A Tale of Two Michaels: Should The Mets Have Gone For Morse Instead of Cuddyer?

Michael Morse will be dancing to A-Ha in 2015, but not at Citi Field.  (Photo by Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images)

In early November, the Mets pulled off a stunningly quick free agent signing, inking Michael Cuddyer to a two-year, $21 million contract to play the outfield and fill in for Lucas Duda at first base whenever a tough left-handed pitcher was facing New York.  The Mets made this move even though they knew they would have to part ways with their first round draft pick in 2015, as Cuddyer was given a qualifying offer by his former employers in Colorado that he chose not to accept.  The signing reunites Cuddyer with his childhood friend, David Wright, as the two All-Stars grew up near each other in Virginia.

Cuddyer has an injury history, played his last three seasons in the thin air of the Mile High city and will be 36 years old by the time the curtains open on the 2015 season.  Clearly, there are lots of question marks with this deal, but if Cuddyer stays healthy, he should still be a serviceable player who will make positive offensive contributions to the team.  With that being said, why didn't the Mets make a stronger push for a fellow Michael who just won a World Series ring in San Francisco?

Michael Morse is coming off a season in which he missed 31 games.  However, he still managed to produce 32 doubles, three triples, 16 home runs and 61 RBI in 438 at-bats, averaging an extra-base hit every 8.6 at-bats.  In doing so, Morse was one of just six players in the majors who had at least 50 extra-base hits in fewer than 500 plate appearances.  Morse's .811 OPS was quite good in a season where just nine National League players posted an OPS of .850 or higher.

In three seasons with the Rockies, Cuddyer produced an .886 OPS.  However, that number was clearly inflated by playing his home games at Coors Field.  From 2012 to 2014, Cuddyer's OPS at home (.984) was far superior to his road OPS (.795).  His OPS on the road while with the Rockies was very similar to the overall .794 OPS he posted in 11 seasons with Minnesota, leading one to believe that he will produce around the same figure with the Mets.  Morse, on the other hand, has played the majority of his career in home parks that are not among the best for sluggers (Safeco Field, Nationals Park, AT&T Park).  However, he has been very consistent at home and on the road, posting an .809 lifetime OPS in his home parks, while producing an .807 OPS on the road

Going back to Cuddyer's injury history, the new member of the Mets has played 140 or more games in a season just four times since making his major league debut in 2001.  And since 2011, Cuddyer has missed a total of 229 games.  Morse is not the healthiest of players either, surpassing 130 games played just twice since becoming a regular player in 2010.  However, Morse has missed "only" 181 games since 2011, meaning he remains on the field more than Cuddyer does.

When considering what a player - especially one who is injury-prone - would do over the course of a full season, a valuable tool to use is baseball-reference.com's "per 162 games" stat.  Let's look at what Cuddyer and Morse have done per 162 games since both became everyday players in the big leagues.

• Cuddyer (since 2004): .280 BA, .468 SLG, .816 OPS, 37 doubles, 22 HR, 89 RBI
• Morse (since 2010): .279 BA, .479 SLG, .816 OPS, 32 doubles, 27 HR, 83 RBI

Basically, they're the same player when healthy.  But Cuddyer (born March 27, 1979) is three years older than Morse (born March 22, 1982) and could be on the decline sooner than Morse, especially now that he's left the thin-aired confines of Coors Field.

Now let's consider what Cuddyer has done against the NL East teams he will now be playing more regularly and compare that to what Morse has done against the same teams.  Since Cuddyer has less experience playing National League teams than Morse does, we will only consider non-cumulative stats for both players.

• Cuddyer (vs. ATL, MIA, PHI, WAS): .302 BA, .484 SLG, .846 OPS
• Morse (vs. ATL, MIA, PHI, WAS): .307 BA, .512 SLG, .870 OPS

Unlike the "per 162 games" stat, in this case Morse clearly has an edge over Cuddyer.  The experience factor (all but 612 of Morse's 2,296 career at-bats have come as a National League player) also gives Morse an advantage over Cuddyer, who spent over a decade in Minnesota.

Finally, and this has always been important in the Sandy Alderson scheme of things, Michael Morse was not given a qualifying offer by the Giants when his contract expired at the end of the 2014 season.  Therefore, had the Mets chosen to sign Morse, they would not have lost their first round draft pick next season as they did when they signed Cuddyer.  Furthermore, Cuddyer was finishing up a three-year, $31.5 million deal with the Rockies, meaning the Mets were going to have to dole out over $10 million per season to a player of Cuddyer's talent and experience, even with his recent injury history.  Meanwhile, Morse was coming off a one-year, $6 million deal with the Giants, just one season after finishing off a two-year, $10.5 million contract originally signed with Washington in 2012 (Morse was later traded to Seattle and Baltimore during those two seasons).  Given Morse's injury history, he probably would not command more than a two-year deal.  However, his average annual value would certainly not exceed $10 million per season.  Perhaps a two-year, $18 million contract would have been enough to lure him to Flushing.

So let's summarize.  Cuddyer is three years older than Morse, has similar offensive production to Morse (per 162 games) and is coming off a three-year stay in hitter-friendly Colorado to play at sea level in New York.  And although Cuddyer hits well against his new division rivals, Morse's numbers are better against those teams and Morse has more experience playing those clubs.  Oh, and lest we forget, Morse would probably have had a lower price tag than Cuddyer and would not have cost the Mets next year's first round draft pick - a pick they could have given up for another quality player in addition to Morse.

David Wright and Michael Cuddyer are friends.  So it's entirely possible Wright had a big say in the team's hasty decision to sign Cuddyer.  But had the team waited it out a little longer, they could have come up with a better deal in the still-unsigned Michael Morse.  Like Cuddyer, Morse is a right-handed hitting outfielder who has experience at first base and could play there in place of Lucas Duda whenever a tough lefty was on the mound.  But the Mets decided Cuddyer would be a better fit for the team.  Let's just hope Morse doesn't turn into a good fit for one of the Mets' main rivals.
 

Mets Teams That Played Their Best Against The Best

With a 77-49 record, the Atlanta Braves have the best record in the major leagues.  And yet, somehow the Mets have a 8-8 record against them.  It's by far the most wins they have against an opponent this year, as the Mets have not been able to defeat any other team more than five times.  (They're 5-7 against both Philadelphia and Washington, and 5-10 vs. Miami.)

It's quite unusual for a team with a sub-.500 record to play its best against the best team in the league.  But it's happened before for the Mets. 

Just three years ago, in 2010, the Mets finished the year with a 79-83 record.  However, they split their 18 games against the Philadelphia Phillies, who boasted the league's best record at 97-65.  The Mets did not win more than nine games against any other team in 2010.  They also went 9-9 against the Washington Nationals.

The only other time the Mets won more games against the league's best team than they did against any other team was in 2003.  That Mets squad had a forgetful season, going 66-95.  But they did go 8-11 against the Atlanta Braves, who won a league-high 101 games.  The eight wins were one more than they had against the Marlins and Phillies, against whom the Mets went 7-12.

Should the Mets win their final series against the Braves in two weeks, they will clinch a winning record versus Atlanta for the season.  If Atlanta maintains its grip on the best record in baseball, it would mark the first time the Mets finish with a winning record against a team that led its league in victories in a year the Mets defeated that team more times than they defeated anyone else.  (Got that?)

2003.  2010.  2013.  Neither year produced many great memories for the Mets.  But they did produce a statistical oddity.  Those three seasons are the only ones in which the Mets won more games against the league's best team than they did against anyone else.  They may not have had winning records in those seasons, but they certainly played their best against the best.

Why Shaun Marcum Is Valuable To The Mets

Photo by Associated Press

Before I start, let me say that it would be foolish of me to think that the Mets' chances of remaining competitive - or at the very least, at or above .500 - rest on the oft-injured arm of right-handed starter Shaun Marcum.  If the Mets do well this season, it will more than likely be because the offense did better than expected or because Matt Harvey continued to pitch like a Cy Young candidate.

But Shaun Marcum might still have some value, even if he doesn't make every start between Saturday and the end of the season.  Here's why.

Shaun Marcum has always fared well against NL East teams.  Marcum has made 11 starts against the Braves, Marlins, Phillies and Nationals.  He has performed against his new division rivals as follows:

• vs. ATL: 1-1, 2.25 ERA, 0.90 WHIP, 20 IP, 18 K, 5 BB, .183 batting average against
• vs. MIA: 0-0, 6.35 ERA, 1.41 WHIP, 5.2 IP, 3 K, 1 BB, .304 batting average against
• vs. PHI: 2-1, 3.51 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, 25.2 IP, 22 K, 7 BB, .248 batting average against
• vs. WAS: 1-0, 2.77 ERA, 0.77 WHIP, 13 IP, 14 K, 3 BB, .156 batting average against

• Total: 4-2, 3.22 ERA, 1.06 WHIP, 64.1 IP, 57 K, 16 BB, .217 batting average against

Not bad for 11 career starts against the teams he will face the most, right?  And if you take out his one bad start against the Marlins, Marcum has a 2.91 ERA, 1.02 WHIP and has held the opposition to a .207 batting average.

Shaun Marcum is in line to make his Mets debut against the Phillies - an NL East team - at Citi Field on Saturday.  Assuming he's fully recovered from his neck and bicep injuries, he will be counted on to provide for the Mets where stopgap Aaron Laffey could not.

Anyone can be better than Aaron Laffey was.  But not many pitchers are as good as Shaun Marcum has been against the NL East.  Marcum might not make every scheduled start for the Mets, but as long as the starts he makes are against the team's division rivals, the Mets might be able to get more out of Marcum than they expected.

It might be foolish to think the Mets' success in 2013 rides on the arm of Shaun Marcum, but it would also be foolish to think he can't do well against the teams he's always done well against.  Let's hope Marcum can stay healthy for as long as possible, especially if his next scheduled start is against an NL East rival.

Danger In The Outfield

Although the Mets bullpen was the worst in the majors this year, the top priority for Sandy Alderson this offseason (after resolving the David Wright/R.A. Dickey contract extension issues) should be to improve the outfield.  No Met outfielder has reached 70 RBI in a season since the team moved to Citi Field (Scott Hairston and Lucas Duda tied for the team lead in RBIs by outfielders with 57).  How sad is it that Angel Pagan's 69 RBI in 2010 represent the highest RBI total for a Met outfielder since Shea Stadium closed its doors for good?

Remember in 2000 when everyone said the Mets won the pennant despite having an offensively-challenged outfield?  Well, the trio of Benny Agbayani, Jay Payton and Derek Bell all hit at least 15 HR and drove in a minimum of 60 runs that year.  Believe it or not, that's the last time the Mets had three outfielders reach those numbers in the same season.

Bullpens are unpredictable from year to year.  As bad as the relievers were this year, they could be better than expected next year. But a revolving outfield of Scott Hairston, Lucas Duda, Kirk Nieuwenhuis and Mike Baxter (and perhaps Andres Torres if he's re-signed) just can't compete with the more powerful outfields in the league.  The Mets need a significant change in the outfield if they want to improve in 2013.

The Mets' competition in the division all have at least one, if not more, solid outfielders.  The Nationals have the best outfield in the NL East, with Michael Morse, Jayson Werth and Rookie of the Year Bryce Harper.  The Braves have 20/20 man Jason Heyward (betcha didn't know Heyward stole 21 bases to go with his 27 HR), while the Phillies have a tremendous outfield prospect in Darin Ruf, whose minor league numbers (.317, 38 HR, 104 RBI) carried over into the majors last September after he was called up (.333, 3 HR, 10 RBI in 12 games with the Phillies).  Even the depleted Marlins have a top slugger in Giancarlo Stanton.  The Mets have the guy whose Wikipedia page proudly features my wife's ass.  And that's only if the Mets can re-sign him.

It's been said that pitching wins championships.  That's true, as the Giants have won two of the last three World Series with a strong pitching corps.  But they had outfielders that came through more often than not.  In 2010, it was Cody Ross, Pat Burrell and Andres Torres (with Torres producing a career year for the Giants).  This past season, the names of the outfielders may have changed, but the productivity did not, as Angel Pagan, Gregor Blanco and Hunter Pence all contributed to the Giants' latest title.

The Mets did not have great outfielders when they advanced to the World Series in 2000.  But as a unit, they were more productive than any other outfield the team has put on the field ever since.  It's not a surprise that the Mets have failed to return to the World Series since the days of Agbayani, Payton and Bell.

Assuming the Mets don't trade R.A. Dickey before the beginning of the 2013 season, they'll have a formidable staff.  With Dickey leading the way, followed by the combination of a healthy Johan Santana, the ever-improving Jonathon Niese, the wünderkind Matt Harvey and the return of Dillon Gee (or even Mike Pelfrey if the Mets choose to go that route), starting pitching won't be a problem in 2013.

We know the Mets need to upgrade their bullpen.  But what the Mets truly need are dependable outfielders who are going to be out there 162 games a year.  The rest of the division already has them.  The Mets need to follow suit.  The 2000 pennant winners have been the team's most complete outfield for way too long.

Jon Rauch: NL East Killer

Jon Rauch has been outstanding for the Mets in the bullpen this year.  After getting credit for his team-leading third victory in the Mets' 2-1 victory over the Miami Marlins, Rauch has now pitched 9⅓ scoreless innings in ten appearances.  But the zero in the runs allowed column is just the beginning of the story.

Rauch has faced a total of 32 batters over his first ten relief outings, retiring 28 of them.  The line against him (batting average/on-base percentage/slugging percentage) is so ridiculously low, you'd think there was a typo or three involved (.097/.125/.129).  But it's true.  Jon Rauch has been that dominant.

Prior to this season, Rauch was a good, but not great, reliever.  In 477 appearances, he had a 3.76 ERA and 1.24 WHIP.  But he was always good against the National League East.  In fact, his 3.50 ERA against the Mets was his highest against any NL East team.  But now he pitches for the Mets - not against them - and the NL East is about to discover just how special he is.

Tuesday's 1-2-3 inning against the Marlins lowered his career ERA and WHIP against Miami.  Here are his career numbers against all the NL East teams he will be facing as a member of the Mets.

• vs. ATL: 1-0, 3.09 ERA, 0.83 WHIP, .189 batting average against, .220 on-base pct.
• vs. MIA: 4-2, 3.07 ERA, 0.93 WHIP, .200 batting average against, .240 on-base pct.
• vs. PHI: 2-2, 2.87 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, .238 batting average against, .289 on-base pct.
• vs. WAS: 1-0, 0.00 ERA, 1.29 WHIP, .211 batting average against, .286 on-base pct.

• Combined: 8-4, 2.89 ERA, 1.01 WHIP, .210 batting average against, .253 on-base pct.

We're not talking about a small sample size here, either.  Rauch has appeared in 107 games against those four teams, pitching 121⅓ innings.  In those 121⅓ innings, he has allowed only 95 hits.  He has also struck out 115 batters while walking only 27.  Simply stated, Jon Rauch has dominated the division.

After a 2011 season in which the Mets relief corps was spotty at best, it's good to have a dependable arm for a change.  Of the three new bullpen acquisitions made by Sandy Alderson this past off-season, Jon Rauch has clearly been the best.  But looking at his past history against the NL East, should his early season success surprise you, especially considering that all but four of the Mets' first 17 games have come against their division rivals?

We'll have to wait and see how he performs against NL Central and NL West, but as far as his team's own division is concerned, Jon Rauch is and always has been an NL East killer.  As long as the unbalanced schedule remains in play, Rauch will be one the key players in the Mets bullpen.  It's quite refreshing to have complete confidence in a reliever for a change.

Joey's Soapbox: Las Vegas Gives The Mets No Respect

Last night, I wrote a special Valentine's Day piece on why I love the Mets.  Apparently, Las Vegas oddsmakers don't feel the same love.  Allow me to explain.

This morning, as I was reading the morning paper in bed (see photo below), I was pawing my way through the sports section when I happened upon America's Line, the section where the point spreads and odds are listed.

In addition to the lines for tonight's games, the 2012 World Series odds were also listed for each team.  Now I'm a realist, so just as I don't expect Jason Bay to become the second consecutive Mets' batting champion or Mike Pelfrey to toss the team's first no-hitter, I also didn't expect the Mets to be near the top of the World Series odds list.

I saw the safe bets on top (Phillies, Yankees, Angels, Rangers) and was surprised to see that six of the top seven teams called the American League home, despite the fact that the NL has won four of the last six Fall Classics.  But the one thing I didn't see was the Mets.

I finally did find them, but not until I saw the names of the 23 teams ahead of them.

That's right.  That bold-faced name you see near the bottom of the list is our beloved team.  Now the thing that upsets me is not that at 80-1 odds, the Mets rank 24th out of 30 teams.  It's far more than that.

First, the only National League teams with longer odds than the Mets to win the World Series are the Pittsburgh Pirates, San Diego Padres and Houston Astros.  The Pirates hold the all-time record in sports for most consecutive losing seasons, with 19.  The Padres have finished higher than third place in the NL West only seven times in their 43 years of existence.  And the Astros are coming off their worst season (56-106) in franchise history.

Second, the other teams in the NL East not only have more favorable odds to win the World Series, they're far more favorable.  The Phillies (4-1 odds) are no surprise here.  The Braves (20-1 odds) came within one choke job of repeating as wild card winners in 2011.  The Marlins (also 20-1) apparently still had money left over after fattening the wallets of Jose Reyes, Heath Bell and Mark Buehrle, giving some of it to the Las Vegas oddsmakers to "earn" their high ranking.  And the Washington Nationals, a team that is still seeking its first winning season since saying au revoir to Montreal, is at 25-1.  Somewhere in the next time zone, you'll find the Mets at 80-1.  No respect.

But if you think the Washington Nationals ranking so much higher than the Mets is the ultimate lack of respect, you've got another "think" coming.

The Kansas City Royals, whose sole finish above third place over the past 22 seasons came in 1995, when they finished four games UNDER .500, rank higher the Mets.  But the one team that caught my eye is ranked even higher than the Royals.  That team is the Chicago Cubs.  The same Chicago Cubs team that hasn't won a World Series since 1908, the year Jamie Moyer was just getting the courage to ask his sweetheart to the prom.  At 35-1 odds, the oddsmakers believe the Cubs are more than twice as likely to win the World Series than the Mets.

The Mets haven't won the World Series since 1986, the same year a film called Back To School was released.  Perhaps you might remember it.  It starred an actor/comedian who knew a thing or two about not getting any respect.

 I respect a man who proudly wears the Mets' racing pinstripes.

Rodney Dangerfield made a living on not getting respect.  Now it looks as if the Mets are following in his footsteps.  In Back To School, Dangerfield's character comforted his son, who had just told him about his C average, by saying "A, B, C, you're in the top three, what's the difference?"

For the Mets, there is a difference.  They can forget about the top three.  They're not even in the top TWENTY-three, as far as World Series odds are concerned.

As everyone knows, the games are played on the field, not on paper.  It's too bad my paper felt the need to play a game with me.  I'm telling you, the Mets just get no respect.  Even Rodney Dangerfield would feel sorry for us.