The blog for Mets fans
who like to read

ABOUT US

Jason Fry and Greg Prince
Faith and Fear in Flushing made its debut on Feb. 16, 2005, the brainchild of two longtime friends and lifelong Met fans.

Greg Prince discovered the Mets when he was 6, during the magical summer of 1969. He is a Long Island-based writer, editor and communications consultant. Contact him here.

Jason Fry is a Brooklyn writer whose first memories include his mom leaping up and down cheering for Rusty Staub. Check out his other writing here.

Got something to say? Leave a comment, or email us at faithandfear@gmail.com.

Need our RSS feed? It's here.

Visit our Facebook page, or drop by the personal pages for Greg and Jason.

Or follow us on Twitter: Here's Greg, and here's Jason.

Let's See How Far We've Come

“We needed to care more about each other if we're going to be the kind of team that wins a championship,” an unidentified Met told John Harper in today's Daily News. “I think we kind of took that for granted. The meeting made us realize that.”

So…can we safely assume Billy Wagner and Carlos Delgado spent the boarding process of the charter flight to Atlanta unfailingly caring for each other?

“Take the window seat, Carlos.”

“No, Billy, I insist — you enjoy the view.”

“But you find the vistas so relaxing. Perhaps gazing out the window would replenish your soul and, as a result, your swing.”

“Why thank you, Billy. Can I at least grab you a pillow on which to nurture your valuable left arm before we settle in?”

“That is a most thoughtful gesture, Carlos. Muchas gracias, amigo.

“No dear friend, thank you.”

Maybe that's not what One Met meant, but whatever it was about the most momentous meeting since Yalta that, to use Ryan Church's phrase, “relaxed” the team, well, keep it coming, loves. It's proved a more effective let alone more palatable solution to busting up a team slump than passing around a gold thong (brrr…).

Will the Era of Good Feeling Last? Do these eras of good feelings ever last? How many times last season were we reassured in deed or words that whatever was bugging the Mets last week was past them now? How many good weekends gave way to blues by Tuesday? How does beating a last-place team after getting beat by a last-place team reknight us a first-place team in waiting? How will we know if the Mets are going to stop being ungood and, by god, start being real good?

Atlanta would be a good place to start finding out for the positive. And Colorado would be a good place to continue. Then home for Florida and Los Angeles and so on. It's way too early to make over-the-hump assertions just as it was too early to decide Washington had buried our 2008 in irredeemable mediocrity (though, to be fair, mediocre would have been a step up from what we witnessed in three of our last four National League games).

The Mets for the past decade, maybe longer, have always struck me on some level as an exercise in unadmirable restraint. Even before Willie brought calm to a new state of placidity, the Mets tended to veer toward not panicking too much for my tastes; yours, too, probably. No one game is ever worth getting excited about. No one rival is ever worth getting overly amped for. No extended morass ever sets off alarm bells, not even for something as benign as a team meeting. Perhaps the fierce urgency of now finally tapped the Mets on the shoulder and shook them from their maddening complacency. Two good games don't change everything. But two wins are far better than two losses. Even the Zennest team of them all would have to cop to that much.

If you'd like a little precedent to hang your cap on, I've got something. It doesn't involve the same players, it doesn't even come from the same century, but let's assume there are some common bloodlines pumping between Mets then and Mets now.

Hark back with me to the beloved year of 1985, the year when we all cared about each other. Every Mets fan who was around in 1985 will, on substance if not bottom lines, take it as the year to remember over 1986. 1986 was awesome, but 1985 was beautiful. The success of those Mets, to paraphrase Joey “The Lips” Fagan in The Commitments, was irrelevant. The '85 Mets raised our expectations of life, lifted our horizons. Sure we could have won championships and had parades and stuff, but that would have been predictable. This way — 98-64, unaided by Wild Card after a 162-game struggle to the death against the dreaded Redbirds — it was poetry.

What's generally forgotten about that unbannered year is that the Mets stumbled badly for an uncomfortable portion of it. Not long after a swift 8-1 start, the Mets, almost every damn one of them, stopped hitting. Speaking for himself in If At First…, Keith Hernandez referred to it as being lost in a dark forest. By the end of June, Darryl Strawberry had been out for more than a month-and-a-half and the whole lineup experienced a power shortage. Mike Lupica made his columnist bones with zingers like a Met rally is when one of them works a three-and-one count.

The joke was easy enough to construct. Keith was batting .251 through June 30. Gary Carter had sunk, after a brief surge, to .271 (with a paltry 33 RBI for nearly a half-season's work). Darryl, everybody's answer, came back and dipped immediately from .215 to .208.

Mookie Wilson — .263

Rafael Santana — .251

Wally Backman — 246

George Foster — .237

Howard Johnson — .186

Ray Knight — .171

After a flickering mid-June boost in which the Mets won five straight and jumped from 3-1/2 back to a first-place tie with the Cardinals, the forest darkened to pitch black. They finished the month with seven losses in eight games, scoring four in the ten-inning loss that started the slide and then not tallying more than three runs in any of their final seven contests…the last three of which were head-to-head defeats in St. Louis that put them five out. The Mets hung up exactly three runs on the Busch Stadium board in 29 torturous Missouri innings that weekend.

Could it get worse? Sure seemed to on the first night of July when the Mets returned to Shea and lost to the last-place Pirates, 1-0. This dropped the Mets to 38-35, or 30-34 since they sizzled out of the gate. All around New York, the Mets' 1985 chances were penciled in on the endangered species list. Would they ever break out? Would they ever start winning? Would they do anything at all?

In a word, yes.

Yes, they would break out: five runs on July 2, six on July 3, sixteen in the legendary July 4-5 game. Yes, they would start winning: nine in a row and ultimately thirty of thirty-seven into mid-August; a 30-7 mark to obliterate the 30-34 forest. Yes, they would do plenty. They would go toe to toe with St. Louis into September, through two bloodletting series versus their archrivals, right down to the final weekend when all of us stood and cheered the most valiant runners-up we could imagine and none of us uttered a disparaging word about what we just saw. The Mets finished three back and out of the playoffs. You couldn't have divined that from how good we felt about the season played out.

I thought of this last night after the Mets had won all of two in a row against the Yankees because it, too, came on the heels of a discouraging 1-0 loss to a last-place team and it, too, came after weeks of hand-wringing about the Mets seeming incapable of scoring or winning or doing anything at all. Granted, the '08 Mets don't have vintage Dr. K, but modern-day Johan Santana may just be warming up. They don't have late-prime Gary Carter, whose production (21 HR, 68 RBI) from July 2 on was Hall of Fame-worthy, but they do have guys who have been known to get seasonably hot for reasonably long stretches. They don't have Keith Hernandez except in the broadcast booth, but would you put it past a David, a Jose or at least one Carlos to enjoy a .392 month the way Mex did July '85?

“Four in a row,” Keith wrote in his diary after July 5, the win that followed the Independence Night marathon. “The mood on the team has turned completely around. A week ago I was worried. Worried. Now I have that old feeling again about this team and this season.”

It's just one potential precedent. I could probably dig up a 1-0 loss from 1962 that would show a perceived nadir can easily bottom out and bottom out again. But damned if I didn't think of the midsummer revival of 1985 after this truncated Subway Series sweep at Yankee Stadium.

6 comments to Let's See How Far We've Come

  • Anonymous

    Bobby Valentine used to bristle at the word momentum , in fact I remember during a Yankee series or was it Arizona he and Mo Vaughn got into it about momentum , Mo claimed that the big wins would carry over in to the next series , Bobby didn't agree.
    I'm happy that we are facing Glavine in the day game , that will help but they say it's hard to win both games of a double header so we should lose the night game , team meetings are great but nothing better than having Ollie dominate.

  • Anonymous

    Don't forget '99. That was the year over 2000. For me, 1999 was the year, period. The bashing of the Yanks got us rolling way beyond .500. Piazza, who hit 9 homers through the first two months, went on an absolute tear and hit… 31… over the next 4.

  • Anonymous

    What I'm more concerned about is not the won-lost record at this point bur rather the manager's perceived inability to stop his players from not executing the fundamentals. Proper execution that leads to plays like the great relay that got Damon out at the plate (with Reyes in the proper position behind Castillo letting him know to throw home) are what we too often do not see.
    Who knows how much of this is due to Willie not putting a stop to this nonsence or certain key players not carrying out their share of the responsibilities (since it's been said WIllie takes it to one's face but within the confines of the clubhouse and not in public). But by not addressing these issues publicly one can understand why he receives the ire of the fans and perhaps that point is lost on him. Of course, Willie is a human being so it's also understandable how sensitive he could be to all this criticism but by hinting it might be partially due to a trace of racism (what's the excuse for Art Howe?) he should make a public apology because for that I found it personally offensive.
    And while he has received much criticism for yanking (pardon the pun) his starters too early, that is a question of strategy and every manager's moves (Torre's too) are always debated on talk radio, in homes, offices and across the dinner table and Willie must know that for every manager, that is a losing battle.

  • Anonymous

    My sense from reading Ian O'Connor's story is he was a little bit baited into suggesting the racial element. It is sad, however, that he would take the bait or think in those terms. He cites Herm Edwards and Isiah Thomas as coaches who might have experienced the same kind of reception. Maybe, just maybe, because their teams disappointed (Edwards' eventually, Thomas' constantly)? Randolph is receiving essentially the same treatment every manager and coach in New York has for as long as I can remember. Win, you're loved. Lose, you're blamed.
    The bit about SNY showing him in a certain light when, in fact, it's not how he sees himself…it came off as surprisingly paranoid. Win in Atlanta (and don't deplete the bullpen, as long as you mentioned it) and you'll look great on TV.

  • Anonymous

    As Willie points out, in 2006 they won 97 games and came within an out of going to the World Series, so what does he mean by saying the following year his team “wasn't ready”? Whose fault is that?

  • Anonymous

    Oh, how I want you to be right.
    I fear you may not be.