The Looper Effect

So, we're watching the game on Sunday night after a hearty dinner of sausage and rice and beans, washed down with a flotilla of bread and an illegal amount of wine, with F.O.A.F.O.M.G. just over in the next room balancing his attention between work and the game. Mostly, he's concentrating on his stuff, perking up whenever we start yelling like crazy (Beltran's rifle to the plate) or start booing the TV (whenever David Eckstein does anything).

Anyway, at one point Jon Miller introduces the graphic showing the Cardinals starting rotation, and this involuntary gag reflex goes around the room. Chris Carpenter, natch. Kip Wells as a No. 2, disastrous. Adam Wainwright and Anthony Reyes at the back, ehh. But the real winner, the one that makes us howl and stuns F.O.A.F.O.M.G. is the introduction of Braden Looper as the No. 3 starter. He cackles for a good three minutes.

You know, a Looper. A pro, a caddy, a jock, a .... No. 3 starter? Uh-huh. That wasn't in the script.

Just to reiterate, before 2007, Looper had started a grand total of zero games in the major leagues. As a reliever, he has posted an ERA below 4.00 exactly once. That was in 2002, when our hero scraped under the wire at 3.99 for the Marlins.

Baseball Prospectus ran a projection for him as a starter, and the results are not good. He's looking at a 1.54 WHIP and 5.25 ERA. Most of that is due to his poor strikeout rate (4.6 K/9 out of the pen last year) and the belief that his stuff will suffer if stretched out over more innings. I can't imagine that's extremely controversial.

This launched us into a tirade about how the Mets' pitching has been getting unfairly shat upon for about the last three weeks or so. We all agreed, and we all started getting a little salty about it.

Does the staff have holes? Of course it does. But EVERY staff has weak spots, old spots and young spots, and to pretend otherwise is nonsense.

In 2006, the Mets had the third lowest team ERA in the league (4.14), behind only San Diego (3.87) and Houston (4.08). One of those teams doesn't have Roger Clemens or Andy Pettitte any more, and can be expected to finish with a somewhat inflated number this time around. The Padres look like they've got a crew of arms (Peavy, Maddux, Young, Clay Hensley, Boomer) in a pitching park -- they'll be solid again.

But hold on -- Wells and Maddux are just as ancient as the Mets' senior citizens, aren't they? Don't worry, I'll answer my own question. Yes, they are. Just bracket that for now.

Looking behind the Mets, you'll see the Dodgers (4.23), the Marlins (4.37), D-Backs (4.38), Reds (wow ... 4.51), Pirates (4.52) and Cards (4.54). I covered a lot of this stuff in the divisional previews, but some of these teams can expect to maintain their slots this year (Arizona, L.A.) and some can expect to plummet (Florida, Cincy). Let's even give a high ranking to the vaunted Phillies, they of the nauseatingly deep rotation.

Just take it. Stipulate it. Whatever.

Now where, in this mosaic of pitching, can one come to the conclusion that it is the Mets who are uniquely in trouble? It just doesn't take for me. I don't understand how a team who has five non-scrub starters and two backup plans in place (Humber and Park) is so much worse off than a team like Arizona, fitted with a true ace (Webb), a dazzling injury klaxon (RJ), two steady arms (Doug Davis and Livan), and a debut-ing rookie (Micah Owings). I think they're a little better off than we are, sure. But not by much, and not when you consider that the Mets are in line to have the best offense in the league.

The Marlins' best pitcher last year is gone, and the league is going to get to see the new guys a second time around, which spells trouble. The Braves are relying on an old guy (Smoltz), an injured guy (Huddy), an even more injured guy (Hampton) and a bunch of young guys (James, Davies, whoever). The Phils have the oldest guy of the bunch (Moyer), two injury machines (Hamels and Myers), and a fat guy (Lieber).

But it's the Mets who are, for some reason, screwed. Frankly, I think everybody's in the same boat.

At the risk of giving Joe Morgan credit for saying anything remotely intelligent, he kept saying over and over Sunday night that the Mets' dominant offense would outweigh their pitching woes. This seems more or less correct. (He also said the same thing happened last year, when the Mets had the third best ERA in the league, but whatever).

[Just to clarify, Morgan sounded more out of it than usual. His points about the Mets were somewhat well taken, but he repeated them somewhere between a dozen and 25 times over the course of the broadcast. He also, if memory serves me, claimed that a team's infield defense was the most important thing about them, and that Yadier Molina was an excellent hitter. In other broadcasting news, the White Phil Ivey was horrified by Jon Miller's appearance. A little unfairly in my view, but you can't really argue with him.]

The offense will be about as good as last year's -- if the pitching gives back something like 50 runs over the course of the season (about five games worth), then the Mets are at 92 wins. Now, 50 runs is a lot -- I don't think it's going to be nearly that many. But even if we think that's what it is, 92 wins puts the Mets in position to win the division every time.

In a day-and-a-half of baseball and griping, this is what stood out for me. More as the story develops over the next 161 games ...