How Much Are the Mets Underachieving?

Calling all toasters claims that the Mets are grossly underachieving and that “the personnel is better this year than in 2006.” Kaufman and Sheehan disagree. It seems pretty clear to me that the latter two have the better case.

The Mets have three outstanding players in their primes — and all are having excellent seasons. (Wright ranks #4 among major league 3B in VORP, Reyes #2, Beltran #4 at their positions.) The one other non-old somewhat-talented player, Church, played brilliantly until he got hurt. (And I find it very implausible that it was Randolph’s decision to completely botch his treatment; it’s not like he started in Colorado.) This doesn’t add up to a good offense because…Minaya completely failed to flll out the roster. Castillo is, if anything, having a better year than could be expected for a 32-year old with absolutely no power who has lost most of his speed, putting up a .370 OBP. Schneider is an extensively proven non-hitter. Delgado is doing what immobile 36 year olds who have no skills but walks and homers do: stop hitting. Which of the washed-up guys who weren’t especially good when they were younger who compose the bench was Randolph supposed to turn into a star? As far as I can tell, the offense has been about as good as could be expected; the biggest problem is that Minaya signed a whole bunch of gimpy old guys to back up his stars and didn’t have any viable plan Bs.

With the rotation, it’s about the same thing; everyone’s within a reasonable range of expectations except maybe Perez who had an atypically good year…under Randolph in 2007. As for the bullpen, the current ERA+s of 186, 161, 153, 106, 102, 86, and 72 seems a pretty reasonable rate of return on talent to me. As for claims of 2006, I’d like c.a.t. to identify the Floyd, Valentin, Lo Duca, or still-skilled Delgado on the roster to back up the big 3.

None of this is to say that Randolph has done an especially good job this year. Most managers lose effectiveness over time, and if they haven’t significantly underachieved, they haven’t been over expectations either. (c.a.t also claims that Randolph is a horrendous strategic manager. Since the only example he cites is “pointless running,” and the Mets have an excellent 68 SB and 17 CS, I’ll dismiss the argument for lack of evidence.) But this question can only be discussed in relation to the alternative. If the Mets had a high-pressure manager with good credentials, I think a case can be made for a change. But for a low pressure manager with a record similar to Randolph’s who’s already been with the team? What’s the point? And I don’t see any way in which Randolph can bear primary responsibility for the current season. Given the injuries and predictable declines, the talent just isn’t very impressive.

But then I guess c.a.t. and I evaluate managers very differently; I’m not sure what it is about Davey Johnson’s “take over three mediocre or awful teams, turn them into contenders (including the second of third best team of the last 30 years), and have them get clearly worse when he left” (s)he doesn’t like…