Thursday, January 20, 2005

Carlos Delgado

1 Jose Reyes
2 Kazuo Matsui
3 Carlos Beltran
4 Mike Piazza
5 Carlos Delgado
6 David Wright
7 Cliff Floyd
8 Mike Cameron

Frightening, really. Suddenly, the number eight hitter for the New York Mets hit 30 home runs last year. The batting order may change, of course; I would rather see Matsui moved to the 8-spot, but I think Minaya and Randolph will probably stick with the two middle infielders at the top. But however you want to arrange it, adding both Carloses to the offense puts them right up there with the Phillies in the division.

The Mets scored a total of 684 runs last year, more than only four teams (Pittsburgh, Montreal, Milwaukee, and the hapless Diamondbacks). According to Baseball Prospectus's VORP (Value Over Replacement Player), Beltran and Delgado's offensive contributions in 2004 were worth 74.5 runs and 41.4 runs, respectively. The ABs that those two will be taking last year belonged to Ty Wiggington (-1.3), Eric Valent (14.9) and Richard Hidalgo (7.4). Lets call the difference 100 runs, since 95 would create the illusion of exactitude.

Putting aside the David Wright factor, how would the Mets have done if they had scored 100 more runs last year?

Runs Scored: 784
Runs Allowed: 731
Expected Win Percentage (Pythagorean): .535

That's 86 or 87 wins. That's what the Phillies and Padres did last year: not good enough for the Wild Card, but competitive nonetheless.

Just for kicks, let's see whether the addition of Pedro (51.2 VORP, call it 40 runs improvement over Seo/Heilman) would have put them ahead of the Astros last year.

Runs Scored: 784
Runs Allowed: 691
Expected Win Percentage: .562
Astros 2004 Win Percentage: .568

Damn those Astros. But it's still 91 wins, instead of the 71 wins the Mets actually had last year, and we have the player most responsible for their late season run.

Look, it's some dirty math, but the fact remains: Adding Carlos Delgado to a team that's already signed Pedro and Beltran would make the Mets a legitimate playoff contender.

No comments: