Odi et Amo
A lot of people I know are really sick of this Mets team. They're sick of underperforming big-money guys. They're sick of late-inning bullpen meltdowns. They're sick of following a team that can't get its act together and take hold of the division.
It gets me thinking of 2006. As great as 2006 was, one thing it lacked for much of the regular season was drama. Hell, when it came to winning the division, from July on basically it wasn't a matter of if but when.
The only questions left to be answered were would they win 100 games (they didn't), would they be the first team to clinch a playoff spot (they were), and who would start Game 1 (John Maine).
There was no foe to triumph over. For many of us, the longed-for cathartic victory over the hated Braves never happened. The only catharsis was the sheer act of winning a division for the first time in 18 years.
When I think about last year, the option really wasn't there either. Say we'd won that last game of the season and the Phillies had lost; it would have been great, but the bitterness and dislike we feel for the Phillies today wasn't really in place back then. Sure, we didn't like Jimmy Rollins, but the Phils had never made us hurt.
* * * * *
Zoom forward to the present and the situation could hardly be more different.
This is a Phillies team that's made us hurt as bad, you might say, as any Braves team ever did. And this is a Mets team that's had to fight uphill all season long.
Forget about whether you think this Mets team is underachieving. Forget about where you think they should be. If after everything we've suffered through this season they find themselves in first place and in the playoffs on the last day of the season, won't that be sweeter, more satisfying in a way than what we saw in 2006?
I'm not saying we didn't earn it in 2006. We did. But after all the heartache of 2007 and all the adversity in 2008, to come out on top would be pretty fucking cool.
* * * * *
The Mets are 1 game out with 43 games to play. For those of you who are sick of this team, 43 games from now, if the Mets finish in first, will you love them or hate them?
Will they be the underachievers who needlessly made you sweat for six months, or will they be the great survivors, a team we admire years from now for its perseverance?
Perhaps more interestingly, would 2008 be sweeter than 2006?
- A.F.O.M.G.
It gets me thinking of 2006. As great as 2006 was, one thing it lacked for much of the regular season was drama. Hell, when it came to winning the division, from July on basically it wasn't a matter of if but when.
The only questions left to be answered were would they win 100 games (they didn't), would they be the first team to clinch a playoff spot (they were), and who would start Game 1 (John Maine).
There was no foe to triumph over. For many of us, the longed-for cathartic victory over the hated Braves never happened. The only catharsis was the sheer act of winning a division for the first time in 18 years.
When I think about last year, the option really wasn't there either. Say we'd won that last game of the season and the Phillies had lost; it would have been great, but the bitterness and dislike we feel for the Phillies today wasn't really in place back then. Sure, we didn't like Jimmy Rollins, but the Phils had never made us hurt.
* * * * *
Zoom forward to the present and the situation could hardly be more different.
This is a Phillies team that's made us hurt as bad, you might say, as any Braves team ever did. And this is a Mets team that's had to fight uphill all season long.
Forget about whether you think this Mets team is underachieving. Forget about where you think they should be. If after everything we've suffered through this season they find themselves in first place and in the playoffs on the last day of the season, won't that be sweeter, more satisfying in a way than what we saw in 2006?
I'm not saying we didn't earn it in 2006. We did. But after all the heartache of 2007 and all the adversity in 2008, to come out on top would be pretty fucking cool.
* * * * *
The Mets are 1 game out with 43 games to play. For those of you who are sick of this team, 43 games from now, if the Mets finish in first, will you love them or hate them?
Will they be the underachievers who needlessly made you sweat for six months, or will they be the great survivors, a team we admire years from now for its perseverance?
Perhaps more interestingly, would 2008 be sweeter than 2006?
- A.F.O.M.G.
posted by A Friend of Mr. Glass' at 2:36 PM
7 Comments:
Perseverance is certainly a great character trait and one of the important lessons sports teaches us is how to persevere. A few days ago, I emailed a few of you that I wouldn't be happy if this team won the World Series. That was probably a bit of hyperbole. Nonetheless, if this team were to persevere and win it would not be a heroic perseverance, but rather a comedic.
The classic example of heroic perseverance would be Odysseus returning home from the Trojan Wars. Along the way, he encounters tremendous obstacles -- not of his own making -- yet through strength of character manages to overcome the obstacles.
On the other hand, comedic perseverance would be something like Forrest Gump or Billy Madison. Your main character is a hapless fool who creates all sorts of problems for himself. Through a combination of luck and the help of others, the protagonist perseveres through his problems and, ultimately, takes over Madison Hotels.
In both cases, you root for protagonist and, I suppose, if the Mets won the world series I'd be happy. But heroic perseverance is the stuff that we tell our grandkids about and hope they learn moral lessons from. Comedic perseverance is something we laugh with our friends about at 3 am during college.
So: Let's Go Mets. Though I don't think anyone who has seen 2 innings of Mets baseball this year needs to be told what this team's triumph would be.
What problems have the Mets created for themselves exactly? You've watched enough baseball to know that teams go through extreme ups and downs -- if they're still standing at the end of 162 games, I'm not sure the distinction you're drawing matters much.
You might not like this team because it has Carlos Delgado and Johan Santana instead of Robin Ventura and Al Leiter, but the if they win the division the accomplishment is still the same as any other year. If they end up winning it, they would have persevered through injuries to their closer, No. 2 pitcher, the firing of their manager, etc. Why doesn't any of that count?
What problems have they created for themselves? They've blown more saves for Santana than the Twins did in his last 100 starts. Do I really need to go through a full list?
I like Santana and Delgado. Indeed, as I commented on this blog in response to your post on April 8: "Delgado is hitting .350... Would it be nice if he had one home run right now? Yeah, he'd be on pace for a 32 home run season. We're definitely not out of the woods with C-Del, but you gotta be happy with what he's shown in the first 5 games. His hits have not been little bloops founding holes but have been ripped line drives. Let's see what he comes up with, obviously over the next 80 at-bats before evaluating him (or any offensive player), but at this point we know with absolute certainty that after 100 abs he will not be hitting below .070 which is not something I could have assured you with certainty prior to the season starting."
So you don't like this team / you think they're hapless fools who win through a combination of luck and the help of others because the bullpen hasn't held enough leads? How is their failure any different than, say, David Wright's failure to knock in those extra runs in the 8th against the Pirates?
None of what you've written is precise enough for me. Baseball is a game of failure. Mets teams of yesteryear that featured Armando Benitez or John Franco certainly had plenty of bullpen meltdowns to go around -- why didn't you hate those teams? Not to put words in your mouth, but why were their victories heroic and not comedic?
Oh, and you hate Delgado, I don't know who you think you're fooling.
Wish I had some time to look up come from behind victories and the like. Not readily findable on baseball-reference.com.
The 1999 Mets were 27-19 in one run games. The 2008 Mets are 11-14.
The 1999 Mets had to win 97 games to make the playoffs over 96 wins from the Reds. The 2008 Mets would likely make the playoffs over a far less strong performance by the Phillies or Marlins.
It is entirely fair to argue that the 1999 Mets were luckier than the 2008 Mets and that things could have broken worse for the former and better for the latter. That's fine. But it's not the reality of the two stories. The 1999 Mets were a team that won close games to defeat a great opponent. The 2008 Mets have not been that team through now.
The 1999 Mets story was a heroic one -- whether that's because they were a heroic team or because the story lucked into heroism is an argument for another day.
The 2008 season does not show any sign of being heroic. If we win the world series, it will likely be comedic based on the evidence we have to date.
Nobody who reads your blog cares about my personal like or dislike for Carlos Delgado, but the fact is I like him (if sometimes have been frustrated with him). Don't really care if you buy that or not (though if, as you claim, I hate him then it is tough to explain why I defended him in April in response to your blog post). I do not particularly like Carlos Beltran. I hate Aaron Heilman.
Of course this season would be sweet if they won the division, but it really doesn't compare in my mind. 99 and 06 stick out, because they were the years they were finally good again. Sure there was promise in 97-98 and some in 05, but those years were redemptive as a Mets fan. Especially, as a Mets fan in his early twenties I can say those years were the best because it was a reward for my fandom.
We won the NL in 2000, but I think most Mets fans had more affection for that 99 team. So even if we go on to win the NL this year, I'll have more affection for the recent team that lost in the NLCS (06). Besides, that 06 team used a TON of starters, and overcame injuries to Pedro and El Duque in the playoffs, as well as the constant presence of Trachsel. Not to mention that 06 team had a LOT more in-game resiliency.
Post a Comment
<< Home