HitTrackerOnline projects the landing spot for the ball, which is a much more accurate way to describe a home run. Take a look at Bay’s home runs from last year on Citi Field’s dimensions. Sorry about the picture, it could be better looking.

Yeah, so Bay might lose two or three home runs to Citi Field next year. Expect him to hit close to 30 and be a nice stabilizing force in that lineup.

And it does usually pay to do your own work, eh?

Of course, I just HAD to see what Jason Bay would have done in Citi Field last year. The results were disastrous.

Jason Bay in Fenway:

Jason Bay’s Fenway home runs mapped onto Citi Field:

That’s right. Jason Bay would have hit two home runs in Citi Field last year according to this tool… Let’s hope that Fenway is so strange that it screws up mapping tools like this, because it’s hard to tell if the Fenway home runs are plotted at their ‘true’ distance, or where they would have actually landed if there were no stands. It’s hard to swallow that Bay is a Fenway product given the fact that he’s performed well in many different stadiums. Looking at his numbers, he’s had a steady .225+ ISO everywhere he’s been, and his power didn’t spike too much in Boston. Perhaps the strongest thing we can take from these pictures is that it might be safer to side with the more pessimistic power projections (27 home runs from Marcel).

Oh, and because we were talking about David Wright’s power problems, here’s a map of his doubles, triples and home runs in Citi Field last year – mapped on Shea. It seems to show that last year was just a strange year for Wright, and that Citi only ’stole’ 2-3 home runs from him.

If you are a fantasy player and are wondering how Target will play, katron.org also has a three-part series on that stadium, with conclusions that contradict most early reports that the new Twins’ home park will play like a hitters’ park.

The funny thing about spring training games is that it’s a revolving door of player changes and a scorekeeper’s worst nightmare. It’s a good thing the games don’t really count. And some of you have probably taken a glance at the Mets’ box score the past couple of days to find out how your favorite players are doing. Some of you probably have wondered if you were even looking at the correct box score because of so many unfamiliar names of players that make their way into games during spring training. So I thought it might be a good time to go over some of the players that are in Port St. Lucie who may be off the radar. Sure we know all about Jason Bay, David Wright and Oliver Perez, but what about all of those rookies and non-roster invitees? So let’s spend some time to get acquainted with a few of the cast of characters that are competing for positions and hoping to earn a roster spot.

Jack Egbert – Pitcher – Throws: Right – Bats: Left — Age: 26

Jack Egbert came to the Mets via the White Sox when he was claimed off waivers last September. He was a former top prospect with Chicago and finally managed to make his major league debut last season, pitching a couple of games and ending up with a 27.00 ERA. Egbert has also struggled in his time at the AAA level but has done better in the lower divisions in the minors. He has a very good sinker that hits the radar gun in the high 80’s and has a decent change that will give hitters another pitch to think about. Perhaps the best attribute about Egbert is his ability to keep the ball on the ground.

Clint Everts – Pitcher – Throws: Right – Bats: Right — Age: 25

Clint Everts became a minor league free agent at the end of 2009 after spending 7 seasons in the National’s farm system. He was the #5 overall pick in the 2002 amateur draft by the Montreal Expos (remember them) and has yet to break into the majors. He put together a pretty nice 2009 which saw him bounce from A+.,AA, and AAA while compiling an overall 8-1 record, 1.65 ERA and 10.2 K/9. The word out is that after several years of struggling, Everts’ fast ball has picked up its velocity once again and has a curveball and outstanding change. If he impresses in spring training, he could be a sleeper to make the club.

Eddie Kunz – Pitcher – Throws: Right – Bats: Right — Age: 23

Eddie Kunz is a name that many people will recognize as the Mets #1 choice in the 2007 supplemental draft. The Mets knew that they were drafting a guy who was slated as a pure reliever and possible closer for the future. The big right hander has a mid 90’s fastball that has some nice sink to it that will induce a lot of swings and misses and groundballs. But he has a poor change and has not been able to establish any type of effectiveness against lefties. This is Kunz’s biggest issue with becoming a potential closer and seems more suited for a future set up role. The heat is on Kunz who is on the verge of slipping as one of the Mets more promising prospects and needs to step it up this year in Triple A. He isn’t off to a great start in his first appearance in spring training allowing 4 earned runs in a 0.1 innings.

Tobi Stoner – Pitcher – Throws: Right – Bats: Both — Age: 25

If you were paying close attention to the Mets towards the end of the season (and if you weren’t, you could hardly be blamed for checking out early), one of the Mets minor league call-ups was Tobi Stoner, a 16th round amateur draft choice in 2006. He appeared in 4 games in ’09 for the Mets, pitching 9 innings with no decisions and a 4.00 ERA. Stoner possesses 4 decent pitches with the velocity on his fastball topping out in the high 80’s. What Stoner really has going for him is excellent control and the ability to throw consistent strikes. While he isn’t at the top of the Mets’ prospect list, Stoner could be a useful add-on to the bullpen at some point in the season because managers love a guy who can come into a ball game and get the ball over the plate.

Jay Marshall – Pitcher – Throws: Left – Bats: Left — Age: 27

The Mets acquired Jay Marshall back in January as a waiver claim from the Oakland A’s. Marshall is a wiry left-handed submarine style pitcher who can be effective against left-handed hitter but doesn’t have amazing stuff. He does induce a large amount of ground balls which has keep his home runs way down and he has put together a tidy 2.85 ERA over the course of 6 seasons in the minors. Marshall will probably be getting some time on the mound this spring and is certainly a relief pitcher that is worthy of taking a closer look at it.

Shawn Bowman – Third base – Throws: Right – Bats: Right — Age: 25

Shawn Bowman came to the Mets organization via the 2002 amateur draft as the Mets 12th pick. Some of the shine has left Bowman the past few years and he has yet to establish a consistent offensive approach to the plate, lacking plate discipline but he does possess plus power. He’s had back injuries in the past that unfortunately has slowed his development but his defensive skills remain some of the best in the organization as he started out as a shortstop. Bowman’s biggest problem with trying to make the big club is that there is some guy named Wright that is blocking his way who I don’t think is going anywhere.

Jason Pridie — Centerfield – Throws: Right – Bats: Left — Age: 26

Jason Pridie was originally drafted by Tampa Bay as a 2nd round choice (43rd overall) in the 2002 amateur draft. He was acquired by the Twins in a rule 5 draft and then sent back to the Rays and back again to the Twins. The Mets acquired Pridie off of waivers last month and should get a good look in spring training. The book on Pridie has him regarded as a free swinger and has hit .276 in 8 seasons in the minors. The lack of discipline has prevented him from having a good OBP (.319) but he has been able to steal 153 during his minor league career. He has excellent defensive skills, a strong arm and good base running abilities which makes him a decent candidate for a 4th or 5th outfield spot. We’ll see what he is able to do in Port St. Lucie but he is a good back-up option to have on a squad.

Kirk Nieuwenhuis – Centerfield – Throws: Right – Bats: Left — Age: 22

Here’s a guy to keep an eye and track his progression. Kirk Nieuwenhuis (say that 10 times fast) is a fast riser in the Mets farm system having been drafted in the 3rd round (100th overall) of the 2008 amateur draft. He’s a fleet-footed centerfielder who covers a lot of ground with some good power and speed. Last year splitting his time between high A and AA ball, Nieuwenhuis was able to crack 17 homers and steal the same number of bases. One area needing improvement for Kirk is his ability to make contact. If he able to improve that he should be close to a .400 OBP guy (.364 OBP in ’09) as he has shown solid plate discipline.

Ike Davis – First Base – Throws: Left – Bats: Left — Age: 23

Highly doubtful that you haven’t heard about this guy, but if you haven’t you better get used to his name. Ike Davis is currently penciled in as the future first baseman of the Mets and from the reports has all the tools to be a big thumper with 35+ home run potential. He’s already made his presence know in spring training with a .750 batting average and a home run. The first round draft choice (18th overall) has a smooth swing and plays a solid first base defensively with a good arm. He has had some difficulty repeating his swing consistently which exposes holes in his hitting but some additional seasoning at AAA should help with that. He’ll probably be hanging around quite a bit for spring training and get exposure to big league hitting, but expect him to start the year in AAA, but could be a call-up in 2010 depending on how the season goes.

Obviously this is far from a complete list of players that are competing for spots, but just a sampling of some of the guys who’ll be getting into games. There are many other names that you’ll see in the box score, Hisanori Takahashi, Jesus Feliciano, Russ Adams and some older, but familiar names like Josh Fogg, R.A. Dickey and newly acquired Kiko Calero. We’ll see how the spring develops and revisit some of the players that we haven’t covered that are still competing for roster spots, but this will certainly get you started.

But this is typical March fodder where we get to spend more time talking about the sordid details of things that are happening off the field than on the field. The past couple of spring trainings we have been blessed with the topic of two collapses and the psychological affects of those downfalls. We have endured a financial scandal where we all learned the difference between a Ponzi scheme and Ponzu sauce. And we put up with the typical back and forth jabs that go on between other teams in the division proclaiming they’re “the team to beat”. All of this “noise” seems to generate a whirlwind of controversy that follows the Mets like indigestion after eating bad Mexican food. When really all the Mets should be doing is figuring out how to put the best 25 guys together that’s going to help erase the ugly blemishes of past seasons.

Enough of blaming Tony Bernazard for ruining the Mets farm system, it’s time to look forward. Enough of blaming him for developing the 80 pitch go-the-opposite-way drill that apparently was the bane of the Mets entire season which played with David Wright’s head and haunted his dreams the entire winter. There must have been some other person (Manuel?, Minaya?) who thought Bernazard’s idea was a good one. Do I get to blame Bernazard for my car breaking down yesterday (I can’t believe I am actually defending Bernazard)? But the point being is that this team, for some reason, has more drama that circulates around them than a 16 year-old teenage girl with unlimited text messaging. The team has been a complete soap opera for too long and “As the Mets Turn” is not going to get the kind of ratings any Met fan wants. The distractions are abundant and the focus is little.

The Mets have far too much on their plate this spring to worry about anything off the field. They need to reestablish some credibility with the baseball community and most important their fans. There’s the issue of staying healthy. There’s the matter of trying to figure who the 5th starter will be and who will take over the setup role since Kelvim Escobar is nowhere near prepared to pitch. There’s the task of trying to re-learn how to turn on a hanging breaking ball and pull it down the line for extra bases rather than poking it the other way. So let’s hope that the FBI questioning is no more than a minor distraction and that Beltran’s connection with Galea is only about healing his injured knees and if HGH enters the conversation, it exits quickly and leaves no suspicions. Or that the only thing Reyes was involved with was a little blood “spinning” that helped to speed up his recovery and nothing more devious. Because the last thing any Met fan needs is another reason to feel embarrassed by the “games” that are being played off the field by this team. Here’s hoping the focus stays between the foul lines.

Oh, and by the way, did you see that Reyes hit a triple in his first spring training at-bat?

C
1B Daniel Murphy
2B Luis Castillo
3B David Wright
SS Jose Reyes
LF Jason Bay
CF Angel Pagan
RF Jeff Francoeur
Backup C
Backup CI
Backup MI Alex Cora
Backup OF Gary Matthews Jr.

SP Johan Santana
SP John Maine
SP Mike Pelfrey
SP Oliver Perez
SP Jonathon Niese
CL Francisco Rodriguez
RP Pedro Feliciano
RP Ryota Igarashi
RP Sean Green
RP Bobby Parnell
RP
RP/SP

DL Kelvim Escobar
DL Carlos Beltran

+1 BN P/OF

So that doesn’t leave much suspense, does it? I could easily have penciled in the catchers – the early money is on Rod Barajas to be the number 1 and Henry Blanco to back him up, with Blanco maybe getting the nod against lefty starters because of his superior split OPS.  Nelson Figueroa and Fernando Nieve are the favorites for those last two pitcher spots – although they could just sign Figueroa for the minor leagues as they have done the last two years.

Backup corner infield is probably the most interesting battle in camp, so we’ll spend a whole post or ten talking about Mike Jacobs and Fernando Tatis who are battling for that spot. If the 25th man is not a pitcher, the loser of that battle will jump into the fray with Chris Carter, Fernando Martinez, speedster Jason Pridie, and good old Nick Evans. This isn’t a bad group of players to watch and discuss in the coming weeks.

If the 25th man is a pitcher, you’re looking at someone out of the group that’s in camp: lefties Ken Takahashi and Jay Marshall and righties Pat Misch, Tobi Stoner, Eddie Kunz make up that group. We’ll keep an eye on this group, because some of the younger guys used to have promise, but it’s not a very scintillating collection of arms. Given all the injuries the Mets’ position players had last year, the bet is that someone like Carter or Tatis takes that final spot. And it’s starting to look like Winter League MVP F-Mart will play every day in AAA to start 2010, isn’t it? Once Beltran returns, three reserve outfielders is a bit much.

Happy spring watching Stoner, Pridie and Jacobs battle for the roster!

Once again, Reyes is the latest centerpiece in Manuel’s master plans with the intention of slotting Reyes in the #3 spot in the lineup rather than his traditional leadoff role. On some level this makes sense. Reyes is not considered your prototypical leadoff hitter in that he owns a career OBP of .337, although the past several seasons his OBP has been anchored in the .350’s. He takes fewer pitchers per plate appearance than the major league average of 3.83 but the one thing that he does possess that any leadoff hitter would be envious of is lightning speed.

One can only assume that Manuel has been fretting over the absence of his usually #3 hitter, Carlos Beltran, who is out for at least the start of the season. With that in mind, Manuel has probably been racking his brains trying to figure out a way to make the middle of the lineup tougher without his star centerfielder. So let’s entertain this notion and do a best guess on how Manuel would put his lineup together with Reyes batting 3rd and Beltran on the bench. But first, let’s look at the more traditional lineup without Beltran and Reyes at the top of the order:

1. Reyes (S)
2. Castillo (S)
3. Wright (R)
4. Bay (R)
5. Pagan (S)
6. Francoeur (R)
7. Murphy (L)
8. Barajas (R)

I slotted Pagan in the 5th spot to break up the barrage of right-handed hitters that the lineup would have if Francoeur was batting in the 5th spot instead of the 6th.
Now let’s take a crack at what the order would look like with Reyes batting 3rd and Beltran still out:

1. Pagan (S)
2. Castillo (S)
3. Reyes (S)
4. Wright (R)
5. Bay (R)
6. Francoeur (R)
7. Murphy (L)
8. Barajas (R)

The 4-5-6 spots are heavily right-handed but this would seem to be a meatier middle of the lineup. The other option here would be to slide Castillo in the leadoff spot, perhaps bat Murphy 2nd and move Pagan down in the order and have him bat either behind or in front of Francoeur.

Admittedly, the batting order does look more formidable when Reyes is batting 3rd while Beltran is out. It seems that opposing pitchers may have less of a “break” navigating this lineup as opposed to having Reyes lead off. But where does Reyes hit once Beltran returns? Beltran’s presence in the lineup provides a significant boost. Does Manuel really intend to have Reyes bat 3rd even when Beltran is healthy and what would that look like? Well, here’s another stab:

1. Castillo (S)
2. Murphy (L)
3. Reyes (S)
4. Beltran (S)
5. Wright (R)
6. Bay (R)
7. Francoeur (R)
8. Barajas (R)

Once again there is a barrage of right-handed hitters in a row. Manuel could flip-flop Wright and Beltran to alleviate some of that problem but again it makes for an interesting lineup that I’m not totally put off by.

However, the biggest issue with dropping Reyes down in the order is that it tempers one of his greatest assets: speed. This move will almost certainly have some impact on his stolen base totals. In Reyes’ case, a walk or a hit is almost as good as a double with his potential to steal a base. When a player that has that kind of potential leads off a game standing on second, it becomes an important factor in setting the tone for the rest of what transpires. Just how important is that? If we have that scenario with a runner on second and no one out, the run expectancy for that team is to score 1.189 runs for that inning. That’s a real plus when a team gets out of the gate with a quick run. Granted, there is still most of the game to play if it’s the first inning and it doesn’t ensure victory but it does provide confidence and puts the opposing team back on their heels. With a visiting team scoring a run in the top of the 1st with no one out, that team has gone from a 50% chance of winning the game to 59%. In a different scenario, if the home team was able to jump to a 1-0 lead in the bottom of the 1st, this would predict the home team’s chance of winning at almost 65%. That’s a 15% increase of securing a possible victory than when the first pitch of the game was thrown.

Dropping Reyes down to 3rd also has other implications. With Reyes in the leadoff spot, we know one thing for sure: he will be the first Mets batter in the top or bottom of the 1st inning. But being a leadoff hitter doesn’t guarantee that at any other point in the game he’ll lead an inning off again. But it does guarantee that he will have at least one situation where he will bat to start an inning. It is also guarantees that every time the lineup rolls over, he will get more plate appearances than batters that hit after him. Reyes is a dynamic force on the base paths with a potential to “make things happen” and by lessening his opportunities to come to the plate, the Mets lessen the run scoring opportunities he generates.

As I mentioned before, Reyes isn’t a prototypical leadoff hitter with his lifetime .337 OBP. Or is he? The .337 OBP is misleading because it doesn’t represent his OBP when he is “acting” as a leadoff hitter. It represents his OBP for his career, whether he was leading off an inning, batting second, third or whenever. If we isolate Reyes’ OBP to just the first inning, at the beginning of the game, when we KNOW he has an opportunity to act as a leadoff hitter, we get an entirely different picture. Let’s take a look at how Reyes did in the first inning of games from 2006 to 2009.

We can be generous and disregard the 2009 season since Reyes was hurt for the majority of the year. But even with 2009 data averaged in, Reyes looks like every bit the productive leadoff hitter who sets the tone for the game and puts the Mets in a better win expectancy situation from the get-go.  He obviously adapts to that scenario and recognizes his importance of getting on base as opposed to other times in different circumstances where he may be trying to drive in runs.

Bottom line is that we can play around with lineups and try to come up with the “perfect” batting order that provides a consistent, balanced attack. While it’s debatable that with Beltran out, moving Reyes to 3^rd in the order creates that balanced attack, it is also apparent that it sacrifices Reyes’ ability to create havoc on the bases that so effectively establish the tenor of the game.

Sure, Jerry, go ahead and try out Reyes in the 3rd spot while Beltran is on the mend; but once he’s back, Reyes needs to be inserted back at the top of the lineup where he gives the Mets the best opportunities to win.  To do otherwise, in my humble opinion, would be a huge misuse of Reyes.

So what do you think? Do you think Manuel is playing with fire batting Reyes 3rd or do you think it’s the right move? And what would you do with Reyes once Beltran is back? You’re the manager. How would you handle it?

Can you feel it in the air? Yes, it’s that time of the year and the start of the season is just a little over a month away. Since pitchers and catchers reported earlier this week, I thought it might be a good time to evaluate all of the catching options the Mets have this year. Let’s see, there’ rookie Josh Thole. And there’s…hmmm… Omir Santos of course. And…well…um…oh, yes…oh no, not him, he got traded to the White Sox. Oh yeah there’s Henry Blanco. And then, well…I guess there’s Chris Coste. And supposedly the Mets might be close to signing Rod Barajas to a major league contract which would mean that the Blue Jays would receive a compensation pick although at the time of this post that has not happened yet. And, well, that’s it…that’s everyone.

It would be a monumental understatement to say that none of these catchers will be mistaken for Mike Piazza. The combined batting average of all 5 of these players (we’ll throw Barajas in there just for kicks) in 2009 was .240 with a total of 34 home runs. Barajas in fact supplied 56% of that power. Thole had the highest batting average at .321 but with only 53 Major League AB’s and none in AAA, it would be difficult to hand over the full-time catching position to someone so green although he seems to have potential to handle the bat well.

No matter how you slice it, the Mets don’t seem destined to fill the catching spot with any kind of offensive threat. So going into the situation with those realistic expectations, the Mets would do well then to choose the best defensive catcher of the bunch. After all, the catching position is primarily a defensive position and most teams are willing to forgo the bat in favor of a backstop that handle the staff, throw out base runners, provide strong defense and call a solid game.

With a shout out to Sabermetrician Chuck Rosciam, he developed a formula for rating catchers based upon their overall defensive abilities. He took into account the catcher’s stamina to consistently catch games, their ability to throw out runners, their fielding percentage, the ability to be a handle bunts, head’s up game play (double plays and passed balls) and finally the ability to call an effective game. He then took all six of these elements and combined them into one overall rating by which to measure the catcher’s overall defensive effectiveness. While I won’t get into the nitty gritty of his calculations (you can read more about it here), much of the formula is based upon looking at how the individual catcher in question measures against the other catchers on his team and then looking at how he compares against the catchers in the league as a whole.

So before we delve into looking at how the Mets catchers fair against this system, let’s take a test run and look at a proven defensive catcher that is one of the best in baseball: Yadier Molina. We’ll take a look at each of the 6 elements, giving some description on the context and then use Molina as the bar by which to measure the other Met catchers by. Yes, it’s a high bar but we’re throwing offense out the window, right?

• Stamina– Molina caught 82% of the innings the Cardinals played last season; a very high percentage showing great endurance. If we take that percentage and divide that into the N.L. innings average (1444), Molina scores a rating for stamina of 5.68.

• Good Glove– This is pretty straightforward. We’ll simply take Moilna’s fielding percentage**of .995 and divide that into the league average for catchers of .993. A rating of 1.00 will indicate that the catcher is right on par with the league. Anything over that is above average. Molina scores a 1.02 in this category. **Chuck Rosciam formula actually takes the catcher’s independent fielding percentage (IPO), but for simplification, I used the regular fielding percentage. My apologies to Chuck.

• Good Arm– As you can guess this measures the catcher’s ability to throw out those nasty base-stealing thieves. Molina was successful throwing out these culprits almost 41% of the time compared to the league average of 29%. This gives him a rating in this department of 1.40 well above a rating of 1.00 which would be right at the average.

• Ball Handling– To be clear, this measures the catcher’s ability to record an out on bunt plays, not anything more risqué. As you would imagine, Molina was right there with the best of them at 86% of the time getting the out on a bunt against the league average of 87%. Slightly lower than the average, but still good which gives him a rating of .99.

• Heads up plays– This measures the catcher’s ability to make heads up plays such as being quick to react and reducing the amount of passed balls or making double plays. The number of passed balls and double plays by the catcher are weighted against the league. Molina scored an 8.27 in effective game play.

• Game Calling– This measures the catcher’s ERA against the other catcher’s on his team. When Molina was catching, pitchers produced an excellent 3.48 ERA. When he wasn’t behind the plate, the Cardinal pitchers’ ERA evaluated by almost a full run to 4.47 when any other catcher was calling the pitches. If we divide the other catchers’ ERA into Molina’s, he scores a 1.28 where once again 1.00 would be the average.

The finally step to get a raw score for Molina is to multiple the results together for each of the steps (i.e. stamina score * good glove score * good arm score etc.). Molina’s net result would be 85.86. An outstanding score!

Which brings us to the Mets. You probably have a queasy feeling in your stomach right about now and might feel the need to grab a couple of antacids. I’ll wait while you get some………………………………………………………………….. still waiting ……………………………..OK?

Let’s look at how the prospective Mets catchers did when using this same rating system. Once again will throw Barajas into this mix. The table below doesn’t break down each catcher’s individual percentage in the category but rather just gives the rating of each category and finally the raw score.

Stamina is obviously heavily influenced by playing time and Barajas is the only catcher on the list above that had consistent playing time in 2009. The rest of the catchers were essentially no more than back-ups. The majority of the catchers had better than average throwing arms with the exception of Coste who also calls a poor game calling along with Blanco. While Thole appears to be a promising prospect, he really has too little experience to really get a true measure on his defensive skills.

With whom the Mets currently have on their roster it would seem that Santos and Blanco would be the best choices from a defensive standpoint but both were unimpressive offensively. Santos batted a mediocre .260 with a .298 wOBA, while Blanco’s average was less at .235, with a slightly better wOBA at .310. Neither should be expected to offer much offensive punch, and defensively it’s pretty much a coin flip as both don’t come anywhere close to a catcher the caliber of Molina. Interestingly, Barajas would seem to be the better choice from a defensive standpoint as he rated a very respectable 53.08 with an above average arm and solid game calling skills which one would think would be of prime importance considering the Mets pitching woes last season. With the Rangers also listed as one of Barajas’ potential destinations, the Mets should push a little harder to ensure they are able to secure his services. It’s true they will be getting nothing more than a career .240 hitter who has some decent power, but for $1M-$1.5M for the year, he may the right choice to split time with Santos and provide the experience and defense the Mets need. After all beggars can’t choosers and in this scenario between the Mets and Barajas, it’s difficult to know who is the beggar and who is the chooser.

First, let’s take on this idea that Citi Field stole his power. Sorry to be short, but it did not do any such thing. Consider the following picture. It shows all of Wright’s 2008 home runs on top of the Citi Field map. I’ll let you consider it for a second.

Thanks to Greg Rybarczyk and Hit Tracker Online for all of the information. See those three home runs inside the blue line that represents Citi Field? Yeah, Citi Field would have robbed David Wright of three home runs in 2008. Before last year, he averaged 29 home runs per full season. Take three a way, and you’re talking about a guy who could still put up 25 a season even in the tough environs.

So if it wasn’t Citi, what happened? It looks like Wright altered his batted ball profile for some reason. Maybe the loss of his high-profile teammates caused him to press.

Consider that his fly ball rate was the second-lowest of his career (35.9% last year, 38.9% career), and his his HR/FB rate was easily the lowest of his career (6.9% last year, 13.9% career). These things led to his career-low .140 ISO (.210 career).

All of this lack of power came despite having a normal ground ball rate (38.4% last year, 37.5% career), and the same always-stellar line drive rate (25.7% last year, 23.6% career). So he was still hitting frozen ropes, they just weren’t going in the air. Maybe Citi Field did get to him – psychologically. On the other hand, he didn’t reach more than normal (21.5% last year, 20.1% career), so he wasn’t pressing too hard.

So what can we conclude? His walk rates didn’t change, and his line drive rates were still stellar. He just didn’t hit the ball in the air and struck out a little more than usual (26.2% last year, 20.1% career). Perhaps he didn’t hit an early home run that would have settled him into his normal routine. Perhaps he was trying to hit double after double to make up for the absence of Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran. Perhaps it was a bad year.

But it still looks like Wright is the line-drive hitting, base-stealing, all-around excellent third baseman we thought he was. So don’t count out the power just yet. And don’t blame it all on Citi Field.

In response to the leniency of quality starts, Ron Shandler developed a more complete method of measuring the value of a pitcher’s outing through Pure Quality Starts (PQS). PQS looks at a pitcher’s individual start and measures their ability to dominant, display command, exhibit prevention, stamina and to keep away from home runs. A pitcher can earn a maximum of 5 points by exhibiting each of these attributes. A dominant performance is classified by a pitcher getting a 5 and a terrible day would be graded with a zero.

So how does a pitcher earn these points? Well, there are rules attached to earning these points and they are as follows:

1. A pitcher will earn a point if he goes a minimum of 6 innings. If the pitcher fails to complete 5 innings, he will get an automatic zero for the outing and none of the other ways to earn point will count.
2. A pitcher will earn a point if he allows no more than an equal number of hits to the number of innings pitcher. 6 innings pitched and 6 hits would earn a point but giving up 7 hits would result in a zero.
3. A pitcher will earn a point if his strikeouts are no fewer than 2 less his innings pitched. If he strikeouts 4 batters in 6 innings that will earn him a point. But striking out 4 batters in 7 innings will receive a zero.
4. A pitcher will earn a point if he strikes out a least twice as many batters as he has walked. If he strikes out 6 batters and walks 3, he’ll earn a point. If he strikes out 6 and walks 4, he’ll earn a zero.
5. A pitcher will earn a point as long as he has allowed no more than 1 home run in a game. That’s pretty straight forward, right?

The point breakdown can essentially be categorized as follows:

• 5 points = dominant start
• 4 points = very good start
• 3 points = good start
• 2 points = average start
• 1 point = poor start
• 0 points = disastrous start

So ideally, we would want a pitcher to score more 5’s and 4’s than 1’s and zeroes.

So let’s try this out for size and see how it looks with an actually pitching performance. We’ll use a game that Johan Santana pitched last season against the Red Sox on May 22. In that game Santana’s line looked like this:

7 IP, 7 H, 2 ER, 1 BB, 8K, 1 HR allowed.

In this game, Santana would have earned the full 5 points for this dominant start. He met the criteria for rule #1 by pitching more than 6 innings. He met the criteria for rule #2 as he gave up an equal number of hits or less to innings pitched. He met the criteria for rule #3 as he actually struck out more than his innings pitched. Rule #4 was met because he had more than twice the amount of strikeouts to walks and #5 was met because no more than one home run was allowed.

PQS allows a finer measurement of what excellence is, unlike quality starts which can reward mediocrity. With quality starts it’s possible for a pitcher to go the whole season and have a .500 winning pct. and a 4.50 ERA and still have 25 quality starts. Is this really a quality pitcher? PQS is more demanding in its requirements and really helps to identify not only how well or poorly a pitcher pitched in a single game, but also helps us to measure the consistency of a pitcher through multiple starts or even over a whole season.

Which brings us to the Met pitchers. Ah, yes…the Met pitchers! The Mets had 11 different pitchers start games for them last season. Obviously, some of the pitchers were fixtures in the rotation (Santana, Pelfrey) where others were used more randomly (Misch, Niese, Parnell). Below is a breakdown of how each pitcher faired during their starts for the season using PQS. Keep in mind that some pitchers had more data to work with than others simply because they had the opportunity to start more games and the pitchers with lesser starts could have greater variances.

No surprise that Santana offered the Mets the most consistency from start to start with only a 4% chance of having a performance that would be considered poor/disaster. Over the course of the season, he averaged 3.68 points for his starts, putting him on the cusp between very good and good. Nelson Figueroa was the only other pitcher for the Mets that scored in the “good” range with 3.1, but with only 10 starts for the year, it’s difficult to give that much as credibility as we would like. And not surprising that Oliver Perez showed a penchant for poor outing as he was only able to put together an average point value of 2 for all of his starts.

Now let’s look briefly at the cumulative output of all the pitchers together.

From the information above, we can see that for almost every dominant/very good outing the Mets had, there were almost an equal number of poor/disaster outings that cancelled the dominant/very good ones out. And let’s not forget that all too often, we saw dominant/very good outings wasted and wins squandered by bullpen failures to hold leads which is not reflected in the data above. The highest percentage was in the good/average department which illustrates the mediocrity of the Mets pitching as a whole.

By a point of comparison, let’s take a look at the Dodgers’ starters and their cumulative P’QS numbers. The Dodgers had arguable the best starting rotation in baseball, leading the Majors in ERA and notched 95 wins for the year.

The Dodgers starters scored almost 20% more dominant/very good starts than the Mets and almost 10% less poor/disastrous starts. What’s interesting is that the Mets actually had more starts in the 3-2 point range which is really more of a testament to the mediocrity of the Mets’ starters and the excellence of the Dodger’s pitchers.

Since it’s evident that Santana is by far the most reliable and consistent pitcher the Mets have, for fun, let’s see what the team overall numbers would look like if we removed his starts.

When comparing the Mets numbers with and without Santana, notice how the poor/disaster percentage barely changed, going down just a little over a half of a percent without Santana’s starts. But the biggest swings were in the other categories where we see a cumulative drop of almost 15% between the two. In fact, in this scenario the poor/disaster starts outnumber the dominant/very good starts. This is what life for the Mets would look like without Santana.

Granted, that the above information contains significant contributions from pitchers who are no longer with the Mets (Hernandez, Redding). But the Mets haven’t introduced any one new to the rotation to balance out the contributions that Santana makes on a consistent basis. It really illustrates that once you get past Santana, there isn’t much reliability with the rest of the staff. If the Mets have any chance of competing this season, Pelfrey, Maine and especially Perez will need to significantly pick up the slack and take some of the burden off of Santana’s shoulders. If they don’t step up, we will continue to see the significant disparity in talent between the top of the Mets rotation and everyone else and the results in the standings will more than likely reflect that.

The idea is, that by taking a look at a hitters’ tendencies in certain swing zones, you can see what kind of hitter they are. Using run values, you can see how productive they are when, say, they swing at a pitch that is up and in. Run values place a value on a situation – a runner scores from first with one outs a certain amount of the time, and so you can actually say he’s worth a certain fraction of a run. So, if before an up and in pitch, there’s nobody on first, and then the batter swings, and then there’s a runner on first – that was worth a certain fraction of a run.

So let’s take a look at a trio of Mets hitters. What do their swing zones look like?

First, the key:

Now, take a look at David Wright’s swing zones (the numbers in each zone represent the percentage of his total swings that occurred in that zone):

Looks like you want to avoid pitching down and in to him, that’s his wheelhouse. That’s also the type of pitch he waits on – you can see that 50.8% of his total swings come in those three zones. He’s a smart one.

For comparison’s sake, let’s take a look at Jeff Francouer.

Well, he’s largely terrible. At least he can handle the pitch in the middle of the plate! Phew.

Here’s Daniel Murphy:

Well, he likes the middle in, but he swings middle out. Looks like Murphy either needs to make more contact, or get to know his tendencies a little better. This sort of analysis doesn’t make them look very good, does it?

More on the way once I figure out how to represent a switch hitters’ strike zone.