If you read the first four installments of this series, I mentioned my preoccupation with the game show "The Price is Right" and how a couple of the games reminded me of the Mets roster and their chances in 2018.
For example, do you remember the game “Now or Then” where the contestants had to guess if a random grocery item’s displayed price was current or from the past? Or, the game “More or Less” where the players were shown an item and a corresponding price that may or may not be correct. The player had to guess if the displayed price was more or less then the real price that was concealed behind the visible price. These two games gave me an idea for a series of articles about our favorite team as we clear the holidays and head towards Spring Training.
The
overall roster is largely complete, whether we like it or not. It also
contains certain players who will be much more influential (positive or
negative) on the team’s performance then other members of the roster.
In a previous article, I used the term “foundation pieces” to describe
these players as they will likely be the reason that the team wins or
fails to do so. I will select a different player for each article and
it will include their “career” statistical average(s).
Once
we have an average performance documented, we will play “more or less”
using their career baseline as the "displayed price" (keep in mind that
some players have more statistical data then others, so in cases where
the major league data is lacking, I used their minor league numbers to
produce a baseline). In short, if our key players mostly produce “more”
then expected, it will likely manifest itself into a successful season
and possibly a return to the playoffs.
The
first four articles covered Yoenis Cespedes (voted MORE), Jacob DeGrom
(voted MORE), Michael Conforto (voted LESS) and Noah Syndergaard (voted
MORE).
The fifth player we will look at is a steady veteran, with a bit of a "all or nothing" reputation at the plate; Jay Bruce (welcome back)
Sandy comes out of this situation "smelling a bit like a rose" when you consider that we obtained a prospect in a trade for JB
last year and now we have him back via a newly signed three year deal
(sort of like having your cake and eating it too). I like the thought
of his bat in the middle of our lineup, especially when you compare it
to some of the other options that we were considering just a couple of
days ago. However, I do worry that it will come at a cost, which will
likely be a drop in outfield defense and possibly the loss of a highly
regarded prospect in Dominic Smith.
If
JB plays right field, then Michael Conforto has to move to center field
since Yoenis Cespedes is entrenched in left field and does not like to
move around. I suppose MC is adequate defensively in center field, but
for him to play there regularly then Juan Lagares and his "golden
glove" has to move to the bench or out of town via a trade. If JB and
his "lefty bat" instead plays regularly at first base, you introduce
different defensive issues (not his natural position) and you also block
Dominic Smith's ascension since he is also a "lefty".
Those
are problems for Mickey Callaway to figure out at the end of the day.
For the purposes of this article, let's assume that JB will get a full
season's worth of at bats alternating between right field and first
base. They didn't sign him for 3 years and 39 million dollars to sit on
the bench, after all.
Since
2008, JB has played in the major leagues for several different teams,
to include the Reds, the Mets and the Indians. During that time, he has
appeared in 1,416 games and he registered 5,806 at bats. Using ten
years as the divisor, JB is averaging approximately 142 games per year
and roughly 581 at bats which means he has been pretty durable
(especially when you compare his track record to Yoenis Cespedes'
reliability, or lack thereof). Now that he is a bit older, if he can
continue to be available close to 88% of the time (as he has been), I
think that would translate into a series of successful seasons and
justification for his current contract.
So what does an average JB season look like?
.249/.319/.472 or an OPS of .790
28 HR - 84 RBI - 6 SB - 75 R
1.89 WAR
BUT, last year he was much better then his career averages;
.254/.324/.508 or an OPS of .832
36 HR - 101 RBI - 1 SB - 82 R
2.9 WAR
I
think his career averages are pretty solid and his season last year was
a notch above that. What is intriguing is that a majority of his at
bats last year were with the Mets, which is a good omen for
his ability to "handle New York" and the expectations of a new
contract.
Another angle to consider is that 1 WAR is roughly equivalent
to an eight million dollar per year salary. If that is the case, then
JB's career statistics would support an annual contract of fifteen
million dollars per year (or slightly above his current contract's
annual average, so we are getting a small discount). Last year, his 2.9
WAR was worth approximately twenty three million dollars, which is
impressive and well above his projected salaries for the next three
years.
MORE than his career averages, and what is nice about him is he has been durable, so we are not paying for a guy who typically misses a quarter of the season with injuries (or, in Wright's case, a quarter of his life).
ReplyDeleteI agree.....I can see him falling somewhere between his averages and his above average season in 2017.
ReplyDelete.250/.320/.500 or an OPS of .820
30 HR - 90 RBI - 2 SB - 80 R
2.2 WAR
With his starts split between first base and right field, perhaps?
Unlike Terry Collins, I'm willing to bet Mickey Callaway will allow young players to develop and as such Dom Smith will get plenty of time at 1B, perhaps platooning at with Wilmer Flores. I don't see Bruce playing there much at all barring injury or a total belly flop on Smith's part. (Ummm, maybe I could have picked a better term given his issues with his waistline).
ReplyDeleteAs far as production, I think you nailed it with the prediction -- over his career averages but under what he did last year.
More than average, less than last year, but good enough
ReplyDelete