The LoHud Mets Blog

Everything felt as if it had returned to its proper alignment on Sunday afternoon.

I attended Banner Day not as a traditional reporter- though those lines are far from clear anyway in 2012- but with my wife, my parents and my two-year-old daughter. It only seemed right; I’d written a book, after all, calling for Banner Day’s return. I needed to experience it viscerally.

We carried a banner recognizing my father’s favorite player as a child, Duke Snider, my favorite, Darryl Strawberry, and the man my daughter emulates, sticking her tongue out as she runs, David Wright.

The Mets got this one right. They opened the ballpark to more participation from their fans, and the fans responded with adoration.

Without question, this is coming late in the game, with the attendance figure-just 28,000+ paid, well short of the 42,000+ the stadium holds- suggesting that the combination of early-season success and goodwill gestures haven’t brought back the fans who helped make the Mets the second-most attended MLB team in 2008. They were down even from the 30,791 paid on the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend in 2011.

Here’s hoping the Mets are patient with a fan base who needs to see more goodwill before committing again, as they have. Days like Sunday, though, which are well-executed and give fans a real sense of stake in the team, are the way to do it. Necessity may be the mother of this invention by the Mets, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be praised for inventing correctly-even if that invention is merely a return to what worked in the past.

All I know is that my daughter is still talking about what it felt like to walk on a real baseball field. I’ve gotten to do it plenty as a professional, but it is a very different thing to sit in the dugout, awaiting a player’s press availability, and walk that warning track as part of three generations of baseball fans. It was a glorious set of memories, and the Mets made it possible, because only your favorite baseball team, really, can make such things possible.

I don’t think I was alone either. The crowd may have been smaller than ownership wants or needs right now, but the people who were there lacked that curdled feeling so present at Shea Stadium, then Citi Field, since the unpleasantness began in 2007. Maybe those are the people who have left. I don’t know.

But the banners were hopeful. This is a fan base, after all, that has made a conscious choice not to root for the team just as geographically convenient, with the added benefit of winning more than any franchise in any major sport. Think about that one. These aren’t people who are demanding of winning or else. I’ve always thought of Mets fans as people who would rather root for a Lucas Duda than find reason to scorn him, when there are ample reasons for both responses in Duda’s game.

And Banner Day has always been filled with people who simply want to express hope in the face of overwhelming logic. Banners exist to celebrate the hope of May; never mind that last year’s banner, or the year before’s, weren’t ultimately prognostications.

Hope in this team, based on the talent available and statistical study of the team’s performance to date, suggests that we may soon look back at Banner Day as a high water mark. I’ve read various columnists suggesting that as long as the Mets tread water, win, say, 80 games, that 2012 will count as progress.

Allow me to suggest that if the Mets utterly collapse on the field, finish with 65 wins, and end the season hopelessly out of the race, 2012 still will count as a year of progress. A team that, by all rights, ought to have been out of the race by Memorial Day is tied for a playoff spot. And Citi Field, really for the first time, feels like a place of hope instead of measured despair.

This Mets team may disappoint on the field, or it may not. But Citi Field, on Sunday, finally felt like Shea Stadium at its finest. My daughter sang “Meet the Mets” for our crowded car as we drove over the Whitestone Bridge. Exactly how it might go wrong on the field, as it does in so many episodes of Mets Yearbook, could wait for another day.

Niese: Matinee flop
Wigginton sure holds a grudge
Acosta struggles

Baxter-powered Mets
Have Banner Day for Dickey
Frank: Invincible!

Three long balls support
Santana as he should be
Davis: worth starting

Gee misses nine bats
Baxter catch snuffs Padre first
Ike: another hit!

Poor Tim Byrdak.

The Mets sent their only other lefty out of the pen, Robert Carson, down to Triple-A on Friday, and called up Jack Egbert.

Egbert is a former starter who has had some success out of the bullpen for Buffalo. And the Mets are trying lots of different arms, seeing who can catch fire and help them. Makes sense.

Meanwhile, Tim Byrdak is on pace to appear in just under 94 games this season. And while those games where he warms up but doesn’t pitch don’t count in the box score, they are pitches his arm actually throws.

Let’s all say a prayer for Byrdak tonight, who has been absolutely brilliant so far, but could sure stand to use another lefty to help him with, say, the second most important left-handed batter in each game.

Egbert, meanwhile, went to Rutgers, after starring at Rutherford High School in Rutherford, NJ. So he’d be a nice local kid makes good pitcher to pair with Whitestone’s Own Mike Baxter.

Were you satisfied with Jeremy Hefner’s premiere in the role of Mike Pelfrey replacement last night? No? Same here.

Hefner was quite hittable, as you’d expect. He only had been striking out 4.9 batters per nine innings in Triple-A. He isn’t likely to fool many MLB hitters, either.

So the quest to find someone merely adequate to pitch every fifth day continues. Chris Schwinden wasn’t the answer. Miguel Batista was the answer, once, then got hurt. A rumor that the Mets had watched Roy Oswalt remains unconfirmed or denied by the Mets, despite repeated inquiries and promises of an answer forthcoming via email. And that’s not much of a surprise; affording Oswalt wasn’t likely for the cash-strapped team. (Still, an answer either way would have been nice.)

But meanwhile, a reasonable alternative, both in terms of quality and price, could be hitting the market shortly.

Jeff Francis, the former Rockies and Royals starter, is pitching at Triple-A in the Cincinnati organization. He has a June 1 out clause if he isn’t added to the major league roster. And first-place Cincinnati doesn’t have an opening; their beat reporter from the Cincinnati Enquirer said this week that he doesn’t expect Francis to get the call.

So what would Francis give the Mets? In 10 starts, Francis has a 4.09 ERA at Triple-A, which seems unspectacular. But his peripherals are greater than the ERA would suggest, with 2.2 walks and 8.3 strikeouts per nine innings.

In 2010 and 2011, Francis gave Colorado and Kansas City a pair of reasonably decent seasons, offering just below average starting pitching. He was at 5.00 in 2010, 4.82 in 2011. If that sounds uninspiring, considering the kind of production they are getting from their fifth  starters right now, Francis sure makes a lot of sense. He made a lot of sense this winter, too, but the Mets didn’t bring in much starting pitching depth… and now we’re here, with New York having given away a number of games thanks to that fifth starter slot.

They should have another chance to get this right next week, and it shouldn’t cost much. Let’s hope they do.

Rain and Met arms fall
Hefner’s debut start obscures
Near-cycle for Wright

This is a bit overdue: I want to weigh in on the reticence from the New York Mets to install Bobby Parnell as closer.

The reasons that have been given for keeping him out of the role have been twofold:

1. Parnell struggled in the role last year.

2. Parnell has a history of pitching poorly in high-leverage situations.

Both of these are absolutely true. Parnell’s strikeout rate fell from more than 10 per nine to less than 9 per nine last year in save situations, while he walked 14 in 21 1/3 innings. And a look at his career OPS against in low-leverage (.618), medium-leverage (.713) and high-leverage (.857) situations suggests a guy who struggles in the most important spots.

The problem with both of these diagnoses is a simple one: the Bobby Parnell who pitched prior to 2012 is a totally different pitcher than the one pitching now. And the difference is a really important one.

Parnell, through 2011, had an incredible fastball. His velocity averaged 96.5 MPH in 2010, 97.2 in 2011.

But that was his only weapon. He threw a slider that came in above 87 MPH, and the occasional change at around 91 MPH. But he didn’t command either, leading to inflated walk rates, frequently falling behind in the count, allowing hitters to wait for, and time, that fastball.

Would it surprise you to know that Parnell isn’t throwing either the slider or the change this year? Not if you’ve watched him.

Instead, he’s throwing around 75 percent fastballs, with a still-healthy velocity of 94.9 MPH. And around a quarter of the time, he’s throwing a curveball that he is commanding extremely well, and comes in at an average of 82.1 MPH.

Not surprisingly, the results are far better. Parnell averaged 3.7 walks per nine in his career, and 4.1 per nine last season. He’s at 1.4 per nine this year. The strikeouts are as high as ever, 9.6 per nine, and the ERA, a career-low 2.75, might actually be inflated by a high batting average on balls in play.

So would this Parnell struggle in the closer role? It’s hard to say. But it feels odd to assume that when he’s fundamentally changed the pitcher he is, from arsenal to velocity differential to command.

By the way, in high-leverage situations so far this year? He’s allowing a strong .667 OPS. He’s at .444 in medium-leverage situations, and most of the damage against him this year is an .818 OPS in low-leverage situations.

Now, small sample size applies, of course. This is in 19 2/3 innings. But in what evidence we do have, Parnell has been having unprecedented success, and the underlying factors make that success easily explainable.

Frank Francisco appears to have righted the ship, so there’s no current closer crisis. But using Bobby Parnell in the most important situations-which often come in non-closer moments anyway-makes a lot of sense.

Because it sure looks like Bobby Parnell is the team’s best reliever.

Niese recovery
Supported by Wright and Kirk
Frank: Automatic!

My post from this morning led to some interesting discussion here and elsewhere. One key point that was brought up had to do with the predictive value of 42 games of Pythagorean record. So I thought I’d put that recent history to the test.

Year WP (first 42 games) Pythag (first 42 games) WP (Last 120 games) Pythag (Last 120 games)

2011    .476                           .495                                    .475                                .482

2010   .476                           .518                                     .492                               .497

2009   .548                          .557                                     .392                               .405

2008   .512                           .525                                    .563                               .560

2007   .667                           .641                                    .500                               .495

So what do we learn from five years of data? Well, for one thing, how a team performs in its first 42 games often deviates from how it performs in its last 120 games. I mean, I think we all knew that, as I remember 2007 all too well, for instance. But it is worth keeping in mind that there’s no guarantee the Mets will continue scoring and allowing runs at such a poor rate. And lest we ignore the reality, they could also get worse.

More to the point: the actual results on the field, whether over 42 games or 120 games, hew pretty closely to the expected W-L record. Over the past five years for the Mets, the gap has been smaller in 120 game samples, but is still awfully close in 42 game samples.

Ultimately, how predictive you believe the first 42 games to be has a lot more to do with whether you expect the Mets to continue playing as they have. But if they do continue playing as they have, they’re much likelier to win games at a .417 pace, as per their Pythagorean record, than at their .524 winning percentage so far.

Put another way: the Mets are on pace to win just under 85 games. Here’s their Pythagorean win total for every year they’ve won between 80 and 90 games:

Year     Wins Pythag Wins

2012     85      68

2008    89      89

2007    88      86

2005    83      89

2001    82      73

1998    88     88

1997    88     88

1989    87     91

1984    90    78

1976    86    91

1975    82    83

1973    82    83

1972    83    72

1971    83    86

1970    83   88

So, to recap, in 14 seasons above, Pythagorean record had the win total exactly right three times, within three wins seven times, and missed by double digits only twice in 14 times, with a max spread of 12 wins.

At present, the Mets are winning at a pace 17 games ahead of their Pythag record.

It all comes back to the same conclusion: playing as the Mets have to date, they aren’t likely to win nearly as many games as they have so far. The underlying performance needs to change for them to contend, or they need to buck more than a century of major league history.

Duda’s two-out hit
Backs Dickey’s 11 Ks
Frank Frank: routine save!

Michael Salfino of the Wall Street Journal (full disclosure: Salfino is a terrific writer) has a very useful piece today, discussing run differential and how it hasn’t seemed to apply to the New York Mets.

Writes Salfino: “The New York Mets are off to the most cognitively dissonant start in baseball… The Mets are on pace to finish 87-75 while being outscored by 122 runs. This would be a rather historic achievement: All-time, the worst run differential by a winning team belonged to the 1905 Detroit Tigers (minus-90), who went 79-74.”

In other words: either the Mets are an outlier more than a century in the making, or they’ll need to play significantly better to keep winning games at their current rate.

The other problem with even doing that is, winning at their current rate only has them at 22-20, good for fourth place in the National League East. That misrepresents their position somewhat; fourth place is just one game out of third, which is the final National League playoff spot. But the point is, significant over-achievement of their run differential doesn’t have them in a playoff spot, with a cushion against regression. It has left them with more work to do.

The Mets, for instance, are 22-20. But their Pythagorean record, based on runs scored and runs allowed, is 18-24, a .429 winning percentage. So if they play at their current level over the last 120 games, they’ll be likely to finish with a 51-69 record, for a total record of 73-89.

But let’s go ahead and extrapolate from the division’s run differential to determine, if the five NL East teams simply play at the levels they have for the first 42 games, how they will finish. We’ll take the current records, which are established, and add the winning percentage those teams should expect over the final 120 games, given their runs scored and runs allowed.

Team       Record to Date     Expected Record, Rest of Season    Final Record

Braves       26-17                      69-50                                                     95-67

Nationals  25-17                      66-54                                                     91-71

Marlins     23-19                      60-60                                                    83-79

Mets          22-20                      51-69                                                     73-89

Phillies      21-22                      61-58                                                     82-80

What do we learn from this? Well, the quarter of a season playing above their expected win total has been kind to the Mets. Had they simply been playing at the 18-24 mark their runs scored/runs allowed would have predicted, they’d be on pace to finish 69-93. So those are four wins they don’t have to give back.

And if Pythagorean record isn’t picking up some aspect of this team that allows it to consistently outperform its run differential, the good times may continue.

Unfortunately, there’s well over a century of baseball that says the Mets are still a good bet to finish last in the division, and by a good margin.

Steel city nightmare
Johan, spotted four, gives back
Then Kirk drops the ball

A few pieces of business to get to before the Mets take on the Pirates starting tonight.
Vinny Rottino, the flexible corner infielder/outfielder with catching privileges, is up and starting tonight at first base. Chances he can become a star, after a long, middling minor league career? Minimal. Chances he can outhit Mike Nickeas at catcher and Ike Davis so far at first base? Pretty good, actually. So he’s a nice bat to add. I sure wouldn’t mind seeing him get the ABs against lefties at catcher when Josh Thole returns.
The other piece is that Jeremy Hefner, who had a stellar relief outing this weekend, will replace Miguel Batista in the rotation. Batista has a lower back injury that knocked him out of action.
Hefner isn’t a guy who strikes many out, though he did have five Ks in the weekend’s relief performance. Point is, why not? He’s not going to be much different, in all likelihood, than Schwinden, and if not Hefner, the Mets could instead rush Chris Young back or prematurely promote Jenrry Mejia. And those are not real options.
So, hope the Mets win several throwing their top three pitchers at the Pirates, a good combination, you’d think. And then cross your fingers every fifth day for now. Here’s hoping Hefner figured something out on Saturday.