Opening Day!
Why are Mets fans and bloggers alike apparantly so concerned about who makes the team's opening day roster? Two reasons I can think of. First, making the roster is an accomplishment for those who entered spring training competing for a roster spot. Congratulations Carson Benge!
And then there is the irresistible desire to see the team get off to a good start, and the opening day roster provides the bulk of the data we have available on which to base our optimism or pessimism about our chances of doing so.
Of course, our optimism or pessimism has much more to do with our personality traits (or disorders) than with minor differences among the various potential opening day rosters. The truth is that if you asked a million knowledgeable Mets fans to predict who would be on the OD roster, there would certainly be unanimity on at least 4/5ths of the choices. But this is that time of year, when marginal, even miniscule, differences are certain to be magnified beyond recognition. We are fans first, and are entitled to vacation days from any commitment to rational thought. Can I hear an "Amen?"
I was excited about publishing my post on Tuesday as I didn't want to miss the opportunity to play GM. Having already established my bona fides as a pretend hitting and pitching coach, I felt I owed myself a promotion to pretend GM before the season was underway.
My Tuesday post was postponed to Thursday, but I refuse to be deterred. So as a pretend GM, here is my thinking on what the opening day roster should be. I am writing this on Tuesday and will make no updates prior to publication. My goal is not to predict, but to pretend, and to explain my choices (not my pretensions).
I may be last with predicting the opening day roster, and what I say may be of little interest to some, but I am going to be first to predict what the Mets will do at the trading deadline. Just stay until the end of this post for that. I may be late in March, but I will be prescient about July. Without further ado:
First, the 'Whose' as in 'Whose on First?'
Starting infield: Baty should be on first -- that's who; the rest of the infield is Bichette, Lindor, and Semien
Backup infielder -- Brujan
Starting outfield: Soto, Robert, Benge
Backups --- Taylor, (and either Pache or Melendez, but see below for a caveat)
Catchers: Alvarez, Torrens
Starting Pitchers: Peralta, McLean, Holmes, Senga, Peterson
Relief Pitchers: Williams, Weaver, Myers, Raley, Garcia, Brazobon, Manaea (Lovelady, see the same caveat below).
DH: Polanco
Bench: Vientos
And now the whys
For me, the most important decision I make as GM is to make Polanco the full time DH. He would be the Mets' first and best full time DH, and it is his best position. Baty at first base is collateral benefit of having Polanco as the full time DH. I want the team to be better at both positions. Any alternative to having Baty at 1st and Polanco at DH would make the Mets worse at both positions. As the GM with a background in Game Theory, I report that my decision is not only correct; it represents the dominant strategy.
Most fans (and the FO as well) are appropriately excited by Baty's versatility, so much so that they have taken to referring to him as the new Jeff McNeil. The conflation of Baty with McNeil is inapt, however. The Mets needed McNeil to be a super utility player for two reasons. They didn't have enough quality players at the positions they moved McNeil into and out of; and second, McNeil was himself no longer anything more (or less) than a serviceable professional player at any position he played. So you weren't making the team any worse by taking him from any position he would otherwise be playing as a starter, and you were likely making the team somewhat better by having him at the position you moved him to than they would have been with someone else there.
That is not the situation facing either the Mets or Baty at the moment. The Mets have credible players at every position that Baty could conceivably play. That means the Mets don't need him to move out and about the infield and outfield. Those positions are handled at least as well by someone else as they are by Baty. Moreover Baty has shown (even with a limited sample size) that he is significantly more adept at 1st base than both Polanco or Vientos. So he has a position he can play better than the available alternatives. And that is why the Baty/McNeil conflation is inapt.
But that's not all. Baty needs a good start at the plate, and I can't help but feel that moving him all over the field gives him too much to think about, and simply disturbs the peace that someone needs to experience in the batter's box.
Limiting him to one infield position and a commitment to an everyday role at that position is important to his settling into the season.
In a previous post, I had argued for piggy backing starting pitching -- especially at the beginning of the season as starting pitchers are still stretching out while pitching in cold weather. The collateral benefit of piggy backing is that it protects the bullpen from being overused too early in the season.
Long term, Manaea and Myers are potentially redundant in the long man/spot starter role, but having two long men in the bullpen through the end of May -- which I think of as the end of the first part of the season -- makes very good sense. For now, Manaea in the bullpen is a plus as my lefty long man and spot starter.
The third most consequential decision I have had to make as GM concerns the 5th outfielder -- indeed whether it makes sense to have a 5th outfielder at all. I am not sure I need a 5th outfielder as neither Robert, Taylor nor Benge needs a late game defensive replacement; and the team can't afford to lose Soto's bat if he is replaced for defensive purposes regularly. If I decide to have a 5th outfielder, the choice boils down to Melendez or Pache, neither of whom would be expected to see much action.
Both are fine defensive players, but neither is worth a spot unless they bring something else to the table. Pache had a better spring than Melendez did, but Melendez can serve as a third (emergency) catcher. The problem with Pache is that his special skill is running the bases and that makes him no better a choice than Brujan, who has the additional benefit of playing an infield position.
If I am not sold on having a 5th outfielder, my alternative would be placing an 8th bullpen arm on the OD roster. I am a believer in situational lefties which would justify choosing Lovelady, whose relationship with the Mets has featured a lot of what psychiatrists call 'approach/avoidance' behavior. Every time he approaches, the Mets find a way to avoid a relationship with him. There may be no long term love affair in the offing, but Lovelady is owed some love -- at least until Mr. Minter works his way back to the team.
The choice of a reliever instead of a 5th outfielder makes the case for Brujan that much stronger. Beyond that, any way of filling the SS role worsens the team at as many as three positions: SS, with Bichette rather than Brujan, and perhaps 3B with Baty rather than Bichette, and definitely 1B with either Polanco or Vientos instead of Baty. Never let a forced change at one position create unforced changes at more than one, let alone, three positions -- especially if all your choices end up worsening performance at each!.
So, with a gun to my head, and the fact that neither Taylor, nor Robert nor Benge needs a defensive replacement, I would choose a 13th pitcher, rather than a 5th outfielder. So Mr. Lovelady, don't count on a long term relationship, but expect to have some fun until 'my boyfriend's back'. Where are you Mr. Minter, Mendoza loves you more than you could know.
Vientos was easier for me to include than I had initially expected it would be. There are five reasons for including him, none of which is close to compelling on its on, though when taken together the case for keeping him on the roster is easily made (for now). (1) He is right handed. (2) He is (or has been) a power bat. (3) He has no trade value. (4) He is out of options. (5) In a pinch he can play 1st base, and, in a double pinch, he can play 3rd base. Vientos is the 25th man on the roster and should see as little time in the field as possible.
But I am no less unhappy having done so, for were there any other legitimate right handed power bat among the replacement position players on the roster, he would not make my team. I am not expecting too much from him but hoping he is going to deliver more than i am expecting. Got to be optimistic, right?
Let's see how close I get as fake GM to the real one! If we disagree, remember, Stearns is the one who has probably made a mistake :-)
If Stearns' decisions differ from mine, it is down to two things. The first is that Tauchman got injured. The second is that his 26th player is someone he has chosen thinking that the goal is to find a replacement for Tauchman. That is absolutely the wrong way to think about the choice. Even if Tauchman would have been a better choice than Brujan, Pache, or Melendez, it doesn't mean that the next closest player to Tauchman is.
The goal is to find the next best player after Tauchman who adds to the ballclub; it is not to find the person who most closely replicates what Tauchman would have brought!
I have no idea who that person is on the 40 man roster, but I am pretty sure whoever it is does not bring to the club what either of Melendez, Pache or Brujan does. But if the choice surprises you it is likely because Stearns is not thinking in terms of what the player brings to the table as much as he is thinking in terms of who most closely approximates what Tauchman would have brought to the table. THAT would be a massively mistaken way to think about the position.
Oh Yes, the Trade Deadline
Assuming all goes reasonably well, the Mets should be in the thick of a pennant race with a crack at being the number 1 seed come the trade deadline. What should/will the Mets do by the deadline. I'll spell out my thinking in more detail next Tuesday, but I'm putting my stake in the ground here and now.
1 comment:
Play ball!
Post a Comment