Michael Freire - Run Differential Revisited

 A few years ago, I wrote a series of articles on this very blog detailing the different statistical models that have become more "mainstream" in the modern baseball era.  I tend to be a statistical geek at times, so the subject matter and how teams are using this data to improve their performance is interesting, to say the least.

Now, before any "old school" fans get concerned, I am only going to focus on one specific statistical model in this article and I have no plans to revisit the aforementioned series. 

As the title of this article states, one of the models I most admire uses a team's run differential (runs scored minus runs surrendered) to produce an expected win total.  The fancy name for this formula is The Pythagorean Win Expectation and it is calculated by taking the number of runs a team scored (squared) and dividing that figure by the runs scored (squared) plus the runs allowed (squared).  To keep things reasonably simple, the resulting figure is the team's expected win percentage, which can then be multiplied by the number of total games played to generate an expected win/loss record.  Not so bad, right?

It does have a few drawbacks, namely it needs a fairly large sample size to be accurate and it is most effective when analyzing how a team performed after the fact (not as effective as a predictive model).

For example, from 2017 through 2021 (including the weird 2020 season), the Mets' run differential and resulting records were as follows;

2021:  -32 (77-85)

2020:  -22 (26-34)*

2019: +54 (86-76)

2018: -31 (77-85)

2017: -128 (70-92)

First observation is that there was some pretty bad baseball played during that window!  Second observation is that the only winning record in that time period was in 2019 when the team produced a positive run differential. In 2022, the Mets had a very successful regular season, as we all know (despite the sour ending).  The team produced a record of 101-61 and a run differential of +166, which is no coincidence and also very impressive.

How did some other teams do last year?

The Atlanta Braves had a run differential of +180 and a similar record to the Mets (101-61).  The LA Dodgers had an absurd run differential of +334 and a record of 111-51 (how they failed to win the World Series last year is still mind boggling, but it also shows the difference between regular season baseball and the quirks of the post season).

Sometimes teams can under or overachieve their run differential, but typically the statistics/formula are really close to the final results. 

The formula uses two basic components, which are runs scored (offense) and runs allowed (defense, if you will).  Making improvements to the overall differential can be the result of improving one or the other.  However, if you improve both, it has an even more profound effect.

The 2022 Mets improved their offense by a whopping 136 runs scored compared to the previous year, while reducing the number of runs allowed by a respectable 62 runs.  Combined, they went from a -32 differential in 2021 to a +136 differential in 2022.  It's no wonder why the team also improved by 24 games.

The Mets had the third best offense in the NL in 2022 (772 runs scored or 4.77 runs per game) and the second best "defense" in the NL (606 runs allowed or 3.74 runs per game).  As stated earlier, that was quite a jump compared to 2021, but can they do something similar in 2023?

There's a lot of hand wringing going on about the need for more offense in 2023, but I am not so sure.   We return largely the same cast from last year (thanks, Carlos), so is it crazy to think the team can't produce another 772 runs scored?  Maybe a bit better if we have better injury luck and a few of the kids turn out as good as advertised.  Remember, this team put up the listed runs with voids behind the plate, at third base (mostly) and at the DH spot.

From a run prevention perspective, I would argue that the rotation and bullpen are a step above where they were last year (especially if we get 50 to 60 combined starts from Scherzer and Verlander).  The 2022 Mets had similar potential, but could never seem to get everyone healthy at the same time (outside of the stretch run in September, but that's a different article for a different day).  Is it crazy to think the team cannot match the 606 runs allowed from last year?

I see incremental improvement on both sides of the equation, honestly.  Sure, the NL looks stronger this year and especially the teams in our division.  But, with health being the big caveat, I think the 2023 Mets could produce a similar run differential and a similar record.

Michael Freire - See You Later, Jake, and Welcome Justin

Jogging Jake Turning Sharply South

"Oh good, another Jake article" I am sure some of you are saying right now after the past few days of media driven overload.  I get it and I almost didn't put this article together since most everything that needs to be said has likely been covered at some point (our very own Tom Brennan did an excellent job of covering the subject recently).  

It is an emotional topic for most of the fanbase and it has some similarities to how Noah Syndergaard left the team last winter (leaving without even giving the team a chance to match or exceed the standing offer).

But, instead of getting all fired up, I wanted to take a more measured/statistical approach about Jake's departure, as well as his replacement's arrival.

First of all, I think Jake deserves some thanks for his contributions to our favorite team's performance over the past nine seasons.  Granted, his "stats" never seemed to quite line up with his given title of the game's best pitcher, but he was still pretty dominant.

209 Games Started - 1,326 IP - 82 Wins and 57 Losses - 2.52 ERA - 0.998 WHIP - 10.9 K/9IP

That statistical line is a testament to what Jake can do when he is on the mound, especially his WHIP which is insanely low.  But the last sentence also introduces the other part of what you get with Jake as your "ace" and that is variable availability.  If you break down the listed statistical line and come up with an average per his nine seasons, you get the following;

23.33 Games Started - 147 IP - 9.1 Wins and 6.3 Losses (with the "rate stats" the same)

Not as impressive, in my opinion, since he falls quite a bit short of what you would expect a dominant starter to provide (especially the games started where you would expect something closer to 30 per season). If you use that figure (30 starts = a season's worth), Jake really produced 6.96 seasons of statistics over his nine years under contract (roughly 77.5 percent). 

In other words, Jake was not available almost a quarter of the time and that figure would look much worse if we focused on the last few years of his time here.

***He also earned $117.6 million dollars during his time in New York which is a decent amount, especially if you consider most players make a majority of their money in the middle and back end of their careers, so he wasn't exactly underpaid.

In short, he was good to great in his time with the Mets, but he was also not as reliable as you would have liked and that is not likely to get better as he reaches the back half of his 30's (the key reason he is no longer a Met).

So, what about Justin Verlander?

In addition to being quite a bit older then Jake (roughly five years his senior), he has also produced quite a bit more statistically during his 18 year career (twice as long);

482 Games Started - 3,163 IP - 244 Wins and 133 Losses - 3.24 ERA - 1.12 WHIP - 9.1 K/9IP

A couple things to keep in mind include the fact that Justin pitched his entire career in the American League (they had the DH the entire time, as opposed to the National League' recent adoption of the same) and he also missed an entire season due to injury.  

I will use 18 seasons for statistical purposes since it better captures his availability and we used the same method for Jake.

Justin can also be described as dominant when he is on the mound and he has been doing it a bit longer then Jake and in a much harder league.  So, what do his stats look like when we generate an average season over his 18 years?

26.77 Games Started - 176 IP - 13.6 Wins and 7.4 Losses (with the "rate stats" the same)

Pretty remarkable averages for that long of a period and a testament to his durability, despite missing a full season, as stated earlier.  But, he still didn't average the 30 starts per year that we dinged Jake for, right?  (If you use 17 seasons for just this segment, Justin has averaged 28.4 games started per season he actually pitched)

Using our "30 games equals a season" metric, Justin has pitched 16.06 seasons out of a possible 18 seasons during his career, which is 89.3 percent (a bit higher then Jake's 77.5 percent).  Despite having more "mileage" on his arm and a few more years in MLB, Verlander has been nearly Jake's equal statistically and much more durable.

Where does that leave us, then? 

Both pitchers have had very good careers and any team would love to have either of them in their rotation. But, life isn't that easy and you have to consider the costs to obtain that level of performance and the risks moving forward.

Jake reportedly turned down a 3 year, 120 million dollar offer from the Mets and signed a 5 year, 185 million dollar deal with Texas. Good for Jake, but that is a major difference and a lot more risk, in my opinion. Justin accepted a 2 year, 86.6 million dollar deal from the Mets with an optional third year for 35 million dollars (ironically, if the option is triggered, it would work out to a 3 year, 121.6 million dollar deal).  

Nothing is guaranteed, but usually, the best indicator of future success is what has happened in the past. Clearly, the Mets see things similarly and felt more comfortable with the two (or three) years of Justin Verlander, as opposed to five years of Jacob DeGrom.  Using their averages, Justin will likely produce 55 or so starts in his two years, while Jake could take most of his five year deal to do the same.

Time will ultimately tell, but if you take the emotion out of the decision you can't blame the logic employed by the Mets.

Michael Freire - What To Do About Our Catcher?

Anyone that follows the Mets has a pretty good idea that the 2022 roster had a LOT of pending free agents for the 2023 season.  In prior years, the team usually wasn't very good and having a bunch of openings could be seen as an opportunity to get better (addition by subtraction).  

Unfortunately, as far as roster vacancies are concerned, the 2022 Mets had a very good season so keeping as many players as possible would seem like a good idea, right?

I have my own general ideas about roster construction, but for this series of articles I plan on taking a closer look at the positions that are most in flux this offseason.  For today, I will start with "position number 2" on your scorecards, which is the catcher.  Because, after all, if you don't have a catcher then you will likely have a lot of passed balls (credit to Casey Stengel, of course).

Most of the time, the Mets' catchers have been fairly average, in my opinion. Then along came Mike Piazza and the fanbase was spoiled with a generational talent that also happened to play behind the plate (apologies to Gary Carter who was excellent, but not in Mike's class).   Now, that level of play is the expectation going forward and it is a very high bar to clear for anyone on the roster.

In my opinion, you need two solid catchers on a competitive roster.  The position is so physically demanding that it is unreasonable to expect your catcher to start 162 games in a season (the aforementioned Piazza averaged just over 100 starts per year behind the plate during his career).  

You can have a dominant catcher (100-110 starts) and a good back up who soaks up the rest of the schedule (50-60 games) and be in good shape.

In 2022, the Mets loosely followed this model with Tomas Nido (98 starts) taking the lead and James McCann (61 starts) playing the role as the back up (Michael Perez, Pat Mazeika and Francisco Alvarez also made a handful of appearances, but I chose to focus on the first two).  Collectively, the main duo produced the following offensive statistical line (and yes, that is an appropriate description);

159 Games;  458 AB - 6 HR/46 RBI/3 SB - .572 OPS and 0.2 WAR

I know that a lot of fans are not necessarily into statistics, but to make the listed numbers easier to digest, they are not very good.  Basically, they are below replacement level, which means that an average replacement player would be expected to meet or exceed these numbers.  While Nido was on an affordable contract (890,000 dollars), McCann actually made 8.15 million dollars during the 2022 season!  

What is even more amazing is that the Mets won 101 games in 2022 with a void behind the plate (offensively, anyway).

So, moving forward to the 2023 season, both Nido and McCann are currently on the Mets' roster, so will this be more of the same?  

Fortunately, we have a highly regarded prospect that had a cup of coffee late last year with the parent club, named Francisco Alvarez.  Some feel that he is is the top rated prospect in baseball......not just at catcher, but number one overall.  He played mostly at AA and AAA last year and put up the following statistical line;

110 games;  411 AB - 27 HR/78 RBI/0 SB - .885 OPS (some of his games were as a DH)

Without trying to overhype things too much, he has a bat very similar to Piazza's and he is only 20 years old.  The biggest question with Alvarez has been his "glove work" behind the plate and it is a valid concern (but I think it is easier to teach someone to play better defense then it is to teach them to hit like he does).

Even if he needs an adjustment period, I can't see him hitting worse then what Nido/McCann produced last year, right?  I would give him the lion's share of the starts in 2023 and cover him with Tomas Nido, who has experience behind the plate and is above average defensively.  

For a team that struggled to hit home runs at times, adding Alvarez's bat could be a huge jolt offensively AND it would be reasonable from a monetary standpoint.

With those two in lined up, I don't see any room for James McCann on the roster (despite having two more years and 25 million dollars owed).  Seriously, is his contract one of the worst free agent deals in the past decade, or so?  Perhaps the Mets could eat a large percentage of his salary and try to deal McCann to another team that is in need of a second catcher?

Is relying on a rookie catcher too risky for a team that should be in contention for a playoff spot?  

 

Michael Freire - What To Do About The 2023 Rotation

 

Greetings, Mets' fans.

Now that the offseason is upon us, the "hot stove" season is about to get underway which includes all kinds of rumors and projected signings, etc.  Fans of every team are currently filling out their wish lists like a kid in the 1970's with the Sears Christmas Catalog.  Mets' fans are no different and may even be a bit worse, due to the influx of Steve Cohen's sizable fortune and willingness to spend on payroll.

The more costly items in free agency are usually big name players that also play a premium position like shortstop, or in the case of this article, starting pitchers. Going into the 2023 season, three of the five starters that pitched in 2022 will be free agents, with only Max Scherzer and Carlos Carrasco slated to return (which isn't a bad place to start). So, the Mets will need to do some serious shopping this winter in order to fill out the rest of the rotation.

Last season, the Mets began the year with two "aces" atop the rotation in Max Scherzer and Jacob DeGrom.  On paper it made a ton of sense, especially if the team could play meaningful games in September and it would be downright lethal in a shorter series if the team made the playoffs. 

The 2022 Mets were largely successful, improving their win total by a whopping 23 games over the 2021 edition and they did make an appearance in the playoffs for the first time since 2016.  But, as we all know, the season didn't end the way that any of us wanted.

In hindsight, the problem with the aforementioned idea was the respective ages of our "aces" (mid to late 30's) and if they would be effective/ available when they were needed most.  Between both pitchers, they produced the following statistical line; 34 Starts - 209 Innings Pitched - 6.6 WAR (not too shabby).  

Oh and they made a total of 78.83 million dollars combined in the process (even if one of them felt underpaid).  So, the Mets basically paid through the nose for the equivalent of one full season of "ace level" starts.

***On a side note, Tom Seaver completed 20 seasons during his career and averaged 32.35 starts and 239 Innings Pitched each season, while making a total of 6.67 million dollars!  A different era, I know, but he was definitely an "ace" who was effective/reliable and he was underpaid.

So, this got me thinking about how the Mets should construct their starting rotation for 2023, especially since they have so many needs up and down the roster.  Do you try to emulate the "two aces" model again (Plan A), or do you spread your resources a bit more evenly (Plan B), so to speak?

In any scenario, you will have Max Scherzer (43.33 million) and Carlos Carrasco (14 million) locking down the first and fourth (?) slots in the rotation. You also have depth options in house with Tylor Megill and David Peterson available. The question becomes what to do with the second, third and possibly the fifth spot?

Plan A would would require expensive free agents transactions as you would sign an ace (DeGrom) and two mid level starters (Bassitt and Walker) from last year's rotation. In short, you would be "running it back" in 2023, but hoping for better health/results compared to 2022.  In doing so, you would likely have to spend close to 140 million dollars to retain everyone (including the money already allocated for Max and Cookie).

Or, Plan B would start with using one of Peterson or Megill as your fifth starter, since they are already in house and they have a developing track record (Peterson would be my choice, with Megill as a spot starter or long reliever).  Then, you could address the second and third spots in the rotation with the money that Jake would cost by himself (45 million, give or take).  

The rotation in this thought experiment would cost around 100 million dollars.  In short, do you pay Jake a huge sum or do you break that down into two or three pieces to address the multiple vacancies?

Consider the following free agent pitchers and their approximate annual cost moving forward (not an exhaustive and the salaries are estimates from on line chatter);

Nathan Eovaldi (17 million), Tyler Anderson (18 million), Jameson Taillon (14 million), Martin Perez (16 million), *Taijuan Walker (14 million), Zach Eflin (13 million), Noah Syndergaard (16 million), Mike Clevinger (12 million).

None of them are as good as Jake has been, but is that guaranteed if he returns?  Would mixing and matching two or three of the listed pitchers be a better use of the money Jake is asking for?  Would the rotation be much deeper and more available, which in turn helps the bullpen, etc?  Would the money saved be better used on finding a couple of "power" arms to help fill out the bullpen?

A lot of questions, I know and it's not a straight forward answer.

I still think the best path forward is to make a Qualifying Offer (QO) to Jacob DeGrom so you can recoup some draft capital when he rejects the listed offer and signs elsewhere (Texas?), in order to be closer to home.  I also have this gut feeling that he wants to leave and the Mets are simply being used as a bargaining chip for his next contract, but that just might be my Mets' PTSD talking.

***Side note #2, Arlington, TX (where the Rangers play) is actually a few miles farther away from DeLand, FL (Jake's hometown) then CitiField, but I digress. 

I think I could live with a rotation like the one suggested in Plan B, especially if it meant strengthening the bullpen, keeping Brandon Nimmo and potentially adding another bat (Trea Turner) to the lineup. 

What do you think?

Michael Freire - Player A or Player B?

 

Good Morning, Mets' fans.

I have an interesting question for all of you that will eventually wind it's way into a possible solution for an open position on the 2023 roster.  

Consider the following two players and their minor league statistics from 2019 to 2022;

Player A, who is 6-0 tall and 195 pounds, was drafted in the third round of the 2019 MLB draft and made his debut across two levels (Rookie/A) that year.  After the missed COVID season, he played the 2021 season in A+ and then the 2022 season in AA.

2019:  212 PA  .278/.344/.393 (.737 OPS)  2 HR/27 RBI/8 SB

2021: 420 PA  .294/.362/.436  (.798 OPS)  7 HR/64 RBI/27 SB

2022:  196 PA  .305/.372/.506 (.878 OPS)  5 HR/31 RBI/11 SB

Player B, who is also 6-0 tall and weighs 180 pounds, was drafted in the 4th round of the 2019 MLB draft and made his debut in A ball that year.  Skipping over 2020, he played the 2021 season between A/AA and the 2022 season in AA/AAA.

2019:  210 PA  .247/.337/.297  (.633 OPS)  0 HR/18 RBI/17 SB

2021:  368 PA  .285/.337/.454  (.741 OPS)  9 HR/47 RBI/14 SB

2022:  318 PA  .306/.363/.441  (.804 OPS)  4 HR/35 RBI/14 SB

Admittedly, asking you to guess who Player A and Player B are would be quite challenging, unless of course you followed minor league baseball closely and you were aware of all the different player's statistics.  But, with that said, you would admit that the two players are not all that dissimilar, right?

Granted, Player A has a bit more "pop" in his bat and is likely the better prospect, but Player B isn't too shabby and has shown nice progression through the minor leagues.

So, who are they?

Player A is Michael Harris (Atlanta) and Player B is our very own Jake Mangum.

***I might have left out the fact that Michael Harris also had 441 AB with the parent club in 2022 and produced a slash line of .297/.339/.515, along with 19 HR/64 RBI/20 SB, but that isn't the point of this article.  Oh and I am in no way saying that Jake Mangum is as good as Michael Harris, at this point.  Outside of the obvious statistical advantages that Harris enjoys, he is also going to play the 2023 season as a 22 year old, while Jake will be 27 years old this coming year (Jake spent four years at Mississippi State while Harris was drafted out of High School).

Most people don't look at 27 year old players as prospects, which is fair.  

However, if you go back and take a look at their statistics, Jake's progression has been promising and some of his performance isn't that far behind Harris' production.  Atlanta is known to be aggressive in promoting their younger players and the Mets have not.  Perhaps that will change under the new ownership/management (evidenced by Alvarez, Baty and Vientos making token appearances last year).

Would it be that far fetched for the club to give Jake a full shot in Spring Training, or even into the early part of next year?  Especially if Brandon Nimmo prices himself out of NY and the team has a void in CF. Jake isn't as good offensively, but he is likely faster then Nimmo and can play defense with the best of them already.

Perhaps you sign a veteran who can play CF who will provide cover for Jake should be fail to produce at the major league level.  If Jake succeeds, the veteran can provide depth on the bench.  If Jake doesn't succeed, the veteran can be a one year stop gap while the team addresses CF in 2024 and beyond.

That move would also save a decent amount of money to be used to address the starting rotation and/or the bullpen (which is pretty scary on paper at the moment).

And, if any of you are worried about a lack of power in the lineup, Jake likely won't help you there. But, if Brett Baty (3B), Francisco Alvarez (C) and even Mark Vientos (DH) are as good as advertised, then I don't think power will be an issue.

It would require a leap of faith and some patience, but Jake just might be our version of Michael Harris in 2023.  Why should Atlanta be the only team to catch lightning in a bottle? 

Mike Freire - What To Do With Jake?

                                                                     (PC - Ed Delany)
 

Greetings, Mets' fans.

It has been quite a while since I last contributed to this wonderful blog, but sometimes life gets in the way and you have to prioritize what is important, etc.  Sort of like the Mets and the pending roster needs that Billy Eppler and Co. will be tasked with as the 2022 season winds down and we start the "hot stove" season.

The other writers on this blog have done an excellent job of detailing who will be a free agent and what the team should do about them.  However, sometimes a decision is so important that it deserves an extra look or additional consideration.  In this case, I am referring to the "800 pound gorilla in the room", also know as Jacob DeGrom.

Whether Jake stays or goes is really up to him, as he has all of the leverage in this case due to a cleverly crafted opt out clause in his current contract (more on that is a second).  But every other player decision, as well as the final state of the 2023 team payroll will pivot off of what happens with our long time ace.

There seems to be two distinct schools of thought currently circulating in the media and amongst Mets' fans as a whole.  The first is that Jake is the heart and soul of the team and he should be retained at all costs.  Steve Cohen spends more on a piece of art for his collection then it would cost to retain Jake, right?  

The alternate view is that Jake's best years are behind him and the team has so many needs that the money should be spread around instead of concentrated on a single player.

Which view is correct?  I suppose the truth lies somewhere in the middle, as an old friend used to say whenever I sought advice to assist in making a difficult decision. Let's review Jake's history with the Mets, to see if that helps.

In nine seasons (2014-2022), Jake produced the following;

209 Starts - 43.8 WAR - 1326 IP - 1607 K - 0.998 WHIP - 82 Wins (57 losses)

Rookie of the Year (2014)

2 Cy Young Awards (along with four other top ten finishes)

5 All Star Games

So, what's the holdup in keeping this guy again?

Unfortunately, when most players get a long term deal, they are getting paid for "what they have done", instead of what they will likely produce going forward.  Yes, Jake was probably underpaid for the level of performance that he provided the team (roughly 117 million dollars to date), but that's also the nature of the collective bargaining agreement.

Another point of view would be that over his nine seasons, Jake averaged only 23 starts per year which is far below the 30 plus starts that you would expect from an ace.  

Some of that was due to the COVID shortened season, but most of it is due to the ugly fact that Jake has had some significant injury issues along the way.  Especially the last two seasons where he made only 26 total starts which were mostly vintage Jake until the end of this past season where we started to see some cracks in the armor.

The truth is that Jake will be 35 years old in 2023 and to keep him in town, the team will likely have to match or exceed the contract that the team gave to Max Scherzer last year in both dollars and years.  That is a LOT of money and payroll space for an excellent pitcher that has had performance and availability issues of late.  

If you had to wager your own money, would you bet on Jake to deliver 20-25 quality starts per year over the next three or four years, or do you think he will continue to struggle with his health as he reaches his mid to late 30's?

You can see the dilemma, right?  

Putting personal feelings aside, I think keeping Jake would be a bad decision in the long run.  I don't see him providing enough value for what it will cost to retain his services.  Injury issues usually don't get any better as a person ages and Jake can't help the team from the disabled list.

I think the team would be better served by addressing the multiple vacancies in the rotation and the bullpen with the money that it would take to sign Jake. That might sound like blasphemy, but you have to focus on the future and not what happened in the past if you are Billy Eppler.

In the end, all of this may not matter as the decision will be Jake's and who knows what he wants. 

So, what would you do?