I don't think Bill was speaking out against signing established players (even on a rebuilder). I think we was speaking out about signing established first basemen, and I like his point. Invariably in a rebuild, if it's any good, you will end up with two good players occupying the same position. In an era before the Mets had access to a DH, it was therefore invaluable to keep the first base position open, because it was a solid bet that they were going to have to switch somebody's position.
This can still be seen in modern baseball. It's not just a 1977 thing. This is why the bar for hitting at first base is so high, because when hitters are so good that they mandate a position, even if their position is occupied already (or they stink at it), they will often be moved to first base. This is a lot harder to do with an established player at first base. I think what Bill was saying is that a good first baseman is not a wise investment, because you can probably find a good first baseman somewhere in your own organisation, in the form of a converted third baseman or OF or whatever.
It's the same thing that's seen in minor league RPs. Teams don't want minor league RPs. They want minor league starters, that they can convert into relievers should they so choose. No different with first basemen. There's no need to bring in a good one. Most organisations can make their own good ones. Great ones (of course) are a different story.
I'm devoid of context on the 1977 Mets. Maybe they had no good minor league first basemen, but did they have any good minor league hitters in general? Any of them could've played first base, with no multiple year commitment required. Perhaps not, and in that case you would be correct in this specific circumstance, but in general I like Bill's strategy, which I read as avoid multiple year commitments to good first basemen, but of course take a look at the great ones. Especially true in a rebuild, where every young man you draft is a potential major league 1B, should be blow out his knee or shoulder or something.
Regarding the 1977 Mets farm system — the closest they had in the minors to someone who could have hopped up to the MLB level was probably Ned Yost, who was a 22 year old catcher who split the season between Jackson (AA) and Tidewater (AAA). He went to the Brewers in the Rule 5 draft that winter.
Everybody else who hit well (I'm just looking at raw OPS on Baseball Reference) was either a teenager or playing A ball or lower — sometimes both, actually. I mean, they technically could have brought Mookie Wilson up early (he was 21), or even Wally Backman (he was 17, lol) — but sticking either one of them at first base seems kind of like a waste.
So, yeah, I dunno. If I'm playing OOTP with the 1977 Mets roster as it stood in November, I'm probably going to throw my hands up in the air and go after a veteran for the time being.
Of course, if I'm playing with the Mets at the beginning of the 1977 season, I hold onto Kingman and have him play 1B full time. I think that's what they probably should have done, even though he was in a hitting slump.
Yes. The Mookie Wilson thing is the weird thing about first base. You don't want anybody to play there if it's possible to avoid it. Nobody gets drafted as a first baseman. Players don't want to play 1B either. They will go through the minors (like Vlad jr, or Albert Pujols, or any other 1B ever) in the vain hope that they can play 3B or OF at a major league level. The players that become 1Bs failed in this pursuit. The players that come up playing other positions did not.
That's the unique thing about this specific position, as well as Relief Pitcher. If you play first base, that means you've failed in your efforts to play a position that isn't first base. The 2019 Blue Jays let Vlad Jr provide -50 DRS (yikes) at third base. That's how badly they wanted him not to have to play first. There are countless stories about the exact same thing for countless prospects around baseball.
If your organisation has backed itself into a corner where 1B is a hole that needs filled, that means you're either a great team (who would like better than a good first baseman), or a really bad team (who can't even find a player good at the offensive side of the game when ignoring defence entirely). To me (and apparently Bill James), no team in the middle of these two extremes should be looking to improve at 1B. It's indicative of an organisational failure if they are. Just like relief pitching. First Base is where (defensive) failures go. Save it for them. Don't make multi-year commitments.
Complacency will be the death of you.
I don't think Bill was speaking out against signing established players (even on a rebuilder). I think we was speaking out about signing established first basemen, and I like his point. Invariably in a rebuild, if it's any good, you will end up with two good players occupying the same position. In an era before the Mets had access to a DH, it was therefore invaluable to keep the first base position open, because it was a solid bet that they were going to have to switch somebody's position.
This can still be seen in modern baseball. It's not just a 1977 thing. This is why the bar for hitting at first base is so high, because when hitters are so good that they mandate a position, even if their position is occupied already (or they stink at it), they will often be moved to first base. This is a lot harder to do with an established player at first base. I think what Bill was saying is that a good first baseman is not a wise investment, because you can probably find a good first baseman somewhere in your own organisation, in the form of a converted third baseman or OF or whatever.
It's the same thing that's seen in minor league RPs. Teams don't want minor league RPs. They want minor league starters, that they can convert into relievers should they so choose. No different with first basemen. There's no need to bring in a good one. Most organisations can make their own good ones. Great ones (of course) are a different story.
I'm devoid of context on the 1977 Mets. Maybe they had no good minor league first basemen, but did they have any good minor league hitters in general? Any of them could've played first base, with no multiple year commitment required. Perhaps not, and in that case you would be correct in this specific circumstance, but in general I like Bill's strategy, which I read as avoid multiple year commitments to good first basemen, but of course take a look at the great ones. Especially true in a rebuild, where every young man you draft is a potential major league 1B, should be blow out his knee or shoulder or something.
This is a good point.
Regarding the 1977 Mets farm system — the closest they had in the minors to someone who could have hopped up to the MLB level was probably Ned Yost, who was a 22 year old catcher who split the season between Jackson (AA) and Tidewater (AAA). He went to the Brewers in the Rule 5 draft that winter.
Everybody else who hit well (I'm just looking at raw OPS on Baseball Reference) was either a teenager or playing A ball or lower — sometimes both, actually. I mean, they technically could have brought Mookie Wilson up early (he was 21), or even Wally Backman (he was 17, lol) — but sticking either one of them at first base seems kind of like a waste.
So, yeah, I dunno. If I'm playing OOTP with the 1977 Mets roster as it stood in November, I'm probably going to throw my hands up in the air and go after a veteran for the time being.
Of course, if I'm playing with the Mets at the beginning of the 1977 season, I hold onto Kingman and have him play 1B full time. I think that's what they probably should have done, even though he was in a hitting slump.
Yes. The Mookie Wilson thing is the weird thing about first base. You don't want anybody to play there if it's possible to avoid it. Nobody gets drafted as a first baseman. Players don't want to play 1B either. They will go through the minors (like Vlad jr, or Albert Pujols, or any other 1B ever) in the vain hope that they can play 3B or OF at a major league level. The players that become 1Bs failed in this pursuit. The players that come up playing other positions did not.
That's the unique thing about this specific position, as well as Relief Pitcher. If you play first base, that means you've failed in your efforts to play a position that isn't first base. The 2019 Blue Jays let Vlad Jr provide -50 DRS (yikes) at third base. That's how badly they wanted him not to have to play first. There are countless stories about the exact same thing for countless prospects around baseball.
If your organisation has backed itself into a corner where 1B is a hole that needs filled, that means you're either a great team (who would like better than a good first baseman), or a really bad team (who can't even find a player good at the offensive side of the game when ignoring defence entirely). To me (and apparently Bill James), no team in the middle of these two extremes should be looking to improve at 1B. It's indicative of an organisational failure if they are. Just like relief pitching. First Base is where (defensive) failures go. Save it for them. Don't make multi-year commitments.