David Wright: Greatest Met Ever?
David Wright set the Mets’ all-time career RBI record last night, passing Darryl Strawberry, but he was already high on the list of the greatest Mets position players of all time. In fact, by Wins Above Replacement, Wright already is the G.M.O.A.T. — Greatest Met Of All Time. (Other than Tom Seaver, of course. No shame in that. Tom Terrific is probably one of the two or three best pitchers since World War II.)
He didn’t have a lot of competition, because the Mets have had more otherworldly pitchers than hitters. Mets have won four Cy Young awards — three by Tom Terrific and one by Doc Gooden — but no Met has ever won an MVP with the team. Only one Met position player has ever won rookie of the year, Strawberry. That’s not to say they haven’t had stars. Since the team was created in 1962, sixteen Met position players have been selected to multiple All-Star Games. By comparison, the Yankees have had 27, but the Braves have had just fourteen. The Mets have had great players, they just haven’t had a lot of superstars with staying power.
There are eight players in the fifty-year history of the Mets who could reasonably be described as having had a “great” career with the team. This excludes likeable role players like Mookie Wilson and Steady Eddie Kranepool, as well as superstars who just passed through, like Gary Carter and Eddie Murray. Those eight players, and their stats during their time with the Mets, are:
| Name | G | PA | HR | RBI | SB | triple slash | wOBA | Fld | BsR | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Wright | 1121 | 4849 | 186 | 735 | 151 | .301/.381/.508 | .383 | -26.6 | 7.5 | 40.2 |
| Darryl Strawberry | 1103 | 4549 | 252 | 733 | 191 | .263/.359/.520 | .380 | 7 | 36.6 | |
| Jose Reyes | 1050 | 4840 | 81 | 423 | 370 | .292/.341/.441 | .346 | 15.4 | 18.5 | 33.4 |
| Carlos Beltran | 839 | 3640 | 149 | 559 | 100 | .280/.369/.500 | .374 | 12.4 | 17.3 | 30.9 |
| Edgardo Alfonzo | 1075 | 4449 | 120 | 538 | 45 | .292/.367/.445 | .358 | 44.9 | 30.7 | |
| Mike Piazza | 970 | 3941 | 220 | 655 | 7 | .296/.373/.542 | .384 | -48.9 | -7.2 | 30.2 |
| Keith Hernandez | 875 | 3684 | 80 | 468 | 17 | .297/.387/.429 | .361 | 52 | 27.0 | |
| Howard Johnson | 1149 | 4591 | 192 | 629 | 202 | .251/.341/.459 | .352 | -81 | 24.0 |
First: Edgardo Alfonzo is still underrated. Also, obviously, the last three columns aren’t exactly apples and oranges when comparing modern players to retired folks for whom we don’t have the same baserunning or fielding stats. But that table gives you pretty much the span of Wright’s competition, from Strawberry to HoJo, and those numbers help make the case that Wright may already be the best everyday player in Mets history — which is another way of saying that he’s the best National Leaguer in New York since Willie Mays. It’s partly because he’s a great player, and partly because the Mets haven’t had many other players who have excelled for as long as he has.
He is a great player, as Chris Cwik wrote a few days ago that if Wright follows his injury-limited 2011 with a solid year in 2012, he can expect a $100 million extension in the offseason. If he struggles, he should still be able to expect around $80. In late March, Buster Olney explained that he expected the Mets to extend Wright, because he’s the face of the franchise and is crucial to the Mets’ ability to appeal to fans.
Wright is obviously the best player on this team. Is he the best everyday player they’ve ever had? Well, not everyone agrees with fWAR. ESPN’s Sportsnation puts him behind Strawberry and Piazza on the Mets’ all-time list, and Newsday, somehow, puts him behind Piazza, Keith Hernandez, Strawberry, and Gary Carter.
We can dismiss Gary Carter. The Kid had just 13.2 WAR in five years with the team: he was terrific in 1985 and quite good for the World Champions in 1986, but his best years were in Montreal, and if not for the championship he never would have made any list of greatest Mets.
Why did they pick Hernandez, Strawberry, and Piazza, and not Reyes or Beltran? Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran were probably just as good as the other three. For one thing, retired writers often overrate old players with regard to more recent players; for another Hernandez, Strawberry, Piazza, and Carter all made the World Series, while Beltran nor Reyes never did. And most of Beltran and Reyes’s best years with the Mets were several years before their injury-plagued campaigns.
In any case, Piazza, Hernandez, and Strawberry are good comparisons. Piazza is a Hall of Famer, Hernandez is a near-Hall of Famer, and Strawberry would have been a Hall of Famer if his career hadn’t fallen apart when he was in his late 20s. If Wright has another decade as good as his past decade, then he’ll be a Hall of Famer, too.
Actually, his first eight seasons in the big leagues, through age 28, have also been of comparable worth to the comparable time span for Scott Rolen — 39.4 WAR for Wright, 41.5 WAR for Rolen — who already deserves to be enshrined. (The difference between the two is partly due to Rolen’s far superior glove, one reason that he has aged so gracefully. Nonetheless, their overall numbers through age 28 are similar.)
Why does WAR like Wright more than Strawberry and Hernandez? It’s largely due to positional adjustment. Strawberry and Wright were similarly effective hitters, and what lacked as a hitter he largely made up for as a fielder. Strawberry was simply devastating back in the slap-and-run ’80s — during his eight years in New York, 1983 to 1990, he actually had the most home runs in the NL. His wOBA is nearly identical to Wright’s, and when you factor in park and era context, Strawberry actually had a markedly higher wRC+ than Wright over his Mets career, 143 to 136. Neither was much of a fielder, though Strawberry was likely a bit better. Hernandez obviously was a good fielder, and he had a higher OBP than either one, but that wasn’t enough to overcome his lack of power compared to the other two.
But most importantly, Strawberry was a corner outfielder and Hernandez was a first baseman, both positions of relative offensive abundance. Wright is a third baseman, and third basemen who hit like that are a whole lot harder to find than corner outfielders who hit home runs or first basemen who can pick it. While the tallies may have been close going into 2012, as long as Wright remains healthy this year, he will end the year at or near the top of most of the Mets’ all-time leaderboards.
With 33 more hits, he’ll pass Jose Reyes for second in hits behind the beloved Kranepool, who has 1418; assuming that Wright remains a Met after this year he should be the all-time leader some time in 2013. He’s second in runs scored, 28 behind Reyes, and fourth in walks, just 35 behind the first-place Strawberry. Among players with at least 500 games with the team, he’s already the Mets’ all-time leader in doubles, RBI, total bases, and batting average.
As the Mets decide whether to extend Wright, their considerations will extend beyond the field. The team has had a tough time the past couple of years, and he’s the face of the franchise. But I think he’s also the best player they’ve ever had.
Alex is a writer for The Hardball Times.
No.
Then who?
Darryl stole the cookies from the cookie jar.
Cookie is still slang for crack, right?
Eric Cammack for signing my ticket stub in 2000.
Tom Seaver. That’s who.
Right. I wrote about Seaver in the first paragraph. I’m talking about position players, not pitchers.
My bad on the oversight, quality work.
I still go with Daryl Strawberry, no matter how long Wright hangs around and compiles WAR (unless he drastically improves his performance). Reason being: You’d have a hard time finding a Mets fan who wouldn’t classify David Wright as a disappointment. Strawberry was never a disappointment (with the Mets).
Up through 2008, Wright was one of the best players in baseball — and then he, overnight, stopped being one of the best players in baseball and went back to just being a good player (and something less than that last year). Every year, Mets fans go into the season with the hope that he’ll have an MVP year, and every year they’re disappointed. Raised (and then dashed) expectations is a horrible thing for a fanbase to have.
If a player comes in with the expectation that he’ll be a 2 WAR player and then he’s a 2 WAR player, the fan base is cool with that. If he comes in and gives you 3 WAR, they’re happy with him. If you expect a guy to come in and give you 8 WAR and he gives you 4, you’re going to be horrifically disappointed. It hurts a fan base on an emotional level. David Wright does that, year after year, and it’s painful for the fanbase. Drives a knife if their heart. Strawberry never did that to the Mets, and so Mets fans don’t have the same knife driven in their hearts. This is also why nobody mentions Beltran or Reyes, by the way (I found your confusion on that issue… well, confusing). Ask any Mets fan what they think about Beltran or Reyes, and the words “disappointment” and “injury” are likely to outweigh anything positive. They’re guys who raised hopes up higher than their production could sustain — those types of guys will never be seen by the fanbase as great players.
You can skate around this issue if your team wins a championship. Which none of these recent Mets guys did.
So your reasoning is based on the same kind of fickleness and ignorance that is prevalent in many Mets fans who blame the team’s recent failures on its best players instead of its worst?
So, Jim, Strawberry never disappointed anybody when he hit .225/.312/.466 in 1989 and the Mets finished second? Or when he left for more money in ’91?
Wright is a third baseman who hits like Strawberry. If Mets fans don’t realize what an asset they have in him, that doesn’t make him any less great.
Jim, what kind of crazy Mets fans have you been talking to?
Any Mets fan that considered Wright or Beltran to be disappointments are nuts. Wright did have several MVP-type years (and one year in which he should have won the award)…so its not like he disappointed every year. He had a rough time adjusting to Citi Field, but still its not like he was terrible. He had two years that were good instead of elite, and then one year interrupted by a major injury. It’s not like he’s been a constant failure. And truthfully, given the slim pickings in Mets offensive history, even if he just repeated his ’09/’10 type seasons he’d still rank pretty favorably in Mets history
It has to be Wright, and I don’t think it is all that close. The guy will absolutely dominate the Mets record book, and unlike Kranepool he will have done it while being a star player.
It really is sad that from ’05-’11 that the Mets had 3 of the 5 best position player they have ever had and ended up with almost nothing to show for it, making it to the NLCS 1 time. It really shows how important it is to not give time to the Oliver Perezes and Gary Matthews Jrs of the world.
I’m not sure I blame Oliver Perez. For one thing, he was pretty good in ’07 and ’08. In 2006 they looked like the best team in the league, and for most of 2007 and 2008 they looked like the best team in the division. The reasons they collapsed down the stretch in both years are various, and there are a lot of people to blame, and it being New York, that’s all anyone ever did.
But from 2006 to 2008 the Mets were really, really good. They won 274 games. They probably should have advanced further in October and played better in September, but from April through August they were one of the best teams in baseball each year.
“The reasons they collapsed down the stretch in both years are various, and there are a lot of people to blame, and it being New York, that’s all anyone ever did.”
By “various” you mean “the bullpen”.
The pen sucked. Willie probably lost the clubhouse. John Maine spat out the bit both years. Ollie Perez sucked. Pedro Martinez was awful in September 08. Heilman was unreliable all year in 2008.
The offense was good — .814 September OPS in 2007, .783 September OPS in 2008. The problems were pitching, and maybe, just maybe, managing.
Sorry, not Wright.
Strawberry is Mr. Met if we have to designate a player.
I don’t really see the point of this article pretending that pitchers aren’t actually players. Would it be that hard to add “hitter” to the title? And the statement about leading in WAR?
Why are hitters the only ones who can qualify as players? It’s just bizarre.
I’m not pretending pitchers aren’t “players”; I’m separating them from everyday players because the job of a starting player and the job of an everyday player is really quite different. You can compare them with WAR, but the components of hitter WAR and pitcher WAR are utterly different. Hitters are measured across PA, defensive chances, and baserunning chances; pitchers are measured across innings. Hitters play every day, starting pitchers play every five days. It’s a comparison between apples and oranges.
Which is why your title should qualify “Met” as “Met Position Player.”
Otherwise it’s like having a title of “Best Catholic of All Time” and then in the first paragraph saying “We’ve restricted our analysis to men, so while Mother Theresa probably is the best Catholic since WWII, she’s out and we’re not going to talk about her… on to John Paul II.”
It’s a patently misleading title.
I probably should have said “Best Everyday Met Ever”… but still. It’s a conversational convention.
Most “Best Ever” discussions revolve around position players. When people talk about the greatest player of all time, they NEVER talk about Cy Young and Walter Johnson.
I do not think comparing pitchers to hitters is comparing apples to Oranges. When using WAR we are measuring the same thing; runs or wins above replacemant level. You work for Fangraphs. You know we can compare a pitcher’s impact to a hitter’s impact. If you look at the Fangraphs WAR leaders board you will see both position players and pitchers. When we look at roster construction we esimate WAR for position players and Pitchers alike and add them together to get an idea of the total WAR that will be provided by the whole team whether it be position players, starting pitchers or relievers.
How exactly is Tom Seaver “one of the two or three best pitchers since World War II”??
Could be wrong with my math, but only 5 pitchers had a better WAR then him after WWII (Clemens, Pedro, Ryan, Maddux, and Randy). For whatever reason WAR wasn’t calculated for him pre-1974, which he was already a stellar pitcher. If you assume a WAR of 5 for those seasons, it puts him up there as at worst a top 10 pitcher since WWII.
Seaver pitched incredibly well through a fairly high-offense era, the 1970s. He was durable, consistent, and excellent for a very long time. For what it’s worth, baseball-reference sees him as having the fourth-most pitcher WAR of all time, 105.3, behind Cy Young (146), Roger Clemens (128.4), and Walter Johnson (127.7), and just ahead of Pete Alexander (104.9), Kid Nichols (102.3), and Lefty Grove (102.3). (These are Sean Smith’s rWAR, which are computed using a different method than Fangraphs’ fWAR.)
Seaver is the only postwar pitcher in the top seven other than Clemens, a PED user whose stats may need to be discounted somewhat. After that, Greg Maddux is tied with Phil Niekro at 96.8, and Gaylord Perry is tenth with 96.3.
For some reason, Fangraphs’ pitcher WAR only starts in 1974, so Seaver’s first seven seasons are missing, and he was really really good over those seasons, going 135-76 with a 2.38 ERA. You’ll note that all of the players on Fangraphs’ pitcher WAR leaderboards are modern. Baseball-reference notes that there is a problem with missing play-by-play data between 1948-1973, though b-r notes that there isn’t a lot of missing data. So the numbers I offered in the first paragraph aren’t necessarily completely accurate, but they’re good enough for the sake of comparison.
The point is, Seaver was incredibly good, and in terms of overall career quality, measuring both peak and length, he was may well have been the best between Grove and Clemens.
Even if you say that Greg Maddux was better than Tom Seaver, you’ll struggle to find another postwar pitcher other than Maddux and Clemens who had a better career than Tom Terrific.
Well said. I can’t think of any pitcher had as great a start to his career as Tom Seaver. He has no peer for his first 12 seasons – even Clemens and Maddux had rough starts and/or an off year in their first 12 seasons. But Seaver was a dominant pitcher every year from 1967 through 1978, and his 1979 season wasn’t bad either, although his fastball had lost a few ticks by then.
Seaver is to pitchers what Albert Pujols is to hitters.
When Comparing greatest pitchers or players for that matter, I like to look at seven to ten year peaks. Their have been a few pitchers since World War 2 who have been good enough to give their teams postseason potential year in and year out. Koufax, Gibson, Seaver, Koufax, Clemens, Martinez, Maddux and Johnson are the names that come to mind. Koufax really only had about a four year run but wow. Behind those eight are some guys who were not quite as consistent or good. Ford, Marichal, Carlton, Palmer, Ryan, Sutton, Schiilling, Blyleven, Glavine, Mussina , Brown etc. As for Seaver he had what was likely the best ten year run of any of these guys as he put up 70 WAR from 68-77. For comparison sakes nobody else put up those numbers over a ten year period. Clemens, Maddux and Johnson may have been just as valuable but due to pitching slightly fewer innings than Seaver they all came up with Ten year WAR peaks in the mid 60s.
Interestingly, there are eight Hall of Famers who you didn’t include on your list: Jim Bunning, Don Drysdale, Catfish Hunter, Ferguson Jenkins, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Robin Roberts, and Nolan Ryan. Was that an oversight, or do they not meet your criteria?
You’re in a thread entitled “Best Met Ever” debating about Tom Seaver. As if any Met fan is ever going to be rational about Tom Terrific.
And there’s a nice argument for top ten for sure.
I’m not a Met fan. But he’s amazing.
I’ve never said NO outloud just by reading a headline on FG before until today.
But the results are there, and if he somehow finishes his career with the Mets, it should be a no doubt claim.
Now Jimmy, well do you want an explosion now?
Yeah Jimmy, do you want to explode now?
I did have an explosion– when I read the title of this piece.
But the statistical evidence calmed me.
Back in the day the Mets were famous for having a revolving door at third base.
So the irony is that your “Greatest Mets” team includes no left fielder — but two third basement.
Perhaps you are shorting Cleon Jones. He might not have the career WAR, but he and Agee WERE the Mets offense in 1969 thanks to career years.
No doubt, Cleon and Agee were fantastic with the Miracle Mets. But Agee was only in New York for five years, and though Cleon played 12 years with the Metropolitans, he really only had three very good years with them: 1968, 1969, and 1971. Neither had as good a Met career as HoJo.
HoJo played a lot of games where he stood in close proximity to third base while his team was in the field.
But calling him a thirdbaseman might be a bit generous.
Wrong…
(stealing a Julian McCullough joke here…)
Obviously it’s Darryl Strawberry.
You see… Barry Bonds hit more than 755 homers, some of them on performance ENHANCING drugs…
The sanctimonius amongst us think his record should be asterisked, or at least weighted downwards to compensate for the illegal medicine he took..
Darryl Strawberry hit all of those homeruns on drugs too… but they weren’t of the perfromance enhancing kind. By the same logic, by having an IV of Stolichnaya and god knows what else in him at all times, his totals should be inflated, including that WAR stat of yours… Making him the greatest Met of all time…
Babe Ruth hit all of his home runs fueled by booze, steaks, and women who weren’t his wife.
Hot Dogs and Hookers, as it is said.
Though some of the hookers claimed he was using performance-enhancing hot dogs, so his stats may be dubious.
and he was obviously the bestest yankee of all time!
or something….
Mary Jane is classified as a performance enhancing drug by the International Olympic Committee. I rest my case. lol
Well, they had a lot of problems with it being used by people competing in the Couch Surfing events.
I think he has to be part of a WS team or at least win an MVP to be considered the best positional player of all time, on the Mets. It’s really close though, but he’s not quite there yet, I think strawberry has a slight edge given the late 80’s and strawberry being the best player they had. Apart from this year and 2007 it’s hard to say Wright was/is definitively the best player on the team overall.
Darryl never won an MVP either, though he did better in the vote than Wright. The closest Straw ever came was a second-place finish in 1988, and third place in 1990. Wright’s highest finish was fourth-place in 2007.
Wright should have won MVP in 2008 when he led the NL in WAR. Instead it was awarded to Rollins who wasn’t even the best player on his own team.
Why, Rollins wasn’t even in the top two on his own infield!
Rollins was the second best player on the Phillies, by WAR, in 2007, and 7th in WAR in the NL (I’d argue 6th is more accurate, given I really don’t believe that 33.2 UZR Alfonso Soriano had).
The unfortunate thing is, if Utley didn’t break his hand he was going to win the MVP by a mile, he just didn’t have the counting totals since he missed 30 games (which really was not that much, just happened to be at a critical time)
David Wright hit .255 with RISP in 08 and left a runner on third with no one out and a team resting it’s closer in the biggest at bat of the season for the mets. He was not the MVP of the team never mind the league.
Rollins’ MVP was in 2007. Pujols won, handily, in 2008.
Yawn, the MVP is not awarded to a player based on one at-bat.
Right, Matt, because you can’t be a great baseball player if you never won a title. Rafael Furcal and Octavio Dotel were better last year than Matt Kemp and Justin Verlander. Luis Vizcaino had a better career than Ted Williams.
When comparing players, we should care about what they contributed to their teams, not what their teams contributed to their fingers.
Perhaps read the rest of the comment first.
Other players were more important to the mets success than Wright was in the periods he has been on the team except for maybe two years. In the 80s strawberry was the best player the mets had by far, for more than two years. So him winning the title + the years he was the best player make him the best player on the mets ever.
So other players determine how good a player is. And these other players were more important despite having worse stats?
GME? isnt that like arguing over the most rational republican of all time? either way the list is too short for such a heated debate.
glad you got Seaver right away, the rest of the list has done too little to get too excited about
I’d say Lincoln was about as rational as Tom Seaver was a great pitcher.
ok, i agree about Lincoln, but when you have to go back 150 years…..
He’s not a woman, asian or otherwise oppressed… why Remington even got out of bed for this is a mystery to me.
My last column was about Peter Gammons: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/peter-gammons-to-boston-globe-burn-your-sources/
Before that, the history of the Dodgers: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/dodgers-celebrate-122nd-national-league-anniversary/
Before that, the fungal infection called Valley Fever: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/valley-fever-redux-just-how-dangerous-is-this-fungus/
Before that, the history of Opening Day: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/happy-opening-day-er-third-opening-day/
Before that, the J.J. Hoover-Juan Francisco trade: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/braves-trade-j-j-hoover-to-reds-for-juan-francisco/
I get the joke you’re going for. But try reading me before you go for a lazy, ignorant burn.
good for you, Alex.
You forgot to mention midgets.
“The team has had a tough time the past couple of years, and he’s the face of the franchise. But I think he’s also the best player they’ve ever had.”
But this isn’t the data you based the piece on. Your primary source of statistical evidence was “WAR accrued while being wearing a Met uniform” not “best player the Mets have ever had”. Because that list goes something like:
Doc
Seaver
Piazza
Good point. But I totally disagree with your list.
You’re right — I’m talking about “best career in a Met uniform,” which is different than “best player they’ve ever had,” and I probably should have been a bit more precise with the ending of my piece. A list of the absolute best players who have ever played for the Mets at all would include people like Seaver, Nolan Ryan, Piazza, and even Willie Mays and Yogi Berra.
But I don’t think that there are any criteria by which you can put Doc on a list above Seaver.
That was in fact a premature post (as the half written handle will attest to…), and would’ve had a few more names on that list, ordered them, then finished the thought…
However, I would not have had Willy Mays! You learn something everyday.
Duke Snider, Richie Ashburn, Gil Hodges, Warren Spahn, Pedro Martinez, Robbie Alamos. For their non-Mets careers, obviously. Although Ashburn, Hodges and Snider actually had decent seasons for the Mets, if not up to their former levels.
Oh and Johan Santana.
Probably Wright among position players. Mets best 4 season stretch by a position player? I’d say Piazza, 1999-2002.
Tom Seaver isn’t close to the two or three best since WW2. You have GOAT and Lefty GOAT (arguably) who were playing recently. And then that Maddux castoff. Pedro if you wanna argue about “peak” as well.
And Roy Halladay seems to be redefining biomechanics.
So anyway, top 2-3 is not just absurd. But completely retarded.
First of all, I said “probably.” So if you want to say Seaver’s in the top 5 instead of top 3, then I’d be fine with that.
But you’re not making much of an argument.
If by GOAT you mean Clemens, then, as I said, I agree, he had a better career than Seaver. (Though Clemens obviously wasn’t the greatest pitcher of all time. Most would argue that’s Walter Johnson. If you want to say it’s Cy Young, I won’t say you’re wrong. But Walter is certainly better than Clemens.)
By lefty GOAT I’m assuming you mean Randy Johnson, and he’s certainly arguable, though he wasn’t very good till he was 29. I already mentioned Maddux. So there’s the three of them. Seaver has more WAR than Maddux and Johnson, but they’re all close and all good candidates for the top 4.
The only way to say that Pedro Martinez had a career as good as Seaver is to focus almost entirely on peak and ignore longevity. Seaver pitched 4783 innings. Pedro pitched 2827 1/3. At his best, Pedro was second to none, but he pitched almost 2000 fewer innings. They’re not comparable.
And Halladay has pitched 2561 innings. As far as anyone can tell, he appears to still be in his prime. I don’t know where he’ll wind up when he finally hangs up his cleats in 3-8 years. He’ll probably be a Hall of Famer. But… he has barely pitched half the innings of Seaver. To say that he’s better than Seaver already is either presumptuous or unsupportable.
So… you named three people who I think are legitimately in the conversation with Seaver, and two more recent people who I think simply are not remotely in the conversation with Seaver. Would you care to back up your arguments, or do you just want to throw out more insults?
Well said, Alex. Don’t let these haters get you down, especially if they do their utmost to be as crass as humanly possible.
Remington really shot him down. Came out guns blazing. If I ever need a hired gun for a forum discussion, I’m getting Remington.
dude, remington freaking schooled you.
Overshadowed by younger and more popular, and homegrown Wright and Reyes, people forget how good Beltran was. He probably has not played enough games as a Met for me to say he was the best, but his 2006 was the best single season any Met ever had. He is remembered for the pitch against Wainwright, but without him it would never came down to that one pitch as a matterr fact I remember Beltran winning one game of that series with a home run. I was there on 11/28/2008, final game at Shea. Mets were down 2-0, guess who hit a home run off Scott Olsen to tie that game? Too bad our awful bullpen blew that game too.
I know it’s already been addressed, but the title of the piece is ‘David Wright: Greatest Met Ever?”. And that’s a no. It’s Tom Seaver, not a doubt about it. I know “…Greatest Met Position Player” ever makes for a less catchy title, but isn’t that sort of like asking if Ritz Crackers are the greatest dessert of all time and ignoring sweets?
Well… maybe a little.
One to rarely find any fault with your phrasing, Alex, I do feel that maybe you could have worded the last sentence of your piece to read “best position player” ever. I totally agree that putting that extra word in the title wouldn’t have worked, but maybe re-wording that last sentence would have.
Victor Zambrano or Scott Kazmir…. it’s a tossup
It’s totally Wright. The reason others argue is that most fans (Mets and otherwise) are completely uneducated and buy into the old sportswriter meme of understanding baseball with their gut.
A simple look at the stats and the question is answered… it’s Wright – only the StrawMan is close.
I love Mex, Straw, HoJo (was still my favorite player years after he retired), Reyes, Piazza, Alfonzo… they were all great… but DWright is the one.
Great article… way to support your argument… unlike most of these knucklehead commenters.
What this analysis has shown me is that the Mets have really not had a lot of all-time great position players. Which is kind of astounding to think of, honestly.
I mean… I trust the analysis, Wright may well be the best they’ve got. Unfortunately, I am not entirely convinced that Wright will end up with a higher WAR than Todd Helton. And don’t get me wrong, I LIKE Helton. But when you’re a team as old as the Mets, I’d expect your all-time guy to be a little more than that.
helton is a secondary figure to larry walker in rockies lore
Mike Piazza
Had he played with them his whole career with the Mets this isn’t a discussion. Wright is the de-facto greatest. Would have been a great debate had Wright not fallen from grace.
Well Piazza DIDN’T play his whole career with the Mets and Wright has up to this point…
David Wright all the way.
You think Wright is more beloved by Mets fans than Piazza? I can’t stand that author made this topic strictly about WAR.
I don’t mean to make this all about WAR — that’s why I spent time discussing other comparable players, particularly Hernandez and Strawberry. WAR is good for providing a general ordinal ranking of players who should be in the discussion. It obviously isn’t the be-all end-all — but that’s why there are 11 paragraphs of text after the WAR table.
Alex, when you bring up WAR, it’a all about WAR. You should know better than that.
Is G.M.O.A.T. an Infinite Jest Reference, see Prettiest Girl Of All Time P.G.O.A.T.?
I’m afraid not. Infinite Jest is on my “some day” list, along with Proust and Ulysses. (I need to read Consider the Lobster, too. I kind of feel bad that I haven’t.)
I guess I first heard the acronym when LL Cool J made it an album title.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.O.A.T.
The Greatest Met? Is that like crowning the strongest kid in the Cancer Ward?
Mets joke
Gary Carter did not “just pass through” the New York Mets, and just because he didn’t compile a lot of WAR there doesn’t mean he did.
Fair enough. Carter played four seasons in New York and 50 games of a fifth. He was very good for the first two and not very good for the last three. He certainly is identified with the team, particularly the 1986 championship team.
But within the context of his 19-year career, those five years with the Mets simply don’t hold a candle to his 12 years in Montreal, where he amassed the vast majority of his Hall of Fame resume. Carter didn’t exactly “pass through” New York, but he came to New York in the decline phase of his career, played four and a half seasons, and then left. He’ll always be an Expo to me.
I think what is getting lost here is the fact that Wright is only 29 years old, and if extended, has at least five or six good seasons still ahead of him as a Met, maybe more. This is really a question that should be asked when his career is over. Is it crazy to think in seven or eight years when Wright’s career is winding down he could be considered as good or better than Seaver? Absolutely not. If Wright remains a Met for his whole career he will SHATTER every record.
I mean, if David Wright gets extended for six years, and puts up 6-7 WAR in each of those years, and wins a ring to boot, will that make him better than Seaver? There would certainly be an argument. Seaver was a Met for ten seasons. Wright has the chance to be one for fifteen, maybe more.
It just doesn’t make any sense to have this argument now.
Good argument, Brooks. Maybe it’s worth noting that we’re even having this conversation at this stage in his career.
David Wright’s pretty good, but he’s no Peter Bourjos.
It is pretty amazing that, according to WAR, Wright has been the 5th best player in baseball since he came up in 2004. He’s still (barely) on the right side of 30, and for all his injury woes of the last few years, they’ve tended to be strange, one-off incidents (hit in the head by a pitch, broken back, etc). I see no reason why he shouldn’t continue to play at an elite level for many more years.
unless I’m mistaken, WAR is calculated based on your position right? Third basemen have been weak sauce for most of the time Wright has been in the league. If Wright’s glove blows, so if you put him at another position that is offense first, like a corner OF or first, he’s not so great.
I wish you could adjust WAR to be “for all offensive players” and do the same for defense. If you have a 4 WAR offensive catcher, that doesn’t really mean a lot for your overall productivity other than you’re getting an unusual amount from your catcher. If you 1B and corner outfielders aren’t hitting well, you probably don’t have a good offense.
Then again, if that’s not how WAR is calucated, I look like a retard.
Bottom line is, Wright’s WAR, I think, is high in large part due to how few good 3B there have been. Dan Uggla hits 30 home runs 5 years (or whatever it’s been) in a row. As a 2B, that’s a lot of power. If he played first, it’d be an expectation for many.
You can see the components of David Wright’s WAR if you go to the Value section of his player page:
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3787&position=3B#value
You can compare that to Mike Piazza’s WAR, for example:
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=893&position=C
Wright gets a bit of positional value from playing third base, but Mike Piazza actually got a lot more from playing catcher, which is far to the left of 3B on the defensive spectrum. Most of Wright’s value is in the fact that he’s a freaking awesome hitter; he’s a below-average fielder and a slightly above-average baserunner who’s terrific at hitting.
Your point, I think, is that positional adjustments might mean that a guy with a .350 wOBA at catcher might have the same WAR as a guy with a .380 wOBA at first base, and so in order to increase team offense, you ought to prefer the .380 wOBA guy regardless of where he plays. But it’s easier to find hitters at first base than it is at catcher or third. The fact that Wright is as much better hitter than his peers is absolutely to his advantage, and it has been to the Mets’ advantage as well, as they built legitimately great offenses around him, Reyes, and Beltran.
If you have a great catcher but aren’t getting a lot from your 1B and OF, that’s too bad and it will certainly hold back your offense. But that’s pretty much a failure of your front office. It’s a lot easier to find a marginal point of wOBA at first base or corner outfield than at catcher. If you have a great catcher, you’ve already done the hard part. And as analysts, we shouldn’t blame the catcher if his general manager failed to surround him with productive teammates.
I don’t doubt that Wright is the best Mets position player ever, just that he has been the 5th best player since 2004. His WAR is as high as it is because of his position. His D is probably a negative. If you were to look at true overall offensive production regardless of position, he’s not the 5th best player since he broke in. He’s the “5th best player when you adjust his offense for how good the average player at his position is”.
“those numbers help make the case that Wright may already be the best everyday player in Mets history — which is another way of saying that he’s the best National Leaguer in New York since Willie Mays.”
Wright may be the best position player as a Met. I can definitely see the argument. However, it’s silly to say that he’s the best position player the Mets have had on their team since Willie Mays. Piazza, Beltran, and Carter were all superior, and those are just the ones off the top of my head.
Oh, certainly. As I said above — http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/david-wright-greatest-met-ever/#comment-2600488 — when I say “best Met,” I mean best career with the Mets. Though Wright has a good chance of equaling Piazza’s and Beltran’s career value, if not Carter’s.
Historical September collapse and MVP generally don’t go together.
While the rest of the team collapsed in September of 2007, Wright certainly didn’t.
Wright’s slash line during that fateful month: .352 /.432 /.602
maybe he should have shown more “grit” and “leadership” and “insert ESPN buzzword”. THAT is an MVP. Look at Rollins year. Yea, probably not even the best player on his team, but he was valuable.
Yea, shit baffles me too. Somone on Fox Sports radio the other day said that until Ichiro is on an elite team, he doesn’t consider him a hall of famer. How someone with that kind of stupidity is still paid is beyond me.
Benny Agbayani FTW!!!
Well, Piazza was an all-star in 7 of his 8 seasons for the Mets(won 5 Silver Slugger Awards, came close to being an MVP, dragged them to the WS)and had a decline due to age, being a catcher and injuries. He didn’t fall off like Wright has done for a few seasons until he was 34 and missed more than half the season. Before that you could fill in 33 to 40 homeruns, .300 plus average, 100 plus RBI, and you knew he was a “real” superstar.
David Cone, Jerry Koosman who outpitched Seaver in the 1969 WS and should have been an all-star a few more times, Doc Gooden, Strawberry, Gary Carter(even if he didn’t play there long)are all more deserving. What has Wright done for the Mets in the playoffs? Is he a guy Mets’ fans love? He really doesn’t look like someone who has a very good shot at making the Hall of Fame. Almost 30, he’s shown a decline in power(no one can blame him with that ballpark), speed, overall average, defensive range, and had a few injuries.
In what way has Wright shown a decline in power? ’09 he hit 10 because of adjusting to that monstrocity of a park. In ’10 he was right back up to 29, which is about average for him. Last year he had a broken back. So where’s the decline?
I’d say that injuries are part of a decline though. Also, the year he hit 10 home runs he also had 39 doubles, which was around the same amount as before. Wouldn’t you think that if it was because of a bigger park that he’d have more doubles or more singles or more something?
Not only that, but wouldn’t you expecth is HR at home to be a lot lower than away? He hit 5 on the road, 5 at home.
Some of it can be blamed on the park but a 20 HR drop? Come on now.
David Wright’s frustration with Citi Field was palpable. He now has the swing and approach at the plate he sported in 2005-2008. It had been absent since then. As long as he’s healthy I fully expect another .300/.900/25-30/100 campaign, per usual, before those ridiculous dimensions were forced upon him. It clearly messed with his head. He mentioned it in interviews numerous times. He will be top 5 in the MVP voting this year. stamp that.
If he doesn’t approach those numbers, being in a normal park and having the swing and approach that he used to, then we will talk about a decline.
Can’t think of many perennial all-stars that started to decline at 27. Can you?
Johnny Bench, certainly. But catchers’ aging curves are pretty out of the ordinary.
Cesar Cedeno would be one. He looked like a Hall of Famer early in his career but hit a wall around 27. Likewise Vada Pinson. Playing center field can really take it out of a guy. (I’m convinced that’s one reason that Andruw Jones aged prematurely.)
You can’t say “is David Wright the greatest Met ever?” and then say “oh, just kidding, it’s Tom Seaver.” (And obviously it’s Seaver).
Either ask if Wright is the second-best Met ever, or the best Mets hitter ever. Don’t do the bait and switch.
That’s why they were called the miricle Mets, they haven’t had any great players other than Seaver.
David’s glove is not bad at all, he is an above average feilder in my opinion.
He doesn’t have a “bad” glove, if by “bad” you mean Ryan Braun.
But above average? From 2005 to 2011, there are 16 third basemen who played at least 5000 innings at the position. Wright is 14th in UZR and 13th in UZR/150. He is far below average.
http://tinyurl.com/cuwmv8v
Alex, that UZR ranking for Wright is dragged down by 2009-2011, the three worst fielding years of Wright’s career. Which also happen to coincide with the first 3 years of Citi Field with its huge dimensions that adversely impacted all facets of Wright’s game.
So how exactly did the dimensions adversely impact Wright’s defense? For one thing, it appears he let his offensive woes impact his fielding. Many players can separate their struggles with the bat from their performance with the glove, but Wright apparently couldn’t. Second, it’s been widely speculated that Wright bulked up and worked out more in those three years in order to try to compensate for the longer distances at Citi. That resulted in less flexibility which negatively impacted his fielding — and might have somehow contributed to his fractured spine last year.
Now that Citi’s huge dimensions have been shrunk, and Wright’s mechanics have been fixed, his offense has rebounded — and apparently so has his defense along with it. He currently is 5th among all qualified third basemen in UZR/150. Sure it’s early, but I would be surprised if he didn’t end up to be at the very least average this year.
Bottom line is that Wright WAS an above-average fielder before they moved into Citi Field. And now due to the fence (and other) changes, he appears to be back to the reliable fielder he was earlier in his career.
I don’t know how you are getting “above average.”
If you restrict it just to 2005-2008, David Wright is one of three third basemen who played 5000 innings at the position. Adrian Beltre is the best, with a UZR/150 of 9.5. Alex Rodriguez is the worst, with a UZR/150 of -5.0. And David Wright is smack in the middle, with a UZR/150 of -0.1.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=3b&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=5000&type=1&season=2008&month=0&season1=2005&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&players=0
Why would you restrict the sample size to 2005-2008 or 2005-2011, lopping off 2004? If you count ALL of Wright’s time at 3B leading up to 2009 including 2004, his UZR/150 is 0.6. That is above average.
If Wright plays his entire career with the Mets — something that seems more and more likely as the season progresses — he will undoubtedly go down as the “greatest Met ever” but not necessarily their best player ever. If your definition of the “best player” is one of quality and not quantity, then perhaps Seaver will still stand head and shoulders above any previous Met.
But for quality + quantity + intangibles and leadership — the entire package, Wright will likely end up the franchise leader, if he isn’t already.
I noticed a comment above saying that Beltran was a better player. I’m not sure about that. During the years Beltran was a Met, Wright had a higher cumulative WAR. He also had a higher OPS. I would say that in terms of just on-the-field performance, Beltran and Wright were roughly equal players during those years.