The blog for Mets fans
who like to read
ABOUT US
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. (Sorry, but we have no interest in ads, sponsored content or guest posts.)
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.
|
by Greg Prince on 24 May 2014 5:31 am
Social work professionals would probably refer to Murray Hysen as a support system. My friend Jeff simply called him “Dad”. He was the dad who took Jeff to his first Mets game at the age of eight, the dad who sent Jeff to Mets fantasy camp as a fiftieth birthday present. Murray passed away last week, an occasion laced with sadness, but one that served to enlighten me as to what kind of man he was.
I attended Murray’s funeral on Thursday. I didn’t know him well by any means, yet I felt I got to know him twice over by hearing what those who did had to say about him. Jeff, Jeff’s son, Jeff’s brother, Jeff’s brother’s father-in-law and two rabbis eulogized him in remarkably similar terms. Murray, every one of them said, was more interested in your good fortune than his own.
Nobody doesn’t say something nice about the guest of honor at a service of this nature, but it was striking that each person who spoke from the pulpit — along with those I met across the course of the morning and afternoon — hit the same note. Murray wanted you to engage opportunity, wanted you to succeed at what you loved, wanted you to enjoy your life. Murray didn’t need to talk about or hear about Murray. Murray was about you, whoever you were, whoever you are.
It hasn’t been uncommon since I’ve known Jeff for him to relay to me some nugget of concern or piece of advice Murray had for me. “My father hopes you’re…” was a recurring sentence-starter. So was “my father was asking if you’ve thought about…” It always seemed nice but odd to me. We shook hands and said hello maybe once, yet Murray Hysen was, via Jeff, looking out for me.
I never read much into what I considered Murray’s harmless kibitzing until all those eulogies made clear this was more than that. This was who Murray was. Murray’s instinct was to look out for everybody, whether they were his family, his friends, his family’s friends or, basically, anybody.
That was a plenty warm revelation with which to leave an inevitably melancholy gathering, but I said I felt I got to know him twice over. Once was from the direct testimony of those who swore by Murray’s humanity. Twice was from when it hit me that Murray instilled that characteristic sense of selflessness in those he touched most. Jeff, my friend, is like Murray, his dad. Jeff regularly asks have you thought about… Jeff always hopes you’re… I’ve always found his brand of friendship extremely considerate, but I never wondered where it came from.
It came from Murray.
The funeral took place out of state. It was a bit of a schlep to get there, a bit of a schlep to return to the city. I have to admit I’m pretty schlep-averse. By the time I alighted in Manhattan, it was almost time to take off for Citi Field and the Mets’ previously scheduled blogger night plus their ensuing game against the Dodgers. That meant a day that had shifted into gear uncomfortably early was going to stretch until who knew when with this team. I was briefly tempted to hop on the next train home instead. Citi Field is fine, blogger nights are swell, I always welcome an evening with the Mets, but I was tired and it looked like rain and…
And I realized, no, Jeff would be disappointed if I didn’t go. Murray would be disappointed if I didn’t go. They’d both want to hear the details and they’d both want to follow up with questions and they’d both want to know somebody they cared about did something he enjoyed and got the most possible out of it.
I went and I enjoyed and I got plenty out of it, but probably not as much as I got — even at this extraordinarily late date — from getting to know Murray Hysen as I felt I suddenly did.
by Greg Prince on 23 May 2014 3:10 am
It must have been a sportswriter who came up with that line about ballplayers you’d pay to see since baseball writers don’t pay to see baseball. In that spirit, since I didn’t pay to see Thursday night’s game, I will detour to Cliché Stadium and declare I’d pay good money to see Yasiel Puig play ball. As it was, I kind of wanted to leave more than the customary 20% by his locker. The service was that good.
The final from Flushing: Mets 5, Dodgers 3, Yasiel Puig something else. That’s a guy who dominates your field of vision no matter what he’s doing. Fortunately he wasn’t beating my team, so I didn’t mind a good, long, complimentary look.
I still have a team, by the way, despite my presence among those who exchange a little bit of their souls as their price of admission to the ballpark. I watched almost all of the Mets’ win from the press box where there is, as every schoolchild knows, no cheering. No wonder there isn’t. The ladies and gentlemen of the press have to be stone cold professionals, betraying no bias and rooting only for good stories, save for plot twists that wreck deadlines.
That’s their business. My business, so to speak, is to blog as a fan. Sometimes a very fortunate fan who appreciates landing on a list that gets me in a different door from most fans. For a few hours a few times a year I masquerade as media. I drape a graciously received credential around my neck and interact with my team and their game as if I forgot to pack my passion alongside my notepad and my phone charger.
It’s fun but it’s weird. Or it’s weird but it’s fun. It’s welcome but wearying. You wind up in the hermetically sealed vault where they store the coolly disinterested pros so they can most effectively do their jobs, but you’re not cool and you’re not disinterested and your job, if you think about it, depends on your running hot and being fascinated. Still, so you don’t blow your cover, you sit and you muffle the very instincts that made you a fan and a blogger in the first place.
Unless you have the good sense to take a break from the press box, as I did at precisely the right moment to take full advantage of seeing Puig be Puig. It was the second inning and my agenda was to weasel my way down to a nearby row of seats to say hi to somebody who had already had a whale of a night. I had been notified via Tweet that my friend Garry Spector, a season ticketholder who pays to see a slew of players nobody would consciously choose to ante up for, was plucked from the Amazin’ Perks ranks to throw out the first pitch Thursday night. Just my very good luck to find myself at the park to witness his very good luck on the mound. Garry threw a strike perfect enough to impress his personal catcher Anthony Recker, let alone his wife Susan and his daughter Melanie.
I vamoosed from the vault, entered the fresh night air and temporarily took an empty seat next to the Spector family (imagine that, an empty seat at Citi Field). After congratulating Garry on his high hard one, I stuck around to watch an inning with them and without detachment. It was in their company that I saw Wilmer Flores wallop a ball that was destined for the right-center gap in every outfield in North America where right isn’t patrolled by Yasiel Puig.
This one was, to the detriment of Flores, but, ultimately (because the Mets won anyway), to the benefit of the human race. People, you really had to see what one of your fellow persons could do on defense. How spectacular was Puig’s catch? Let’s just say that if Ron Swoboda’s catch married Tommie Agee’s second catch and those catches had a baby…and that baby grew up to have an affair with Juan Lagares’s glove…do you get what I’m saying? It was one for the ages.
Freed from the protocol of the press box, I emoted, albeit with restraint. I wanted to curse Puig for robbing Flores, but that didn’t seem sporting. I wanted to applaud Puig for robbing Flores, but that seemed self-defeating (also, there was a surfeit of Dodger fans on hand plenty capable of picking up my totally biased slack). I just marveled, mostly. And cursed a little, probably.
The rest of Puig Shirt Thursday was tried on for size back in the contemplative corridors of the press box. There was horrific Puig baserunning in the sixth on the heels of an infield fly call that confused even the experts in my midst (a situation summed up by one disbelieving wag as “you know you’re in trouble when Daniel Murphy is the smartest player on the field”). There was brute Puig force applied to a Daisuke Matsuzaka pitch in the eighth, resulting in a double and an instant threat to the 4-3 lead Jon Niese himself helped build with an actual double of his own. And then there was Eric Campbell acting as the dollar-store version of Yasiel Puig, playing major league left field for the first time and demonstrating no awareness whatsoever that taking on such an unfamiliar task might be difficult.
With Hanley Ramirez lashing a rope to left and Puig taking off for home because there was no way he wasn’t going to be the tying run, Campbell dove and caught. It wasn’t as spectacular as what Puig did to Flores six innings earlier, but it was more substantial. It preserved the Mets’ tenuous edge and it paved the way to a double play. Campbell, a first baseman usually, had the presence of mind to throw to second to double off a reversed-course Puig, someone who hides his presence of mind very well when traversing the basepaths.
I took that turning point of the game in stride because in the press box there is no other way to pseudo-professionally take it. Clear through to Jenrry Mejia’s victory-preserving strikeout of Scott Van Slyke I did no more than gesture quietly. A thumb furtively up, a fist subtly pumped, a fatal distraction averted.
No cheering in the press box. Tons of it echoing in my head, though. Sounds about right.
No short shrift to Niese intended above. For more on “the forgotten stuffed animal” of the Met pitching depth chart, check out W.M. Akers’ article in The Classical.
by Jason Fry on 22 May 2014 12:19 am
Hmm. Who do we blame for that slow-motion train wreck, a one-run loss that felt like the home team was down five?
Jacob deGrom? That would be both cruel and inaccurate. DeGrom’s started all of two games in the big leagues and pitched well enough to win each time. He threw too many balls and got squared up by the Dodgers once they got a look at him, but I was impressed nonetheless. DeGrom’s got a good complement of fastball and breaking stuff and doesn’t scare — I liked that after Adrian Gonzalez somehow tomahawked a high fastball into the Pepsi Porch, deGrom went back to the same pitch and used it to get Carl Crawford. And he was particularly impressive working around Matt Kemp‘s leadoff double in the fifth. Oh, and he can actually hit, which no other Met pitcher can say.
Nope, not pinning this one on deGrom.
The hitters in general? Well, it’s true that they didn’t get the hit when they needed it, but I think that’s more attributable to bad luck than Just So stories about heart and grit. If I’d told you the Mets would collect 13 hits to LA’s five and deGrom would allow three runs over six innings, you probably would have taken it.
Let’s see. How about some combination of Jeurys Familia and Wilmer Flores? Familia got the ground ball he wanted from the loathsome Hanley Ramirez in the eighth with the Mets trying to stay within one. He fielded the comebacker on the mound, whirled, and saw Flores and Daniel Murphy both waiting eagerly at second base. Familia hesitated, Murph shooed Flores away, and the Mets only got one out, surrendering a run. That run would matter as the Mets fell a run short in the ninth.
Definitely a bad play — Familia should have thrown it and trusted his fielders and Flores shouldn’t have been in the way. And they’d had a conference at the mound to discuss this literally seconds before, for Pete’s sake. (Take a second to fume. It’s OK — I’ll do it too.) But Familia’s a kid. His reaction was the same one I had and that you probably had too: What the …? Ohmygod, I’m gonna throw it, they’re gonna look at each other, and the ball’s gonna go into center. (Translate that into Spanish, but anyway.) Mistake, but a young player’s mistake that you can certainly understand.
Ditto for Flores — yes, he was in the wrong place. But perspective: Weren’t we all warned that Flores was somewhere between raw and inept at shortstop? So far (WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! SMALL SAMPLE SIZE WARNING!!!!) he’s been better than we’d feared. A lot better, in fact. And it was only a couple of days ago that we were all rushing to the barricades to decry Terry for not playing him. It’s silly and self-defeating to hang him for a mental mistake born of overexuberance.
As for Murph, well, he’s not getting off the hook that easily. In the seventh, with two out, he was jogging when David Wright smacked a ball that fell in and got behind Yasiel Puig for a double. He only got as far as third. Would he have scored if he’d broken hard from first? You can’t swear that he would have, but the odds were a lot better than banking on Chris Young collecting a two-out hit. Bad, bad play. But if this is the first time you’ve realized Murph can be a hot mess on the basepaths, well, you’re not going to like it here.
But the math is still pitiless. Murph running hard is probably an extra run on the Mets’ ledger. And if Familia and Flores don’t divide up a mental mistake, that’s definitely a run off the Dodgers’ ledger. Which means it’s a time game going to the ninth and … yeah. It’s tempting to shrug it off as a little thing here and a little thing there, but that’s what bad teams do: They screw up the little things and lose games they should win.
Honestly, we need to look higher to find someone to blame. Give deGrom and Familia a break — it’s time for them to learn at the big-league level, and that means taking some lumps. And give Flores a break too. Instead, ask yourself how it came to pass that Flores was learning to play shortstop with the varsity. This is what critics mean by a lack of depth: If Plan A for shortstop is Ruben Tejada coming back to life, Plan B can’t be Omar Quintanilla and Plan C can’t be Wilmer Flores learning under live fire. That doesn’t mean endorsing overpaying for Stephen Drew (I never did) or acquiring Ryan Franklin or Didi Gregorius on sellers’ terms — it means not getting backed into that corner in the first place. Same thing with the outfield: The Mets spent money to add Curtis Granderson, and economics dictate he’ll play full-time for better or worse. But if Chris Young continues to fail the audition, what’s Plan B? It better not be Eric Young Jr. or sending poor Lucas Duda out for more punishment or rolling what’s left of Bobby Abreu out there on a hand truck and hoping balls are hit right at him. But that seems to be what it is.
Blame the front office if you want — so far, Young and Granderson and Bartolo Colon aren’t earning them any Executive of the Year honors. If you want to be more logical, blame ownership for forcing the front office to invent a plan while having to guess at the budget. Or you can just throw up your hands, and say that whatever the source of the trouble, the outcome isn’t that cute anymore.
by Greg Prince on 21 May 2014 1:20 pm
If there’s no clock in baseball, why is the time of game listed? Seems antithetical to the spirit of the enterprise. Then again, Shea Stadium’s original scoreboard reserved prominent space for a clock bearing the Longines logo, and later its auxiliary scoreboards flashed the digital time from Armitron. If we truly weren’t supposed to be able to track the time of game, ballparks would follow the examples set by casinos, where not only do they not mount clocks, they block out natural light. Is it day? Is it night? Never mind, just give us your money.
On that count, Citi Field is like a casino, I suppose, but the time is not treated as a state secret. Tuesday night the game officially began at 7:11 PM and plodded forth as if stricken by arthritis until 11:19 PM. The time measurement that we are trained to count, innings, reached a mere nine, but the hours and the minutes involved in compiling them set a stadium standard. Citi Field had never before hosted a nine-inning game of such temporal length. If only Chris Young, the final batter, had stepped out of the box to tie his shoes and then maybe amble over to the on-deck circle for a spot of pine tar, we wouldn’t have to qualify the record-setting.
Time of game in the Mets’ 9-4 loss to the Dodgers: 4:08, a high for Citi Field, but not enough to establish a new franchise nine-inning mark. Much as the home team kept falling one hit shy of making the visitors sweat, the two teams missed by one minute matching the all-time Met record for longest nine-inning game. On a late night in late May of 2000, these very same outfits competed for four hours and nine minutes. Their stately Dodger Stadium maneuvers yielded a happy recap, with Todd Pratt topping off a 10-5 comeback win via grand slam, yet I clearly remember just…wanting…it…to…end. Five years later at Shea, the hot August afternoon result against the Brewers (12-9) was less a blessing than a curse, but the time remained the same: an unformulaic 4:09.
Tuesday’s version of regulation elongation was probably best processed as a series of 18 one-act plays, many of which ratcheted up the dramatic tension, but few of them paying off in terms of satisfying resolution. I’ve seen shorter games that schlepped worse, actually. This one could’ve used better pacing but didn’t expend the audience’s rooting interest wholly until the almost bitter end, and then you had the business with the potential record to reignite enthusiasm.
There was a moment when it seemed like the whole thing was gonna get legitimately good. I’m thinking of the inning the Mets left the bases loaded. Well, one of the innings the Mets left the bases load — the fifth. What had been a gradual but unremarkable 1-1 duel tilted inevitably in the Dodgers’ favor when Rafael Montero and Jeurys Familia (two generations of prospects) allowed L.A. four runs to remind us which team among the two was the talented one. But then the Mets, in their contemporary Metsian way, teased us with their spunk. Lou Grant told Mary Richards he hated spunk, but with the Terry Collins Mets, spunk is usually all you can rely on.
Here came the spunky Mets in the bottom of the fifth: Juan Centeno singling with one out; Eric Campbell pinch-hitting and singling; Eric Young singling. The bases were loaded, set up for the Mets’ most dependable hitter and the Mets’ most decorated hitter. Sadly, the dependable guy, Daniel Murphy, chose Tuesday to stop being a hitting machine and struck out. It all came down to Decorated David Wright, the Captain of our hearts, the steward of our souls. David could unload these bases. David could set his previously adrift campaign on course. David could remind you why you put up with Team Tease…because sometimes it’s not a tease.
Josh Beckett threw David Wright nine pitches with three on and two out in the bottom of the fifth. In another context, it would have been a battle for the ages or at least one worthy of dissection on some offseason MLB Network special hosted by Bob Costas. As it was, it was pretty compelling. David took ball one, then fouled off the next two. He worked the count full. Three more foul balls followed, David just missing, Beckett barely maintaining his balance on the tightrope of his own making, one side ice, one side fire.
Finally, on pitch nine, David raps a ball up the middle. In, for example, 1981, a year before David was born and three decades more infield shifts took hold, it would have undoubtedly gone through to center for a two-run single. These days, though, everybody is played persnicketily precisely. Wright’s rap was not hard enough to beat the modest Dodger shift. In the scorebook, it became a harmless grounder converted into a 4-3 forceout and meant another 0 in the row where you write the Met runs.
It was one of those episodes where you’re sure that was the moment right there. Except it really wasn’t. The Dodgers tacked on another run in the top of the sixth, but the Mets suddenly stormed the castle walls in the bottom of the inning. BAM! Curtis Granderson homers to the potato chip sign. BAM! Chris Young lines a double to deep center. BAM! Lucas Duda flies over the right field fence with the greatest of ease. Three runs were produced so quickly and so easily that I expected another loyalty letter to appear in my inbox pronto (“Now that we’ve shown you how good we can be, won’t you join True New Yorkers like Alex Treviño and Tim Bogar in supporting your favorite team…”). Beckett then walked Wilmer Flores and appeared overly ready to depart the mound for his traditional midgame snack of Popeye’s fried chicken and icy cold Bohemia-style beer. It was 6-4, there was nobody out and…
And nothin’. The Dodger bullpen excised the momentum right out of the Mets and they wouldn’t score again. Oh, they’d threaten. The bases would reload in the bottom of the seventh, but as in the fifth, there would be no runs. The Dodgers threatened in the eighth, but they wouldn’t back it up, either (huzzah to Collins for trotting out seven pitchers across nine innings). It stayed 6-4 just long enough to convince you this game, while not exactly getting itself won, hadn’t been lost.
Then the Dodgers tacked on another three in their half of the ninth and the four-hour mark was surpassed and all that was left aspirationally was making the kind of history that’s buried in the media guide and not exhumed until the next time somebody thinks to look at the clock in the fifth inning and express shock that the game’s already two hours old. Which is why I was rooting for Chris Young to call time and tie his shoes and get us to 4:09, perhaps 4:10. But this game already had plenty of time to it. You couldn’t in all good conscience call for a single minute more.
by Greg Prince on 20 May 2014 1:53 pm
Some won-lost records just jump out at me. For example, the Mets losing Sunday and falling to 20-23 sparked my recognition that the Mets hit that very same mark 24 years earlier. In 1990, losing and falling to 20-23 presented a platform for firing the most successful manager in franchise history.
After guiding the Mets to six consecutive winning seasons, including one that led to a world championship, Davey Johnson was axed at 20-23. It sounds shocking in retrospect, especially when 20-23 today earns the manager a pat on the head from a front office that demands little in the way of actual results. Even in the context of the times — a high-profile Mets team falling well off the pace set by first-place Pittsburgh while playing some legitimately lethargic post-Carter, post-Hernandez ball — it was surprising. You’d think doing nothing but posting winning records from 1984 through 1989 would have earned Johnson a little slack, but those were very different days with very different expectations.
Terry Collins is no Davey Johnson, but these Mets of his find themselves paused at that familiar 20-23 milepost, which marks the first time a Mets club has been three games under .500 since…well, that’s easy. They reached 19-22 just two days earlier. Overall, this team’s nadir to date has been three games below .500, while its peak was four games above .500 right around the moment loyalty oaths were being passed back to the rest of the class. When our boys surged to their thus-far 2014 high point of 15-11, I noticed a few “this is the first time the Mets have been this many games above .500 since…” notes making the rounds.
That sort of thing has to be looked up. For future reference, it can be looked up here, where you will find 135 separate won-lost data points, accounting for every most-recent stop relative to .500 the Mets have made across their long, strange strip: from the lowest of lows to the highest of highs and encompassing every landing spot inside the big, squishy, Metsian middle.
This is all pretty self-explanatory from here, though I will explain that when you see a figure in bold, it’s a season’s final record. And when you follow the trail down far enough, I ask you to fully consider what you’re examining. The next time you are moved to remark that the Mets, at 20-23 or some record whose winning percentage is expressed by a number south of .500 must be the worst team they’ve ever run onto a field, think about what it felt like to root your heart out for a team that had twice as many wins but more than five times as many losses. Because that’s happened in Mets history.
By the same token, soak in the majesty of the upper tier of these listings and try to comprehend, if you didn’t experience it first-hand, just how gratifying winning twice as many games as you lose can be. May it happen to all of us again real soon.
The last time the Mets were ____ was ____ (and their record was __-__)…
54 Games Over .500: October 5, 1986 (108-54)
53 Games Over .500: October 4, 1986-2nd Game (107-54)
52 Games Over .500: October 4, 1986-1st Game (106-54)
51 Games Over .500: October 2, 1986 (105-54)
50 Games Over .500: October 1, 1986 (104-54)
49 Games Over .500: September 30, 1986 (103-54)
48 Games Over .500: September 26, 1986 (101-53)
47 Games Over .500: September 25, 1986 (100-53)
46 Games Over .500: September 24, 1986 (99-53)
45 Games Over .500: September 21, 1986 (97-52)
44 Games Over .500: September 16, 1986 (94-50)
43 Games Over .500: September 15, 1986 (93-50)
42 Games Over .500: August 26, 1986 (84-42)
41 Games Over .500: August 25, 1986 (83-42)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 1986:This is basically what life was like every day for six months if you were a Mets fan 28 years ago.
40 Games Over .500: October 2, 1988 (100-60)
39 Games Over .500: October 1, 1988 (99-60)
38 Games Over .500: September 30, 1988 (98-60)
37 Games Over .500: September 28, 1988 (97-60)
36 Games Over .500: September 23, 1988 (94-58)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 1988:The Mets crested like crazy toward season’s end, so no wonder there is still so much teeth-wringing and hand-gnashing (or whatever) over Scioscia. In my quieter moments I like to revel in how the regular season ended, and then I just mentally cancel the playoffs.
35 Games Over .500: September 13, 2006 (90-55)
34 Games Over .500: September 19, 2006 (92-58)
33 Games Over .500: September 20, 2006 (92-59)
32 Games Over .500: October 1, 2006 (97-65)
31 Games Over .500: September 30, 2006 (96-65)
30 Games Over .500: September 29, 2006 (95-65)
29 Games Over .500: September 28, 2006 (94-65)
28 Games Over .500: September 27, 2006 (93-65)
27 Games Over .500: August 20, 2006 (75-48)
26 Games Over .500: August 19, 2006 (74-48)
25 Games Over .500: August 18, 2006 (73-48)
24 Games Over .500: August 17, 2006 (72-48)
23 Games Over .500: August 16, 2006 (71-48)
22 Games Over .500: August 6, 2006 (66-44)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 2006: Did these gaps by which wins outstretched losses really exist in the Mets’ past decade? This same decade that has stressed mostly heartbreak, heartache and headache? Yes, they really did. 2006 was so great until it wasn’t.
21 Games Over .500: September 12, 2007 (83-62)
20 Games Over .500: September 14, 2007 (83-63)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 2007: If you’re eagle-eyed, you’ll recognize the significance of 83-62. Not only have the Mets not flown so high since, but that was the apogee from which the ’07 edition tumbled into The Greatest Collapse Ever. Or was it The Worst Collapse Ever? We’ll accept both, sadly.
19 Games Over .500: September 19, 2008 (86-67)
18 Games Over .500: September 20, 2008 (86-68)
17 Games Over .500: September 27, 2008 (89-72)
16 Games Over .500: September 28, 2008 (89-73)
15 Games Over .500: August 31, 2008 (76-61)
14 Games Over .500: August 30, 2008 (75-61)
13 Games Over .500: August 26, 2008 (73-60)
12 Games Over .500: August 19, 2008 (69-57)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 2008: The ending at Shea was so absolutely miserable that you wouldn’t have believed that some 5½ years later the numbers it left behind would appear aspirational.
11 Games Over .500: June 27, 2010 (43-32)
10 Games Over .500: July 6, 2010 (47-37)
9 Games Over .500: July 7, 2010 (47-38)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 2010: I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess nobody except for me and maybe two statistically retentive friends of mine remembers how well these Mets were doing for a spell. Their temporarily very good record was built mostly on kicking a handful of dogass opponents while they were down, but that’s what teams with very good records do.
8 Games Over .500: June 3, 2012 (31-23)
7 Games Over .500: July 7, 2012 (47-40)
6 Games Over .500: July 8, 2012 (46-40)
5 Games Over .500: July 13, 2012 (45-40)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 2012: The oasis of false midseason hope, which I suppose was better than no hope at all.
4 Games Over .500: April 29, 2014 (15-11)
3 Games Over .500: May 1, 2014 (15-12)
2 Games Over .500: May 4, 2014 (16-14)
1 Game Over .500: May 5, 2014 (16-15)
At .500: May 13, 2014 (19-19)
1 Game Under .500: May 14, 2014 (19-20)
2 Games Under .500: May 17, 2014 (20-22)
3 Games Under .500: May 18, 2014 (20-23)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 2014: Subject to change. Obviously.
4 Games Under .500: May 10, 2013 (14-18)
5 Games Under .500: May 11, 2013 (14-19)
6 Games Under .500: May 12, 2013 (14-20)
7 Games Under .500: August 11, 2013 (54-61)
8 Games Under .500: August 20, 2013 (58-66)
9 Games Under .500: August 21, 2013 (58-67)
10 Games Under .500: August 31, 2013 (62-72)
11 Games Under .500: September 1, 2013 (62-73)
12 Games Under .500: September 25, 2013 (73-85)
13 Games Under .500: September 26, 2013 (73-86)
14 Games Under .500: September 29, 2013 (74-88)
15 Games Under .500: September 28, 2013 (73-88)
16 Games Under .500: September 19, 2013 (68-84)
17 Games Under .500: September 14, 2013-1st Game (65-82)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 2013: Except for when they inducted Mike Piazza into the Mets Hall of Fame, there was essentially nobody at Citi Field last September. Any wonder why?
18 Games Under .500: September 13, 2009-2nd Game (63-81)
19 Games Under .500: September 15, 2009 (63-82)
20 Games Under .500: September 20, 2009 (65-85)
21 Games Under .500: September 21, 2009 (65-86)
22 Games Under .500: October 4, 2009 (70-92)
23 Games Under .500: October 3, 2009 (69-92)
24 Games Under .500: October 2, 2009 (68-92)
25 Games Under .500: September 30, 2009 (67-92)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 2009: In an era when every lousy year has been pretty much like every other lousy year, the lousiness of 2009 towers above all the sub-mediocrity that’s followed…thank goodness.
26 Games Under .500: September 18, 2003 (63-89)
27 Games Under .500: September 24, 2003 (65-92)
28 Games Under .500: September 27, 2003 (66-94)
29 Games Under .500: September 28, 2003 (66-95)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 2003: A most underrated season in hell, as Met seasons in hell go.
30 Games Under .500: July 28, 1993 (35-65)
31 Games Under .500: August 2, 1993 (37-68)
32 Games Under .500: August 7, 1993-2nd Game (39-71)
33 Games Under .500: August 8, 1993 (39-72)
34 Games Under .500: August 10, 1993 (39-73)
35 Games Under .500: August 11, 1993 (39-74)
36 Games Under .500: August 18, 1993 (42-78)
37 Games Under .500: August 21, 1993-1st Game (42-79)
38 Games Under .500: August 27, 1993 (45-83)
39 Games Under .500: August 28, 1993 (45-84)
40 Games Under .500: September 2, 1993 (47-87)
41 Games Under .500: September 3, 1993 (47-88)
42 Games Under .500: September 4, 1993 (47-89)
43 Games Under .500: September 5, 1993 (47-90)
44 Games Under .500: October 3, 1993 (59-103)
45 Games Under .500: October 2, 1993 (58-103)
46 Games Under .500: October 1, 1993 (57-103)
47 Games Under .500: September 30, 1993 (56-103)
48 Games Under .500: September 29, 1993 (55-103)
49 Games Under .500: September 28, 1993 (54-103)
50 Games Under .500: September 27, 1993 (53-103)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 1993: If you want to see a grown man cry, just watch me stare at this section for a while. The easily detectable kick in the head is the Mets went on a hot streak in order to finish 46 games under, proving not all six-game winning streaks are created equal.
51 Games Under .500: September 6, 1965-2nd Game (45-96)
52 Games Under .500: September 8, 1965 (45-97)
53 Games Under .500: September 9, 1965 (45-98)
54 Games Under .500: September 10, 1965 (46-100)
55 Games Under .500: September 19, 1965 (48-103)
56 Games Under .500: September 20, 1965 (48-104)
57 Games Under .500: September 21, 1965 (48-105)
58 Games Under .500: September 28, 1965 (50-108)
59 Games Under .500: September 29, 1965 (50-109)
60 Games Under .500: October 1, 1965 (50-110)
61 Games Under .500: October 3, 1965-1st Game (50-111)
62 Games Under .500: October 3, 1965-2nd Game (50-112)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 1965: The second-worst record in Mets history. And four years later, with five players from that season still in tow, a World Series was won. The most glorious “go figure” in the annals of humans and other species.
63 Games Under .500: August 20, 1962-1st Game (30-93)
64 Games Under .500: August 20, 1962-2nd Game (30-94)
65 Games Under .500: August 28, 1962-2nd Game (34-99)
66 Games Under .500: August 29, 1962 (34-100)
67 Games Under .500: August 30, 1962 (34-101)
68 Games Under .500: September 2, 1962 (35-103)
69 Games Under .500: September 3, 1962-1st Game (35-104)
70 Games Under .500: September 3, 1962-2nd Game (35-105)
71 Games Under .500: September 4, 1962 (35-106)
72 Games Under .500: September 7, 1962 (35-107)
73 Games Under .500: September 8, 1962-1st Game (35-108)
74 Games Under .500: September 16, 1962 (37-111)
75 Games Under .500: September 18, 1962-1st Game (37-112)
76 Games Under .500: September 18, 1962-2nd Game (37-113)
77 Games Under .500: September 23, 1962 (39-116)
78 Games Under .500: September 25, 1962 (39-117)
79 Games Under .500: September 29, 1962 (40-119)
80 Games Under .500: September 30, 1962 (40-120)
QUICK THOUGHT ON 1962: The greatest improvement in club lore had to be vaulting from 40-120 at inaugural season’s end to 0-0 at the succeeding season’s beginning. Ah, good old next year — is there anything you can’t do?
Lots, and I mean LOTS of Mets talk with your favorite bloggers on the Rising Apple podcast, as Jason and I join Sam Maxwell, Danny Abriano and Mike Lecolant. By deep inside the second hour, I’m pretty sure I’m speaking in Stengelese. Listen here.
by Jason Fry on 19 May 2014 11:45 am
A couple of years ago I went on book tour in April and added three new parks — Safeco, AT&T and the Big A — to my ledger of stadiums visited. I just got back from another book tour, one that followed the Johnny Cashian itinerary of Indianapolis-Chicago-St. Louis-Seattle-Carlsbad-San Francisco-Phoenix-Houston-Nashville, leading me to conclude that recently I have indeed been everywhere, man.
This time around, that everywhere included four new parks. Last week I wrote about finally getting to go to Wrigley Field; here’s a recounting of the rest of my ballpark adventures.
The second stop on the GEBNBT ’14 was O.co Coliseum, the home of the Oakland A’s. Here’s Greg’s take from 14 years ago, when it was Network Associates Coliseum. My take: The O.co is a giant pile of concrete that should be demolished posthaste, with the rubble used to build statues of Lew Wolff and Bud Selig with their pants at their knees while they piss on the city of Oakland.
Selig’s right to be half of such a monument is easily understood; his spavined final years as commissioner will end with some imaginary committee continuing to “study” whether the A’s should go to San Jose, stay in Oakland, return to Kansas City or Philadelphia, or cease to exist after they all drown in another sewage backup. (Undoubtedly the commissioner is busy preventing the Mets from being run like a fourth-rate orphanage and keeping some nihilistic con man from turning the Marlins into a cynical three-card monte game. Oh wait.) As for Wolff, I was surprised to hear Bay Area fans lambaste him, mostly for having ignored clear signals he had no path to setting up shop in San Jose and for actively resisting plans for a new stadium next to Oakland’s thriving Jackson Square neighborhood. I trust the intensity of their venon; if you’ve studied the issue more than I have, I’d be interested in a good explainer.
Anyway, the O.co struck me as a Mad Max version of Shea. Instead of Shea/Citi’s tangle of chop shops and unpaved streets and rumbling els, you get caged walkways leading over industrial yards. Eventually, the caged walkways dump you in the vicinity of an ugly gray concrete pile that rises from a weird hill of xeroscaped dirt, which you search for entrances a la Tomb of Horrors.
 Welcome to Oakland!
The O.co’s employees would fit in at Shea too. The O.co has metal detectors, though not enough of them — more were waiting forlornly inside, of no use to anyone. The people running the metal detectors that were in use didn’t seem to have ever seen such devices before, leading to long lines that moved when attendants got distracted, which they did often enough that one’s faith in the deterrent value of the metal detectors became vestigal. At one point one employee dragged a barrier across the end of a line and then wandered away; a couple of minutes later another employee happened by, scratched his head and then shoved the barrier aside again. I used to explain Shea to the uninitiated by saying that it was like a DMV with baseball in it; well, the O.co is like a Supermax with baseball in it.
 Hey, at least it’s sunny.
If you’re thinking that’s unfair, you’re right — prisons are run a lot better than this place. No one at the O.co seems to have thought about how lines should work — every concessions stand’s line goes straight out into the concourse, blocking the path of fans trying to reach their seats. So you go about 25 feet, hit an insane bottleneck created by people trying to buy a beer or a hot dog, wait patiently to clear the area, then repeat the process. A bright eight-year-old with a modest budget for Tensa-barriers could fix this problem in about half a day; no one at the O.co seems to understand something’s wrong.
Once you reach your seat, you can appreciate the quirks of the place — until you notice that none of them were put there on purpose. The legendary foul territory is even more amazing up close, except that you aren’t up close. We were in pretty good seats — sixth row down the right-field line — but home plate was still a distant rumor. Seriously, you could put a decent-sized street of suburban houses on either side of the baselines in Oakland and still play ball. Never mind what it does to the game — it’s self-evident suicide for selling fancy seats. The scoreboard is the old Shea Lite Brite type (I flashed back to INSANE APE sightings in support of Kevin Appier). And 95% of the upper deck has been turned into a huge, forlorn semicircular A’s ad.
 There’s a game over there somewhere.
For all this, the park itself isn’t too bad — the view of the mountains was destroyed long ago by Mount Davis, but the music’s pretty good and the fans are great. I can’t say that enough — we were surrounded by East Bay gangbanger-looking dudes, merry bearded drunks, families with hyperactive kids and old sun-leathered military types. Everybody got along swell and everybody was mad for the A’s, who paid them back by stomping the Nationals behind a pair of three-run homers from Derek Norris. Once you’re inside the O.co, the game’s the thing, and that’s not all bad.
But the game’s the thing in Wrigley Field too. The difference is Wrigley Field is a remnant of baseball in a simpler age, while the O.co is a living fossil from an era of bad decisions, still with us because of a recalcitrant owner and a negligent commissioner. The A’s are a good team; their fans are great fans. They deserve so, so, so much better than this.
My next stop was Chase Field, home of the Diamondbacks. The D’backs are a deeply weird team, one given to overhauling rosters and philosophies and uniforms at a dizzying pace. They’ve always bugged me on some level — I suspect I’d despise them if I had to see them as often as I do the Marlins. Part of it is the uniforms — the Diamondbacks aren’t quite the sartorial tire fire on display down in Miami, but they make up for it by switching madly between bad ideas: random colors, the stupid snake as D, and the stupider “db” as snake head. I once described their brand identity as “Barfed-Up Pueblo, a dog’s breakfast of vaguely Southwestern motifs run through a blender by a meth-addled dude in a trailer,” and I think that pretty much summed it up.
 Welcome to Chase Field!
So how’s their park? Similarly addled. It’s not a bad place to see a baseball game, by any means. But like its team, it’s … deeply weird.
Some aspects of Chase Field work pretty well. The customer-service people I met were unfailingly nice and good at their jobs. The park presents a friendly face to the city outside it, leading you under a covered concourse to a rotunda with a giant map of Arizona on the floor and the D’backs’ World Series trophy prominently and proudly displayed, along with uniforms once worn by Randy Johnson and Luis Gonzalez. Inside, you’re likely to run into oversized mascots of those two, along with a giant Matt Williams and Mark Grace. Peculiar? To say the least — I can’t think of another team that’s turned living ballplayers of relatively recent vintage into mascots, and it was a bit strange to sit behind Nationals manager Matt Williams as he watched a massive cartoon version of himself participate in a between-innings race. But the fans seemed to like it, and it’s harmless enough.
 The Sonoran dog meets its Value Meal cousin.
Chase Field is also a rarity among today’s ballparks in that the people who run it have thought about fans of more modest means. A lot of the concession stands have value items — you can get a hot dog, 12. oz drink or a popcorn for $1.50, and a beer for $4. For a family that doesn’t have a lot of money but wants to take kids to the park, that can make a big difference — the parents don’t have to panic about spending a week’s pay at the park and the kids don’t feel like they’re missing out. I was curious, so I tried the $1.50 dog alongside the $7 Sonoran dog, a bacon-wrapped gutbomb with various Mexicanish stuff. The $1.50 dog is small and honestly not great, but a kid would munch on it perfectly happily. Kudos for the D’backs, and another idea I wish the Mets would steal.
Not everything about Chase Field works quite so well, alas. The D’backs have another mascot, D. Baxter the Bobcat, who exists because back in 2000 Jay Bell’s kid thought Bank One Ballpark needed a BOBcat. That’s kind of cute, but Baxter is not. He’s annoying, which is a peril of the mascot trade, but he’s also creepy. I think it’s because his head is more or less normal-sized, which means he comes off less as a cartoon than as a vaguely menacing felinoid alien — it’s the mascot version of the Uncanny Valley, I suppose. I didn’t get a picture of the thing because I didn’t want to look at it; the D’backs should trap Baxter and release him in some minor-league affiliate’s park, never to be spoken of again.
 What the actual f— is this?
Then there’s the park itself. I know it had to have a roof — playing baseball in Phoenix is like playing on the surface of Mercury. But while I’ve seen retractable-roof parks that still feel like baseball stadiums (Safeco and Minute Maid, for instance), Chase Field feels like an all-purpose arena, with everything aligned slightly incorrectly for baseball. It’s better when the roof opens, which happened a few minutes before game time, letting us enjoy a pleasant desert evening. But while the roof was closed, it was frankly pretty awful inside — the huge space nonetheless felt claustrophobic, and the place was hot and stuffy, like being stuck in someone’s giant attic.
Ultimately, Chase Field feels less like a stadium than it does like a big mall. It’s a well-run mall with nice folks and more brand identity than it used to have — I’m still not convinced Sedona red is an actual thing, but it’s used well inside. But it’s still a mall with baseball in it. (Which is better than baseball inside a DMV or a Supermax, granted.) For instance, behind center field you find Mountainside Fitness, which I stared at in puzzlement. There appeared to be doors in and out of the place from the concourse and the outside world, and there were people working out inside — not Diamondbacks and Nationals, but men and women riding bikes and doing crunches and stuff. You can read a bunch of marketing hoo-ha about it here, but don’t bother. What in the world is this doing taking up space inside a ballpark? Who thought this was a good idea? The people who make a lot of the decisions about Chase Field, that’s who.
My final stop was Minute Maid Field, home of the Astros — and my favorite ballpark of the three. (Greg wasn’t as fond of it back in 2003, though he admits there may have been other factors at work.) I watched the Astros and Rangers play (a rivalry that’s fairly lacking in Minute Maid product) on a startlingly lovely night with the roof open, and found the place friendly and inviting.
 Yes, this is just outside a ballpark.
For one thing, it’s a street-level park — there are innumerable doors that open directly onto the street, instead of sending you through concourses and ballpark add-ons or past the guard towers and razor wire of the O.co. The neighborhood around Minute Maid remains stubbornly desolate, but there are nice touches — you walk from a little forestlike park right outside center field (with birds happily chirping in profusion) to a portico of Houston’s old Union Station, incorporated as the ballpark’s main lobby. Though many fans seemed not to be aware of that — one helpful verging on slightly desperate Astros employee chased down an out-of-town couple who tried the wrong door and kept going.
Both inside and outside, there’s lots and lots of Astros stuff. Every Houston award of note is celebrated outside, from Gold Gloves to plaques for the retired numbers, which is something I’d love to see the Mets do. Inside, famous Astros get banners, and the epic deeds of Biggio and Bagwell are oft-chronicled, which is as it should be.
As for Minute Maid’s quirks, your review of them will ultimately say more about how you feel about ballpark quirks than it will about the quirks themselves. I mostly liked Minute Maid’s, from the Crawford boxes in left to the Home Run Pump with its altar-like prow above left-center to the famous (or infamous) Tal’s Hill. And the fans get an up-close view of these areas, even without proper seats — I liked that I could hang out at the Home Run Pump and gawk at Tal’s Hill without some maroon-clad Pinkerton telling me I gotta move it. Is it all a bit too much? Maybe. I detested the stupid Chick-fil-A “fowl”poles, the PA announcer was trying way too hard, and the mini-Citgo sign feels like a small-town homage to the real thing — you don’t want any part of your ballpark to feel like a theme-park ride.
 Too much.
 Just right.
But I liked Minute Maid — I really did. It helped that I liked the Astros — with Houston at bat Jose Altuve and George Springer hung out on the top step of the dugout, bopping along to the music and grinning at each other like Little Leaguers, which was adorable. Plus they’re both good — Altuve is like an Energizer bunny, and Springer brought the Astros all the way back from a 4-0 deficit against the Rangers with a bolt into the Crawford boxes and then practically floated around the bases in happiness. The Astros don’t make enough contact, but you can see the talent there, and they play like they’re having fun. In a few years, if things go right, watch out.
And OK, it was a beautiful night. That makes up for a lot — I saw all four parks on nice days, with the kind of weather that made you perfectly happy to imagine a big comeback, extra innings and more baseball. O.co is a disaster, yes, but it’s got green grass, happy fans and a good baseball team inside. Chase Field is a mall, but I enjoyed chatting with the woman next to me, an old New Yorker who made sardonic sport of the park’s overreach but was there till the end cheering on the home team. Minute Maid Park might be a tad overdone, but it’s friendly and gives you moments of beauty. Like the train silhouetted against the sunset of a perfect Texas night. Or the familiar sights of fielders carving out routes across green grass to intercept fly balls. Or the sight of the home team happily dogpiling after a trudge to defeat turned into a victory lap.
That works anywhere, whatever the surroundings.
(More photos over here on my Tumblr.)
by Jason Fry on 18 May 2014 11:27 pm
Zack Wheeler will be 24 years old on May 30. This is easy to forget, but we’d do well to remember it. He’s a work in progress.
Wheeler lost today against the Nationals, victimized by Wilson Ramos, dimwitted baserunning by his teammates, Ian Desmond and his own command. There’s no particular shame in falling prey to Ramos — when he sees a pitcher wearing blue and orange, Ramos is transformed from journeyman catcher to Mike Piazza channeling Rico Carty, Freddie Freeman and Greg Dobbs. The misadventures of Daniel Murphy and Juan Centeno are obviously their own problems. And Desmond smashed a long home run off a Wheeler slider that didn’t slide, which brings up the issue of command.
Wheeler’s pitches haven’t gone where he’s wanted them to in three of his last four starts — a debacle against the Rockies, a mess against the Yankees and now what happened vs. the Nats. What’s wrong? To my admittedly civilian eye, it looks mechanical and not mental.
Wheeler’s not exactly electric in postgame interviews, but it’s a fannish mistake to dismiss a laid-back Southern pitcher who fails to breathe fire after a loss as missing the Will to Win. Are there Mets pitchers who have lacked that ineffable quality? Sure. Mike Pelfrey‘s lack of focus and general weirdness was a huge problem for him, and Jonathon Niese’s conspicuous lack of interest in his craft drives me crazy. But I don’t see evidence of that in Wheeler. Rather, what I see is a failure to repeat his motion and stick to his release point, which leads to imprecise location, which leads to glum glances at balls heading for another ZIP code and kicking at the dirt. (Talk that Wheeler’s been tipping his pitches sounds like another manifestation of the same problem.) Nothing against Gary and Keith, but I really wanted Ron around for today’s broadcast to talk mechanics.
Wheeler has another problem that isn’t his fault: He isn’t Matt Harvey.
Harvey followed an intriguing half-season with a dominant sophomore campaign, and when Wheeler seemed to follow the same script (complete with a delayed debut because of service-time considerations), I think we decided his 2014 would be like Harvey’s 2013, though hopefully without Tommy John surgery. But not every pitcher is Matt Harvey, sprung like some pitching Athena out of the head of Tom Seaver. Most 23-year-olds still have things to learn, and there’s no shame in that.
Plus watching Wheeler get into trouble and fail to extricate himself from it, I found myself thinking how extraordinarily hard pitching is.
First you need superhuman DNA — the ability to throw a baseball at extraordinary speed, ideally with natural movement, and to command one, two or ideally three other pitches well enough to get the best hitters on the planet out consistently. There’s no question Wheeler passes this test– his arsenal is scary good.
Next you need consistent mechanics — the ability to do something physically and mentally difficult again and again and again, even if you’re exhausted and 40,000 people are screaming and a game, season or your own career might depend on how you execute. Wheeler’s still working on this, though every pitcher struggles with it at times.
Finally you need the intangible part — a good memory for batters’ tendencies and tells, the ability to adjust and improvise from inning to inning and at-bat to at-bat, and a ferocious desire to compete and win. (A good catcher helps, of course.) Does Wheeler have that? We should let him master the mechanical part before we make judgments.
Oh, and of course even if you can do all these things, pitching does awful things to your elbow and shoulder. It’s painful and profoundly unnatural — every pitcher knows his elbow is a ticking bomb, and this next pitch might leave him with a horrible feeling that something inside has tightened or popped, which at best means a year of rehab and at worst means everything you’ve worked for is gone.
Zack Wheeler’s 23 and still learning to do something incredibly hard. Rather than sigh that he isn’t Matt Harvey, let’s give him time to become Zack Wheeler.
by Jason Fry on 18 May 2014 12:24 am
FREE [SO-AND-SO]!!!
It’s a common cry when things start to go south for a team, meant to rally the segment of the fanbase that self-identifies as sensible, but it can be used in different ways. Sometimes it’s a sabermetric cudgel for bashing those whose reliance on “old” stats keep them from seeing an underutilized player’s true value. Other times it’s a call for a promising rookie to be unleashed from the minors, where he’s tethered by service-time considerations or the perception that he’s still light on seasoning. And it can be an all-purpose clamor for change — less a vote for Player A than a vote against Player B.
Nick Evans. Lastings Milledge. Heath Bell. Val Pascucci. Fernando Martinez. Matt Harvey. Mike Baxter. Andrew Brown. Josh Satin. That’s just a short list of recent Mets in bondage whom we beseeched the front office to bring forth.
Most of the time, the player we seek to free turns out to have been more desirable in the abstract than in reality, which can lead to the ironic campaign for them to once again be consigned to wherever they came from. But not all the time. We don’t know what we’ll ultimately decide about Juan Lagares, the Mets’ interestingly utilized center fielder. Perhaps it will be this — that would be very, very nice. Or perhaps it will be a collective shake of the head, with time having turned the disappointment into a dull ache — oh yeah, him.
But we can say two things with certainty:
1) The petition for Lagares’s freedom has circulated amid rather strange circumstances; and
2) few players have celebrated their freedom quite like Lagares did today in Washington.
First, the petition.
A converted second baseman, Lagares came out of nowhere last year to show off superlative skills in center, moving up the charts in our estimation from “as good as Kirk Nieuwenhuis” to “maybe Carlos Beltran‘s equal” and finally to “yes, Carlos Beltran’s equal.” The bat remained a question, however, and over the offseason the additions of high-priced free agent Curtis Granderson and roll-of-the-dice project Chris Young left us nervous about how much playing time Lagares would get.
These things sorted themselves out, as they tend to — Young got hurt and Granderson began the race to October in tortoise fashion. Lagares, meanwhile, whacked a home run on Opening Day and kept flying from there. His defense was routinely spectacular, and while cautions about small sample sizes abounded, in the early going he showed signs of having become more selective at the plate. The point is that he wasn’t competing to be the Mets’ center fielder — he was the Mets’ center fielder. At one point Terry Collins even said so.
Few things are more dangerous in Met Land than Terry declaring ownership of a position, though. Lagares came back from a DL stint, kept hitting, then began to slump a bit. It happens, and it wasn’t like Lagares was awful. But his woes were enough for Collins to park him on the bench, choosing instead to give starting assignments to Eric Young Jr. and Bobby Abreu.
You don’t need to be a sabermetrician to know this is insane: EY is a fourth outfielder/pinch-runner and Abreu is a pinch-hitter. Terry burbled that he needed offense (which he didn’t get from those other guys either) and that Lagares needed to clear his head. His pitchers probably muttered that they needed defenders who could catch the ball reliably. If there was any comfort for Lagares, it was that Terry was making strange decisions about other young players, too: Wilmer Flores was called up to play shortstop, then sat on the bench and watched Ruben Tejada do that, which seems like a curious way to learn. Josh Satin became the invisible half of a supposed platoon, failed to hit when given no opportunity to do so, and got shipped off to Las Vegas. His replacement, Eric Campbell, would be advised to rent rather than buy.
But it was the treatment of Lagares that caused Mets fans to rise up in indignation, which is to say that we struggled to lift our heads while in our default position of prone despair and wailed on Twitter, with the first rumblings of FIRE TERRY beginning to take hashtag form. That isn’t going to happen and isn’t worth discussing — Collins’ deal runs through next year, which is basically a job guarantee for a franchise that probably orders weekly searches of the office couches for nickels. What might be hoped instead is that Sandy Alderson gets tired of Terry’s infatuation with players who can only do one thing and either orders him to use those guys differently or goes full Moneyball and takes his favorite toys away. (“I don’t think you’re starting EY — he plays for the Cubs now.”)
But enough about why Juan Lagares needed to be freed. Because the good news is that today he was, and boy did he make the most of it. In the first inning he laced a 1-1 Gio Gonzalez offering the other way to make the score 3-0 Mets. (By the way, Gio behaves like the kind of guy you edge away from when encountered on the subway.) In the third he clubbed a two-run homer to left-center to make the score 5-0. But the best was yet to come: In the sixth, with the Nats having to drawn to within three, Jayson Werth cranked a Bartolo Colon fastball to dead center. Lagares turned and raced to the center-field fence, leapt, and came down with the ball. Werth stuck out his tongue and slowed to a trot near second, looking even more truculent than usual, while Colon applauded into his mitt.
And this doesn’t even count the plays that didn’t register because Lagares did what he nearly always does — read the ball properly, got an excellent first step, ran hard and made a potentially difficult play look routine.
If you’re scoring at home, Lagares’ ledger includes three runs contributed on offense and one subtracted from the other guys on defense. Which, a bit simplistically, meant the difference between a 5-2 Mets win and a 3-2 Mets loss.
It’s fine with me if Collins wants to frame recent events as Lagares clearing his head and returning to the diamond with renewed purpose, or some such folderol. As long as the outcome is the right one, I don’t particularly care. There was no need to make the case for Lagares a week ago, but there’s certainly no reason to do so now. What Lagares did today was a convincing demonstration to anyone sentient that he should never be kept away from center field again.
by Greg Prince on 17 May 2014 12:29 am
The place: Cooperstown, New York.
The time: A sunny Sunday afternoon, date to be determined.
The occasion: Juan Lagares accepting his induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Let’s listen in…
It would be easy to look back on my career, filled as it is with Gold Gloves, MVP awards and world championship rings, and say it was predestined. I always played with faith in my heart, but I know it took not just what was Up There to help me succeed, but it took what was down here.
I think back to the early days when I had the good fortune of being able to take a good long look at what surrounded me. It was my second year in the big leagues. My first year had gone pretty well. I came up without much fanfare and showed I could field and throw. The next year I was hitting pretty well, though maybe I had fallen into a little slump around the middle of May.
I’d always thought the best way to get going as a hitter was to work hard, stay in there and, most importantly, keep swinging. You can’t break out of a slump if you don’t get a chance.
Yet on our team, there was a different philosophy mandated by those in charge. The people who ran the team didn’t much want you to swing. They instituted a system that I’m sure was well-meaning but it fouled up just about everybody on the team. Before you knew it, everybody, even our beloved captain, was in a slump.
But it was me who found myself on the bench, night after night. We’d score no runs, but they wouldn’t play me. I grew frustrated but kept quiet. I was only in my second year, so I couldn’t complain. Still, I did wonder what was going on.
It all came to a head one Friday night in Washington. We were playing the Nationals, who always seemed to beat us. This was right after a couple of shutout losses. Surely I’ll be in the lineup tonight, I figured. I looked for my name on the card and no go. No Juan Lagares listed anywhere.
I thought I was through as a ballplayer. I mean if I couldn’t start for a team where almost nobody was hitting, maybe I wasn’t very good.
But a Higher Power had other plans for me. I sat, yes, but also I stopped feeling sorry for myself. Instead I looked around. I looked at who was playing instead of me. I looked at some players even you dedicated fans probably don’t remember. They were good guys, but as players they may not have been what we needed. Players who were one-dimensional. Players who played because they were paid lots of money. Really old players who hadn’t been in the big leagues for a couple of years until that year.
Did I see them do great things that I learned from? No, not really. They didn’t hit any more that night in Washington than they did the several nights before. But as I watched them, I thought, hey, they’re in the big leagues and I’m in the big leagues. They’re not much good but they get to start. If they get to start and have not helped turn us around, I’m bound to get a chance sooner or later. I told myself to have the confidence to show what I could do so that even the most obstinate manager or general manager couldn’t reject me.
Eventually I got my chance. And here I am today, humbled to be joining Tom Seaver and Mike Piazza in representing the New York Mets in the Hall of Fame. They might not have believed in me that night in Washington, but the fans did and I did, too.
Thank you all for your support through those confusing early days. And thank you for giving me that nickname. Maybe you’ve never heard the story of why they started calling me “The Lion King” that very same weekend in Washington. It’s actually pretty funny…
by Greg Prince on 16 May 2014 1:53 pm
Subway Series wins used to exhilarate me to a 52 on a scale from 1 to 10. The wins from this past Monday and Tuesday rated a 9.8 and a solid 7, respectively. Not bad, but not Matt Franco. Subway Series losses, when the Subway Series was new, cast black clouds all about me. From Wednesday’s and Thursday’s I thought I felt a slight drizzle.
It’s not the same as it was when Bobby Valentine was manning the dugout instead of a studio. Bobby V made everything feel like life and death…except for life and death, which he made feel secondary to the Mets. That’s probably for the best, because you can only take so much life and death in the course of a season. But Mary Hopkin wasn’t kidding when she said those were the days, my friend. Like her, I thought they’d never end. They did, though. Whether it’s faded novelty, saturation or turning weekend theater into midweek humdrum, the Subway Series is a four-game set against an Interleague opponent that you sure as hell want to win and sure as hell don’t want to lose, but also only a few degrees more intense than four games against anybody in May would be.
I’m not happy the Mets couldn’t beat the Yankees in two games at Citi Field after beating them twice at Yankee Stadium, but I’m less happy that the Mets didn’t score a run, an unhappiness that would apply in exact proportion to not scoring against St. Louis, Miami or whoever. There is no particular shame in being shut out across eighteen innings by the Yankees. There is great alarm in being shut out across eighteen innings by anybody.
Gazed upon with Collector’s Cups half full, these are the days of Jacob deGrom and Rafael Montero, which produced two days of good sidebar news in a pair of senses. One, of course, is that two reasonably highly touted rookie pitchers were promoted and matched their hype, at least on an introductory basis. DeGrom exceeded it, actually, doing everything he could to win his debut. Not only did he throw seven innings and give up but one run — the product of shaky defense, mostly — but the kid ended the notorious hitless-by-pitchers streak at last. Jacob singled in the third and somewhere, I’d like to believe, Tom Seaver stood on first base snapping his warmup jacket shut as he looked to Eddie Yost to see if the hit-and-run was on. DeGrom also laid down a beautiful bunt, proving the young man was born under the sign of Chub Feeney…or at least the former National League president’s signature on a Spalding baseball.
Of course it’s wonderful that deGrom pitched (and hit) well and Montero pitched well. Of course it will be wonderful when Zack Wheeler settles down a bit and Noah Syndergaard Super 2’s his way up and Matt Harvey recovers and Steven Matz maybe keeps coming. Take those guys, mix in Niese and Gee and whoever else is bubbling under the Hot 100, and you know what you might very well have in the not-too-distant future?
A genuine pitching surplus. And you know what you can do then? Trade for some hitting, because Jacob deGrom and his hurling brethren can’t do it all alone. You can never have enough starting pitching, but you also can never ask your starting pitching to bear the burden of getting outs without somebody on his side getting runs for him. Unless the Mets are playing in a certified bandbox or facing a depleted bullpen, they don’t hit and therefore they don’t score. Every National League president from Harry Pulliam to Leonard Coleman could tell you that.
While the Mets christen some careers while impeding others (reserve outfielder Juan Lagares’s, for instance), the Yankees go about their business of trying to be the Yankees, which at the moment doesn’t seem to be happening. Putting aside their so-so, similar-to-the-Mets record, they just didn’t seem all that frightening this series, did they? I was going to say “all that intimidating” or “all that imposing,” but frightening seems more accurate. Frightening is what the Yankees have been almost without pause through the history of the Subway Series. There was always this lurking terror in their dugout. No lead was safe. Didn’t matter if it was the heyday of Paul O’Neill or the denouement of Vernon Wells. Either they were going to stick it to us or they were going to make us hang on for dear life.
I gotta tell ya — I didn’t feel it this time. It’s gone. There is no Frightening Factor to these Yankees, and I say that without intent to needle or declare a shift in municipal fortunes. The Mets have their own problems. The Yankees aren’t one of them, but they have their own problems, too. I enjoyed the wins on Monday and Tuesday but not so much that they vaulted me into a heretofore undiscovered stratosphere of ecstasy. I was annoyed by the losses on Wednesday and Thursday, but just garden-variety annoyed, not it’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel the diametric opposite of fine annoyed.
I’d hate to think the “maturity” everybody warned me about is finally kicking in. I’m pegging this lack of emotional resonance partly to the Yankees hosting a roster packed with relative strangers (some handsomely compensated, some totally anonymous, few as sensational to date as Masahiro Tanaka or Yangervis Solarte) and partly to the impending retirement of the Yankee who’d defined the Yankees for the past two decades.
“Why are the Mets giving Derek Jeter bathroom tiles?” was my wife’s reaction to the Subway-themed sculpture Jeff Wilpon presented the other team’s shortstop Thursday evening. After I made a few extraordinarily mature references to “No. 2,” vis-à-vis the bathroom theme, I took in the tableau of Jeter accepting the Mets’ gifts (including a nice tax-deductible donation of some of that Farnsworth money to his foundation) and realized that at this moment when his media-driven beatification is mounting to absurd levels, I no longer despise Derek Jeter.
Maturity did get to me. Or perspective. Or whatever. Jeter’s no longer frightening. Except for the ceremonial aspects, he didn’t impact these four games whatsoever. His final swing in his final Subway Series contest, in the eighth inning, produced a fielder’s choice ground ball to Ruben Tejada, who threw it home to nail Kelly Johnson as the batter wound up on first, where he’d be stranded once Josh Edgin flied out Jacoby Ellsbury. In years past, you know that the ball he hit would’ve gotten by Tejada; or Ruben’s throw would have sailed past Juan Centeno; or Jeter would’ve taken off for second and scored in a flash and the Yankees would have added another eight or nine runs off Armando Benitez in short order. That was the Frightening Factor that always loomed the moment Derek Jeter stepped to the plate, raised a hand in the air to signal to the umpire that he was prepared to be pitched to, and wrought irreparable harm to our collective psyche.
But not last night and not this week. There were hits and walks through Jeter’s final Subway Series, yet only remnants of mystique and aura. He’s a rangeless almost 40-year-old middle infielder whose OPS hovers below .650. What’s the point of despising that?
To the world at large he was treated as the Face of Baseball before they started having silly contests to determine such things. To most of us on this side of the New York divide he was the face of baseball oppression. The more Jeter and the Yankees won, the further the Mets were stomped — inadvertently or otherwise — into the depths of obscurity. That is what I despised. He had dozens of accomplices, but Jeter was the poster boy for all of it.
I resented Derek Jeter in 1996 for overwhelming defensive savant Rey Ordoñez in the battle of rookie shortstops that was concluded before it could commence. I resented Derek Jeter c. 2000 for being placed on the same pedestal as Mike Piazza when Piazza was carrying the Mets on his back and Jeter had all kinds of high-priced help. I resented Derek Jeter by 2004 when the Mets brass was preemptively positioning young David Wright as “our Jeter,” which might have been meant to flatter but (like everything the Mets brass says) landed on a sour note. Wasn’t it enough that Jeter had conquered the universe without infiltrating my Mets consciousness?
No doubt Jeter never gave the Mets a second thought when he wasn’t playing and beating them. Perhaps if Interleague hadn’t been invented, I’d have accepted Jeter’s status as an all-time great in progress with more grace and less bile. If you come across Mets Yearbook: 1968 on SNY, you’ll see Mickey Mantle at that year’s Mayor’s Trophy Game being presented a retirement gift of his own (a painting, and not of the 7 train). Mantle never played the Mets for real. He was an icon before the Mets existed. If I were at Shea that night in 1968, I imagine I would’ve stood and applauded Mickey Mantle. I was at Shea Stadium and Citi Field several nights and days between 1998 and 2009 and never did anything of the sort for Derek Jeter.
Last night, upon his final regular-season appearance against the Mets, I probably wouldn’t have, either. But I wouldn’t have booed him the way I did most every time he appeared in my midst when he and his frightening teammates always seemed to be getting in our way, blotting out our sun and snatching away our city. My imagined respectful silence toward Derek Jeter would have been the most heartfelt going-away present I could bestow on him.
I would have given it to him gladly.
|
|