A Year of Mediocrity
Don't look now but the Mets, all $137 million of them, are 84-78 over their last 162 games.
It's a story that's only going to get more and more depressing as we move further away from our hot start in 2007. As my high school soccer coach might have said, 84-78 is like kissing your sister.
I keep preaching patience, I keep saying the Mets are just one winning streak away.
But maybe they're not one winning streak away. Look at 2005. The Mets perpetually hovered around .500, going 4 games over and 4 games under over and over, up and down like a seesaw. Just one winning streak away, we said.
Then the winning streak came. The Mets blasted through Arizona en route to San Francisco, winning five in a row (I think it was five), pushing their record to a season-best 8 games over .500.
And then, as quickly as the Mets had broken through, they instantly receded to the mean. Losses piled up, and it took a valiant late-season push to finish over .500, ending the year 4 games over .500 (natch) at 83-79.
That constant up and down has been our trademark this season. Apart from a 5-game winning streak in the early going, the Mets have been basically incapable of stringing together a dominant stretch of games.
They look great for two games, then awful for three, then good again for two, and on and on it goes until they're left at, well, 19-17.
* * * * *
I'm not a naturally optimistic fan of my sports teams; whether that's constitutional or just lesson learned after a lifetime of following the Mets is debateable.
But I still think this Mets team is better than its played, and that it will, eventually, get off on the right end of the seesaw.
I find myself reminded of another time when the Mets seemed incapable of breaking through: mid-April through early-June 2006. The timing might surprise you, but indeed, for 45 games in the early part of 2006 when we went 24-21, the Mets looked good but hardly dominant.
As I wrote at the time:
The winning streak reached its orgiastic peak with a 3-game sweep of the Phillies on their home turf. It was tone-setting, season-defining. The Mets had finally broken through, and from that point until the NLCS, the rout was on.
That was a magical season, but it had, for a time, the same frustrations as any other. One morning I vocalized those frustrations; that evening they began to melt away.
Here's hoping today's post has the same effect.
- A.F.O.M.G.
It's a story that's only going to get more and more depressing as we move further away from our hot start in 2007. As my high school soccer coach might have said, 84-78 is like kissing your sister.
I keep preaching patience, I keep saying the Mets are just one winning streak away.
But maybe they're not one winning streak away. Look at 2005. The Mets perpetually hovered around .500, going 4 games over and 4 games under over and over, up and down like a seesaw. Just one winning streak away, we said.
Then the winning streak came. The Mets blasted through Arizona en route to San Francisco, winning five in a row (I think it was five), pushing their record to a season-best 8 games over .500.
And then, as quickly as the Mets had broken through, they instantly receded to the mean. Losses piled up, and it took a valiant late-season push to finish over .500, ending the year 4 games over .500 (natch) at 83-79.
That constant up and down has been our trademark this season. Apart from a 5-game winning streak in the early going, the Mets have been basically incapable of stringing together a dominant stretch of games.
They look great for two games, then awful for three, then good again for two, and on and on it goes until they're left at, well, 19-17.
* * * * *
I'm not a naturally optimistic fan of my sports teams; whether that's constitutional or just lesson learned after a lifetime of following the Mets is debateable.
But I still think this Mets team is better than its played, and that it will, eventually, get off on the right end of the seesaw.
I find myself reminded of another time when the Mets seemed incapable of breaking through: mid-April through early-June 2006. The timing might surprise you, but indeed, for 45 games in the early part of 2006 when we went 24-21, the Mets looked good but hardly dominant.
As I wrote at the time:
I wrote those words June 7, 2006. That night, a Wednesday, the Mets beat the Los Angeles Dodgers 9-7, and they wouldn't lose again until the following Friday, winning 8 straight in total."I'm frustrated.
I'm frustrated with the Mets' inability to put together a decent winning
streak... I'm frustrated that we haven't been able to run away with the N.L.
East...The Mets look to me like a team in need of a spark."
The winning streak reached its orgiastic peak with a 3-game sweep of the Phillies on their home turf. It was tone-setting, season-defining. The Mets had finally broken through, and from that point until the NLCS, the rout was on.
That was a magical season, but it had, for a time, the same frustrations as any other. One morning I vocalized those frustrations; that evening they began to melt away.
Here's hoping today's post has the same effect.
- A.F.O.M.G.
posted by A Friend of Mr. Glass' at 1:56 PM
2 Comments:
EASLEY has got to go!! Why do Minaya & Willie refuse to give anderson H a try at backup SS and 2b?!?!?!
probably because Hernandez is likely useless off the bench as a pinch hitter.
I agree, we can say the Mets look like this, or look like that. But not of this matters in April and May. or June. These months are where a team finds out how it plays best together, finds out who has it and who doesn't (Sosa) and sets the boat in the right direction for a long season. We've played well against the division and are in perfect striking distance. No one said it has to be a cakewalk.
Post a Comment
<< Home