Small ball and pitching. We remember it, It bagged us a championship in 1969. It was a staple of competitive play in the National League in the early 80’s when Whitey Herzog’s Cardinals made all manner of problems for the rest of the league. It’s also a prominent feature of a current Giants dynasty that seems to win a World Series every other year.
People talk about how good the Nationals are but the Nats were beat handily by the Giants in last year’s NLDS three games to one. I shouldn’t say handily (the games were all close), but it felt that way, you saw it coming. The Giants don’t seem to make mistakes when it counts and the Nats do.
In the second inning of Game 4 with two runners on, Ryan Vogelsong tried to bunt them over and the left side of the Nat infield froze, confused over who should field the bunt, allowing Vogelsong to reach. Then Gio Gonzalez walked Gregor Blanco on four pitches to force in the first run. The second run was scored when Joe Panik grounded out. The Giants scored two runs without a ball leaving the infield, small ball indeed. You knew right there it wasn’t meant to be for the Nats. You can’t do stuff like that in the playoffs and expect to win.
The Nationals were 20th in the league in UZR, and 26th in OOZ (out of zone plays), so they don’t move around well in the field. Their defensive miscues also tend to be concentrated in their infield with Ian Desmond accounting for 24 of their 100 team errors while posting a -2.2 ErrR (error runs above average) … he’s a Jeckyl and Hyde defender to be sure. He’ll make an amazing play on one chance then drop an easy flip the following play (his UZR/150 has dropped from 6.0 in 2012 to 0.1 in 2014). It’s fair to say he’s inconsistent, which has proven to be a liability in low scoring playoff contests. Consider for a moment that both teams scored only 9 runs each over the 4 game NLDS, remarkable. The argument can be made that the single greatest factor that sunk the Nats in the playoffs was their sloppy play in the field.
The Nats believe they have offense and pitching to spare, and when you look at their roster it appears they do. Their only real question mark is team defense which has not been a huge consideration in the modern game. But with dwindling offensive output across the league every run matters and defense is again becoming a bigger factor.
Yunel Escobar, a recent addition to the National infield, is generally known as a good fielding shortstop, however, in 2014 with the Rays he put up a -26 UZR/150, this after putting up a 12.6 UZR/150 the previous year, that’s a 38.6 point negative swing, which is alarming for a 32 year old player with character issues in his past. If Escobar’s 2014 is an indication, he’s not the man to shore up the Nationals’ infield. Additionally, losing Adam LaRoche and moving Zimmerman to 1B further weakens them as Zimmerman is not a natural first baseman.
If there is an opening for the Mets, a crack in the Nats’ armor so to speak, it’s team defense. If the Mets could somehow field a solid defensive team it could conceivably do wonders in closing the gap between NY and Washington. The Royals parlayed some timely hitting, killer baserunning, decent pitching, and outstanding defense into a world series appearance last year.
It is a market inefficiency that’s been largely overlooked. The bias against defense suggests it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference – if you pitch well and hit, you’ll win … but this is the steroid era talking. Run production has dropped off the charts in recent years making every miscue, every passed ball, and every botched double play, a potential game changer.
The Mets as presently constituted are not a good defensive team. Their infield defense is less than spectacular at the corners (with David Wright perhaps a bright spot if he can return to form) and beyond worrisome up the middle. In the outfield Michael Cuddyer promises to be a liability and Curtis Granderson can’t throw. Travis d’Arnaud excels at pitch framing but struggles with passed balls and throwing baserunners out. The Mets made 104 errors last year, 4 more than the Nationals.
In an age when good teams are pitching well, fielding well, and finding ways to scrape runs together, the Mets continue to be a mixed bag.
The Mets more than anything need to find an identity, something they’ve struggled with over the past several seasons. They are known as a patient team with some excellent pitching, but they are below average defensively and can’t seem to score when they need to. More than anything the Mets need some additional speed and athleticism.
They clearly haven’t gone in that direction based on the current off-season. Wilmer Flores is slated as the starting shortstop while Murphy looks to be our second baseman. Cuddyer is the team’s new right fielder, Duda will man first, and d’Arnaud will crouch behind the plate. Yes, some of these players may improve defensively and the Mets should hit more, and that may be enough … but this is by no means shaping up to be a speedy, defensively sound team. You could hide a Flores or a Murphy or a Cuddyer if the rest of the team is sound, but all three? You are asking for trouble when you construct a roster with multiple known liabilities … this would not appear to be a team that can find ways to win the close ones — a problem that plagued us all of last season.
Building roster that clogs the bases and hits home runs is a bygone blueprint. We’re looking at offensive trends that mirror what we saw prior to the steroid era in the 70’s, increasing the value of speed and defense. For all our statistical savvy, it surprises me that this Mets front office has neglected to address league trends that run contrary to their current approach to the roster.
Defense may in fact become the market inefficiency that so many GM’s are searching for as most teams (like the Nationals) continue to consider it an afterthought even though declining scoring trends will inevitably boost the intrinsic value of defensive runs saved. Defense should not be an afterthought … you need look no further than last year’s Royals to see that.
