All That Is Solid Melts Into Air
When the season began it all looked so promising. A team that finished 88-74 returned essentially the same roster, subbing in the best pitcher in the game for an aging Tom Glavine, and replacing Guillermo Mota with Duaner Sanchez. It looked like a sure thing.
It's difficult to understand why it's gone so wrong. Is it age? Overconfidence? Disinterest? All of the above?
I don't know what it is, but I know a broken team when I see it. No matter how solid they looked coming in to the year, and for all the positive vibes generated by a 7-2 stretch last week, the Mets are now 30-32.
And really, there's no reason they shouldn't be. On the season, the Mets have scored 2 more runs than they've allowed. Any team with those kind of splits (except of course the 2007 Arizona Diamondbacks) is a .500 team. It's not bad luck, it's the odds evening out.
My high school JV soccer coach used to say that soccer was a very simple game: at the end of play, the team that scores more goals shall be declared the winner. The same logic applies in baseball. You can't expect to be a first division team when you score only as many runs as you allow.
And you can't expect to be a first division team when you run a Mike Pelfrey out there every 5 days. I know we're all supposed to believe in Pelf again, but come on, his three goods starts this year have come against the Dodgers, Padres, and Nationals
The unifying theme here? They're all terrible offensive teams! By OPS they're the third worst, second worst, and, um, first worst teams in the National League. Oh, and in case you were wondering where the Mets rank, they're fourth worst.
I don't want to pile on Pelfrey or make it sound like it's all his fault; it's not. You also can't expect to be an upper division team when your first baseman can't hit his weight, or your leftfielder is incapable of staying healthy.
It doesn't mean trading for Delgado or signing Alou was the wrong move at the time, but neither can be expected to be major contributors to a playoff team in 2008.
The point is, it's time for us all to stop deluding ourselves. The Mets are a .500 team because they deserve to be. Forget how solid you thought they'd be. Forget it. That dream is dead. Think great teams don't disappear in one or two years' time? Go tell that to a White Sox fan.
Doesn't mean this team is in a terrible place. They still have two really good starting pitchers (Johan and John Maine) and two really good position players (Wright and Reyes) to build around.
They also have a very tradeable commodity in Billy Wagner. A hot month or two from Carlos Beltran could turn him in to a hot commodity as well; if he doesn't heat up I'd hang on to him -- no reason to trade him for less than he's worth.
* * * * *
The scariest thought of all is that it's June 9 and I'm tempted to say these Mets are done.
I've been trading e-mails with Nails today. One thing I definitely agree with about is that when I look at this team, it doesn't strike me as a .500 team. You look at the pieces and you think it should be good, maybe even very good.
The reason that it's not is what's unknowable from where I sit. As I said earlier, I know a broken team when I see it. The question for me then is how do you fix the break? Do you fire the manager? Do you fire the GM? Do you firesale?
Tough questions. Shitty ones to ask in June.
- A.F.O.M.G.
It's difficult to understand why it's gone so wrong. Is it age? Overconfidence? Disinterest? All of the above?
I don't know what it is, but I know a broken team when I see it. No matter how solid they looked coming in to the year, and for all the positive vibes generated by a 7-2 stretch last week, the Mets are now 30-32.
And really, there's no reason they shouldn't be. On the season, the Mets have scored 2 more runs than they've allowed. Any team with those kind of splits (except of course the 2007 Arizona Diamondbacks) is a .500 team. It's not bad luck, it's the odds evening out.
My high school JV soccer coach used to say that soccer was a very simple game: at the end of play, the team that scores more goals shall be declared the winner. The same logic applies in baseball. You can't expect to be a first division team when you score only as many runs as you allow.
And you can't expect to be a first division team when you run a Mike Pelfrey out there every 5 days. I know we're all supposed to believe in Pelf again, but come on, his three goods starts this year have come against the Dodgers, Padres, and Nationals
The unifying theme here? They're all terrible offensive teams! By OPS they're the third worst, second worst, and, um, first worst teams in the National League. Oh, and in case you were wondering where the Mets rank, they're fourth worst.
I don't want to pile on Pelfrey or make it sound like it's all his fault; it's not. You also can't expect to be an upper division team when your first baseman can't hit his weight, or your leftfielder is incapable of staying healthy.
It doesn't mean trading for Delgado or signing Alou was the wrong move at the time, but neither can be expected to be major contributors to a playoff team in 2008.
The point is, it's time for us all to stop deluding ourselves. The Mets are a .500 team because they deserve to be. Forget how solid you thought they'd be. Forget it. That dream is dead. Think great teams don't disappear in one or two years' time? Go tell that to a White Sox fan.
Doesn't mean this team is in a terrible place. They still have two really good starting pitchers (Johan and John Maine) and two really good position players (Wright and Reyes) to build around.
They also have a very tradeable commodity in Billy Wagner. A hot month or two from Carlos Beltran could turn him in to a hot commodity as well; if he doesn't heat up I'd hang on to him -- no reason to trade him for less than he's worth.
* * * * *
The scariest thought of all is that it's June 9 and I'm tempted to say these Mets are done.
I've been trading e-mails with Nails today. One thing I definitely agree with about is that when I look at this team, it doesn't strike me as a .500 team. You look at the pieces and you think it should be good, maybe even very good.
The reason that it's not is what's unknowable from where I sit. As I said earlier, I know a broken team when I see it. The question for me then is how do you fix the break? Do you fire the manager? Do you fire the GM? Do you firesale?
Tough questions. Shitty ones to ask in June.
- A.F.O.M.G.
posted by A Friend of Mr. Glass' at 1:32 PM
12 Comments:
One thing worth mentioning (just looked this up) that should be of some solace to you bitter enders: last year at this time, the Phillies were 2 games over .500, had scored 3 more runs than they'd allowed, and were 5 games out of first place.
firing willie is obviously not enough at this point. think they gotta fire willie and shave their heads.
never been so speechless about anything in my life. i just have no clue what to say about this team. i got nothing.
one positive:
because of the mets craptastic play, I have found new ways to spend my time.
like I have started to collect stamps. You should see this awesome mutha-fuckin-stamp I just got.
hot damn, its the coolest one ever. Its from 1927, and the plane is printed UPSIDE-DOWN!!!!
YEAH!!! Who needs double steals, triples and properly executing a double switch... i have stamps! WHOOO!!!
it's hard to score runs when the following guys are in your 2008 lineup:
castillo, delgado, LF not named alou, RF not named church or named church w/brain damage, schneider.
those dudes simply don't get on base, and when they happen to, it's always first base. no SLG bt. them.
and we won't trade beltran. not gonna happen. wagner has a year left on his contract, right? i don't think we move him either. they're not going to concede 2009. i suspect they won't rebuild for 2008 for a few months at least.
Considering Castillo hit with RISP and Delgado hit everything, they weren't the reason for this sweep, so I throw out much of what lister says there.
I agree though, there does seem to be something wrong, and while every fan seems to be sure its' willie, Omar, Delgado, etc, no one really knows. I'm not even sure the players know. I don't know that firing Willie would help or hurt. I feel like they have been trying stuff, trying different call ups, trying to find some excitement, benching Delgado occasionally. So what's the answer? I don't think anyone knows, but where I put my faith is that instead of it being September, they have time to figure it out.
The thing is, this team never looks like a .500 team. They look better and worse, but which is it? If it was like Alomar and Burnitz and just good players gone bad, we'd live with it, but they certainly don't look bad, or average, half the time.
you can throw out everything i say, but i was taking a longer view than this weekend in isolation. i find it a more useful way to understand the game. on any given day, someone shitty might pop the ball out of the park; over the course of the season, good players tend to hit a lot more than shitty ones. (this isn't your first myopic comment. you were the one who claimed that we can't hold players/personnel accountable for past years, and that the team's .500 record since last may is irrelevant. even cerrone, whose analysis is the most superficial of superficial, is finally getting on board to the sustained nature of this mediocrity.)
delgado and castillo are shitty players. even after their torrid go of it in san diego, their combined SLG barely exceeds lance berkman's. this is problematic. this is why we don't score runs. throw in schneider, a guy we knew wd not hit. throw in the fact that alou has played in something like 14 games, and that church's season may have been put at risk by having him fly to colorado immediately after the atl concussion. endy chavez and fernando tatis play in our corners: this is also why we lose.
this is why we lose. it's not really a mystery. the offense has been putrid. if alou can magically stay healthy for the rest of the year, that will help a ton. if church can come back and contribute, that will help a ton. you'll see us winning games then. but as long as we trot out a lineup with only 3 guys who can hurt you, we will lose more often than not.
kthanksbye
if the mets are serious about winning now, there is really one logical move to make. it's not praying that the team suddenly "focuses" or "gets energy" or whatever half-baked psychological bullshit the pundits like to spout. it's not making a trade, because that's not really a possibility for this team.
if they want to start winning, they sign bonds. it's extremely obvious. marchman wrote about this a long time ago. joe sheehan wrote about this a couple of weeks ago. it's a no brainer. you sign bonds. and if bonds, alou, and church are all ever on the field at the same time, mr. delgado is on the bench. it costs some money, but it's extremely logical.
too bad barry was never on the Expos/Nationals or omar would have given him a shot already.
And don't let's forget about ol' Cheddar Ben suggesting the same not so long ago ...
http://www.yankees2000.com/y2k/2008/05/good-times-bad-times.html
WE B4 I
At this point, pay Bonds 25 Gs per game.
We cannot wait for Church to get healthy or Alou to go a month without being sent to the DL. Everything will take care of itself(playing time).
The offense does suck...If Reyes is not HOT, we barely get 4 runs a game...
At most, we get one big inning(3+ runs) per game...it seems like the team rests on its laurels after the big inning occurs.
...Wait... Im assuming Oli Perez did very well in San Diego(did not see the game or highlights), I really wanted him sent to single A brooklyn...he is pissing me off majorly.
Barry Bonds was on the cover of The Financial Times the other day. Any time a baseball player is on the cover of London's largest business daily you know he's in deep shit.
Bonds is so not the answer. Bonds is not the answer to anything.
My argument is still valid. 162 games? why not make it 300? It's still an arbritary number. btw, who cares about Castillo's slugging percentage really? I mean come on, he's not a slugger. And there is more than one way to win a baseball game, and they don't all adhere to moneyball.
My main point about the 162 though, is if you don't fire Willie for last season after last season, it means you have faith in him for 2008. So to fire him in 2008, you should only judge 2008. At the time, I didn't think there was enough 2008 to make that decision, but we might be there now.
Post a Comment
<< Home