Longtime (since 1974) Mets writer Marty Noble answers his mail:
How could you put David Wright ahead of Carlos Delgado as the Mets' most valuable player? Delgado got them back in the race almost singlehandedly, and Wright let them down. Wright never hit big home runs like Delgado did. I'm tired of people in the media trying to make Wright into some kind of superstar when his teammates outproduce him all the time.-- Sandy F., Westwood, N.J.
So you think Delgado outproduced Wright "all of the time." And that declaration is based on what exactly? No question Delgado had a remarkable run once he began to hit. But that happened on June 27, by which time the Mets had played 77 games, nearly half their season. The argument can be made that though Delgado's run carried them back into the race, the Mets might have been in first place or closer to it -- they had a 38-39 record and were in third place, 3 1/2 games back -- had he had not been invisible in his first 280 at-bats.
At that point, Delgado was in the midst of a poor season, batting .229 with a .306 on-base percentage and a .396 slugging percentage. He had scored 36 runs and driven in 35.
At the same point, Wright had 297 at-bats and had scored 46 runs and driven in 59. His batting average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage were .276, .373 and .488, respectively. Evidently, your "all the time" doesn't cover that extended period.
Moreover, Wright led the team with 124 RBIs, scored 115 runs (second to Carlos Beltran) and hit 33 home runs. At the same time, Delgado drove in 115 (second to Wright), scored 96 and hit 38 home runs, leading the team in the latter category. If you believe in runs produced (RBIs plus runs minus home runs) -- and I do -- that puts Wright's production at 206 and Delgado's at 173.
Wright never had an extended period in which he was as unproductive as Delgado was before he regained his timing. Wright didn't have his best season. He had batted .304 with a .504 slugging percentage with runners in scoring position in the three previous seasons, and batted .243 and slugged .376 in 2008. But at least some of that decline can be attributed to his batting third for all but seven at-bats and the batters following him -- Beltran and Delgado -- not hitting well for extended periods.
Now, about the "big" home runs. Delgado hit three that tied the score and seven that gave the Mets a lead. Wright hit two that tied the score ... and 10 that put the Mets ahead.
Beyond all that, Wright runs the bases better than Delgado and, while recognizing the errors Delgado saved Wright, Wright's defense clearly is superior to that which Delgado provided -- even after Delgado's defense appeared to improve after Willie Randolph was dismissed.
I don't particularly "believe" in runs produced, but I do admire Noble's work here. Especially the note about the "big" home runs, and the acknowledgement that hey, maybe baserunning and defense should count for something, too!
But while I absolutely agree that Wright was better (and more valuable) than Delgado, I don't see any reason to stop there. Not that win shares are everything, but among the Mets, Delgado finishes a fairly distant fourth. Delgado's got 24 (pretty good for a guy who didn't start hitting until July), well behind not only Wright and Jose Reyes -- with 29 apiece -- but also Carlos Beltran, with 33.
Wright, Reyes and Beltran all scored more runs than Delgado.
Wright drove in more runs than Delgado; Beltran drove in almost as many.
Wright, Reyes and Beltran all were more valuable, defensively. In fact, among those three, Wright had the least defensive value. Reyes was decent at shortstop, and Beltran did his usual Gold Glove-quality work in center field. Honestly, I don't know which of them was the most valuable. But I'm about 98 percent sure that two of them were. And quite probably all three.
This is probably the last time we'll speak of this matter. But if the Mets had won two more games this season, they'd have qualified for the playoffs, the real MVP voters would have been looking for a Met to vote for, and Delgado might have been the guy because he did come up big after the All-Star break. In a sense, this is the general MVP discussion in a microcosm. Is the Most Valuable Player the player who makes the greatest all-around contribution for six months? Or is he the one-dimensional player who gives his team two or three great months?
We'll find out in a few weeks.
Rob Neyer
