• Welcome Guest
New York Mets

Welcome to the New York Mets.
Before posting, please review our Message Board Guidelines

    • UNPROVEN DOES NOT MEAN BAD!
  • To:All
  • 2/12/13
  • saztastic2012

I am disapointed we did not et Bourn and maybe Sandy makes another move but it is important to remember "unproven) and "Bad" are not the same thing,

The mets of right now is simply unproven, Could it bad? Yes if Duda is the 2012 Duda and not the 2011 version, If Capt K is what he was in the second half and not the first, If Baxter can not do what he did in a few hundred ABS over the full season and if No one else steps up and no other moves are made yes it could be bad, Or as you guys like to say the worst in the entire world including every mionor league and beer league on the planet.....

but people are acting like our OF is 3 has beens that are old when that is not the case, Right now our Of is unproven, Capt K was good for the first half, Duda has just 700 big league ABS under his belt and was very good in 2011 so what is the real Duda? Is it the 2011 guy? the 2012 guy? Or something in the middle? And Baxter was very productive in his limited ABS, Plus maybe Den Dek wins a starting job, Or maybe JV wins a spot, Unproven is not the same thing as bad.

So our OF might be a joke or might be decent or maybe just maybe between the kids, Duda, CApt K, Den Dek, Baxter, Cowgill, JV and whoever else is brought in (can Lutz plst the OF?) maybe we field a productive OF after all?

We have what will prove to be one of the better rotations yet agaqin,

On paper we should have a much improved pen (our real problem from last year)

one of the better IFs and one that is expected to be even more improved with another year for Tejada and Ike starting the season healthy,

And are already better behind the plate with the potential of TDA.

So if our OF can be just average this team is ready to make a little noise, Maybe it is still a little away from being a long term contender but that does not mean it can not contend.

We should get above average production from the entire infield and C spot, So to be a better then average offense we need atleast league average production from the OF,

Can Duda and his backup give us 81 runs, 83 RBI with 21 HRS and a .264 AVG?
Can Den Dek and or Capt K and his back up give us 89 runs, 64 RBI 15 HRS and a .264 AVG?
Can Baxter/ Cowill and his back up give us 92 runs, 78 RBI, 23 HRS and a .260 AVG?

Keep in mind those are the league AVG for LF, C and RF, Maybe Baxter and Cowgill give us 92 rbi and 78 runs, It still works out,

We need those guys to be average for this team to be good.

Remember the problem last year was only slightly the offense, It seemed more like the offense when they all went into a slump but the real issue was the pen.

This team will win with great pitching and timely hitting.

Our offense last year scored 650 runs just 33 below average.

Our pen qave up the fifth mnost runs 260 (35 more then league average)
The rotation was good even with all the guys out and Santana's late seasoln issues allowing 449 runs (16 less the league average)

LGM!

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • Deadtrek

Do you work for the Mets? Related to anyone in the front office??

"we need at least league average production from the OF"
Here is a quote for that one
"what outfield?? " Sandy Alderson Nov 2012

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • saztastic2012
And?
  • Reply to this Message
Message 548270.4 was deleted
  • 2/12/13
  • AdrianMonk


That's what I've been saying. For many of the alternatives, "proven" means he has done it in the past and will probably do less of it in the future.

The lesser performance of the proven is often not much better than that of the unproven.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • DFAB
well, to be fair...unproven doesn't mean GOOD either. They COULD be good, COULD be average, or COULD be bad. The only think you can do is look at probabilities...and the odds are that the OF will most likely be closer to being mediocre or worse than being good.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • saztastic2012
AMen LGM!
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • saztastic2012
Agreed and it seems JV and Lutz will also get alook so we have a number of potential, We just need to find two additional spots to feild with Duda.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • saztastic2012

You had me when you said could then you continued with "and the odds are that the OF will most likely be closer to being mediocre or worse than being good. "

So tell me where exactly did those odds come from?

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • DFAB
you base odds off of past occurances...what is the % of prospects that even MAKE it to the ML? Then, what is the % that become AS ML players? THEN, what is the % that become STARS? I can tell you that those % usually aren't in the team's favor. Past PROVEN players are more likely to be successful in general than unproven players.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • MetObserver
But what are the odds that two mediocre players if platoon can become a good position?
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • DFAB
I don't know the exact odds obviously...but no one can argue that generally, a PROVEN player typically does better than an unproven player. OF COURSE the unproven player can "prove" himself and become good....but odds are that the proven player will be the safer bet.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • MetObserver
Only if he is proven to be good. ;)
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • DFAB
well of course lol..
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • gomets66

The rotation was good even with all the guys out >>>>

thank dickey for that. take his numbers out and mets starters numbers drop way down.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • MetObserver
Dickey was 8-5 in the second half.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • gomets66
take dickey out and mets starters overall era goes from 11th to 18th in mlb for 2012. the 8-5 is not a good indicator of how well he pitched.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • metr03

Not trying to be a <punk here, but to be honest, if I'm looking to the past OF THE METS, I more often see that the "proven" players that we bring in (especially over the last decade or 2) either get injured or (even more often) prove they cannot handle playing for us (however, for some reason they can do perfectly fine for the Yanks). How much I wish the "general concensous" would apply to us...but if I'M looking at the evidence as it pertains to OUR team I'd say that we're almost better of with the young guys. Case-in-point, I didn't (as I'm pretty sure the majority of us) expect that Neise would turn out to be the relatively solid player (with a decent ceiling mind you) that he's turned into. He kinda just happened. I feel the same way about Tejada, who in my book is quickly becoming a fantastic player for us.

And just to make it understood...I was For getting Bourn. But what can we do about that now? We just gotta work with what we got.

Ps. I think JV has a future with this club. I think he'll be able to handle the OF...CF, if given some time. Excellent range, he just needs to use his head better. I also like MDD if he can cut down on the K's.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • dmanning12
I agree. Lets see what we have. That is why I am against bringing guys like
Scotty Pods and trying to get Drew Stubbs. They have value but have holes in their games.
Just like our OF. Duda is a monster but an awful fielder.
Kirk strikes out too much but is a darn good athlete and an aggressive ball player.
Same with DD.
Cowgill could be our Ruggiano.
Brown demolished AAA last year. Lets see what he has.
Plus with the money we didn't spend on Bourn gives us options now.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/12/13
  • JoseJose

"Plus with the money we didn't spend on Bourn gives us options"

Yep. Just like the Jose/Beltran/Slappy/Ollie/KRod money. Maybe they'll upgrade the Shake Shack signs or get some better ketchup there.

  • Reply to this Message