Marty Noble has a new Mets.com mailbag out today, and in it, he discusses Angel Pagan:
He was a productive offensive player last season. But his errors — of omission, commission and in thinking — were so many, assessing his skills can’t be done so readily.
I don’t know. Maybe that’s true. Pagan did make a few really terrible mental mistakes in 2009. But were they really so bad as to take away from the value he added to the team?
Not nearly. Bill James Online, which relies on video scouts from Baseball Info Solutions to judge how many plays a defender makes above or below the average player at his position, had Pagan as a +12 left fielder, a +7 center fielder and a +1 right fielder. Presumably, that includes the penalties levied against Pagan for his blunders.
And on the basepaths? The same site has him as a +12 baserunner, meaning he gained 12 more bases with his feet than the average player would in similar situations. (Note: I initially botched — by a lot — my reading of his stats page. I wrote that he was +35, which is his career total.)
He was thrown out on the bases four times, which isn’t great. But I’d guess that a player so aggressive on the basepaths will always be more prone to the occasional gaffe. So while everyone was so busy chastising Pagan for the times he cost the Mets runs with his baserunning, they forgot to celebrate all the runs he actually earned the team with his legs.
So essentially, there are ways to assess readily assess his skills despite his lapses in concentration. I’m not saying we should take the Bill James Online stats as gospel, but since they do weigh both his positive and negative contributions, they provide a lot of assistance in figuring out how to value his tendency for the baserunning or defensive yip.
And the verdict shows that Pagan, when you combine his plus defense and plus baserunning with his .837 OPS, was pretty damn good in 2009.
Should the Mets count on it going forward? Maybe not. But they certainly shouldn’t hold against Pagan all the nonsensical sanctimony about him playing the game the wrong way.
Incidentally, the first question in Noble’s mailbag regards Carl Crawford’s “personality and leadership” and is posed by a Queens resident named “James K.” Could this be James Kannengieser, Amazin’ Avenue writer, occasional TedQuarters commenter and sabermetric knight-errant of the Mets’ blogosphere? James, are you baiting Marty Noble?