be a big league starter. I say send him down to New Orleans and see how he does for a couple months. If he's doing well, give him a shot in the majors. If he continues to struggle, maybe it's time to move him to the bullpen where his lack of secondary pitches will be less of a problem.
So, who am I proposing for fifth starter? Jorge Sosa.
2007 stats in games started:
Pelfrey, 13 GS, 5.58 ERA, 69.1 IP, 43K, 36 BB
Sosa, 14 GS, 4.59 ERA, 80.1 IP, 46 K, 29 BB

Sosa has a 4.55 ERA in 88 career starts. That's not wonderful, but it's acceptable for a fifth starter.

For those who disagree and are ready to start the "Big Pelf" era, go buy one of these shirts.

Top 10 Players the Mets Drafted, but Failed to Sign

Roger Clemens
Rafael Palmeiro
Matt Williams
John Olerud
John Wetteland
Darin Erstad
Todd Jones
Aaron Rowand
Garrett Atkins
Rick Helling

Former Mets Named Lenny

Somehow, I just noticed that Lenny Harris (the "greatest pinch hitter of all time") is the Nationals hitting coach.

There's an excellent piece in the New Yorker about Lenny Dykstra, who is planning on starting a magazine targeted towards athletes. I think it's a great idea; there must be a lot of companies selling silly expensive stuff who would love to place ads.

For the record, the Mets have only had two players named Lenny.

One of the more disturbing sentences you'll ever see:

KISSIMMEE, Fla. -- Houston Astros second baseman Kazuo Matsui will undergo surgery to repair an anal fissure on Monday in Houston.

In 1986, you didn't need to be a dominant championship team to record a terrible music video, here's the long-lost Baseball Boogie from a team that went on to lose 89 games:

Great article from ESPN about Tony Gwynn Jr. and Trevor Hoffman.

PECOTA projected standings are up.
Mets and Yankees are both projected for 96 wins, tied for the best in baseball. PECOTA has the Mets 10 games ahead of the second place Braves.

Other side of the aisle: Me and Pedro. New ish.

As much as I love the Johan trade, I'm still not convinced that the Mets are the best team in the NL. I mean, everyone after Johan is a question mark as I see it. Pedro and Duque are health risks, and Maine and Perez are always in danger of regressing. Delgado looked his age last year, although I don't know if it also had something to do with him having a kid for the first time (in my opinion, certain personal issues can have a positive/negative effect on a player). I know Castillo had surgery, and he doesn't have to play on the Minnesota turf anymore, so hopefully his knees hold up. Alou might have been our best player in the last 6 weeks (although that's not saying much) but he's going to be, what, 42?
My prohibitive NL favorite right now are the D'Backs. Their rotation is suspect after Webb/Haren, but that's a pretty damn good 1 & 2, and if Unit can give 200-225 IP and 10-12 wins, they should be sitting pretty. Their offense is young, but with the right mix of veterans. Right now I'm thinking 1. Arizona 2. Mets 3. Cubs 4. not sure, cuz there are alot of teams on the cusp like Milwaukee (love their offense), Philly (suspect rotation/best infield in majors), Colorado (I mean, they are the defending NL champs), LA, and SD (love their rotation, hate their offense).

One final piece of business:

The Mets roster seems to be pretty much finalized, but I think they need to make one small addition. As I pointed out back in December, Ryan Church and Carlos Delgado are both excellent candidates for a platoon. I realize that there may be some egos involved and that Church could probably use more time against southpaws to improve, but I still think it's worth having a righty bat on the bench who can fill in part time at both RF and 1B. My choice for the job is still Kevin Mench, who is still available and seems to be drawing little interest. But, it seems that the Mets are at least considering a decent alternative: Craig Wilson. Wilson performed poorly in limited action last season, but he has a strong track record against lefties, has played mostly RF & 1B during his career, and could probably serve as emergency catcher (his original position), allowing Castro to pinch hit more often.

Avg/OBP/Slg #s against lefties over the last three seasons:
Delgado .231/.309/.454
Church .259/.336/.406

Mench .305/.368/.558
Wilson .266/.368/.445

Johan!!!
"Wow" - every Mets fan, yesterday.

It's a fantastic trade that is receiving universal praise. I'm willing to forgive the other lousy moves Omar has made this offseason because this is much more important. He acquired the best pitcher in baseball: the leader in wins, ERA and strikeouts over the last four years. And he didn't have to give up the organization's best prospect to do so. Carlos Gomez and Deolis Guerra are both very nice prospects with a lot of upside, but they're not close to being in the elite category; I don't think either will rank in Baseball America's top 50 (which I think has been released to subscribers). Kevin Mulvey's upside is #3 starter, probably more of a #4. Philip Humber's a notch below that. This package is not as good as the DBacks' package for Haren, not nearly as good as the Mariners' rumored package for Bedard. More importantly, it's not nearly as good as the rumored offers from the Yankees and Red Sox, which apparently were off the table. Twins GM Bill Smith blew this situation big time. He should have taken one of the deals on the table back at the winter meetings. Instead, he held out and got burned. If this was all he could get, maybe he should've just kept Johan and hoped the Twins could contend in the ace's final season with the team. This was Smith's first big move as GM and it was a dud.

Minaya, on the other hand, deserves a lot of credit. Lots of Mets fans would've happily added Fernando Martinez to the offer. Minaya read the situation correctly and held firm.

Assuming the Mets finalize a deal by Friday (if they don't, it'll be the biggest PR disaster in team history), the Mets will be the clear favorite in the NL East and probably the best team in the league. They're a 95-win team in a division (league?) without any other clear 90-win teams.

What exactly is a top prospect?

With all the talk about whether the Mets should trade top prospects for Johan Santana, and with names like Cameron Maybin, Andrew Miller, Phil Hughes, Jon Lester, Jacoby Ellsbury, and Lastings Milledge in the news this offseason, it's worth thinking about how good we can expect top prospects to become. When prospects are mentioned, opinions vary from "we can't let this future hall-of-famer go" to "prospects are worthless until they actually produce." So, what's a prospect really worth? How likely is it that a top prospect actually becomes a top player? Here's my extremely unscientific study to try to quickly analyze the question:

Methodology: Baseball America is the preeminent publication when it comes to baseball prospects. Every year, they publish a list of the top 100 prospects in baseball. For this "study," I looked at the top 20 from every year of the 1990s to see how they turned out. Top 20 seemed like a pretty good compromise between sample size and not including mediocre prospects. 1990 is the oldest list on their website and including more recent lists would've resulted in players for whom it's a little too soon to say how their career turned out. For each of the 146 players in the sample (the reason there aren't 200 is that some players appeared in the top 20 multiple times), I rated their career by giving them a number between 1 and 4:
1 = Dud - never made it to the majors or played very briefly (i.e. Brien Taylor, Bill Pulsipher, Mark Lewis)
2 = Average - player was a regular in the majors for at least a couple years, but wasn't really above average (i.e. Wil Cordero, Ben McDonald, Arthur Rhodes)
3 = Good - either played very well for a brief period or was consistently above average for a decent number of years (i.e. Robin Ventura, John Olerud, Jason Schmidt)
4 = Star - a great player - not necessarily a Hall-of-Famer, but at least somewhat close (i.e. Bernie Williams, Mike Mussina at the low end)

I realize this seems extremely subjective, but it was a quick easy way for me to do it, and I don't think many of my rankings would cause much disagreement. All the "duds" are pretty clear cut, and I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with more than a few players in any of the categories.
Here's the breakdown of the 146 "top 20 prospects":
Duds - 40 (27%)
Regulars - 56 (38%)
Good Players - 30 (21%)
Stars - 20 (14%)

So, a little more than 1 in 4 of these prospects were total busts. More than 1 in 3 became above average players and more than 1 in 8 became stars. So, those prospects turned out pretty well.

It becomes more interesting if you separate the pitchers from the hitters. There are 56 pitchers and 90 hitters in the sample. Here are the percentage outcomes for each group:
Pitchers: 45% Duds, 38% Regulars, 11% Good Players, 7% Stars
Hitters: 17% Duds, 39% Regulars, 27% Good Players, 18% Stars

So, for pitchers, there's a 45% chance that the prospect (who was once considered on of the top 20 prospects in all of baseball) will be a total bust and only an 18% chance that the player will be at least "Good." For hitters, those percentages are reversed. Those trends are even more apparent if I just look at players ranked in BA's top 10. Among top 10 prospects, 41% of pitchers turn out to be duds, but only 10% of hitters; only 11% of pitchers make it to either "good" or "stars," while 53% of hitters do.
That's a pretty remarkable difference. I'm not going to try to elaborate too much on what this means, but I think this once again makes it clear that it's a lot easier to predict how hitters will develop than it is for pitchers. Beyond that, I don't think this is enough to draw any other major conclusions about how much a prospect is "worth".

Here's another interesting way to look at the relationship between top prospects and top players: in reverse. I decided to look at the top hitters and pitchers in baseball today and then check how they were regarded by BA when they were prospects. I chose 25 hitters and 20 pitchers, somewhat subjectively. I glanced at the VORP leaders for the last 2 years, but I don't have any specific numerical argument for why these guys make the cut and other players don't. I didn't include any Japanese players because they didn't come up through the minor leagues and I didn't include any players who are too old (Bonds, Smoltz) to have been ranked as prospects in the 90s.
14 of the 25 hitters had been in BA's top 20, 19 of the 25 were in the top 50, 23 in the top 100. The only "elite" hitters who never appeared on BA's lists are Matt Holliday and Jorge Posada.
For pitchers, there was much less of a connection between top prospect status and future stardom. 7 of the 20 pitchers had been in the top 20, 10 in the top 50, 12 in the top 100. 8 of the 20 pitchers were never ranked by BA: Johan Santana, Brandon Webb, John Lackey, Tim Hudson, Dan Haren, Aaron Harang, Mark Buehrle, and Chien-Ming Wang.

Super Joe has retired. Mourn appropriately.

STILLLLL....

http://umpbump.com/press/lima-time-set-to-hit-a-whole-new-world/

Surprise! The Yanks are a buncha crooks.

Okay, maybe just jerks.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/01/02/2008-01-02_taxpayers_will_fund_yankees_vip_parking_.html?print=1&page=all

Happy New Year!!! Here's a picture of assorted yankee despair which dates from, I think, their ALDS loss to the Angels in 2005.

Updated version of table from 2 days ago:

Castillo vs. Iguchi vs. Eckstein
EqA last 3 years:
2007 .260 .260 .267
2006 .253 .252 .246
2005 .280 .258 .268

Total value of contracts signed: $25mm $4mm $4.5mm
Minaya totally misread the market. Really bad job.
------------
In other news, the Twins read my post yesterday and immediately followed my recommendation that they sign Adam Everett. This makes the Delmon Young trade look better for them, as Everett will be an adequate replacement for Bartlett.

Interesting names on the non-tender list:

Mark Prior
Mark Hendrickson
Akinori Otsuka
Kiko Calero
Adam Everett
Morgan Ensberg
Kevin Mench
Emil Brown

Prior is the big name. Now all the real teams have to struggle with the dilemma that fantasy owners struggle with every year: how much are you willing to pay for the small chance that Prior can once again be an elite pitcher? Considering how tough it is to find pitching in the current market, I think the longshot is worth something.

Mark Hendrickson might be a nice addition to a bullpen. In 41 relief innings last year, he had a 3.69 ERA with 41 Ks and 10 BBs.

I'm not sure how bad Akinori Otsuka's health situation is, but his track record means that he's worth doing some due diligence on.

Kiko Calero is a poor man's Otsuka.

Adam Everett is a replacement-level hitter, but he's the best fielder in baseball, about 25-30 runs above average with the glove. I think he's the most surprising name on the list; I guess the Astros didn't have much time to move him after acquiring Tejada yesterday. The O's need a shortstop, so I don't see why they couldn't include him in the deal. Everett would also be a
significant upgrade for the Twins, Nationals, A's, and Cardinals (if they don't resign Eckstein).

Some or all of Ensberg, Mench, and Brown might find a full-time job somewhere, but if not, they'd be great additions for a team that needs a platoon mate for a lefty 1B or corner outfielder. For instance, a certain New York team that happens to be my favorite squadron. Approximately 40% of the starting pitchers in the NL East this year will be southpaws. Here are avg/obp/slg #s against lefties over the last three seasons:

Ensberg .270/.409/.541
Mench .305/.368/.558
Brown .289/.353/.488

Delgado .231/.309/.454
Church .259/.336/.406

Castillo vs. Iguchi
EqA last 3 years:
2007 .260 .260
2006 .253 .252
2005 .280 .258

Virtually identical offensive performance the last 2 years. Castillo was better three seasons ago, but does that justify the difference between a $4 million contract and a $25 million contract?

I agree on the Dontrelle point, but from what I heard, they had to take him if they wanted Miggy. While they might be better off keeping him, they could just as easily turn around and trade him to restock their system.

To also compare, Miguel vs. A-Rod (first 4 full seasons):
AB: 2380 vs. 2376
R: 410 vs. 474
H: 758 vs. 747
HR: 126 vs. 143
RBI: 461 vs. 442
BA: .318 vs. .314
TB: 1307 vs. 1348


Freaky.

Miguel Cabrera has had four full seasons in the majors. For the last three, he's been one of the best hitters in baseball. He has a VORP of 219 during that span, ranking behind only Pujols, Alex Rodriguez, and David Ortiz. He's still only 24. According to Baseball-Reference, the most similiar player to Cabrera through the age of 24 is Hank Aaron. In other words, the Detroit Tigers got a hell of a hitter. Great trade for the Tigers. The battle is on in the AL.

Other thoughts on the trade:
-Seems like a pretty big waste for Dontrelle to go to the AL. He's one of the best hitting pitchers in baseball, worth about a win a year with the bat.

-Now there's even more reason for the Twins to trade Johan (or sign him to an extension). The Twins are now pretty far behind two AL Central teams. There's not much reason for them to believe they can win this year.

-According to the Palm Beach Post, "reliever Kevin Gregg, who could make $2.5 million in arbitration this winter, stands to become the Marlins' highest-paid player."

-Since I'm pretty anti-Minaya these days, I'll point out that Cameron Maybin was taken 10th in the 2005 draft. That's one pick after the Mets took Mike Pelfrey. Maybin is the kind of prospect that can be used to get someone like Johan or Bedard in return, the kind of prospect the Mets don't have. Jay Bruce was taken 12th and was recently named the #1 prospect in baseball. Great job, Omar.
It's a little early to evaluate, but the early part of that 2005 first round looks like quite a crop. The first nine hitters taken were Justin Upton, Alex Gordon, Jeff Clement, Ryan Zimmerman, Ryan Braun, Troy Tulowitzki, Cameron Maybin, Andrew McCutchen, and Jay Bruce. With the possible exception of Clement and McCutchen, those guys are all generally considered future all-stars. Unfortunately for the Mets, Jays, and Rays, the three pitchers taken in the top 12 spots don't seem to be amounting to nearly as much. The only pitchers in the first round who are still top prospects are Matt Garza (25th pick) and Clay Buchholz (supplemental round, 42nd overall). Great draft for the Red Sox, who also came away with the only other hitter taken in the first round who is currently a top prospect: Jacoby Ellsbury (#23).

Most of the stuff I've read about the Delmon Young trade indicates that a lot of people believe he'll be a superstar one day. That's understandable, he's a very young player who's already performed decently at the major league level. There's another young corner outfielder who's performed about as well, but doesn't seem to be held in the same regard. Lastings Milledge is only 5 months older than Delmon Young. He was taken eleven picks after Young in the 2003 draft. They're both athletically gifted corner outfielders. They both face accusations of having bad attidudes. Ignoring durability, Milledge has performed better over the last 2 years.

For 2006, here are their avg/obp/slg/ops in AAA:
Milledge: .277/.388/.440/.828
D.Young: .316/.341/.474/.815

For 2007, here are the same in the majors:
Milledge: .272/.341/.446/.787
D.Young: .288/.316/.408/.724

Milledge outperformed Young in 2004, too. A lot of the hype for Young is due to his impressive AA performance in 2005, but for players this young, a lot more weight needs to be given to recent performance. I realize durability is an issue. I know that scouts see a little more projectability in Young. Regardless, I think the only reasonable conclusion is one of the following:
(a) Delmon Young is overrated
(b) Lastings Milledge is underrated
(c) all of the above

I'll offer some thoughts to Brad's post below before focusing on the trade that the Twins actually made yesterday. I don't think the Johan question is a simple yes or no. Should the Mets trade Jose Reyes for him? No. If they could simply part with Carlos Gomez and Mike Pelfrey, then the answer would be yes. I'm glad the Mets are at least in the hunt, but in the end, the Red Sox and Yankees are better matches for the Twins. Now that the Twins have Delmon Young, they probably want a young pitcher to be the focus of the Johan trade. The Mets' best prospects are outfielders; the organization doesn't have any pitchers that come close to Joba, Hughes, Buchholz, or Lester.
In the end, Haren may wind up being a better option. Johan is the best pitcher in baseball, but Haren is a pretty damn good pitcher himself. The difference between the two is probably about 1.5-2 wins per season. Rumor is that Johan is going to demand a contract extension in the neighborhood of $120-150 million for 6 years. On the other hand, Haren is already under contract for three more seasons at a very affordable price. If the Mets make a move for Haren, they'd still have the money to make a run at any free agents that hit the market next year. Sabathia? Sheets? Mark (not a pitcher) Teixeira?
Hard to tell what it'll take to get Haren because unlike the Twins, the A's aren't in a position where they have to trade him. So, it might not be easy to pull off a deal. Maybe something like Milledge, Heilman, Mulvey? I'm not sure that'll get it done, might have to include two of the three young outfielders.

It seems like most trade rumors these days involve situations like Johan and Miguel Cabrera where a team can no longer afford its superstar, so they trade them to a team in NY, LA, Boston, or Chicago. Fun for the sports talk radio stations in those cities, but kind of depressing for the fans of half the teams in the league. So, it's exciting to see a big trade that has nothing to do with money - two small-market teams trading top young players for each other. Delmon Young, Brendan Harris and Jason Pridie for Matt Garza, Jason Bartlett and Eduardo Morlan. Delmon Young for Matt Garza is the big story. They're both very talented young players, but Young is superior. Both Baseball Prospectus and Baseball America ranked Young as the #3 prospect in baseball last year. They disagreed a little bit more on Garza; BP ranked him #13 while BA ranked him #21. Both players were a bit disappointing this year, but are still among the top young players in baseball.
It's a ballsy trade for the Devil Rays. There's a decent chance Young develops into a true superstar and winds up in Cooperstown. In that case, the deal will wind up looking pretty bad for Tampa. Young is indeed quite young. Few players play full seasons in the majors at the age of 21, but he still has some serious holes in his game. His terrible plate discipline was the cause of his below average performance at the plate. He has a strong arm, but is not a very good fielder. A lot of people have compared him to Sammy Sosa, which may excite Twins fans until they realize that if he follows Sosa's career path, he'll already have left via free agency before hitting his prime.
Garza, on the other hand, doesn't have future superstar written all over him, but seems a good bet to be a solid major league pitcher. He'll probably be a #3 starter, maybe a #2. The Devil Rays had two very good starting pitchers last year and a bunch of horrible ones who cycled through the last three spots. They have some good prospects on the way, but Garza can step into the #3 spot in the rotation right now.
The swap of Harris for Bartlett will help the Rays' defense tremendously. Harris had a very nice season at the plate, but he's not really cut out for shortstop. The Devil Rays don't have anywhere else to put him in the infield. Their defense was bad in general, so adding a strong defensive shortstop will help the young pitching staff a lot. All the leading defensive metrics rank Bartlett as one of the best in the league. He's probably an upgrade of at least 2 wins defensively over Harris. He might give one of those wins back at the plate, but Bartlett has been pretty solid (for a SS) with the bat the last 2 years.
So, I think this trade makes sense for both teams. The Twins are on the verge of trading Johan (and possibly Nathan) for prospects, giving up on 2008 for a chance to be a contender in the future, possibly as soon as 2009. I have some doubts about Young, but he has the chance to be a superstar, so it's a good roll of the dice for the Twins, who will probably be able to stock up on young arms to replace Garza.
The Devil Rays have a lot of young outfield talent. They need another good young pitcher and a strong defensive shortstop. Also, Morlan has a chance to be a very good relief pitcher in about a year. The Devil Rays will almost definitely be a better team this year because of the trade. If they played in the NL Central, they'd be a contender. Unfortunately, they play in the AL East, where they're still lightyears behind the Yankees and Red Sox. Some will argue that the Devil Rays shouldn't be worried about the difference between being a 70 win team and an 80 win team, but for a team that has never won more than 70 games and is looking to build a new stadium, I think there's something to be said for fielding a .500 team. Three cheers for mediocrity!

Johan: Yes or No?

Frankly, I don't think they should go after him. I'm not denying he's one of, if not the, best pitcher in baseball. But I think it would be a panic move by Minaya to trade away the farm (literally). I'd rather they made a play for Haren and/or Blanton, and sign Livan to a 1-year deal. It's unlikely they would have to give up as much, not to mention it would be much cheaper. I'm just concerned that Omar is going to do something rash when it's not necessary. Like you said Ryan, they only had 2 less wins than the best team in the NL last year. They need tweaking, not an overhaul.

"Go to Arizona for Thanksgiving and you miss 5-year, $90 million contracts handed out to Torii Hunter."

That was the subject of an email I received today. I had the same reaction when I saw the news. 5 years, $18 million a year for a pretty good 32 year old centerfielder? Hunter was once an elite defensive player, but all the metrics I've looked at indicate he's declined to merely above average. He's a good, not great, hitter. He's not particularly durable. To top things off, the Angels already have a pretty crowded outfield situation. It certainly seems like a lot of money for Torii Hunter.

But what if $18 million isn't $18 million? This is always hard to predict, but I think there may be some serious salary inflation in the next few years. Salaries have stagnated the last few years while overall MLB revenues have been increasing dramatically. According to a recent article by Jeff Passan, player salaries as a percentage of revenue have fallen from 56% in 2001 to 49% in 2005 to about 41% in 2007. Of course, it may be that owners have finally smartened up and are hoarding their money. A lot of the new revenue is from sources that are split evenly amongst all the teams (i.e. mlb.com, national television contract), so there's less incentive to actually field a good team; why try to draw fans to the stadium when you're getting a fat check courtesy of mlb.com no matter what? On the other hand, this is the second straight weak free agent class, so it may just be a case where a lot of teams are sitting on cash, but haven't had anything tempting to spend it on. If bigger names hit the market over the next couple years, salaries may finally start catching up to revenues. So, $18 million a year may not look so crazy by the end of the 5 year contract.

Despite everything written above, I reserve the right to complain about the size of any future contracts entered into by the Mets.

In Omar We Trust?
While the hot stove is heating up, let's take a look back to the moves made by Minaya this time last year. The '06-'07 offseason was a pretty mild one for the Mets. There were no flashy signings like Pedro and Beltran. The only big free agent addition was Moises Alou. The rest of the moves were made to fill out the last few spots on the roster. There were a few cheap useful pickups, like Damion Easley and Jorge Sosa. There was $10.8 million wasted on Scott Schoeneweis, which looked like a stupid move at the time and looks like a stupid move now.

And there were three trades, all of which look terrible now:
- Traded Henry Owens and Matt Lindstrom to the Florida Marlins for Jason Vargas and
Adam Bostick.
- Traded Heath Bell and Royce Ring to the San Diego Padres for Jon Adkins and Ben
Johnson.
-Traded Brian Bannister to the Kansas City Royals for Ambiorix Burgos.

Here are the 2007 stats for those players (except for the ones who didn't play in the majors):

players traded away:
Bell 93.7 IP, 2.02 ERA, 102/30 K/BB
Lindstrom 67, 3.09, 62/21
Bannister 165, 3.87, 77/44
Owens 23, 1.96, 16/10
Ring 20, 2.70, 21/17

players received:
Burgos 23.7, 3.42, 19/9
Vargas 10.3, 12.19, 4/2
Ben Johnson 27 AB, .185/.233/.222

In other words, the Mets got pretty much nothing out of any of the players they acquired. The pitchers they traded away combined to pitch 368.7 innings with an ERA of 3.08. Considering that the Mets bullpen had a complete meltdown in September, it's pretty sad to see that some of the relievers they traded had such good seasons. Heath Bell turned into an upper echelon setup man in San Diego. Lindstrom had a solid season with the Marlins. He had a particularly impressive second half, posting a 2.35 ERA with a 31/8 strikeout to walk ratio. The bullpen is a weakness right now; it would be a strength if we were going into '08 with Wagner/Bell/Heilman/Feliciano/Lindstrom.

And while a series of #5 starters (Mike Pelfrey, Brian Lawrence, Jason Vargas, Chan Ho Park, Dave Williams, and Phil Humber) combined to put up a 7.43 ERA over 24 starts, Brian Bannister was having a solid, if unspectacular, season in the Royals' rotation.

Minaya's done a pretty good job over the last three years, but he had a pretty horrendous offseason last year.

Glavine's gone.
Good riddance. Seriously, has it really been 5 years? It still seems like he's really a Brave. He's still serviceable and he signed on the cheap, so it's a decent move for Atlanta, but I'll take the draft picks and look forward to beating him next season. The Mets will probably have two first round picks this year; they haven't had one since 2005. So, the team will have a chance to restock the farm system after we trade everyone for Johan.

Now that Glavine's gone, Jose Reyes is the Met with the longest tenure. He played his first game on June 10, 2003 against the Rangers in Texas. Here's the lineup from that game:

Roger Cedeno RF
Timo Perez LF
Roberto Alomar 2B
Cliff Floyd DH
Jeromy Burnitz CF
Ty Wigginton 3B
Jason Phillips 1B
Vance Wilson C
Jose Jose Jose SS
(Steve Trachsel P)

Wow, that team looks terrible. Maybe it wasn't all Art Howe's fault. And almost everyone in tha mid-2003 lineup is a distant memory. Other then Floyd and Trachsel, none of them made it to 2005.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Sometimes it's hard for Mets fans to be positive, but today is a day to be thankful. Therefore, I present 10 things that all Mets fans should be thankful for:

1. Two of the best young players in baseball and the financial resources to keep them. Wright and Reyes are both incredibly special players. A month ago, Nate Silver presented an "off-the-cuff" list of the top 20 players in baseball in terms of value over the next 6 years. The Mets had two players in the top 10. Surprisingly, two other teams had a pair of players in the top 10, but both those teams (the Twins and Marlins) are considering trading one of their stars because they won't be able to afford the future high salaries.

2. Carlos Beltran. It's a little too easy to forget about him, but Beltran is arguably the best centerfielder in baseball. He's only 30 years old, so he should continue to be part of a great nucleus with Wright and Reyes.

3. Pedro. OK, Pedro's not what he once was and his health is a big concern. But, he pitched very well (2.57 ERA, 32K, 7 BB, 28 IP) when he finally returned last year. Any pitcher who can still strike out a batter an inning can still be an ace (as long as he stays healthy).

4. En-dy Cha-vez! (clap, clap, clap clap clap) En-dy Cha-vez!

5. Money, money, money, money, money. The Mets are one of the richest franchises in baseball. With a new regional sports network in place and a new stadium on the way, their revenues will be rising significantly. There should always be a healthy amount of resources to fill any gaps in the team.

6. 2007 ended horribly, but the Mets only had two less wins than the best team in the NL. So, even if they don't make any huge acquisitions during the offseason, there's reason to believe that the Mets will be one of the best teams in the league next year.

7. There's at least some small chance that the Mets will acquire Johan Santana or Dan Haren.

8. Cowbell Man, Lazy Mary, and "everybody clap your hands!"

9. Ramon Castro had a higher slugging percentage than Vladimir Guerrero, Adam Dunn, and Manny Ramirez.

10. Al Harazin and Dallas Green are nowhere near Shea.

OK, the blog hasn't been updated in 4 months. My girlfriend is 2/3 of the way through blogging every day of National Blog Posting Month, so I'll join her for the final 10 days with daily thoughts on baseball. I'll do a little more substance on the Mets in the next few days. For now, here are brief thoughts on recent baseball news:

1. Jimmy Rollins won the NL MVP award. There were a lot of candidates this year and nobody was clearly deserving, so I won't get too worked up about it. But, I think David Wright and Matt Holliday were more deserving.

2. Troy Tulowitzki deserved the Rookie of the Year award, not Ryan Braun. This is a rare case where defense completely made up for Bruan's 15-20 run advantage (according to RARP and VORP) on offense. Tulowitzki was probably the best defensive shortstop in the NL this year and Braun was the worst defensive third baseman. According to both the Fielding Bible's system and PMR, the difference between the two players was 76-78 plays (vs. league average at their respective positions). So, if you fully believe in either of those stats, that's about a 60 run(!) difference on defense. I'll also note that most visual observers agree that Tulo is exceptional and Braun is horrible and that Braun's manager usually removes him for a defensive replacement.

3. Everyone else (A-Rod, Peavy, Sabathia, Pedroia) clearly deserved their awards.

4. Angels traded O.C. for Garland. Interesting trade; one slightly overrated veteran on the last year of his contract for another. I think the White Sox would've been better off trading Garland for some young talent that they could build around, but I guess Kenny Williams (incorrectly) thinks the team can win in 2008. It's a little harder to evaluate the trade from the Angels' perspective until we see what other moves they make. They have a lot of young infield talent, so I guess it's time to give someone new a shot.

5. After the recent success of Saito and Okajima, it seems like a lot of teams are looking at Japanese relief pitchers this offseason. The Indians are the first to make a move, signing Masahide Kobayashi to a 2 year contract. PECOTA projects him to eat a lot of hot dogs.

Okay, so this hasn't been mentioned yet - why Rickey? Not exactly the first guy I would think of as a coach. Am I the only one who could see him and Willie clashing?

Also, as great a job as Omar did last year, I think it's safe to say he did very poorly this year, highlighted by the Schoenweis signing. I see no reason why they couldn't have given Bradford that money instead.

Well, looks like the Mets went with a low risk, low reward guy with their first pick at 42: Eddie Kunz, a big righty closer out of Oregon State. I guess with the success of Joe Smith, Omar likes the idea of getting some immediate bullpen help, as opposed to a long shot. I don't know if that's so wise - they can pick up a decent reliever for a few million dollars a year, but if they didn't like any of the big talents (Matt Harvey?), this pick sort of makes sense. Here's what was said on the Prospectus chat:

Kevin Goldstein: He's built kinda like Lee Smith, and throws as hard, but needs secondary stuff -- almost a reach here, really.

BSmith: He probably doesn't fit [in the rotation], but his big-time fastball will fit in the Mets bullpen by next season. Solid, unspectacular pick.

In other news, the Yankees went in the opposite direction, taking a high risk, high reward guy in Andrew Brackman, a 6-10 righty who ranked as a top 5 pick just a month ago, but fell due to injury/inactivity/Boras concerns.

I know this is a baseball blog and that I don't know shit about basketball, but I had to call attention to this absurd column in today's Times. William Rhoden suggests that in an effort to make the Knicks more competitive, David Stern should allow the Knicks to dump four bad contracts and move under the salary cap. His argument is that the success of a big-market team like the Knicks is too important to the NBA to have them continue to be burdened by their own bad decisions. I don't think he's going far enough. Why should any of the league rules get in the way of a Knicks championship? Why should Portland have the first pick in the draft? Give it to New York. Heck, why should the NBA's biggest star be stuck in small market Cleveland? Put him on the Knicks! Stern should just mandate that the Cavs trade LeBron for, um, Steve Francis.

In the Northeast and Midwest, a four-day difference in Autumn can indeed mean a major difference in the weather. One of these years, the World Series will be played in Boston, New York, Cleveland, Chicago, Minnesota (after their new open-air stadium opens) and be struck by a freak snowstorm or heavy rains causing massive delays like what happened in Cleveland this year in early April.

Obviously, poor weather occurs in late October as well, but pushing the Fall Classic into November only increases the possibility of poor weather delaying the Classic's finish and ensures that even without snow or rain, fans who attened will be uncomfortable, particularly those with children.

Now, there is always a dither and dather that these kinds of moves are made for the ratings. Well, football gets big ratings for a lot of reasons other than the start times of its games, however, it is worth noting that the AFC Championship, NFC Championship and Super Bowl are all played in the early or late afternoon and garner monster ratings. In fact the one area where the NFL has been hurt in recent years, ratings wise, is Monday Night Football, which is the football telecast that starts the latest 9:15 EST.

And slightly off-topic, the NBA Finals generally out-drew the World Series, tv ratings-wise, during the Jordan era, the NBA fell behind, but not by very much, in the early 2000's during the Lakers run, beginning with the lowest-rated NBA Finals since the 70's, Spurs-Nets in 2003, the NBA Finals fell far behind the World Series, save for a brief bump with a Lakers appearance in the 04 Finals.

And finally, if ratings for the World Series continue to stay flat or trend downward (which they are), why not try a Sunday World Series start at 6 instead of 8:30, particularly if West Coast teams aren't involved?

That might be the most bizarro Mets lineup I've seen in a long time. Newhan at 2B? Franco at 3B? What's next, LoDuca in CF?

The World Series is starting on a Wednesday and finishing in November.
This doesn't sound like such big news, but I think there could be a bigger story lurking in the background. All the media coverage seems to be focusing on the Wednesday start (good for baseball - ratings will increase), the November finish (bad, but is four days really that big a difference?) and to a lesser extent, the extra days rest in the earlier rounds.

The extra rest is a little troubling to me, but maybe it won't be permanent. Pushing the World Series back four days gives MLB enough room to expand the first round of the playoffs to 7 games. My hunch is that after a test run this offseason, MLB will talk to the union about expanding to 7 games next season. The schedule would work perfectly. All series would be 2-3-2 with days off after games 2 & 5. The two leagues could stagger their starts and still wind up with at least two games off before the World Series.

I think a switch to 7 games makes all the sense in the world. Obviously, God didn't divine that 7 is the perfect amount of games to deterine which team is superior, but it's clear that more games = less random. And I don't see any reason to make the first round outcome more random than the later rounds.

In honor of the Mets big weekend series against the Brew Crew, I present:

Pee Your Pants For The Brewers.com

Excellent article by Jeff Passan (who's an excellent writer) about Mike Marshall and his wacky pitching techniques. I understand why the baseball establishment is so skeptical about Marshall, but every time I read about him, I can't help but think that some team could gain by giving Marshall a few minor leaguers to work with. I can see why a team wouldn't trust him with their top prospects, but what would a team have to lose by sending a few C type prospects to work with? Just a few C type prospects.

Rickey going for his. Take THAT, little kid:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2865084

Frickin Giuliani!
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0719,barrett,76566,2.html/1

He has his own 1996 World Series ring!

And the old Mets are falling apart....

El Duque on the shelf for bursitis, and Valentin for a partially torn ACL.

Now they called up Park and Gotay, but why not Sosa and Anderson Hernandez? Seems odd to me.

I read the same exact thing today, and I noticed that they include $25 (!) for parking, and something like $75 for food (4 hot dogs, 4 sodas, cotton candy, popcorn, candy).

Every year, some organization called the Team Marketing Report publishes something
called the Fan Cost Index, which supposedly estimates the cost for a family of four
to attend a major league baseball game. Then, various media outlets will report that
it's way too expensive to attend a baseball game. I've always thought the Index was
ridiculous (it includes the cost of two programs and two caps), but I'd never
actually attended a game with two children in tow, so my factual evidence was
limited. Well, this past weekend, I finally attended a game with two children and
another adult, which meets the FCI definition of "family." According to the FCI, it
should have cost us $219.04 to attend the game. What did we actually spend? Upper
Deck seats (section 28, row A) were $9 each. That's $36. We took the subway to the
game, costing us $10 for 3 (one of the kids was young enough to ride for free)
roundtrip swipes of the Metrocard. $46. We brought lunch to the game, so our stadium
purchases were limited to cotton candy ($4) and a Sierra Mist ($3.50). $52.50. I'm
not sure exactly how much the food we brought cost. Bread + cold cuts + pringles +
carrot sticks + water bottles = $15? That puts us at a total of $67.50. In case I'm
underestimating the food, I'll call it $70. That's a far cry from $219. Sure, some
families probably do spend $219 to attend a Mets game, but I can finally say from
personal experience that you don't have to. $70 for a family of four to enjoy a
beautiful day at the ballpark sounds like a bargain to me.

Why is Mike Pelfrey in the majors?

After today's debacle, Mike Pelfrey has a career 6.43 ERA with 19 walks and 19 strikeouts in 35 innings. He has a bad ERA, a bad strikeout rate, and a bad walk rate. I know it's a small sample size, but there's nothing in his line to indicate that he's ready to pitch against major league hitters. Heck, his spring training stats were almost as bad: 5.48 ERA with 3 walks and 5 Ks in 23 innings. I think the Mets gave him a starting spot because of the low ERA he had after his first few spring starts, but they ignored the amazingly low strikeout rate, which was a clear sign that Pelfrey just isn't able to get his stuff past major league hitters yet.
Pelfrey has about 100 career minor league innings. It's pretty clear that he needs a little more seasoning before he's ready. I think Pelfrey would be better served by getting that seasoning in New Orleans, and I think the Mets would be better served by not giving away every fifth game. Jorge Sosa has been lighting up AAA so far and has a career 4.54 ERA in 74 major league starts. Pelfrey's still the long-term solution, but Sosa (or Vargas or Park) will give the Mets a better chance to win right now.

Umm, is Charlie Manuel just trying to get fired now? Moving Brett Myers to the bullpen? Are you kidding? And now Howard may be hurt too. All signs point to them being screwed.

Words from Ichiro

On his showdown with Dice-K: " "I hope he arouses the fire that's dormant in the innermost recesses of my soul."

On what helped break him out of his slump: "Yesterday, I ate two ice creams, usually I only eat one."

Fantasy draft season got me thinking about how unpredictable prospects can be, which got me to thinking about the most out-of-nowhere prospect in recent history: Albert Pujols. Pujols seemingly came out of nowhere in 2001, eventually finishing 4th in the MVP voting. I don't remember thinking about him at all before the season started. He went undrafted in my 7 team NL fantasy league, which means that 210 NL players were deemed better options than Albert Pujols.

My friends and I weren't the only ones who slept on Pujols. The Cardinals drafted him in the 13th round in 1999. He made his pro debut in 2000, enjoying an excellent year in A ball with a line of .324/.389/.585. Still, none of the experts ranked him as an elite prospect. Baseball America is the leading source on baseball prospects. Three of their experts wrote separate prospect lists in BA's 2001 book. The highest ranking for Pujols was #39. Baseball Prospectus ranked him 29th (right behind Hee Seop Choi, just ahead of Adrian Gonzalez), but part of the reason he was even that high was his excellent defensive performance according to their metrics (I'm pretty skeptical about their minor league defensive figures). John Sickels was the most impressed, giving him an A- and rating him as the Number 18 prospect in baseball (right behind Marcus Giles).
I realize that ranking prospects is a difficult task, but it's still hard to believe that none of the experts realized how good he was about to be.

It's official - Our 2007 Mets:

Tom Glavine
Orlando Hernandez
John Maine
Oliver Perez
Billy Wagner
Aaron Heilman
Scott Schoeneweis
Pedro Feliciano
Aaron Sele
Joe Smith
Ambiorix Burgos

Paul Lo Duca
Ramon Castro

Carlos Delgado
Jose Valentin
Jose Reyes
David Wright
Julio Franco
Damion Easley
David Newhan

Carlos Beltran
Moises Alou
Shawn Green
Endy Chavez
Lastings Milledge

Rey Ordonez back in the majors!

Well-written piece by Joe Sheehan taking to task all the people complaining that the Veterans Committee didn't elect anyone to the Hall. I think we're better off having a Veterans Committee that lets in too few people than too many (which used to be a problem), and Sheehan's right that if a player from the modern era has already been rejected 15 times by the writers, then there's limited utility in giving them more chances. So, kudos to the Veterans Committee for keeping the standards high, but maybe it's time to disband altogether.

Interesting study on batted ball splits.

I don't question Willie sending Floyd up to hit, I only question the fact that he sent Floyd up there. Dude was hurt and hadn't played in a few days. They could have sent Franco up there, right?

Now, even Cliff Floyd is questioning whether he should've been used as the pinch hitter in the bottom of the ninth against the Cardinals.

Here's an interesting article from the WSJ that was published in October, but read by me today. Basically, the article concludes that after looking at all the numbers, from a statistical perspective, the decision whether to bunt was a tossup.

I've thought all along that it was defensible. Looking back on that inning now, it's easy to focus on the nasty curveballs that struck out Floyd and Beltran. But, at the moment Willie made his decision, the Mets had just hit two straight singles (their only hits since the first inning!) off Wainwright. I think it's understandable for Willie to decide not to give the rookie a free out and a chance to calm down. Willie felt that momentum was on our side, and to be honest, standing in the upper deck, I was feeling the same thing. In fact, I went as far as to dream of Cliff Floyd pulling a Kirk Gibson and launching a homerun over the right field wall. Heck, part of me was dreaming of him pulling a Tommie Agee and launching that homerun into the right field upper deck, where I was standing just fair of the foul pole.

Sadly, it didn't happen. I'm not going to criticize Willie's decision, but I'm not going to criticize Floyd's comments. They show that he's still thinking about that inning. That's understandable. I am, too.

On the heels of the tragic A-Rod and Jeter breakup, it's nice to see new teammates forming a special bond.

Ugh. According to this article, Shawn Green had (by far) the worst RF arm in baseball last year. Apparently, Moises was almost as bad, so switching their positions won't help. I guess this is just another reason (mediocre offense, ugly looking D in the playoffs) to hope that Endy and Ben Johnson see some time out in right, and that Milledge is ready to take over sometime this year.

Mets sign Chan Ho for $3 million.

It's hard to get excited about a pitcher who's been below average for the last five years, but it can't hurt to have a little more starting pitching depth, particularly now that Dave Williams won't be ready to start the season. So, now the fifth starter spot comes down to Park, Sosa, Pelfrey, Humber, Vargas, Soler, and Sele. [EDIT - The AP is reporting that the deal is only for $600k guaranteed, with incentives based on innings that can push it up to $3 million. If that's accurate, I like the deal. Very low risk.]

Here are the PECOTA projected EqERAs (ERA normalized to a neutral ballpark):
Pelfrey 4.78
Sosa 4.95*
Soler 5.12
Park 5.18
Sele 5.20
Humber 5.27
Vargas 5.71
*-Sosa's projected as more of a reliever, so his EqERA as a starter would be worse.

That doesn't tell us much that we don't already know. If Pelfrey is deemed ready, he's probably the best option, but it probably makes sense to at least wait until May for the warmer weather and more regular use of the 5th starter. Everyone else is pretty close, other than Jason Vargas.

Random Notes
Martinez vs. Tabata: John Sickels with the smackdown between top Mets and Yankees OF prospects.

David Wright dines with W.

Vinny Bombs retires.

J.D. Drew uses hyperbaric oxygen chamber.

Ichiro's a FA after 2007? Is it too much to dream of Ichiro in right? I'm picturing Reyes, Ichiro, Beltran, Delgado, and Wright at the top of the order. *drooling*

Boomer?
All along, I've read that David Wells will only sign with a West Coast team (presumably the Padres), but this article indicates that he'd be willing to go to Toronto. How 'bout the Mets? He's a better option than Jorge Sosa.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sign of the apocalypse: Todd Pratt signs minor league deal with the Yankees.

Which one of these is not like the others?
Career ERA Leaders Among Active Pitchers (1000 inning min.)
1. Pedro Martinez
2. Roy Oswalt
3. Greg Maddux
4. Roger Clemens
5. Johan Santana
6. Randy Johnson
7. John Smoltz
8. Kevin Brown
9. Roberto Hernandez
10. Curt Schilling

$10.8 million for Scott Schoeneweis? Scott Schoeneweis? The same Scott Schoeneweis who had a 4.88 ERA last year, with a 29:24 K:BB ratio? Sure, he can get lefties out, but so can Feliciano. Heck, once Mota is back from his suspension, will Schoeneweis even belong on the roster? Wagner, Heilman, Sanchez, Mota, Feliciano, and Burgos are all probably more deserving of a roster spot. And, worst of all, we could have just kept Bradford for the same price. A lot of Omar's minor moves have worked out quite well, so maybe he deserves the benefit of doubt, but this seems like a huge waste of money. If Feliciano is about to be traded, then I understand the deal, but otherwise, I'm a bit puzzled.

Other news:
-John Thomson didn't come to the Mets because he hates Paul Lo Duca.

-The Reds acquired Jeff Keppinger.

-Barry Bonds took amphetamines.

Yeah, Arizona's rotation should be pretty decent next year, with Webb and Johnson 1-2, not to mention Livan 3 and Doug Davis 4. Granted those two aren't what they used to be, but Livan can eat up some major innings, and Davis isn't too shabby for a #4.

That Zito signing was so ridiculous; it threw the whole market out of whack. Like they're saying, if Zito got $18 mil annually, what will Johan get, $25 mil? I mean, if you were the Mets, would you shell out 7 yr-$175 mil for him?

I agree about the Milledge-Blanton deal too. I'm not really sold on him, not to mention he's a nut, but I think they could do better than Blanton for him. I mean, I don't know who else will be on the market come July, but there will probably be someone better than Blanton.

The FAN is reporting that the rumored Randy Johnson trade is a done deal. Johnson to the DBacks for Luis Vizcaino and three prospects (the Yanks are adding a lot of minor league arms this offseason).
Unless they're extremely confident they can sign Clemens, the apparent desperation to dump the Big Unit is a mistake. Even at the age of 42, Johnson made 33 starts last year with a K:BB ratio of 172:60. Sure, his ERA was 5.00, but
this post by Nate Silver indicates that was largely due to bad luck. Before the trade, PECOTA projected Johnson to be the Yankees' ace in 2007.

In return, the Yanks are receiving a pretty good reliever and some mediocre prospects. The three prospects were ranked as the 18th, 19th, and 20th best prospects in the DBacks system by John Sickels, all receiving a C+. No list I've seen ranks them in the top 10. Here's the relevant excerpt from Sickels:

18. Alberto Gonzalez, SS, C+ (good glove)
19. Steven Jackson, RHP, C+ (excellent season in Double-A following mechanical rebuild)
20. Ross Ohlendorf, RHP, C+ (sleeper who throws strikes)

The DBacks, on the other hand, with a 1-2 of Webb and Johnson have greatly improved their odds in the wide open NL West.

Time to panic?
I'm glad the Mets didn't spend $126 million on Barry Zito. Barry Zito is not a dominant enough pitcher to justify that kind of salary. But, missing out on Zito at this late stage in the game leaves the Mets with a gaping hole in their rotation. Current candidates for the #5 spot include Dave Williams, Jason Vargas, Alay Soler, Mike Pelfrey, and Philip Humber. Pelfrey and Humber are both excellent prospects, but it doesn't seem that either is ready to make the jump to the majors on Opening Day. None of the other three guys have anything in their track record to instill any sense of confidence that they can handle the job. Also, there are some other question marks in the rotation (which Oliver Perez will show up?, will El Duque stay healthy?), so Williams/Vargas/Soler may be needed to fill other holes. The options available on the free agent market are less than thrilling, so there's been speculation that the Mets may make a trade, with Joe Blanton being one of the leading candidates. Should the Mets deal Lastings Milledge for Blanton (or a similar pitcher)?

On one hand, prospects are rarely sure things. A perusal of this list of the top prospects from 2002 shows just how hard it is to project player development. So, while David Wright and Jose Reyes have demonstrated just how valuable developing players through the system can be, not every prospect turns into David Wright or Jose Reyes. Looking at Milledge specifically, there are some reasons to doubt his development. His tools have always been evident, but his production over the years hasn't matched them. He failed to produce in his brief stint in the majors last year, and he clearly has some maturity issues. Also, the Mets have two other strong outfield prospects.

On the other hand, everyone seems to agree that Milledge still has a very high ceiling. And according to Nate Silver, his production at AAA last year was excellent. I find it hard to believe that Norfolk is that hard to hit in, but Nate knows far more about projecting performance than any of us, so I'll cut him some slack.

In the end, I think a Milledge-Blanton deal would be a big mistake. Most importantly, it seems that Milledge's market value has slipped (and if Nate is to be believed, undeservedly so). The Mets shouldn't sell low. If Milledge has a strong first half in the minors, he can probably fetch a lot more at the trade deadline than he can now. Secondly, Blanton simply isn't enough of an impact player (he's averaged about 5 Ks per 9 innings the last two seasons) to trade a top prospect for. If the Mets are going to deal Milledge, why do it for a pitcher who's merely good, without the potential to be any better? Sure, Blanton will help the team get through the first half of this season, but once October rolls around, with Pedro (and possibly Pelfrey and Humber) around, Blanton may not even make the playoff rotation. If the Mets are determined to trade Milledge, they'll be better off holding onto him to use as a chip to land a premier player. For instance, the best pitcher in baseball may be available next offseason, or at the trading deadline if the Twins are out of the race. Why not plug the hole in the rotation with someone like Tomo Ohka, Chan Ho Park, or Brian Lawrence, and hold onto Lastings until someone better is available down the road.

MERRY XMAS!

John Sickels' take on the Mets Prospects.
Very similar to Prospectus' top 10. In fact, the same 10 people are in the top 10, with some minor movement. Sickels seems a little less enthusiastic about Humber and Carlos Gomez, and has Soler a lot lower down. But the general conclusion is the same: the Mets have 4 big prospects (Fernando Martinez, Pelfrey, Humber, and Gomez) and a lot of question marks after that.

Mookie Wilson, Roger McDowell, and Gary Carter Think Big!

Drew deal dead?
Herald
Prospectus

Top 10 Mets Prospects

Damn you Ryan, you beat me to all the news I was going to post.

Anyway, I think the Mets should at least see if Giles would be interested in coming over. Most people seem to think the reason he had a down year (besides the injuries) was because he hated hitting leadoff. Well, no prob for the Mets, they have a pretty good leadoff guy as it is. I would definitely look at giving him 4 yr/$20-24 mil. Personally, I have a hard time thinking that Valentin will be able to produce again this year, so they should at least look into it. I wouldn't have a problem with them getting Pineiro either; once again, I think if he can stay healthy, he can actually be quite serviceable.

Now the thing about the posting fee with D-Mat: doesn't the fee go to his Japanese club? I mean, he's not going to be getting a piece of that, right? So what does that have to do with him?

Zambrano non-tendered? Shocker.

Matsuzaka signs?
If SI is to be believed, the Sox and Matsuzaka agreed to a 6 year, $52 million deal, with incentives that could go up to $60 million.

My quick reaction is that this is a pretty good deal for the Sox. When you add in the posting fee, this works out to $17-18.5 million (varying with the incentives). But, the $51 million posting fee isn't subject to the 40% luxury tax. Assuming that the Sox exceed the luxury tax threshold each of the next 6 years (which is admittedly a pretty big assumption), then it's really just around $14-15 million a year. The posting fee is being paid up-front, so to fairly compare this to other free agent deals, the time value of money needs to be taken into account. My very rough calculation is that another $1 million should be added per year.
So, the final result is the approximate equivalent of $15-16 million a year for 6 years. That's right in line with what's being talked about for Zito. Based on everything I've read, I think the odds are Matsuzaka winds up being a better pitcher than Zito. Of course, there's a risk associated with a player who's never played in the majors. Hard to put a dollar figure on that, but I think he'll succeed and that the overall money being spent puts the deal right in line with the way the market is behaving.
Additionally, there's added value to having a premiere Japanese player. I read a Jon Heyman article awhile back that said the Yankees make around $5 million extra a year in marketing/licensing/branding money from the Japanese market. Assuming that's true (I have no idea if it is) and that the Sox can pull off the same thing (some of the $5 mill may be due to Matsui being an every day player and him playing in NYC), then the deal looks very good.

People of note who were non-tendered yesterday, and are now free agents:

Marcus Giles
Chris Reitsma
Victor Zambrano
Jorge Sosa
Joel Pineiro
Brandon Claussen
Rick Ankiel

The two most interesting names are on the list because the Braves are too damn cheap.
Everyone seems to think Giles is going to San Diego to join his brother and fill the whole left by the Barfield trade. The appeal of playing with his brother may be too much to overcome, but there should be other teams with interest. He's coming off a weak year, but his offensive track record is impressive and he's still in his prime. Do the Red Sox really want to count on Pedroia?

I'm not sure what Reitsma's injury status is, but he could be a nice addition to a team's bullpen.
Pineiro is also coming off a bad year, but there are a lot of teams (including the Mets) with holes in their rotations.

http://mcsweeneys.net/links/fantasybball/12contractbonuses.html

Why does Jose Valentin switch-hit?
Jose Valentin is a switch hitter. Against right-handed pitchers, he hits from the left side of the plate. During his career, his OPS in these situations is .821. Last year, it was .879. Against left-handed pitchers, he hits from the right side. During his career, his OPS in these situations is .585. Last year, it was .599. In these situations, he hasn't had an OPS of even .700 in any season since his rookie year, when he only had 19 at-bats. Just to make clear how significant the difference is, here's his career performance from each side, prorated to 650 plate appearance (approx. 1 full season):

	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	Avg	OBP	Slg	OPS
LHB vs. RHP	144	33	4	30	93	66	129	.253	.332	.489	.821
RHB vs. LHP	116	20	2	9	51	59	151	.205	.281	.304	.585

Valentin has played most of his career at shortstop, so let's compare those numbers to a couple of shortstops of his generation. Miguel Tejada's career OPS is .822. Rey Ordonez's career OPS is .599. So, from the left side of the plate, he has hit like Miguel Tejada, and from the right side, he's hit worse than Rey Ordonez. You'd think this huge gap would be enough to convince Valentin to stop switch hitting, and simply hit from the left side against all pitchers.

And in 2005, Valentin was finally convinced. He hit from the left side the whole season. Against southpaws, he had his best season ever, with an .891 OPS! He only had 19 at-bats against lefties, but it still seemed pretty convincing. Despite his unprecedented success, in 2006, he went back to switch hitting. Predictably, he did poorly against lefties, with the aformentioned .599 OPS. In one at-bat last season, he decided to give hitting lefty against lefty another chance, and he hit a homerun! But, then he went back to switch hitting.

Why does he continue to insist on switch hitting? It seems insane!

Hmmm, here's one possible explanation. Over his career, Valentin has been very consistent from the left side of the plate. His highest OPS season was .880 and his second lowest was .758. The one outlier was 2005, the year he ditched switch hitting, when his OPS in such situations was .546. Maybe Valentin thinks that suddenly facing lefties from the left side somehow hurt his timing against righties.

Rafael Soriano for Horacio Ramirez? WHAT?
That is easily the worst/best trade of the offseason. In fact, I'm struggling to think of the last time a trade seemed so obviously lopsided. Soriano is a very good reliever. He had a 2.25 ERA last year, with a 65/21 K/BB ratio in 60 innings. Horacio has somehow kept his ERAs in the 4s, but his peripherals have always been terrible (career 248/200 in 521 innings). I'd be surprised if his ERA is under 5. Fucking Braves!

From Joe Sheehan's chat at Prospectus:

Q: Most entertaining person you've talked to at the Winter Meetings is...
Joe Sheehan: Omar Minaya. It's not close.

AMBIORIX
I'm a big fan of the Burgos-Bannister trade. Burgos has a chance to be an impact player; Bannister does not. Burgos turns 23 in April and hits 98 on the radar gun.

Bannister is almost 26. Even his fans acknowledge he doesn't have great stuff. Best case scenario, he'll be a 4th or 5th starter. I'm not convinced he'll even be that. It's a small sample size, but in his 38 innings last year, he had 19 strikeouts and 22 walks, which is pretty terrible.

Burgos struggled mightily last year, giving up 16 homers in 73 innings. But, he was only 22, had been rushed to the majors shortly after converting to the bullpen, and still struck out a batter an inning. The Royals have horribly mishandled him; a little Rick Peterson magic could turn him into a stud reliever. He could be a total bust, but there's a chance he'll be a big part of the Mets bullpen for years to come. I'm curious to see the new PECOTA projections, but last year's projection predicted that Burgos' ERA would be over 5, but would improve dramatically in the coming years. Here are his projected ERAs from a year ago:

2006 5.20 (actual = 5.52)
2007 4.03
2008 3.85
2009 3.36
2010 3.48

Unrelated ridiculous Mets rumor: Bob Nightengale (who I used to love back in the Baseball Weekly days) reports that the Mets could trade for Rich Harden!