Saturday, March 27, 2010

If the Mets Had Not Traded Nolan Ryan

December 10, 1971: The New York Mets trade four players to the California Angels for shortstop Jim Fregosi.

At the time, there was nothing wrong with wanting a healthy Jim Fregosi on your team. He would be just 30 years old on Opening Day 1972, had been an American League All-Star 6 times, won a Gold Glove in 1967, and until slumping to 89 in 1971, had never had an OPS+ (on-base percentage + slugging percentage, in relation to the league average) lower than 108 in his 1st 8 full seasons in the majors, peaking at 141 in 1964.

His highest batting average had been .290, in 1967; peak home runs, 22, and peak runs batted in, 82, both in 1970. In 1968, he led the AL in triples with 13. The franchise was just 11 seasons old at that point, but Fregosi was, without a doubt, the greatest player the Angels had yet had.

Certainly, Fregosi was a better player than the Mets' incumbent starting shortstop, Derrel McKinley "Bud" Harrelson. Although Harrelson had helped the Mets win the 1969 World Series, and had won the '71 season's National League Gold Glove for shortstops and was selected for the last 2 All-Star Games, Harrelson couldn't hit a lick. His highest single-season OPS+ was 82, well below Fregosi's slump season. His peak batting average was .254, and he would top that only twice; his peak RBI year was 42, and his peak home run year was... 1 -- in each case, it would remain so.

Clearly, what the Mets needed to do was make Harrelson a backup, a "defensive replacement." Or maybe the Mets could move him to 3rd base, where 1969 starter Wayne Garrett had badly tailed off, and incumbent starter Bob Aspromonte -- a Brooklyn native who is now best known as the brother of the somewhat better Ken Aspromonte, and who was also the last active player who had played for the Brooklyn Dodgers -- was at the end of the line.

Instead, the Mets kept Harrelson at short, and moved Fregosi to 3rd. At first, it seemed to work, but then Fregosi got hurt, finished the season with only 32 RBIs and an OPS+ of just 89, and was never the same again. His 382 plate appearances that season would be far and away more than he'd ever have again.

Between the ages of 21 and 28, Jim Fregosi was, statistically speaking, similar to Alan Trammell, the longtime Detroit Tiger shortstop who is maybe one step short of being elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame (and would be in, as would his double-play partner Lou Whitaker, if they could go in as a unit, like "Tinker to Evers to Chance"). But between the ages of 29 and 36, Fregosi was just another broken-down player.

At 36, in 1978, the Angels fired manager Dave Garcia, and asked Fregosi, then playing out the string with the Pittsburgh Pirates, to come back; he instantly accepted the job, retired as a player, and led the Angels to their first postseason berth, the 1979 AL Western Division Title.


Did the Mets blow it by trading 4 players for an injured formerly solid player? Not necessarily. We have to take a look at those 4 players, to see if they gave up anything worth having.

Frank Estrada. He was a backup catcher who'd played 1 big-league game, for the Mets in '71, and never appeared in another. No loss there.

Don Rose. A pitcher, he'd also reached the majors for 1 game with the '71 Mets, put up a 1-4 record for the '72 Angels, and by April 1974 had appeared in the majors for the last time. No loss there.

Leroy Stanton. He was a right fielder, and he turned out to be a good player, putting up OPS+ seasons of 110, 116 and 123, before slumping a bit in 1976, and being left unprotected in the expansion draft. Taken by the Seattle Mariners, he put up an OPS+ of 130 in 1977, before an injury ended his career the next season at just 32 years old.

Still, the Mets could have used someone like that from 1972 to 1977, particularly after trading Rusty Staub after the '75 season -- another dumb Met trade, as they got Mickey Lolich. Staub for Lolich would have been a good trade, even after the '71 season; but not after '75. (Interestingly, on's "Similar Batters" list, Number 1 on Stanton's list is... Ron Swoboda. Former Yankee World Champions Gary Thomasson and Ricky Ledee are also in his top 4.)


And now, to confront the elephant in the room: Lynn Nolan Ryan of the Houston suburb of Alvin, Texas.

At the time of the trade, he was a month and a half short of his 25th birthday. He had a career won-lost record of 29-38: Not good, especially when you consider that the Mets had won 100 games in 1969, 83 in 1970 and 83 again in 1971. He struck out a lot of batters, but also walked a lot, giving him a WHIP (Walks and Hits, divided by Innings Pitched) of almost 1.6 in '71. His ERA was nearly 4, not good in the NL of the time, which was pitching-friendly with a lot of concrete multipurpose oval stadiums (3 new ones in the preceding season and a half), and, of course, no designated hitter.

And with Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, Gary Gentry and a somewhat-still-effective Ray Sadecki in their rotation, the Mets could afford to let Ryan go... or so it seemed.

In 1972, with the Angels, Ryan led the AL in both walks and wild pitches... but also led it in strikeouts with a whopping 329, and shutouts with 8, forging a 19-16 record for a team that won just 75 games. A decent Angels team would probably have made him a 23-game winner. In 1973, he set a new major league record (since the 1893 adoption of the 60 feet, 6 inches pitching distance, anyway) with 383 strikeouts. That record has never even been approached, except by Ryan himself the next season with 367.

By the close of the 1974 season, Ryan had 3 seasons of 300+ strikeouts, 4 no-hitters, 3 games with at least 19 strikeouts (he would add a 4th, although "only" 1 of those came without the benefit of extra innings), 91 wins (but also 86 losses), a career ERA of 3.01 (not bad considering he was now in the DH-affected AL), and 1,572 strikeouts -- and he was only 27.

Putting aside for a moment all the things Ryan would achieve after 1974 -- 233 more wins, 3 more no-hitters, and enough additional strikeouts to place himself 4th on the all-time list even if you only count from 1975 onward -- this was still a bad trade for the Mets. Add in everything Ryan did from Opening Day 1972 until his retirement after the close of the 1993 season, and Ryan-for-Fregosi -- even if you forget about the decently talented Stanton -- looks like it could be the worst trade ever.


But is it? There is another elephant in the room. (You ever smell a room with 2 elephants in it? Smells worse than the Mets... most of the time.) Would having Ryan have helped the Mets any from 1972 onward?

It's easy to say that the Mets lost the 1973 World Series to the Oakland Athletics because manager Yogi Berra pitched Tom Seaver in Game 6 and Jon Matlack in Game 7, each on just 3 days' rest. And Yogi wasn't that "old school": He was only 48, and had seen his mentor, Casey Stengel, adapt to changing conditions pretty well when they were together on the Yankees from 1949 to 1960.

And it's not like Yogi had a lot of choice: Koosman had started Game 5, Sadecki had pitched in relief in Game 4, and he and George Stone, the Mets' other starter, had pitched in the Series only in relief and weren't much better options.

Besides, if you're a Met fan, who would you rather have, pitching a game that could win you the World Series, in a park that really, really favored pitchers, as the Oakland Coliseum always has: Tom Seaver on 3 days rest, or... any other pitcher then active?

If the Mets had Ryan in '73, that would have been a huge boost for them. Not just in the Series. Don't forget, due to the closeness of the race, and rainouts, the Mets did not clinch the NL East title until October 1, the day after the season had originally been scheduled to end, and even then they had to play a doubleheader at Wrigley Field to get Games 161 and 162 in. (They clinched in Game 161 when they won and the Pirates lost, making Game 162 meaningless, and it was never played.)

Having Ryan's 21-16 in the rotation instead of the combined 8-12 of Sadecki and Jim McAndrew might have gotten the Division clinched sooner, thus enabling the Mets to set up their NL Championship Series rotation better. Having Ryan there, against the Cincinnati Reds, might have gotten the Pennant clinched before Game 5, thus helping the Mets set up better in the Series.

Or... would it? Ryan's career postseason record is mixed. He saved the Mets' bacon in a game in the '69 NLCS, and did so again in Game 3 of the World Series against the Baltimore Orioles. After that, he next appeared in October in 1979, and, while he pitched well for the Angels, it wasn't enough, as they lost the game and the Pennant to the Orioles.

In 1980, now with his hometown Houston Astros, he blew the Pennant-clinching Game 5 of the NLCS, at the Astrodome no less, enabling the Phillies to win their 1st Pennant in 30 years (and then their 1st World Championship in 98 years of trying). In the strike-forced Division Series of 1981, he pitched well, but only split 2 decisions against the Los Angeles Dodgers. And he made just one other postseason appearance, in 1986 with the Astros, losing Game 2 of the NLCS, and pitching well but not getting the decision in a Game 5 his team lost... to the Mets.

Add on the fact that, from 1974 to 1983, the Mets were not in one single Pennant race, and it's hard to say how much difference Ryan would have made then. Then there's the Mets glory years from 1984 to 1990. Then again, for all their talk, there wasn't a whole lot of glory. Could Ryan, who pitched remarkably well even until he was 44 in 1991, have made a difference there?


So, really, what might have been the impact of the Mets keeping Nolan Ryan after 1971? Keeping in mind that, like Anaheim Stadium (or whatever the California Angels are calling it, and themselves, these days), Shea Stadium was a pitchers' park extraordinaire; but also that Ryan had a winning percentage of just .526 and is the all-time leader in walks and is among the all-time leaders in wild pitches, we can surmise the following:

1973: We can presume that Ryan would have made a difference. The Mets clinch the Division sooner, and Ryan pitches well in the NLCS, where the Met rotation is Seaver-Koosman-Ryan-Matlack, clinching in Game 4, instead of Seaver-Koosman-Matlack-Stone-Seaver, going the full 5.

The World Series? Instead of Matlack for Games 1, 4 and 7; Koosman for Games 2 and 5, and Seaver for Games 3 and 6; we get Seaver for Games 1 and 4, and potentially 7; Koosman for Games 2 and maybe 5; and Ryan for Games 3 and maybe 6, with Matlack as the long man if one is necessary. Ken Holtzman pitched great for the A's, so the Mets probably still lose Game 1. The Mets win Game 2 anyway. Against a tired Seaver, the A's needed 11 innings to win Game 3; against a rested Ryan, the Mets might win, and there's your difference. Presuming the Mets still win Games 4 and 5, get the riot police ready, it's another Shea Stadium clincher. New York Mets, 1969 and 1973 World Champions.

After this, the Mets aren't in contention again until...

1984: Ryan was only 12-11, but the Astros weren't very good that year. Without him, the Mets finished 6 1/2 games behind the Cubs. Would having Ryan have made 7 games' worth of difference? Probably not: After Dwight Gooden and Ron Darling, the Mets' rotation had Walt Terrell, Bruce Berenyi and a not-yet-there Sid Fernandez. Having Ryan instead of one of those might have made it closer, but the Cubs would still have won.

1985: Hard to say. Ryan was 10-12 for another under-hitting Astro team, with a 3.8 ERA and a 1.3 WHIP. If he were in the rotation instead of Ed Lynch... The Mets finished 3 games behind the St. Louis Cardinals. I don't know if Ryan would have made 3 games' difference in this season. If he had, do the Mets beat the Los Angeles Dodgers in the NLCS? Maybe, the Dodgers had Tom Niedenfuer in their pen; Jack Clark hitting a Pennant-clincher in the top of the 9th in Game 6 wasn't a surprise, but Ozzie Smith hitting a walkoff in the bottom of the 9th of Game 5 was. I can certainly imagine Niedenfuer giving up homers to Lenny Dykstra in Game 5 (or maybe Lenny still hits his in Game 3) and Gary Carter in Game 6.

The Series, against the Kansas City Royals? I don't know, because the Cards did lose, and if Cardinal fans still curse the name of umpire Don Denkinger a quarter of a century later, what would Met fans say if that same call were made? I think the Mets win the '85 Pennant, but lose the Series.

1986: No, Ryan makes no difference here. How can he? The Mets won the World Series. The only difference is that the Mets beat the Reds in the NLCS, since the Astros don't have Ryan. (Then again, the Astros won the NL West by 10, so maybe they win it anyway.)

1987: This is the season Ryan led the NL in ERA and strikeouts, but had an 8-16 record, because the Astros remembered that they are the Houston Astros: Great pitching, good defense, can't hit the ground if they fell off a ladder. I saw Ryan pitch that year, at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia, as a friend of the family had a relative who briefly pitched for the Astros. I got to sit right behind home plate as Ryan, still mighty fast at 40, was zippin' 'em in there. Being 75 feet away from Mike Schmidt as he batted against Nolan Ryan, even at that stage of each man's career, was awesome. It was a typical game for Ryan that season: The Phils won, 2-1, beating Ryan.

Anyway, the Mets finished 2nd to the Cards again, 3 games back. Ryan definitely would have made a difference here, and the Mets would probably have beaten the San Francisco Giants for the Pennant. But the Minnesota Twins were not going to lose any World Series games in that damn Metrodome. Nobody beat the Twins in the Dome in October. Nobody. (Except, as it turned out, the 2003, '04 and '09 Yankees, who clinched 3 ALDS in that disgraceful facility.) So the Mets reach their 3rd straight World Series, but win only 1 of them.

1988: The Mets lost the NLCS to the Dodgers in Game 7... or, rather, in Game 4, when Mike Scioscia took Gooden deep in the 9th. The Mets started, in the 7 games, Gooden, David Cone, Ron Darling, Gooden, El Sid, Coney, Darling. Ryan had a good year, but I'm not sure where he starts. I don't know if he makes a difference here.

1989: In his 1st season with the Texas Rangers, Ryan has his last big season in terms of wins, 16, for an 83-win team. The Mets finished 2nd to the Cubs again, 6 games back. Maybe with Ryan, now 42 but still effective, the Mets don't make that dumb trade for Frank Viola, and win the Division.

But I don't think they win the Pennant, unless there's another dumb trade they don't make, Kevin Mitchell to the San Diego Padres for Kevin McReynolds. Mitchell's trade, soon after, from the Padres to the Giants made the Giants a postseason team in '87 and '89, and they beat the Cubs soundly in the NLCS; they would have done the same to the Mets.

1990: The Mets finished 2nd, 4 games behind the Pirates. Ryan had a pretty good season, and if he'd been in the rotation instead of the sinking-fast El Sid, they might have won the Division. On the other hand, as I said, if they still had Ryan, they wouldn't have traded for Viola, who won 20 that year. No, having Ryan at this point probably hurts them.

1991: In Ryan's last effective season -- as a fastball pitcher at age 44! How come no one ever tested him for steroids? -- the Mets collapse, finishing 20 1/2 back of the Pirates. Having Ryan wouldn't have helped. Having him in the disastrous '92 and '93 seasons, Ryan's last 2, wouldn't have helped, either.

So, in their history, real and alternate...

Mets without Nolan Ryan after 1971: 7 postseason appearances, 4 Pennants, 2 World Championships. Not great, but plenty of teams haven't done that well, including some teams that have been around longer.

Mets with Nolan Ryan after 1971: 10 postseason appearances, 6 Pennants, 3 World Championships. Not a huge improvement, but a significant one. After all, when you've only won 2 World Series, winning a 3rd is significant. Ask fans of the Chicago White Sox.


My, my, this room is getting cramped. Do you know why? Because there's a third elephant in the room.

It's what happened to the Mets after the 1973 World Series. Team chairman M. Donald Grant -- who "didn't know beans about baseball," according to '69 Met scout and later highly successful big-league manager Whitey Herzog -- broke up the team, piece by piece. In 1977, he got rid of Tom Seaver by playing him (and his wife) off the real-life, Anaheim-based Ryan (and his wife), with the help of New York Daily News columnist Dick Young, a once-great (and once-liberal) sportswriter who had became embittered, pedantic and pedestrian (and arch-conservative).

When Ryan signed with the Astros in 1980, it made him baseball's 1st $1 million a year player. At the time, if you asked most fans to name 5 current players who might be worth that, I think most of them would have had Ryan as 1 of the 5.

Grant would not have been a person who believed that any baseball player was worth $1 million a year. (Then again, he was not a baseball fan in the classic sense.) It is likely that Grant would have gotten rid of Ryan well before the 1979-80 off-season. After all, he had already traded several fan favorites before Seaver and Dave Kingman in the June 15, 1977 "Midnight Massacre" moves: Swoboda in 1970-71, Tommie Agee in 1972-73, Harrelson and Tug McGraw in 1974-75; Staub, Stone and Cleon Jones in 1975-76, and Garrett during the 1976 season. Matlack and John Milner would follow in 1977-78, and so would Koosman in 1978-79.

So, chances are, keeping Nolan Ryan beyond the 1971 season would have meant giving him up well before 1984. Therefore, the Mets increase their winnings by 1 World Championship, and no other postseason berths.

Then again, think of how much 1 more World Series win would have meant to Met fans from 1973 onward. A Met fan born between October 17, 1962, who presumably would have been aware of baseball by October 16, 1969, could have told a Yankee Fan born during that same stretch, "The Mets have won more World Series in our lifetime than the Yankees have!" And from October 16, 1969 until October 17, 1978, and again from October 27, 1986 to October 26, 1996 -- 19 of their 34 years -- that would have been true. And for all 34 years, the Mets would have been either ahead of the Yankees or tied with them (it would have been 2-2 from '78 to '86).

Of course, we're talking about the Mets here. With Tom Seaver, they found a way to lose the 1973 World Series. So who can say, with even 99 percent certainty, that they wouldn't have found a way to blow it with both Seaver and Nolan Ryan?


Bondo700 said...

Interesting speculations, Uncle Mike. One obvious factual error, though. When you spoke of the 1973 pennant race, you mentioned that the Mets clinched the NL East during the 1st game of the doubleheader, by beating the Cubs while the 2nd-place Pirates lost. You then said the 2nd game was meaningless, so the Mets lost it. This is incorrect. In fact, when the Mets clinched the pennant, the 2nd game was cancelled. The Mets finished 82-79 that year, a game and a half ahead of the Pirates.

I disagree with you that the Mets would not have benefitted from Nolan Ryan in 1988 against the Dodgers. If they'd had him, then maybe Gooden doesn't have to start Game 4 on 3 days rest, and Mike Scioscia doesn't hit that painful game-turning and series-turning home run.

By the way, your Dwight Gooden fantasy scenario that he wouldn't do anything extra to help the Mets? And, only would've changed his career after moving to the Yankees??? Come on!!! Even fantasy "what-if's" should be more objective than THAT! The whole point of that hypothetical is what would have happened if Gooden wasn't too hung over to attend the 1986 World Series parade, and if he hadn't been locked in a rehab center and missed the first 2 months of the '87 season, etc.

No way to know, of course, but a talented, cocaine-free Gooden CERTAINLY would have changed the '87 season AND probably not given up Scioscia's '88 HR, AND probably would have won enough in '89, and beaten the Pirates in '90.

Bondo700 said...

Oops. A factual error in MY post above, also. I looked it up. The 1973 Mets won the NL East, on the last day of the season, by winning at Wrigley Field, and clinched the Eastern Division, thus cancelling the second game of the doubleheader against the 5th-place Cubs. The Cardinals finished 2nd, a game and a half out, with a record of 81-81. The Pirates were 80-82, 2 1/2 games behind the Mets, who to that point were the division-winner with the worst record ever. (The 2005 Padres won the NL West by 5 games with an 82-80 record, breaking the Mets' 32-year-old record).

Jon Lewin said...

The Cubs trade of Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio was just as bad as the Ryan deal - another future Hall of Famer early in his career for a player who turned out to be washed up. And Omar Minaya's trade of Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee and Brandon Phillips for half a season of Bartolo Colon could turn out to be the worst of them all.

Uncle Mike said...

Bondo: You're right about Game 162 of 1973 being cancelled due to rain. However, this is a fan's blog. Objectivity is not required in the slightest. If I'd been a Met fan -- assuming I hadn't jumped off the Empire State Building on October 27, 2000 -- I would have written that Gooden made the Mets so successful that George Steinbrenner moved the Yankees into Giants Stadium until bullying Governor Tom Kean into building him a "new Yankee Stadium" at the Meadowlands, and that the Yankees were still "under the Curse of Thurman Munson," not having won a World Series since his crash.

But I am not a Met fan. You're free to like what I write, and free to not like it. And if you don't, you are free to respond as you have, or to respond by writing your own blog with an entry on that topic. And you, like me, are free to use however much objectivity as you want.

The fact that you responded in a civil manner does, however, require that I "threespond" with less than my usual anti-Flushing venom.

Jon: In 1993, Sports Illustrated did a few what-if stories -- including what if Fidel Castro had actually been signed by a big-league team. (They said a team would've been placed in Cuba instead of the Miami suburbs in 1993. Guess that means it would have been the Havana Sugar Kings ruining the Mets' 2007 and '08 season finales instead of the Florida Marlins.)

And the Cubs keeping Lou Brock was one of their storylines -- or, more accurately, Ken Hubbs doesn't crash his plane; as a result, the Cubs don't trade Brock (not sure how that logic worked), and the Cubs win the World Series in 1969, '73, '74 and particularly in a classic in '75. But the author (don't remember who it was) overlooked the fact that the Cubs already had Billy Williams playing left field, Brock's natural position, and they really didn't know what to do with him. He probably wouldn't have become a star in Chicago the way he did in St. Louis.

As for the Bartolo Colon trade, I think we can absolve Omar Minaya for that one, because the Montreal ownership wasn't interested in winning anyway. Minaya was dealt a bad hand; the difference in New York is that the Wilpons have the money to spend, if only Minaya will spend it wisely. So far, not much good -- though with healthier players, who knows.