Just how bad were the New York Mets last year?
Bad.
The Mets accomplished things that no other teams came close to doing last, nor would they want to.
The Mets were the only team in Major League Baseball to finish 2009 with home runs in double digits, 95.
The Mets finished with 49 triples giving them less than a 2/1 ratio for home runs over triples, again, the only team to do this last year. The Yankees home run/triple ratio was 11/1 with 244 home runs and 21 triples. MLB ratio was 5/1
In contrast, the next team up the ladder with fewest home runs were the Giants, they hit 122.
Going into September last year, who was the Mets leader in home runs?
The answer will be at the bottom of the post.
Daniel Murphy led the Mets with 12 home runs. Count 'em 12. That would have been a heckuva bet in Vegas.
Met fans will scream that it was the ballpark. Not so. The Mets hit less home runs on the road than at home.
Again, Met fans will cry that injuries killed them last year. A better point to be sure, only two Mets had over 500 at bats last year, Murphy and David Wright. Jose Reyes is not a power hitter though, Carlos Delgado has to try out in a winter league to get a job for next year, and Carlos Beltran can never be counted on to overcome the injury bugaboo.
Jeff Francoeur seemed to hit better in a Mets uniform than a Braves uniform and may be able to help them in the power department next year. By the way, a fact that won't impress your friends, but Francoeur led both the Mets and Braves in games played in right field last year.
Omar Minaya's job probably hinges on how the Mets begin their 2010 season. My hope is that if he does get the axe sometime, that his plane is touching down on the west coast when he is notified of the decision.
Gary Sheffield led the Mets with 10 home runs going into September in 2009.
The New York Mets
The New York Mets
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
The New York Mets
What is especially distressing as a fan, is the organization's continual failure to set up a plan that will render the Mets a successful franchise. They seem to operate year-to-year off of the seat of their pants in terms of strategy, rather then thinking through the next 5 years. The farm system has never been instilled with the uniformity and system to create winning players who play baseball the correct way. I know the organization hit gold with Wright and Reyes, but when was the last successful guy before that the Mets groomed and kept?
With business.statistical types currently proving that they are needed within an organization, the Mets have continually shown that they will not function as a business, as required for success. The days of an Omar Minaya-type having success are long gone and unless Wilpons grasp this and give up control to some people with business and statistical savy, the Mets will continue to sign 34 year old judy hitters with balky knees to bad, long term contracts, ditto flakey left handers with no history of sustained success. Tim Redding's agent supposedly became an overnight sensation by getting 2.5 mill for a guy everyone else wanted on a minor league deal.
With business.statistical types currently proving that they are needed within an organization, the Mets have continually shown that they will not function as a business, as required for success. The days of an Omar Minaya-type having success are long gone and unless Wilpons grasp this and give up control to some people with business and statistical savy, the Mets will continue to sign 34 year old judy hitters with balky knees to bad, long term contracts, ditto flakey left handers with no history of sustained success. Tim Redding's agent supposedly became an overnight sensation by getting 2.5 mill for a guy everyone else wanted on a minor league deal.
schwanks.blogspot.com
Little Bits mostly non-related to fantasy sports...alright maybe a little
Little Bits mostly non-related to fantasy sports...alright maybe a little
The New York Mets
Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
Just how bad were the New York Mets last year?
Bad.
The Mets accomplished things that no other teams came close to doing last, nor would they want to.
The Mets were the only team in Major League Baseball to finish 2009 with home runs in double digits, 95.
The Mets finished with 49 triples giving them less than a 2/1 ratio for home runs over triples, again, the only team to do this last year. The Yankees home run/triple ratio was 11/1 with 244 home runs and 21 triples. MLB ratio was 5/1
In contrast, the next team up the ladder with fewest home runs were the Giants, they hit 122.
Going into September last year, who was the Mets leader in home runs?
The answer will be at the bottom of the post.
Daniel Murphy led the Mets with 12 home runs. Count 'em 12. That would have been a heckuva bet in Vegas.
Met fans will scream that it was the ballpark. Not so. The Mets hit less home runs on the road than at home.
Again, Met fans will cry that injuries killed them last year. A better point to be sure, only two Mets had over 500 at bats last year, Murphy and David Wright. Jose Reyes is not a power hitter though, Carlos Delgado has to try out in a winter league to get a job for next year, and Carlos Beltran can never be counted on to overcome the injury bugaboo.
Jeff Francoeur seemed to hit better in a Mets uniform than a Braves uniform and may be able to help them in the power department next year. By the way, a fact that won't impress your friends, but Francoeur led both the Mets and Braves in games played in right field last year.
Omar Minaya's job probably hinges on how the Mets begin their 2010 season. My hope is that if he does get the axe sometime, that his plane is touching down on the west coast when he is notified of the decision.
Gary Sheffield led the Mets with 10 home runs going into September in 2009. I ask only because I know you love researching these things, but when was the last time a team hit less than 100 HRs in a season?
[ November 23, 2009, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Raskol ]
Just how bad were the New York Mets last year?
Bad.
The Mets accomplished things that no other teams came close to doing last, nor would they want to.
The Mets were the only team in Major League Baseball to finish 2009 with home runs in double digits, 95.
The Mets finished with 49 triples giving them less than a 2/1 ratio for home runs over triples, again, the only team to do this last year. The Yankees home run/triple ratio was 11/1 with 244 home runs and 21 triples. MLB ratio was 5/1
In contrast, the next team up the ladder with fewest home runs were the Giants, they hit 122.
Going into September last year, who was the Mets leader in home runs?
The answer will be at the bottom of the post.
Daniel Murphy led the Mets with 12 home runs. Count 'em 12. That would have been a heckuva bet in Vegas.
Met fans will scream that it was the ballpark. Not so. The Mets hit less home runs on the road than at home.
Again, Met fans will cry that injuries killed them last year. A better point to be sure, only two Mets had over 500 at bats last year, Murphy and David Wright. Jose Reyes is not a power hitter though, Carlos Delgado has to try out in a winter league to get a job for next year, and Carlos Beltran can never be counted on to overcome the injury bugaboo.
Jeff Francoeur seemed to hit better in a Mets uniform than a Braves uniform and may be able to help them in the power department next year. By the way, a fact that won't impress your friends, but Francoeur led both the Mets and Braves in games played in right field last year.
Omar Minaya's job probably hinges on how the Mets begin their 2010 season. My hope is that if he does get the axe sometime, that his plane is touching down on the west coast when he is notified of the decision.
Gary Sheffield led the Mets with 10 home runs going into September in 2009. I ask only because I know you love researching these things, but when was the last time a team hit less than 100 HRs in a season?
[ November 23, 2009, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Raskol ]
If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you're going to be locked up.--Hunter S. Thompson
The New York Mets
Not to long ago.
In 2008, the Giants only had 94 home runs.
Bengie Molina had 16 to lead the way.
The 216 home runs the Giants have hit over the last two years is still less than the Yankees hit this year alone.
In 2008, the Giants only had 94 home runs.
Bengie Molina had 16 to lead the way.
The 216 home runs the Giants have hit over the last two years is still less than the Yankees hit this year alone.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
The New York Mets
Met fans will scream that it was the ballpark. Not so.Well, true enough for the Mets home runs, but the Yanks homers/triples and the Mets triples were clearly affected by park effects. Per Bill James, the Mets park had a triples rate of 120, 20% more triples than an average ballpark. The spankees park, on the other hand, had a pe of 50 on triples (half of average) and 126 on homers. Pretty smart for a power club to build a park that will help their home run hitters and pitchers at the same time.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
The New York Mets
Originally posted by bjoak:
quote:Met fans will scream that it was the ballpark. Not so.Well, true enough for the Mets home runs, but the Yanks homers/triples and the Mets triples were clearly affected by park effects. Per Bill James, the Mets park had a triples rate of 120, 20% more triples than an average ballpark. The spankees park, on the other hand, had a pe of 50 on triples (half of average) and 126 on homers. Pretty smart for a power club to build a park that will help their home run hitters and pitchers at the same time. [/QUOTE]And another demerit for Minaya not playing to his ballparks strengths, although having Reyes healthy would have remedied that some.
quote:Met fans will scream that it was the ballpark. Not so.Well, true enough for the Mets home runs, but the Yanks homers/triples and the Mets triples were clearly affected by park effects. Per Bill James, the Mets park had a triples rate of 120, 20% more triples than an average ballpark. The spankees park, on the other hand, had a pe of 50 on triples (half of average) and 126 on homers. Pretty smart for a power club to build a park that will help their home run hitters and pitchers at the same time. [/QUOTE]And another demerit for Minaya not playing to his ballparks strengths, although having Reyes healthy would have remedied that some.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
The New York Mets
I've got to head out for awhile, but ran across this:
'87 Tigers
'87 Royals
'63 Twins
'56 Reds
'82 Brewers
'77 Phils
'70 Padres
What do those teams have in common?
They are the only clubs that still hold their teams home run records outside of the steroid era.
All ther teams home run records came between 1996 and 2004
'87 Tigers
'87 Royals
'63 Twins
'56 Reds
'82 Brewers
'77 Phils
'70 Padres
What do those teams have in common?
They are the only clubs that still hold their teams home run records outside of the steroid era.
All ther teams home run records came between 1996 and 2004
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
The New York Mets
Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
I've got to head out for awhile, but ran across this:
'87 Tigers
'87 Royals
'63 Twins
'56 Reds
'82 Brewers
'77 Phils
'70 Padres
What do those teams have in common?
They are the only clubs that still hold their teams home run records outside of the steroid era.
All ther teams home run records came between 1996 and 2004 Not to always be the contrarion, but if we break this down by decade we have 50's 1, 60's 1, 70's 2, 80's 3, 90's 7, 00's 16.
Seems like a nice smooth progression to me. I would think if you looked at this data in 1970, you'd have something like 20's 1, 30's, 1, 40's 2, 50's 7, 60's 19. I wouldn't doubt that the most recent years were in fact higher.
Why is it always the most recent years? As Nate Silver commented in his excellent essay, "Is Barry Bonds Better than Babe Ruth?", the winners of *regional* *high school* *girls* 100 meter freestyle swimming competitions today typically finish with a time fast enough to win the *men's* 1920 *Olympics*. That is not because high school girls today are taking enough steroids to become Olympic men's champions; it is because people today are healthier, faster, stronger, and taller. They are better conditioned with better training techniques and equipment. They eat better and are more informed about what is healthy. And they are drawn from a much bigger population.
Additionally, the conditions of baseball have historically changed to support home runs. You'll note that the "steroid era" coincides perfectly with the new ballpark era. It is not at all surprising to see the Royals and Pads on the list since they unconventionally both built parks that are really tough on hitters. And Minnesota is one of the few teams that hasn't gotten a park yet.
[ November 23, 2009, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]
I've got to head out for awhile, but ran across this:
'87 Tigers
'87 Royals
'63 Twins
'56 Reds
'82 Brewers
'77 Phils
'70 Padres
What do those teams have in common?
They are the only clubs that still hold their teams home run records outside of the steroid era.
All ther teams home run records came between 1996 and 2004 Not to always be the contrarion, but if we break this down by decade we have 50's 1, 60's 1, 70's 2, 80's 3, 90's 7, 00's 16.
Seems like a nice smooth progression to me. I would think if you looked at this data in 1970, you'd have something like 20's 1, 30's, 1, 40's 2, 50's 7, 60's 19. I wouldn't doubt that the most recent years were in fact higher.
Why is it always the most recent years? As Nate Silver commented in his excellent essay, "Is Barry Bonds Better than Babe Ruth?", the winners of *regional* *high school* *girls* 100 meter freestyle swimming competitions today typically finish with a time fast enough to win the *men's* 1920 *Olympics*. That is not because high school girls today are taking enough steroids to become Olympic men's champions; it is because people today are healthier, faster, stronger, and taller. They are better conditioned with better training techniques and equipment. They eat better and are more informed about what is healthy. And they are drawn from a much bigger population.
Additionally, the conditions of baseball have historically changed to support home runs. You'll note that the "steroid era" coincides perfectly with the new ballpark era. It is not at all surprising to see the Royals and Pads on the list since they unconventionally both built parks that are really tough on hitters. And Minnesota is one of the few teams that hasn't gotten a park yet.
[ November 23, 2009, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]
Chance favors the prepared mind.
The New York Mets
Totally disagree with the new era of athletes argument, Brian.
To have 23 of 30 teams have their home run records set between 1996 and 2004 is not an assessment of how athletes have gotten bigger and stronger, but how athletes that are bigger and stronger made themselves even bigger and stronger through outside means or help.
There has not been a team record set in home runs over the last five years. Yet, I know your theory suggests that these same athletes are getting bigger and stronger. Also, what happened to pitchers during the 96-o4 era, did they get frail and weak?
The athletes getting bigger and stronger with each era makes sense in a lot of sports, including baseball. But, when it comes to home run records, no sense can be made of it except to say that some players colored outside of the lines.
By the way, I'll take fat Babe Ruth against your skinny Barry Bonds in a home run hitting contest every time.
Bonds never hit over 50 home runs till he reached that magic age of 37 :rolleyes:
He then hit 73.
To have 23 of 30 teams have their home run records set between 1996 and 2004 is not an assessment of how athletes have gotten bigger and stronger, but how athletes that are bigger and stronger made themselves even bigger and stronger through outside means or help.
There has not been a team record set in home runs over the last five years. Yet, I know your theory suggests that these same athletes are getting bigger and stronger. Also, what happened to pitchers during the 96-o4 era, did they get frail and weak?
The athletes getting bigger and stronger with each era makes sense in a lot of sports, including baseball. But, when it comes to home run records, no sense can be made of it except to say that some players colored outside of the lines.
By the way, I'll take fat Babe Ruth against your skinny Barry Bonds in a home run hitting contest every time.
Bonds never hit over 50 home runs till he reached that magic age of 37 :rolleyes:
He then hit 73.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
The New York Mets
Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
Also, what happened to pitchers during the 96-o4 era, did they get frail and weak?
Well, a few of their arms did fall off it seems. I wonder what the rate of Tommy John surgeries and/or visits to Dr. James Andrews was during 96-04 compared to before. Or after...
And this wiry little guy did OK during those years: How did he do it?
Also, what happened to pitchers during the 96-o4 era, did they get frail and weak?
Well, a few of their arms did fall off it seems. I wonder what the rate of Tommy John surgeries and/or visits to Dr. James Andrews was during 96-04 compared to before. Or after...
And this wiry little guy did OK during those years: How did he do it?
If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you're going to be locked up.--Hunter S. Thompson
The New York Mets
Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
Totally disagree with the new era of athletes argument, Brian.
To have 23 of 30 teams have their home run records set between 1996 and 2004 is not an assessment of how athletes have gotten bigger and stronger, but how athletes that are bigger and stronger made themselves even bigger and stronger through outside means or help.
There has not been a team record set in home runs over the last five years. Yet, I know your theory suggests that these same athletes are getting bigger and stronger. Also, what happened to pitchers during the 96-o4 era, did they get frail and weak?
The athletes getting bigger and stronger with each era makes sense in a lot of sports, including baseball. But, when it comes to home run records, no sense can be made of it except to say that some players colored outside of the lines.
By the way, I'll take fat Babe Ruth against your skinny Barry Bonds in a home run hitting contest every time.
Bonds never hit over 50 home runs till he reached that magic age of 37 :rolleyes:
He then hit 73. I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do. I am just trying to make the point that historically it makes sense. I wonder if you agree with my 1970 argument. We might have to get out the history books on that one. Check out this graph on HR rates per year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MLB_H ... _rates.png
While we are currently in a slight dip, we have not dropped to levels of earlier time periods and there have been periods in the past where other (larger) drops took place. Nevertheless, there has been a steady increase from the beginning of the 20th century through today and I would expect that to continue if we're looking at this in ten or twenty years.
Let's look at the recent MLB yearly totals:
2000 — 5693
2001 — 5458
2002 — 5059
2003 — 5207
2004 — 5451
2005 — 5017
2006 — 5386
2007 — 4957
2008 — 4878
2009 -- 5042
The first five years have an average of 5373 and the latter five 5056. Basically a difference of 300, 10 per team or 1 per ever day player. Do I believe that the variance is due to steroids. Sure, why not. However if players hit 5056 in every year of the 2000's and there were no steroids in the 90's, would we still have the majority of home run records in the last ten years. Yes, I still believe that completely because that number still represents an impressive increase over what we had in the thirty preceding years.
So I wasn't arguing that steroids haven't made a difference; I was arguing that they didn't make the kind of difference where we can completely chalk up the current home run records to the "steroid era" and assume the records would be spread out over the past if they never existed.
Of course, I believe that Bonds took them and it made a big difference, but if your inference was that Silver wrote that Bonds was better or that roids didn't make a difference, that's incorrect. If anything, in the part about swimming he was arguing that Ruth doesn't have the benefit of modern training and therefore is even better when looking at him across eras. To put it another way, high school kids today have no chance of hitting for Ruth home run totals in the same size parks so he's way better than Olympians of the time.
Also, what happened to pitchers during the 96-o4 era, did they get frail and weak?Finally, I just don't see this as proof of your point. I could have said "Were roids only available to hitters of this time period?" and made the same point on my behalf. Because if you go trolling for team strikeout totals, you're going to get the same type of data as you got for homers. It's just that strength lends itself to some parts of the game more than others. I'm sure you think better conditioning (from steroids or otherwise) can make a guy throw harder, but do you really think it will make him hit the bottom half of the zone more often? Where the conditioning comes from is the issue here--not that it exists.
[ November 23, 2009, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]
Totally disagree with the new era of athletes argument, Brian.
To have 23 of 30 teams have their home run records set between 1996 and 2004 is not an assessment of how athletes have gotten bigger and stronger, but how athletes that are bigger and stronger made themselves even bigger and stronger through outside means or help.
There has not been a team record set in home runs over the last five years. Yet, I know your theory suggests that these same athletes are getting bigger and stronger. Also, what happened to pitchers during the 96-o4 era, did they get frail and weak?
The athletes getting bigger and stronger with each era makes sense in a lot of sports, including baseball. But, when it comes to home run records, no sense can be made of it except to say that some players colored outside of the lines.
By the way, I'll take fat Babe Ruth against your skinny Barry Bonds in a home run hitting contest every time.
Bonds never hit over 50 home runs till he reached that magic age of 37 :rolleyes:
He then hit 73. I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do. I am just trying to make the point that historically it makes sense. I wonder if you agree with my 1970 argument. We might have to get out the history books on that one. Check out this graph on HR rates per year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MLB_H ... _rates.png
While we are currently in a slight dip, we have not dropped to levels of earlier time periods and there have been periods in the past where other (larger) drops took place. Nevertheless, there has been a steady increase from the beginning of the 20th century through today and I would expect that to continue if we're looking at this in ten or twenty years.
Let's look at the recent MLB yearly totals:
2000 — 5693
2001 — 5458
2002 — 5059
2003 — 5207
2004 — 5451
2005 — 5017
2006 — 5386
2007 — 4957
2008 — 4878
2009 -- 5042
The first five years have an average of 5373 and the latter five 5056. Basically a difference of 300, 10 per team or 1 per ever day player. Do I believe that the variance is due to steroids. Sure, why not. However if players hit 5056 in every year of the 2000's and there were no steroids in the 90's, would we still have the majority of home run records in the last ten years. Yes, I still believe that completely because that number still represents an impressive increase over what we had in the thirty preceding years.
So I wasn't arguing that steroids haven't made a difference; I was arguing that they didn't make the kind of difference where we can completely chalk up the current home run records to the "steroid era" and assume the records would be spread out over the past if they never existed.
Of course, I believe that Bonds took them and it made a big difference, but if your inference was that Silver wrote that Bonds was better or that roids didn't make a difference, that's incorrect. If anything, in the part about swimming he was arguing that Ruth doesn't have the benefit of modern training and therefore is even better when looking at him across eras. To put it another way, high school kids today have no chance of hitting for Ruth home run totals in the same size parks so he's way better than Olympians of the time.
Also, what happened to pitchers during the 96-o4 era, did they get frail and weak?Finally, I just don't see this as proof of your point. I could have said "Were roids only available to hitters of this time period?" and made the same point on my behalf. Because if you go trolling for team strikeout totals, you're going to get the same type of data as you got for homers. It's just that strength lends itself to some parts of the game more than others. I'm sure you think better conditioning (from steroids or otherwise) can make a guy throw harder, but do you really think it will make him hit the bottom half of the zone more often? Where the conditioning comes from is the issue here--not that it exists.
[ November 23, 2009, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]
Chance favors the prepared mind.
The New York Mets
Ironically, Ruth was one of the first athletes to ever hire a personal trainer. In 1925 his ego bloated as well as his stomach. He hired a personal trainer and went from 25 home runs in which he missed games due to suspensions and health to 47, 60, 54, and 46 during the next four years.
[ November 24, 2009, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
[ November 24, 2009, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
-
headhunters
- Posts: 1976
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:00 pm
The New York Mets
maybe i missed something but unless water has changed in 80 years- the resistence has been constant. in baseball- the resistence is standing on the mound. i think the other point about park factor is accurate as it relates to resistance- but if the players at the plate are getting better over the years, then the players on the mound must be also. to stay in the swimming/ steroids theme- those new suits are swimmers steroids- and are now banned. hopefully bjoak dough and i will still be around in 10 years so we can look at those last years of swimminmg records. my bet is- you saw 99% of all swimminng records that you will see from 2008 till 2018 in 2008 and 2009. my take- 10 years of steroids led to 10 years of way more runs brought to you by very savvy men who reealized that chicks do dig the long ball and will pay to see it.