The Mets of my youth, and for a good part of my life, were always known for their pitching. We used to joke that the Mets produced pitchers, while the perennial playoff contending Cardinals produced offensive minded outfielders. So it is nice to see a team that can really score some runs, but I still wish they had stronger pitching.
In the last generation, teams did not look for that much offense from the SS and 2B combo which is why Boswell and Harrelson's work could be considered successful. In 1973 Braves second baseman and future Mets' manager Davey Johnson, had an extraordinary season hitting 43 HR with 99 RBI and an OPS of .916. But that season was an outlier to his entire offensive career that could be accurately described as "meh"whether you looked at his play for the Braves or Orioles or the miscellaneous teams he closed out his career with. In later years the DP combo featured strong hitters in addition to their fielding prowess.
Teams would also sacrifice some hitting for a strong defensive catcher who could handle the pitching. Jerry Grote, who hit .252 with an OPS of .663, would never be relied upon for his bat, but the way he handled the 1969 Mets pitching staff was as crucial to their success as anything else that year.
With all the current options available, it is crazy that any team would have to settle for a marginal hitter either as a starter or a backup. My hope for CF is that the platoon works well since they are both strong fielders and have the ability to hit, albeit not up to what we would expect from one starter at that position. Also hoping that Starling Marte can just stay healthy, since he produces when he is and they are stuck with his contract for one more year.
I'm not in any way, shape or form arguing - or even mildly suggesting - that what you write about teams punting offense to get defense didn't happen 50 years ago. What I'm saying - perhaps even shouting - is that it was a mistake to do this 50 years ago and it's a mistake to do it today.. We need to stop apologizing or rationalizing the mistakes of 50 years ago.
Certainly the heart of what you're saying make plenty of sense, but its not always that simple. The basic fact is that hitting a baseball is one pf the hardest things in sports that you can do. No Gm says I want a crappy hitter on the team as a base metric. I differ from you when it comes to defense though. Someone that plays a critical defensive position can easily hold down a bench job. As far as starters go, I suppose the decision gets back to a topic from the other day: streaks. Some folks cant generate a ton of offense all season but could go on a few runs that are amazing - and - play quality defense. Do the good times offset the bad? Im not sure the yearly OPS+ is the right instrument for that judgement. What if you looked at total days on great streaks and the OPS during those runs, and forget the rest? If you could get 4 weeks of > 1000 OPS, would that be sufficient?
It may not be that simple in every case. But there are enough cases where it is incredibly simple, so much so that it's a problem that in the 21st Century that we're still dealing with it. The Mets gave 895 PA to Tomas Nido in which he put up a 57 OPS+. That should never happen.
Taylor is the better overall player but he just average. He is an ideal fourth outfielder but 2025 he should be starting at least 67% time in centerfield. Siri is a elite defender and should be a defensive replacement. As a bench player he should a used as a pinch runner and a power pinch hitter. He is a good bench piece. My minimum standard is a little bit higher than yours starters (350+ PA) should be 95 OPS+ and bench personnel (150+ PA) should be 80 OPS+.
Teddy Martinez, another blast from the past...thanks for reminding me of Teddy.
So, the standard has been raised to 5 points above the Galvis line, I can dig that.
One thought on the prevalence of weak OPS guys from Mets past...yeah, the Mets had plenty of bad hitters, and since OPS+ is a relative stat, the Mets' roster had more than its share of below average bats. But, I'm curious as to the root cause. Sure, they may have overvalued defense to some degree in pre-SABR ball, but was that the only reason? What were the actual alternatives in that era? Free agency didn't exist, so it was drafting, development, and trades. They did trade for Felix Millan, who brought more offense to 2B for several years. They brought in Del Unser for CF, he added more offense to a defense first position. They developed John Stearns, who had some very strong offensive seasons in a defense first position. I sense the baseball people were more aware than the fans, who were sold on the weak hitting but loveable team first defenders supporting the pitching stars.
Yeah, he'll always be Teddy to me. But B-R has him listed as Ted.
You ask a reasonable question and I wish I had a good answer for you. My opinion is that the front office didn't have a Bing Devine or Whitey Herzog kicking around anymore. The worst was when they traded away Rusty Staub, because the last thing the Mets of that era needed to do was to trade away hitting. But that deal had outside factors involved.
As for Millan, my revisionist history look at that deal is that it worked out way better for the Mets than it had any right to happen. Gentry never getting past his injuries and Frisella's untimely passing. And then Millan posting three more or less league-average seasons as a hitter after posting a 67 OPS+ in his last season with the Braves. Plus getting George Stone's 1973 season.
Certainly, the Unser/Stearns deal worked out for the Mets, too. But they traded Unser and Wayne Garrett for a singles hitter and a throw-in. And the singles hitter flopped and they traded away the throw in, who became a decent hitter in Jim Dwyer.
Ultimately, I guess the front office just wasn't strong enough thru most of the 1970s. You pointed out what's probably the best two trades - although getting Mays' production in 1972 was pretty good, too. And Kingman. But four decent deals in a decade isn't much. Especially when you drafted as poorly as the Mets did thru most of the 70s.
The Mets of my youth, and for a good part of my life, were always known for their pitching. We used to joke that the Mets produced pitchers, while the perennial playoff contending Cardinals produced offensive minded outfielders. So it is nice to see a team that can really score some runs, but I still wish they had stronger pitching.
In the last generation, teams did not look for that much offense from the SS and 2B combo which is why Boswell and Harrelson's work could be considered successful. In 1973 Braves second baseman and future Mets' manager Davey Johnson, had an extraordinary season hitting 43 HR with 99 RBI and an OPS of .916. But that season was an outlier to his entire offensive career that could be accurately described as "meh"whether you looked at his play for the Braves or Orioles or the miscellaneous teams he closed out his career with. In later years the DP combo featured strong hitters in addition to their fielding prowess.
Teams would also sacrifice some hitting for a strong defensive catcher who could handle the pitching. Jerry Grote, who hit .252 with an OPS of .663, would never be relied upon for his bat, but the way he handled the 1969 Mets pitching staff was as crucial to their success as anything else that year.
With all the current options available, it is crazy that any team would have to settle for a marginal hitter either as a starter or a backup. My hope for CF is that the platoon works well since they are both strong fielders and have the ability to hit, albeit not up to what we would expect from one starter at that position. Also hoping that Starling Marte can just stay healthy, since he produces when he is and they are stuck with his contract for one more year.
I'm not in any way, shape or form arguing - or even mildly suggesting - that what you write about teams punting offense to get defense didn't happen 50 years ago. What I'm saying - perhaps even shouting - is that it was a mistake to do this 50 years ago and it's a mistake to do it today.. We need to stop apologizing or rationalizing the mistakes of 50 years ago.
Certainly the heart of what you're saying make plenty of sense, but its not always that simple. The basic fact is that hitting a baseball is one pf the hardest things in sports that you can do. No Gm says I want a crappy hitter on the team as a base metric. I differ from you when it comes to defense though. Someone that plays a critical defensive position can easily hold down a bench job. As far as starters go, I suppose the decision gets back to a topic from the other day: streaks. Some folks cant generate a ton of offense all season but could go on a few runs that are amazing - and - play quality defense. Do the good times offset the bad? Im not sure the yearly OPS+ is the right instrument for that judgement. What if you looked at total days on great streaks and the OPS during those runs, and forget the rest? If you could get 4 weeks of > 1000 OPS, would that be sufficient?
It may not be that simple in every case. But there are enough cases where it is incredibly simple, so much so that it's a problem that in the 21st Century that we're still dealing with it. The Mets gave 895 PA to Tomas Nido in which he put up a 57 OPS+. That should never happen.
He was a back up catcher. Give the guy a break!
Career backup catcher Duffy Dyer had a 73 OPS+. My standards are a little higher than Nido.
Taylor is the better overall player but he just average. He is an ideal fourth outfielder but 2025 he should be starting at least 67% time in centerfield. Siri is a elite defender and should be a defensive replacement. As a bench player he should a used as a pinch runner and a power pinch hitter. He is a good bench piece. My minimum standard is a little bit higher than yours starters (350+ PA) should be 95 OPS+ and bench personnel (150+ PA) should be 80 OPS+.
Steve Gelb must have read this before tonight's broadcast.
"Jose Iglesias has the best hands I've seen and is a great clubhouse guy."
"Zach Short was one of my favorites last year."
Teddy Martinez, another blast from the past...thanks for reminding me of Teddy.
So, the standard has been raised to 5 points above the Galvis line, I can dig that.
One thought on the prevalence of weak OPS guys from Mets past...yeah, the Mets had plenty of bad hitters, and since OPS+ is a relative stat, the Mets' roster had more than its share of below average bats. But, I'm curious as to the root cause. Sure, they may have overvalued defense to some degree in pre-SABR ball, but was that the only reason? What were the actual alternatives in that era? Free agency didn't exist, so it was drafting, development, and trades. They did trade for Felix Millan, who brought more offense to 2B for several years. They brought in Del Unser for CF, he added more offense to a defense first position. They developed John Stearns, who had some very strong offensive seasons in a defense first position. I sense the baseball people were more aware than the fans, who were sold on the weak hitting but loveable team first defenders supporting the pitching stars.
Yeah, he'll always be Teddy to me. But B-R has him listed as Ted.
You ask a reasonable question and I wish I had a good answer for you. My opinion is that the front office didn't have a Bing Devine or Whitey Herzog kicking around anymore. The worst was when they traded away Rusty Staub, because the last thing the Mets of that era needed to do was to trade away hitting. But that deal had outside factors involved.
As for Millan, my revisionist history look at that deal is that it worked out way better for the Mets than it had any right to happen. Gentry never getting past his injuries and Frisella's untimely passing. And then Millan posting three more or less league-average seasons as a hitter after posting a 67 OPS+ in his last season with the Braves. Plus getting George Stone's 1973 season.
Certainly, the Unser/Stearns deal worked out for the Mets, too. But they traded Unser and Wayne Garrett for a singles hitter and a throw-in. And the singles hitter flopped and they traded away the throw in, who became a decent hitter in Jim Dwyer.
Ultimately, I guess the front office just wasn't strong enough thru most of the 1970s. You pointed out what's probably the best two trades - although getting Mays' production in 1972 was pretty good, too. And Kingman. But four decent deals in a decade isn't much. Especially when you drafted as poorly as the Mets did thru most of the 70s.