Worst Closers in Baseball
RotoAuthority.com recently took a look at the "worst closers in baseball" right now. The list is divided into seven different pitching categories and displays which closers, who are still in the closer position, are at the bottom of those categories.
Brian Fuentes, despite his last 4 shaky outings, is only at the bottom of one of these lists. His 4.23 ERA is the 4th worst amongst closers in the MLB just behind(or above--depending how you want to look at this list) Kerry Wood, Bobby Jenks and Brad Lidge who is carrying an ERA of 7.23 (damn that makes Speier look good!).
While Fuentes doesn't appear on any of the other lists, ex-Angel Francisco Rodriguez appears near the bottom on 3 of these lists with the 5th worst WHIP (1.34), 2nd worst control (5.40 walks per 9 innings) and the 5th worst save percentage (82.8%).
For the full list of worst closers in baseball, click on this LINKIE.
Hopefully, this information plus the fact that Fuentes has posted an ERA of 1.75 or lower in the second-half of the past two seasons, is a bit of comforting fodder for fans as we head down the final two months of the season.
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
74 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Plus look at the crap team the Mets have become this year!
They’ve been decimated by injuries just like the Angels. But they sure as hell don’t have the same results.
Hey Omar. It’s called a depth chart. Look into it.
W6G!
In fact, te NY media has left Frankie alone
probably because they stink so bad, who cares?
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Oh C'mon
we’re the exception, not the rule.
Most teams in baseball who deal with the crap the Mets have this year would go nowhere. Just like the Yanks get overhyped as the greatest team in baseball, the Mets get overhyped as being ‘pathetic’ or stupid by mouthpieces who were too dumb to run that “pathetic” organization." (Hi Steve Phillips!)
The simple fact is, 29 teams in baseball wouldn’t compete with their level of injuries. Jose Reyes, arguably the best shortstop in the game, is out for 5 of 6 months. Carlos Beltran, one of the best all-around players in the entire game, is out for four of the six. Carlos Delgado, a premium slugging first baseman, is out for almost the whole season. Add to that Gary Sheffield, John Maine, J.J. Putz, Jon Niese (one of their best starter prospects, replacing Maine on the roster), Fernando Martinez (their best hitting prospect, injured once he came up), and now, David Wright, arguably a top-five player in all the game.
So, let’s see…
Reyes = Jeter
Beltran = Teixeira
Wright = A-Rod
Sheffield = Melky
Delgado = Posada
Maine = Pettitte
Phillies
Wright > Utley
Reyes > Rollins
Delgado < Howard
Beltran > Ibanez
Sheffield = Feliz
Maine = (this year’s version of) Hamels
Who does that leave the Yankees with at that point? How about the Phillies? I mean, really. No, those aren’t all perfect matches, but they more than add up (Reyes is better than Jeter, for one). I’m a part-time Mets fan, and it’s more than a little tiring to here all the bullshit I get from idiot fans (not you guys, mainly DODGER fans at work with IQs less than half of Mathis’ BA) who don’t know the difference between an “excuse” and a “reason.” At a certain point it’s not just an excuse anymore…the Mets have a legitimate reason to not compete this year, and it’s not just “oh, they have poor depth.” Hogwash. We’re spoiled on our talent…that doesn’t mean every team with less ability to absorb losses is somehow a pile of shit. And the Mets lost FAR more on offense than we did, and it’s really not close.
Oh, and they only choked in ’07. Enough of the crap about how a team a .500 team at the all-star break last year is somehow the one that “choked” at the end of last season. No, in fact, it was the Brewers who rather narrowly AVOIDED a choke, rather than the Mets who had choked.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2009 1:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Mets
I think part of the reason the Mets are regarded as “pathetic” has to do with Omar Minaya.
It was he who decided that re-signing Oliver Perez was a better move for the club than ponying up for Derek Lowe, when it was a given by any sentient being that Lowe was slated to have better seasons than Perez, no matter how much upside Perez is alleged to have. Given that Santana was #1, that moved Mike Pelfrey (who may be excellent, soon) to #2, and Minaya then rounded out the rotation with stiffs like Maine and Hernandez.
It doesn’t matter how much he reinforced the closing end of the game with Putz (whoops!) and Rodriguez when he had nothing in the front end of the game for 3/5ths of his rotation.
Injuries to guys like Beltran and Delgado will happen, just as it happened to Vlad and Torii, but I don’t see the Mets having the depth in the minors to overcome month-long stints on the DL to the veterans. Again, that lack of depth in the AAA and AA level ultimately is the responsibility of Minaya.
If all of this was going on in Milwaukee, then it would get a lot less notice. But with a payroll the size of the Mets’ and the attention the franchise received in the free-agent deals, the expectations were set very, very high—especially with the new stadium opening and the rivalry with the Yankees.
by George Kaplan on Aug 17, 2009 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions
We're not talking month-long injuries here
Vlad (who is roughly Delgado’s equal, now that he’s on the back-half of his career) missed about 2+ total months, Torii about 1. The main injuries were to our rotation.
But the Mets suffered SEASON LONG injuries to not one, not two, not three, but now FOUR top-tier hitters in the entire game this year (Wright is expected to be gone the rest of the season). No, the Mets don’t have terrific depth…but NO TEAM should be expected to withstand such devastation in a single season and still be expected to vie for a division title. I hate Minaya…always have…and he made plenty of stupid moves this offseason. But to bill a team ‘pathetic’ for not being able to withstand the lost of four premiere hitters in a nine-person lineup is just asinine beyond words. Just because we’re the fans of the one exception in the entire game (and mind you, Adenhart’s tragedy aside, the Mets’ INJURIES have been worse than ours), doesn’t mean we should regard every team that can’t compete with injuries as being ‘pathetic.’ This was an absolute shit-ton pile-on of bad luck for one team.
And no, the Mets are not regarded as pathetic because of Minaya…they’ve been the ‘pathetic’ foil to their crosstown rivals since they lost 120 games in 1962, and never looked back. Now people just look for reasons to self-fulfill that prophecy at every chance.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
And Maine is not a 'stiff'
when healthy, he’s more than a solid #3. Perez was a stupid signing, obviously. No reason to debate it.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Take a knee
You’re entirely too wound up about this.
It isn’t smart baseball to place 100% of the job of playing 1B on a 37 year old with a less than athletic physique—now they have Daniel Murphy, who had all of 13 games at 1B on his resume, as the replacement.
A competently-run team has depth to back up the more vulnerable veterans, who are prone to stints on the DL. Apparently, not the Mets. You don’t think this contributes to their image as “pathetic”? You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, and I wish you well in trying to sell that POV.
by George Kaplan on Aug 17, 2009 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not wound up
lots of words don’t equate to being worked up…don’t worry about me.
Yes, the Mets made a mistake at first base. But it wasn’t a huge one at the time. Delgado played 159 games last year. The year before that, the only time missed was when he had a long spring training recovery time from a fluke injury when he was impaled by a baseball bat in the arm. Missed 23 total games that year. In retrospect, sure, it was a mistake. But Delgado is hardly the reason the team floundered. In fact, of the missing players, he’s one of the less significant ones.
Jose Reyes, maybe the best leadoff hitter in baseball, has missed a combined 14 games over the last 4 seasons. Healthy as hell…just days off as needed, and nothing more. Gone for the season.
Carlos Beltran, one of the best all-round players in the entire game. 161 games last year. The last time he missed significant time, it wasn’t an injury risk-issue, but he had a concussion from that gruesome head-to-head collision with Mike Cameron. No injury risk to speak of. Gone for the season.
David Wright. 160 games 3 of the last 4 years. 154 in the other. Just routine days off. Fluke HBP to the head, gonna miss the last two month of the season.
Teams can prepare for a couple injuries a year to key players, maybe. You lose 4 PREMIERE hitters, three of whom have no real foreseeable reason to think will miss significant playing time, and a fourth who has been healthy the last couple years, and almost NO ONE recovers. Murphy wasn’t the back-up first baseman to start. Sheffield was actually expected to play some over there. Not much better, but still…his injury FURTHER derailed the team, forcing others to shift out of position.
Is it the best constructed team in baseball? Fuck no. Is it the ‘fault’ of anyone that they are where they are this year? Equally ‘fuck no.’ Even with adequate ‘depth,’ we’re talking about 115 home runs, 400+ RBIs, 120+ SBs, 400+ runs, and a .290 combined BA with an .880+ OPS gone between these four guys. There’s no duplicating that. These are ELITE, ELITE, ELITE players. Four of them. GONE. Even with better ‘depth,’ you’re starring down a wasted season…maybe not one where you’re 9 games under .500, but rather one where you are instead merely .500.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2009 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Vlad and Delgado are in no way equal.
A healthy Delgado is not the best hitter on that team. A healthy Vlad is still the best hitter on the Angels.
~Till the Halo burns out...
I agree to an extent
but in terms of raw production, they’re very similar at this point in their careers.
I think Kendry might be taking Vlad’s crown of best hitter, but the point I was basically making is more about what kind of numbers they might put up. Delgado may not be the best hitter, but he’s the best raw slugger on that team. Of course, I don’t really like a comparison based around ‘x’ and ‘y’ are not similar because one is the best hitter on his team and the other is not, because the logical extrapolation of this is that Andrew McCutchen is Albert Pujols’ equal.
Essentially, take the best four hitters from any team, and they are FUBAR’d. That’s all.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions
You might be right about Morales, but I'd say jury's still out on that one. We'll have a better idea where his true
talent is in another year. I mean, I HOPE he’s overtaken Vlad, because that would be awesome—he’s currently under contract for like another 3 to 4 seasons during his prime. I’m just waiting for confirmation.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Otherwise though, agreed, not really mets fault they aren't competing this year.
Though it’s not like they were really competing before Wright went down. They were already pretty much done at that point.
~Till the Halo burns out...
No, they weren't
it was more like adding insult to (literal) injury at that point…the final nail in the coffin of wild card hopes, basically.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions
It's really more of a worry where next year is concerned. Head injuries are nasty. Wasn't there an Angels kid
who went blind after getting hit in the head and was never the same again?
~Till the Halo burns out...
Don't recall that
but hell, look no further than the Mets. Ryan Church was having a good, solid .850-ish OPS season for the Mets last year. He suffered a concussion, and hasn’t been close to the same since.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2009 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Church
It is widely believed he was rushed back into the lineup before he had a chance to fully heal.
Again, you can deposit that decision upon Minaya’s doorstep.
Likewise, if you truly believe it is intelligent, responsible player development to trust that your 37 year old 1B will be injury-free for an entire season—and if not, then a 40 year old player can cover 1B out of position—then I have found a great team for you. Of course, there was a player who could have been promoted to fill in for Delgado—but he was traded to the Mariners.
by George Kaplan on Aug 18, 2009 4:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Did you read my post before?
If you want to hinge your entire argument about the Mets’ collapse this season on Minaya’s decision to not back-up Delgado, then you don’t have much of a clue as to how little impact his injury alone would have had.
This isn’t about just Delgado. And even if it was, there is a world of difference between a GM expecting his 37 year old first baseman to remain injury-free, and expecting your 37 year old first baseman who hasn’t had chronic injuries for more than a few years now to not miss AN ENTIRE SEASON.
If the Mets only injury was Delgado, they’d still be in the race. You seem to like to conveinently ignore that.
And rushing a player back into a lineup is as much the GM as it is any number of other people including Manual, team physicians, other coaches, etc.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 18, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions
I read it
I just think you’re too locked into recounting the body blows dealt to the Mets to understand that their image as being “pathetic” might be completely unrelated to the injuries to Wright, Delgado, Beltran and Reyes.
Instead, it might have to do with the way the team has been run for years, from the top down. Minaya has a payroll of $150M this season. He has, arguably, the best left-hander and best CF in the NL (perhaps the entire game) on his team. Until Wilpon lost hundreds of millions to Bernie Madoff, Minaya had an almost unlimited budget with which to work; we all know that this budget includes not only the payroll of the 40-man but also the organization below the tip of the iceberg—the scouts and the minor league system.
What impact players have the Mets produced since Wright and Reyes (players signed and developed under Steve Philips, not Minaya)? For all the money floating within the Mets organization since Wilpon became sole owner 7 years ago, and for all the cash spun off from selling site licenses and season tickets to the new Citi Field, where is the next generation of Mets talent?
We have the dramatic moves to trade for and sign Santana, but no clue how to surround him with above-average #2-#5 arms. We have a GM whose solution to a lack of power in the lineup is to sign a player whose OF talents eroded years ago and whose power bat is only slightly above average. Low risk, to be sure ($400K salary is all the Mets pay, with the Tigers paying him almost $13M), but was there nobody within the organization who would be brought up, allowed to get experience and improve for that day when Beltran is injured, or Francoeur goes on the DL for an extended period?
Minaya is signed to his job through 2012, with two more options beyond that. We got a glimpse of how dysfunctional the front office is with the circus surrounding the minor league admin who was challenging the players to fight him, but who had Minaya’s support for weeks when any other competent administrator would have cut the guy loose. But the simple fact is that the Mets aren’t “pathetic” because of the way things have turned out in 2009—you correctly note, no team could withstand that amount of misfortune—but because for years the franchise has built up hopes and dashed them, all the while pretending to be a front-line organization.
You seem to be thinking the perception of the franchise is about how people view the team in 2009. I submit it is a perception which has been created and nurtured by the Minaya-led administration since 2005.
by George Kaplan on Aug 18, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think it was really "created" by Minaya.
The Mets were operating for years with a higher payroll with the Braves only to significantly underperform expectations. Phillips might have been good at signing or developing talent, but he had an unfortunate tendency to trade it away for mediocre veterans, as seen in the trade of Scott Kazmir to the Rays for Victor Zambrano. There were a number of other trades that ended rather badly for the Mets during his reign (Vaughn/Appier, for example).
In reality, the perception of “pathetic” Mets in recent years is something that has grown out of the relative success of their chief rivals, the Braves and Yankees, over the same time period, as well the success of the Marlins despite the fact that the Marlins operate on a shoe-string budget. The Phillies operated under a similar haze until their World Series victory last year.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Not a fan of Steve Philips
I don’t mean to tout him as an example of a great GM, for he has quite obvious faults.
The only point is that the last two impact players raised in the Mets’ organization—and they’re both excellent players—were drafted and developed under Phillips’ tenure, not Minaya’s.
Since 2005, there really hasn’t been anyone of note to rise to the top. Even the players the Twins received for Santana turned out to be unimpressive.
by George Kaplan on Aug 18, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Which really just makes it a good thing that Minaya managed to swing them
for the best pitcher baseball. It’s not necessarily Minaya’s fault though. We were still feeling the effects of Bavasi’s poor drafts well into this decade. And then we hit a run of bad luck with three straight top hitting prospects crapping out. The Mets have generally been in the winning half of the equation during Minaya’s tenure. That means lower draft picks, and when you sign marquee free agents but don’t lose any for other people to sign in return, it can hurt your ability to draft well, as the Angels discovered.
That’s not to say Minaya’s blameless. I’m just pointing out that the Mets problems extend farther back than Minaya.
~Till the Halo burns out...
I don't think their image as 'pathetic' is tied to 2009
to the contrary, I earlier stated that it dates back to 1962.
The problem I am having is with people who want to use 2009 as a fulfillment of the Mets prophecy of ‘patheticness,’ and proof that they are a terribly run, mismanaged franchise that can never compete because they’re idiots. To the contrary, the 2009 season is, first a foremost, an example of godawful luck being thrust upon a team all at once.
In 2006, the Mets were favorites to win the NL, and possibly the entire World Series. They ran into a hot club and were depleted by their own injuries, and fell short. 2007 came with high expectations, and a devastating collapse. As far as Minaya’s tenure goes, that is essentially the only year I will concede the franchise as being ‘pathetic.’ It was a historic collapse of near-unrivaled proportions (albeit, one that also was largely do to a HUGE Phillies surge, as well).
Last year, 2008, everyone wanted a reason to think the Mets would continue to be pathetic (as they do every single time the team shows a glimpse of it, ever). So, looking for that, they grasped at straws. They lost the playoff spot on the last day of the season for the second season in a row, so people automatically billed it as a collapse to fulfill this image they have of the Mets. The idiot Dodger fans at work, and idiot bloggers of the world still like to bill it as ‘back to back collapses.’ Quite to the contrary of that, the Mets were actually a down-and-out team last year. They were run into the ground by Willie Randolph, who was canned for his mismanagement of an otherwise great team. In came Jerry Manual, and the team instantly turns a corner. From the time of his move to the manager’s spot, the Mets went from a .500 club, to one in playoff contention. At the all-star break they were around .500 still, and under Manual they had one of the best records in baseball to finish the season. Unfortunately for the team, they were in a deep hole to come out of. They spent half a season playing catch up, finally caught up in the last couple weeks of the season to a Brewers team in utter collapse, but at the last moment, fell desperately short of the finish line. People conveinently re-wrote the script from “Brewers narrowly avoid massive playoff collapse” to be “Mets choke away playoffs two years in a row.” It’s bullshit.
And as I said, I won’t defend Minaya. He’s nuts, and he’s not a good GM. But to say he has been poor is a mistake, too. Look at the Santana trade. Sure he traded away the depth of the system…but who in that trade are the Mets desperately in need of right now more than the man they got in it? No one. Carlos Gomez, the centerpiece of the trade, is OPSing .658 with 10 steals this year. Down right awful.
In 2006, this is the man who took Kris Benson (yes, THE Kris Benson), who he had inherited from the previous moron to run the franchise, and spun him off to Baltimore, dumping his ugly contract and insane wife, on another city. In return, he got Julio Lugo and John Maine (a throw-in that Minaya wanted). He then spun off Lugo shortly thereafter for Orlando Hernandez. So from one troubled starter with poor numbers and a distraction of a wife, he got John Maine and Orlando Hernandez. Then he took Xavier Nady and sent him to the Pirates, for Roberto Hernandez and Oliver Perez (a trade of need, as Duaner Sanchez was gone for the season the day before the trade deadline). So from Nady and Benson, he extracted 3/5ths of the 2007 rotation. That 3/5ths managed to go 39-25 (.609) with a 3.71 combined ERA.
Dare I say, those moves were damn-near brilliant. Yes, the Mets have had problems in the last couple years. Yes, their farm system rather blows. But to suggest Minaya is a poor GM because he traded away Mike fuckin’ Carp from the Mets’ 1B depth chart is a little nuts. The dude is OPSing .822 in AAA, and Ks 1/4th of the time. Sure, it’d be nice to have him around somewhere down the line…but Minaya inherited a bad farm…he didn’t develop it. He’s made stupid moves, and the depth this year could have been better. But they aren’t losing this year because of anything he did. And the ‘pathetic’ label is not only unfair, but largely untrue.
Minaya’s major issues with me are character related. As a GM, he’s done a mediocre job with a big budget and a bad system.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 18, 2009 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Minaya
Since I think this horse stopped breathing long ago, I’ll simply clarify a few points:
It wasn’t Minaya’s skill as a trader which allowed him to swap 4 prospects (several of whom have failed to deliver) for Santana, it was the fact they were one of the few teams that (A) Santana would allow himself to be traded to, and (B) could sign him to an extension. The Twins had to pull the trigger or risk getting next to nothing. If their scouts valued Humber and the rest, then that’s more their fault than Minaya’s skill.
BTW—did anyone see Humber flip the ball to a non-existent 3B when fielding a bunt last night?
Second, Minaya’s been there since before the 2005 season. He has to bear some responsibility for the farm system in 2009.
I do, however, appreciate your attempt to bolster Minaya’s image with tales of GM daring-do, then adding:
As a GM, he’s done a mediocre job with a big budget and a bad system.
Thanks for the whiplash.
by George Kaplan on Aug 19, 2009 3:17 AM PDT up reply actions
I spoke to his strengths only
because I was trying to counter your general feeling that he’s been awful…not because there’s nothing in his past with the Mets that was poorly handled. He let Heath Bell go, for one. He failed to swing deadline trades to improve the rotation on a couple of occasions that may have helped the franchise in ’06 or ’07 (albeit, one of those failed trades involved Barry Zito, but at the time it was a big failure for the team). He also made himself look stupid by trading away Anderson Hernandez recently (because he sucks), and then trading right back for him a year later (when he still sucked).
One more thing, however…he actually had his own “Jose Guillen” moment with our franchise, too. In ’07, when he was forced to ditch Lastings Milledge for his disruptive bullshit, he managed to swing a trade for Brian Schneider and Ryan Church. It was fairly well unbalanced at the time…Milledge a limitless-potential hitter, and Schneider and Church sort of being two scraps. Church turned into a mini-Rivera for most of ’08 before being ruined by a concussion, and Schneider was a solid defense, no-hit catcher. Not quite Izturis and Rivera…but a rather similar parallel.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 19, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
And to your core thesis...
I don’t think the general public image of the Mets is rooted in their futile 1962 season, any more than the public image of the Angels of that same year—winning 86 games with a .531 winning percentage and finishing 3rd in the AL, which I believe is a record for a second year team (but I’m too GA to look it up)—is cemented as that of “surprising winners”.
Let’s face it: 1962 was nearly 50 years ago. A significant portion of the Mets fan base wasn’t born in 1962. For that matter, a significant portion of baseball fans weren’t alive in 1962.
The Mets fans are far more likely to identify with the Amazin’s of 1969 (helped mightily by the 40th anniversary this season), or the ’73 team which lost in 7 in the WS, or Kid Carter and the ’86 Mets who landed the second world championship for the team.
Perhaps more importantly, the image of “pathetic” is rooted recently in the teams of 2007 and 2008, which took leads in the NL East into the final weeks, losing them in the final days to the Phillies. THAT is what folks remember today.
That you have been a fan of the Mets for all these years—in addition to the Angels—says you have a lot perseverance and perhaps a bit of masochism. Throw in some love for the Cubs and you’d have the trifecta. I hope one day the Mets reward your loyalty with a team worthy of the fans who have supported them through thin and thinner.
Just don’t go thinking that most fans today have any understanding of 1962—if it didn’t happen in their lifetime, then it really isn’t important (as far as they’re concerned). The current image of the Mets is from bloated payroll teams which coughed up the leads in the prior two seasons.
by George Kaplan on Aug 19, 2009 4:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Your analogy to the Angels' 1962 season
is pretty bogus.
On one hand, you’re talking about an up-start franchise on the not-yet-noticed west coast, with little or no fanfare, winning a decent number of games in its second season, and being generally mediocre.
On the other hand, you have a brand new team in the media capital of the world, replacing two teams that have skipped town, competing for attention from a cross-town rival that iss already established as the single greatest franchise in sports history…they’re entering their first season, and putting a team of rag-tag misfits onto the field who manage to run up the SINGLE WORST SEASON IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME. This was followed by years of Casey Stengal flip-outs and dropped flyballs and just plain disgusting…and “PATHETIC” misery. It shaped the image of the franchise permanently. It’s not comparable to the Angels in 1962 because the Angels did nothing of comparable historic note in the year.
And any decent Mets fan hates the Cubs. They were the only team in baseball that ever dared challenge the Mets early misery, but with twice the ‘love’ the Mets got…fuck’em, I hope they never win a thing. ;-D
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 19, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Historic note
in 1962 because the Angels did nothing of comparable historic note in the year
Actually, the 1962 Angels were fighting for the pennant until about Labor Day.
The 1961 Angels also put up what is still the best first season record for an expansion team.
Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch
I know this
key-in on the word “comparable” in my post.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 19, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
ah
Never mind.
So it’s comparable historic infamy.
Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch
Well no
I mean, finishing with the best first-season record of an expansion team is a nice little footnote, really. It’s something to be proud of, but also, at the same time, something a little trivial.
When you do something on par with what the Mets did in 1962 (and what they followed it up with in 1963, 1964, 1965…), you’re in a league all your own in terms of recognition. It’s not so much that it’s ‘infamy,’ but that even as connotation-neutral historical notes, one is substantially less ‘trivial’ a matter.
Which says nothing of the level of national exposure each team was privy to in their first couple seasons, or the context of their start.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 19, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
All true
Again, though, this is ancient (and probably uninteresting) history to perhaps a majority of baseball fans, since it didn’t happen in their lifetime.
We who were alive then (albeit as kids) can recall that time, but fans 45 and younger don’t have any conscious memory of those days. That’s a ton of fans in that demographic.
Any current negative image of the Mets figures to come from their “collapse” in 2007 and again in 2008.
by George Kaplan on Aug 19, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I still refuse to call 2008 a collapse
surging from a sub-.500 team, more than 10 games back of the wild card in July to a wild card (and SMALL division) lead in the last couple weeks of the season, only to have it slip away is not a collapse. It’s a come-back falling short. The Brewers were the team that almost collapsed last year, if anything.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 19, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, I'm 23
and if you’re a Mets fan, you don’t have to be any older than 12 to have a strong consciousness of the Mets “storied” history. The ‘pathetic’ image is not DIRECTLY linked to 1962 but, as I was saying, an image that was STARTED then, and perpetuated for years…either by accurate representations of ‘pathetic’ (i.e. the 2007 collapse), or by people looking to prove themselves correct through the self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e. the ridicule received in 2009).
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 19, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions
He was
Just years later, when he was trying to reboot his career.
He was on the Red Sox when he was on the wrong end of a Jack Hamilton pitch.
by George Kaplan on Aug 19, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Advanced pitching metrics agree
FIP:
K-Rod: 4.05
Fuentes: 4.13
tRA:
K-Rod: 4.03
Fuentes: 3.96
We’ll see where they end up at the end of the season. Don’t forget the Mets how pitching-friendly the Mets new ballpark is when looking at K-Rod’s ERA. His command has continued to deteriorate with his new team.
Pitching friendly? That place is TINY. It's almost as bad as the new yankees stadium. What are you talking about?
~Till the Halo burns out...
Huh?
http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns
I think you’re confused here
Am I?
Mets Citi HR: 38 in 55 games
Mets elsewhere HR: 31 in 59 games
Other teams vs Mets Citi HR: 53 in 55 games
Other teams vs Mets elsewhere HR: 51 in 59 games
Seems that once again cold hard reality defies projections.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Though to be fair
We don’t have 5 seasons worth of data and numbers like HR hit by teams in a ballpark can vary depending on luck and other factors. However, it’s clear that the Mets stadium isn’t exactly PETCO.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Which is why Im just relying on anecdotes
I know a lot of Met fans and they all tell me its very pitcher-friendly. Of course it could all be perception and groupthink
How many HR's does David Wright have?
I think that the Mets fans are latching on to that fact as a reason to call Citi Field a pitchers’ park. Only 60-70 games worth of data is probably not enough to draw any substantial conclusion, I agree.
Nick Adenhart - 1986 - 2009 R.I.P.
What are YOU talking about
His numbers this year at home are better then his numbers on the road
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=rodrifr03&year=2009&t=p#half
Willie Mays Aikens is FREeeeeeeee
by Angel Aviator on Aug 14, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions
So? One players numbers don't mean anything when it comes to park trends.
~Till the Halo burns out...
It is what it is,,,,,stop making excuses
If I am not mistaking the other guy is pitching / playing in the same park on that same given day.
Willie Mays Aikens is FREeeeeeeee
by Angel Aviator on Aug 15, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Which would matter if you were comparing them to someone else who played in that park.
Stop being irrelevant.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Yeah.
The guy with the 4.23 ERA in a pitchers park is better than the guy with 3.35 ERA in the bandbox. K-Rod’s having a bad year sure, but Fuentes having a better one? No. He’s not.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Angels Stadium a pitchers park?
My research actually determines that Angels Stadium is one of the more neutral stadiums in the country. Also, Fuentes’ recent struggles have all come and home except for one of those games. So, you can’t really take into account the stadium.
Furthermore, K-Rod’s most recent struggles all came in away games…so once again, the stadium isnt necessarily the problem at all.
Do it for Nick '09
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Aug 13, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh really?

That chart is based on a spreadsheet from the HBT which broke down every stadium over the 5 year period from 03-07. It calculates runs as a factor of three true outcomes plus batted ball effects. Angels stadium is the 6th heaviest pitcher-friendly park. What research are you looking at?
Fuentes struggles have come despite the stadium, but neither pitcher has been very good since the break though for both it’s been a pretty small sample size. Fuentes has been the recipient of some good defensive help while K-Rod has not. However K-Rod was a better pitcher before the break, has been a better pitcher for the entirety of the two’s careers, and will in all likelyhood continue to be a better pitcher for the foreseeable future. I’ll also note that Fuentes has had a much better defense behind him, especially the infield (see Castillo, Luis).
~Till the Halo burns out...
Zu! You're on a tear!
Cool chart below but I’m not entirely sure what its telling me. HR/OFB…is that….Homerun vs. Outfield foul ball? I dunno. I’ll try and find HBT and look it up.
I was looking at stuff on baseball-reference. LINKIE If you go to the far right, it has a stat called park factor. I dunno how its exactly added up but the numbers are almost exact and actually favor batters this year.
ANYWAYS, I was trying to say that stadiums dont seem to be a factor with Fuentes or K-Rod. I agree with you about the defense. Our D has been superb behind Fuentes. He SHOULD have two more blown saves but Hunter and Rivera saved his ass….
As for my post, I was just throwing some stats out there that I found. A little encouragement has the Angels head down the final stretch.
Do it for Nick '09
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Aug 13, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Baseball-reference.com's park factor...isn't good.
If you really want to know why, I’ll explain, but it’s gonna be long and sabermetric-y.
HR/OFB = Home runs per outfield fly ball. As opposed to infield flyballs AKA pop-ups. The key stat is the runs column though. Think of them as percentages, where 100% is a neutral park.
But fine…parks don’t matter. But come on man. How is comparing Fuentes to K-Rod for the billionth time encouragement? People need to let this go. We went with Fuentes and that’s all there is to it.
~Till the Halo burns out...
So the quality of the Save Master depends on ??
Not his stuff but the park and the D and the air and weather and blah blah blah,,,,,,,,Bottom line is F-Rod is gone, and I could give 2 shits myself.
Willie Mays Aikens is FREeeeeeeee
by Angel Aviator on Aug 14, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Give me your hat
Willie Mays Aikens is FREeeeeeeee
by Angel Aviator on Aug 15, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
You don't have an Angels hat? Poor guy.
What’s your address, I’ll mail one to you. _
~Till the Halo burns out...
One thing I'm curious about - Qualcomm/Jack Murphy
Why was that park known as a launching pad? It is closer to the ocean than the Big A, so the marine influence should have been at least equal, right?
It certainly didn’t fit the pattern of the Dodger Stadium/ATT Park/Big A/Safeco/Petco pitcher friendly perception.
Nick Adenhart - 1986 - 2009 R.I.P.
I really couldn't tell you.
This research is based on the present stadiums. I can make guesses, but that’s all they are.
1. Jack Murphy was a football/baseball stadium. That meant the upper deck circled the whole park, which may have acted as insulation against the marine layer.

2. Petco by contrast has an opening at the back of the stadium, much like some of the other parks you mention.
![]()
3. IIRC in the past a lot more day games were played. This would obviously have shifted the perception of some of these parks, as we know from experience that Angels stadium is much more homer-friendly during the day. Angels stadium wasn’t always considered a pitcher’s park.
Just as an addendum, Safeco is kind of a different animal from the others, what with the roof and all.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Yawn. Who cares?
The point is that K-Rod was not worth what he was asking, what we offered him, or even the $49 million for four years that the the Mets are paying him. Whether Fuentes is better is irrelevant. He is a better value.
by Brody on Aug 13, 2009 9:30 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
I changed the title because...
my intention wasnt really to compare the two but just show the stats I found.
Do it for Nick '09
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Aug 13, 2009 10:04 PM PDT reply actions
Honestly Fuentes has been up and down
But he’s given the Angels a different look, so that has to count for something.
I wouldn’t get excited about bragging about him as ‘head and shoulders’ better than K-Rod.
K-Rod can’t get too many saves for a team under .500 and he is probably closer to having an ‘average’ season than an all-star caliber one.
Or is Kendry perhaps the one who needs to sit?
CitiField is now a bandbox on par with Yankee Stadium?
hahaha, yeah okay.
At best, the evidence would show it’s neutral. It has some canyon-like features in the power alleys, and balls have been dying there a lot. I watch fairly regularly, and I can at the very least say it’s CERTAINLY not the sham of a park that Yankee Stadium is. In fact, to the contrary, there was talk about moving the walls in a little at the end of the season.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2009 10:34 AM PDT reply actions

by 



























