SaberMets.com

Bo started off on the wrong foot in 1992. His BA was .249, and the rest of his numbers were off from his Pittsburgh years. So right away, the fans had a gripe.

Also, it's easy to focus on statistics, which can be written down in black and white, but there are other factors that go into making a player good or popular. The perception was always there that Bonilla had an attitude problem. He wasn't really a "Met". New York fans - particularly Mets fans - care about attitude. So, while Mets fans were unhappy about Mo Vaughn, for example, he was never reviled. The feeling was that Mo was doing the best that he could, playing the hardest that he was capable of playing, but was jut not physically able to deliver. This didn't make him a fan favorite, but neither was he personally blamed for the Mets failures. Clearly, management blew it.

Bonilla, on the other hand, seemed to be mailing his games in. He never seemed to hustle, or to really have his head in the game. So, he lost the fans in the first season, to the extent that even his injuries were called into question.

Your analysis shows that overall, Bonilla's numbers were reasonable in his four years combined. The problem is that after year one, his numbers were not good enough to win the fans back.

Anecdotally speaking, Bonilla is considered a flop as a Met, performance-wise. Offensive statistics do not illustrate character flaws or fan perception, nor will they ever. The fact is that most people remember Bonilla as a largely unproductive player for the Mets, which is just plain false.

Great piece.

As has been brought to light with Reyes, I think a major factor missing from the new world order of Sabermetrics is health. If you can't stay on the field you can't be productive.

Predicting that is a soft science, of course, but it certainly is often the deciding factor in assessing a players career in retrospect.

Could you look at Cliff Floyd and Jose Reyes' history and predict that they are going to miss 30 percent of their games the rest of their careers? Could you look at Pedro's body type or Scott Kazmir's body type and predict injury trouble? Could you have looked at Bobby Bo's rotund figure and guessed he'd have injury issues?

All good questions.

Exactly. IMO, J.D. Drew was the best hitter available on the market this year. If there was some assurance that he could play 140-150 games for the life of a five-year contract, I would have stepped over my own mother to sign him for the 5/$55 L.A. got him for.

Based on his history, he is more likely to play 100 games than 150, which makes it tougher to pony up that much money over that many years.

1992: Bonilla, Ed Murray and Bret Saberhagen
2004: Beltran, Delgado and Pedro????

Bobby Bo wasn't that injured. He did miss 34 games in 1992 and 23 games in 1993, but only 5 games in 1994 and 3 games in 1995, both of which were shortened because of the strike. Also, his production was down from his years with the Pirates. Still, you're right that he was a very good player. The problem was he wasn't one of the top 10 or 15 players, and that was what his salary (tops in baseball 92, 93 and 94) was thought to warrant.

But about injuries, I'm not sure the risk of Drew missing 40 games is as significant as you suggest. Last year, Drew averaged about 4.4 plate appearances per game over 145 games. Had he played 120 games, he'd have had 111 fewer PAs, and missed out on a total of 187 PAs (assuming 4.4 X 162 games). Instead of creating 128 runs, he'd have created 107 runs.

In his place, let's put Eric Valent. With those 187 PAs, he'd have created 27 runs at last year's rate. Between the two, then, they'd have totalled 134 runs.

Meanwhile, Carlos Beltran created 119 runs in 708 PAs. In other words, in 13 more PAs, Valent/Drew would have created 15 more runs.

The Dodgers will use Ricky Ledee to back-up Drew, who isn't quite as good as Valent, but in 187 PAs, he would have created 21 runs. So Ledee/Drew gives you 128 runs, still 9 more than Beltran.

In that light, I'm not sure that signing Drew is much of a risk for the Dodgers. They got him for $6 million a year cheaper, and two years less than the Mets got Beltran.

Thanks for the reminder about the strike, James. I'm an idiot.

If J.D. Drew stays healthy for the life of his contract (let's say 140 games per season), the Dodgers will likely have gotten a steal. If he does not remain healthy, and he only plays 115 games per season like he averaged fom 1999-2003, I'm sure the Dodgers will be less than pleased.

Drew finally had a healthy season in 2004, and he still missed 17 games. If you're trying to argue that signing Drew for 5/$55 is a better deal than Beltran for 7/$119, well you're probably right.

You won't be able to convince me that signing Drew would have been more important to the Mets than Beltran was, however. The Beltran signing will change the Mets franchise for the better; it already has, in fact, without him even playing a game.

Gary -

Nice try. Beltran is much better than Bonilla ever was. Eddie Murray was 36 when the Mets signed him; Delgado is 32, and is a much better player now than Murray was at the time. Pedro vs Saberhagen? Get real. Saberhagen actually pitched pretty well for the Mets, posting ERA+ marks of 99 (not so good), 119 and 152 (very good). Saberhagen was younger, but Pedro is one of the greatest pitchers who ever played.

First, I'd never say you were an idiot, and certainly not on your site.

On the Beltran/Drew argument, don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled the Mets got Beltran, and given the upward trend his numbers are on, expect him to continue to improve for several more years.

I'm just saying that while of course the Dodgers probably expect Drew to play 140+ games, and wouldn't have signed him if they didn't, they probably also figured that even if he played fewer games, it would still be a good deal for them. If I were in Omar's shoes, I probably would have signed Drew over Beltran, but then, there may be a reason his shoes are nicer than mine.

You didn't say I was an idiot; I fully admitted it, particularly under the circumstances.

If the Mets knew in December what they know now, they should have traded Mike Cameron already and gone after Drew to play right field. He's an unbelievable hitter and a good fielder to boot.

Beltran completely changes the landscape of the Mets moving forward. He brings a legitimacy to the ballclub that Drew couldn't have on his own. Of course, winning brings legitimacy too. But Beltran (along with Pedro) makes the Mets more appealing to other free agents, fans, advertisers, etc.

By overpaying for Beltran and Martinez, quite arguably the best pitcher and position player available this offseason, the Mets are now in a position to be desirable enough to NOT have to overpay for free agents moving forward.

Winning cures all, though I'll still contend that Beltran is more valuable to a franchise than J.D. Drew.

Wasn't 1993 the point at which offensive stats went through the roof?

To whit, a quick glance at his page on Baseball-Reference indicates that he was NOT as good as a Met as he was as a Pirate, especially in comparison with the year he had before becoming a free agent - the level of production for which they were paying.

Chris -

You're right that the league OPS began increasing in 1993 (it was .736 in '93 after marks of .703 and .705 the previous years).

Too, Bonilla's OPS+ marks were off slightly as a Met compared to his last years in Pittsburgh (142, 144, 132, and 150 from 1988-1991 as a Pirate; 121, 135, 128, and 155 from 1992-1995 as a Met). Whether going from a great lineup to a crummy lineup had any impact on this difference is anybody's guess.

If Bonilla wasn't quite as good in NY as he was in Pittsburgh, he certainly wasn't much worse. The fact remains that this is a player who performed roughly in line with his previous performance, yet has drawn the ire of fans and media alike, probably due to his assocation with those forgettable Mets teams of the early 90's.

I am not a Bonilla fan (and never was), but based on the stats from 1993, Bonilla and Eddie Murray weren't the problem. Murray's 93 season was close to his career averages, and he played over 150 games in both 92 and 93.
The fact that Gooden went 12-15 in 29 starts, Saberhagen only made 19 starts, Fernandez only made 18 starts, and the Mets had to rely on Frank Tanana (7-15), Eric Hillman (2-9), Pete Schourek (5-12) and Anthony Young (1-16) speaks volumes for how bad the pitching was, and why they only won 59 games.