Who Embodies the Mets?
In a story published on WSJ.com, Tim Marchman suggests that Kirk Nieuwenhuis “personifies” the Mets.
Do you agree?
Marchman’s piece starts out by establishing the following parallels: Jason Heyward symbolizes the Braves, Chase Utley the Phillies, Bryce Harper the Nationals, and Rob Brantly the Marlins. So it’s not necessarily the best player on a particular team, but rather, the player on that team that most closely resembles the team as a whole — for one reason or another (or several reasons).
Get it?
So, Captain Kirk personifies the Mets because:
Last year, Nieuwenhuis hit .252/.315/.376, so that his OPS+—on-base plus slugging percentage, adjusted for park and league effects and indexed to 100—was 91. Over the last three decades, 13 center fielders have hit within five points of that either way over at least 300 plate appearances at age 24. Every one was a success, or is right now a still developing and valuable property. … That a player who wasn’t quite good enough for last year’s lousy team has the potential to do this well says something about the value of youth and of a reasonably broad base of skills. And that goes not just for the player, but, in all its ingloriousness, the team he represents so well.
Like Nieuwenhuis, the Mets are fairly young and flawed in obvious, not easily correctable ways.
It’s an interesting way to look at the Mets (and other teams). Though, it’s a bit unsettling when Marchman states this about Nieuwenhuis:
He doesn’t do anything that well, but he also isn’t terrible at a variety of things. Not being terrible counts for a lot.
So there it is: the Mets won’t be terrible. Hmm …
Marchman also says this:
Like their maybe center fielder, though, the Mets also are not terrible at a wide range of things. The infield and the rotation are solid, maybe better than that; the bullpen looks passable in theory; the outfield has some promise. They’ll get on base and hit for a bit of power, the pitching will keep them in games and the defense won’t botch too many. That isn’t inspiring, but it’s something. Not being bad is important.
Sadly, I’m not quite as optimistic about the Mets as these statements suggest. For one, I don’t see the rotation as “solid” — especially with Johan Santana a huge question mark and Jeremy Hefner filling in as the #5, and also because I’m not convinced Shaun Marcum will stay healthy beyond 15-20 starts. In the outfield, I don’t see any promise, beyond the possibility that Lucas Duda might “figure it out” and become a beast. The stat comparison with which Marchman begins his story to me is a stretch; for me it’s one of those situations where if you look long and hard at enough different numbers, you’re bound to find SOMETHING positive. So Captain Kirk is one of 13 CFs with a 85-95 OPS over 300 PAs by age 24 — does that mean he’ll be Andruw Jones? Maybe Nieuwenhuis is also one of only 4 lefthanded-hitting CFs to hit 7 HR in his first 65 MLB games, and the other three guys are in the Hall of Fame — is that an indication of anything? What I saw from Nieuwenhuis was a kid who was hot when he came up, cooled off, and never adjusted after a rip-roaring debut. The adjusted and indexed OPS that Marchman alludes to was as high as it was based primarily on Kirk’s first 150 or so plate appearances — after that, his numbers are dismal.
But, maybe that’s why Nieuwenhuis DOES personify the Mets — maybe the Mets only look promising based on small sample sizes, or because of their inspiring first halves of the past three years.
If it’s not Captain Kirk, then who — if anyone — embodies the Mets, and why? Answer in the comments.
Daniel Murphy is the other side of the Mets — one plus skill (in his case, hitting for contact and average), a host of shortcomings he’s worked on to make passable, but a limited ceiling. It seems like at any given moment the Mets might be pretty good at one thing, and faking it enough to get by on the rest… until they aren’t.
Secondly, the Mets rotation is more solid than people will give them credit for, but it is no better than third in the division with or without Santana. The Nationals and Phillies still sport the stronger rotations based on track record and ability. However, the Braves rotation can very well become a catasrophe. As argonbunnies often points out, the Braves bullpen and the Nationals bullpens both show themselves as difference makers, but for the first six innigs, I like the Mets better.
Let’s compare the Braves starters to the Mets starters:
Hudson or Santana? Hudson because he’s healthy, but if Santana can be healthy by late April, they have the same stuff and I rate them close.
Harvey or Medlen? Medlen was amazing for two months, but please excuse the skepticism. Where was he before that? The bullpen. Call it even here too, but I think I’d rather have Harvey
Niese or Maholm? Maholm used to get knocked around, but has adjusted and now their numbers are quite similar.
Minor or Gee? Minor on potential, Gee on results. Close again.
Marcum or Teheran? Marcum is solid and has been consistant, Teheran is electric but his ERA last year wasn’t over 5.00 by accident. He gets wild and MLB hitters know what to do with a fastball.
Hence, starting pitching is even to maybe a slight edge for the Mets. If Santana is out and the number five spot is not for sure either way (be it injury for Marcum or inconsistancy for Teheran), would you rather have Harvey, Niese, and Gee, or Medlen, Maholm, and Minor?
I like the Mets side better.
As for the rotations, I like those comparisons. A few thoughts:
I’d take Niese over Maholm by a good margin. I’m hoping Maholm’s been a bit lucky and could yet revert to his 2009-2010 form.
The Harvey / Medlen comp is weird. Harvey has a chance to be the next Roger Clemens, and Medlen has a chance to be the next Greg Maddux. Harvey’s a big dude with great stuff and a bulldog attitude. Medlen’s a smart little guy with pinpoint control of his secondary stuff who never walks anyone. I think they’ll both be good for a long time, but I have to favor Medlen in 2013 based on his recent success.
Hudson and Santana are both beat up old warriors without their former stuff, but with a few top-notch skills that can make them tough on a given night. Hudson’s sinker seems to have a bigger margin for error than Johan’s fastball/change up, though. I’d say Tim has the higher floor; he should be at least okay, while we’ve seen Johan can be awful when things aren’t right.
I think any scout would take Minor over Gee, but yeah, Gee’s record of getting it done is better. Upside or reliability? I dunno. I’ve never actually seen Minor pitch.
Teheran appears to have a ways to go before he’s as effective as Marcum. I don’t see him taking that leap in 2013.
So where does that leave the two rotations overall? I don’t know. Pretty close, I guess. Right now the Mets seem to have more risk of injury, and the Braves seem to have more risk of healthy players being ineffective. I think the Mets’ edge may come down to their 6th and 7th guys. I want to have faith in Hefner…
1. I directly contradicted argonbunnies. Sorry argon, unintended, but I would have at least acknowledged the difference of opinion;
2. I seem to come across as a cheerleader of sorts, but that was just the rotation, don’t think that I am excited about the lineup or think this team can make the playoffs…
It seems dumping on the Mets is much en vogue. It has been said that even negative publicity is good. LOL, really?
Basically I think the Mets’ starters are more likely to be solid if healthy, while the Braves’ starters may have an edge on upside and/or health.
I’m mainly dumping on the Mets in an attempt to avoid more disappointment, and to develop a realistic picture of when we might be good again. I’m guessing 2016. If some consensus could emerge around that, then maybe it’d be easier for me to convince myself to watch the Blue Jays for the next few years.
Hudson vs. Santana, to me, is no contest, because I don’t see Santana pitching more than a dozen games (if that) — his shoulder is shot.
Niese vs. Maholm – I’d lean toward Niese, but as you mention, their numbers are frighteningly similar.
Medlen vs. Harvey – where was Medlen? He was Matt Harvey three years ago, then had TJ surgery, and now appears to be back on track toward being a very solid #2- or #3-type starter. Will Harvey be better than that? Maybe eventually, but I’m not expecting it in 2013.
Minor vs. Gee – Minor is where Niese was this time last year, so there’s a chance he steps up as Niese did. I don’t see Gee evolving much more than he has at this point, and his labrum tear is always looming in the back of my mind. I’d call this even, but lean toward Minor having a more productive season.
Marcum vs. Teheran – tough one, as there’s so much uncertainty with both pitchers. Will Marcum start more than 20 games? Is Teheran for real? But really, in my mind, I’m subtracting Santana from the equation, so it becomes Marcum vs. Hudson (Hudson wins) and Hefner vs. Teheran (Teheran wins).
BTW the Braves may have Brandon Beachy returning from TJ surgery in the second half. I imagine they’ll follow the same path they did with Medlen, easing him back in the bullpen first.
Right now behind Bundy who is the consensus #1 prospect pitcher you could make a case for Wheeler at #2. You can trow in a few guys like Skaggs and Cole, but wheeler is def a top #5 SP prospect who is in reality ready now. Remember wheeler was regarded much more highly by pretty much all scouts then Harvey was and look how Harvey performed.