The blog for Mets fans
who like to read

ABOUT US

Greg Prince and Jason Fry
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.

Give That Team a Nat Sherman Cigar

Fine Sunday night for Cousin Harvey’s favorite football team. Satisfying retribution exacted against San Francisco for kidnaping New York’s first National League baseball team. Intriguing thought crossing my mind as I dare to dream that the forthcoming Giants-Patriots Super Bowl works out as well as the last one:

If the Giants win a fourth Super Bowl, how on earth does a Giants fan complain about anything? Anything Giants-related, at any rate. The rest of your life remains up for grabs, but if your team unfurls a fourth championship banner in generally living memory — particularly if they’re spread out one per decade for the last four decades (’80s, ’90s, ’00s, ’10s) as these would be — how could you say “boo” to anything about your team?

Ever? Or if not ever, then for a very long time?

I suppose it doesn’t work that way, but how would I know for sure? My primary rooting interest is in a Mets franchise that won championships twice, seventeen years apart, and hasn’t won one in the 25 going on 26 years since. Having lived through The Years After (1970 and 1987), I know the complaining reignites quickly enough after the glitter fades. Why do you think that with so much other crap that’s come along across two millennia that we still bitch/moan about Terry Pendleton? Letdown is the seamy underside of triumph.

Though all sporting enterprises are also-rans in my angst-ridden affection when compared to my Mets attachment, I’ve managed to revel in tastes of ultimate success elsewhere — and stew over the acrid aftertaste of their inevitable letdown. It happened with the Giants in 1987 and 1991 and 2008. It happened with the early ’70s NBA champion Knicks I loved as a child; the mid-’70s ABA Nets I loved as a slightly older child, too (in their case the letdown was precipitated by the opening of the trapdoor that purported to welcome them into the NBA). The Islanders dynasty of 1980-1983 fell apart nearly thirty years ago and has yet to remotely reassemble.

But there’s something different going on here if the Giants win again. One championship now and then (more then than now where the Mets are concerned) represents a healthy cyclicality. A spate of them in proximity to one another is great fortune. But to have a couple here and then a couple there? Two relatively golden ages that don’t overlap but almost abut (when you consider 1991 through 2006 produced six additional playoff berths and another Super Bowl appearance)? If the Giants achieve that…well, you literally can’t complain.

If you’re a Giants fan of a vintage old enough to recall Super Bowl XXI, then you’ve been blessed three times already, even if in between Lombardi presentations there were some frustrating downward spirals. If you’re XXX years of age or younger, you haven’t had it so bad, because you have Super Bowl XLII in the very recent past. You’re not the football equivalent of the younger Mets fans I come across who don’t exactly cherish 1969 and 1986 because unlike them, you’ve experienced the highest of highs directly as opposed to historically. Now, if XLVI is colored the most desirable shade of blue, then everybody with an overarching Giant allegiance should be very happy.

I mean so happy that you have nothing to complain about.

You can’t complain about a potential letdown because shut up, you just won two Super Bowls in five seasons.

You can’t complain about getting knocked out of the playoffs because shut up, you just won two Super Bowls in five seasons…and you did it before.

You can’t complain about not making the playoffs because shut up, you have four Super Bowls that span just over a quarter-century, do you have any frigging idea how lucky you are?

It may not be a dynasty in the Steelers of the ’70s or Niners of the ’80s sense, but it may be better. It means your “suffering” (in the Giants’ case, the interminable wait for pre-XXI salvation and then the XVII years between XXV and XLII) has been ameliorated twice.  You win again and the letdown period after XLII has been wiped out as well. There’s no longer any backlash to invoking the good old days the way there can be for the Mets since for some (even those who lived through them), the good days can serve as a bitter reminder that they aren’t being matched by particularly good new days. If you win in two weeks, you root for a team that won its league title in 1986, 1990, 2007 and, as the NFL calendar continues to call it, 2011.

The Giants do all that for you, you really can’t complain.

And if you’re a sports fan, what fun is that?

Nifty for Fifty

Several immediately upcoming events to know about with a Mets 50th anniversary flavor. Get out a shovel and dig a path to any and all of them.

• Sunday between 9 AM and 5 PM, MAB Celebrity Services is hosting 50 Years of Amazin’ Baseball at Citi Field’s Caesar’s Club. There’ll be Q&A, there’ll be autograph opportunities (or opportunitie$) and there’ll be a slew of Mets from Choo Choo Coleman to…what, Choo Choo Coleman’s not enough for ya? You almost NEVER see Choo Choo Coleman (let alone hear from him) at stuff like this, so here’s your chance to pay Original Met homage, bub. Guys named Seaver, Mays, Gooden, Strawberry and Hernandez will be among the myriad “other” attendees. Admission is $12 for adults, kids under 14 get in free. All the info is here.

• On Tuesday night at the Marriott Marquis in Times Square, Choo Choo and his 50th-anniversary friends (the aforementioned and then some) will be the featured attraction at the Baseball Assistance Team fundraising dinner. B.A.T. works to help baseball folks who could use it, and the marquee at the Marquis shows their brethren really come out for his annual event. More info on the massive Met presence here, with ticket information here.

• On Saturday, January 28, the Casey Stengel Chapter of SABR will have a 50th anniversary Mets flavor to it as well, with a special panel starring Buddy Harrelson and co-starring Huffington Post’s Billy Altman, Mets statistical analyst Ben Baumer and minor league video coordinator T.J. Barra and SABR NYC’s own Harvey Poris. George Vecsey, author of two great Mets-intensive books, will also be speaking. You can join the local chapter of the Society for American  Baseball Research for its annual meeting at the New York Public Library (5th Avenue and 40th Street, 6th floor) at 10 AM; admission is $25. Visit the Stengel site here.

While not tied into the 50th anniversary, the Thurman Munson Dinner (Tuesday, January 31, at the Grand Hyatt around the corner from Grand Central) will be honoring a couple of 2012 Mets, Daniel Murphy and R.A. Dickey, along with 1973 Mets manager Yogi Berra. Other sports stars will be on hand as well. The dinner benefits AHRC New York City; you can read about the organization’s work here. For ticket information, please call 212/249-6188.

Though each is a worthwhile event for any Mets fan in winter, you should be advised if you find yourself snowed in at any point this weekend — or even if the sun comes out — you can get suitably lost in Best Mets, the latest handcrafted history produced by the prolific Matt Silverman. You know you can trust Matt as a leading source of Met retrospectives not just from the definitive coffee table volume, New York Mets: 50 Amazin’ Seasons — The Complete Illustrated History (which you’re cheating yourself out of if you don’t have it) but because the subtitle of his new book refers to the Mets as “AGONIZINGLY AMAZIN’” Only someone who really gets the Mets could have come up with that line.

Lots of lists in this paperback, lots of good humor, not a little angst, much thought and a hardcore Mets sensibility. Who could ask for anything more? Get your Best Mets here, your 50 Amazin’ Seasons here and all the Met Silverman there is to enjoy here.

Finally and obviously, we send the best wishes we have to offer to Florida for Gary Carter and his family. No. 8 is No. 1 in our hearts.

Narrow Left Wing Conspiracy

Mike Pelfrey’s been re-signed, so that’s a load off our minds. If we didn’t have the tall wonder’s shortcomings on which to dwell, what starter’s lack of progress would obsess us ahead of Spring Training?

Jon Niese’s probably, which seems a little quick, considering he’s only 25 and has yet to make more than 30 starts in a single season. Non-pitching injuries seem to have a nasty habit of finding and disabling him, the latest of them a right-side muscle strain that knocked him out in August last year. Before departing for the year, he was more competent than dominant most outings, maybe a little shy of real consistency. His ERA (and ERA+) was off a bit from 2010 though his WHIP was a little better than it had been. Overall, his pre-injury 2011 indicated a Mets lefty starter who has the potential to improve.

But history indicates he’s doomed. It’s not his history, mind you, but the history of homegrown, lefthanded Mets starters.

By having been around for fragments of 2008 and 2009 and most of 2010 and 2011, Jon Niese moved up to No. 3 on the all-time Games Started list where southpaws of purebred Met pedigree are concerned.

Meaning? Meaning the Mets have been a little lacking in signing and developing lefthanded starters just about forever.

Put another way, there was Jerry Koosman, with 346 starts between 1967 and 1978; there was Jon Matlack, with 199 starts between 1971 and 1977; and now there’s Jon Niese with 64 starts since 2008.

Kind of quiet there for approximately three decades, wasn’t it?

This isn’t a trend. It’s a chronic condition of some sort, though I have no idea how it came about. It spans ownerships, front offices, papacies…how is this even possible? How could this be it? Is there a deep-seated organizational allergy to lefties? Does looking for another Tom Seaver mean indulging the Pelfreys longer than waiting out the Nieses? Is the dictionary definition of “sinister” taken overly literally in Flushing?

I didn’t have to guess Koosman was No. 1 on this list and I was pretty certain Matlack was No. 2. Yet as I got to thinking about Niese and who might have directly preceded him as a mainstay homegrown lefty starter around here, I realized there had been basically nobody since the aforementioned Koosman and Matlack were traded well over thirty years ago.

There have been other lefty starters, of course, but nobody the Mets drafted, groomed and brought to the majors on their own. The closest pitcher matching that description was Sid Fernandez, in that the Mets acquired him after he’d had a cup of coffee with the Dodgers and kept him at Tidewater for half a season before recalling him in 1984. But that’s not really the same thing. Los Angeles did the spadework on Fernandez — and even if you want to say, “Yeah, but he established himself with the Mets,” we’re still talking about a guy who came up 28 years ago and hasn’t pitched for the Mets since 1993.

Niese isn’t just astoundingly high up there among homegrown lefty starters, he’s pretty lofty among all Mets lefty starters in terms of most games started, according to Baseball Reference:

1) Koosman, 346; 2) Fernandez, 250; 3) Al Leiter, 213; 4) Matlack, 199; 5) T#m Gl@v!ne, 164; 6) Al Jackson, 138; 7) Bobby Ojeda, 109; 8) Oliver Perez, 91; 9) Johan Santana, 88; 10) Pete Falcone, 86; 11) Frank Viola, 82; 12) Jon Niese, 64 (one ahead of non-mainstay Glendon Rusch).

The rules state you can import your pitchers, so there’s nothing illegitimate about employing the Leiters, the Ojedas, even the Ollies if you have to. But should you have to to the exclusion of your own guys? Shouldn’t you have your own guys? Shouldn’t you be able to raise a lefty from scratch to take a hundred or more starts in your rotation every now and then after a half-century? By modern standards, that’s three seasons and change if you stay healthy. If Niese can avoid strains, tears and worse, you’d think he should pass that veritable milestone some time in 2013.

You’d think. But it’s obviously not that easy if you’re a starting pitcher who used your left hand to sign your first professional contract with the Mets. If that’s your story, let’s just say you’re going to be pretty disappointed if you were hoping to be a part of a large lefthanded complement.

Before Niese, the most oft-used post-Matlack homegrown lefty starter the Mets had was 6’ 5” Pete Schourek, who took the ball 47 times to varying degrees of success between 1991 and 1993. He was here and gone before reaching Niese’s current age, with Dallas Green giving up on him the first chance he got (as he tended to do with young players). Schourek landed in Cincinnati and enjoyed a sharp upturn in fortunes, finishing second in the 1995 Cy Young voting, thus giving credence to the old saying about not giving up on lefties too soon. Pete was never very good after that, but kept pitching in the majors for the Reds, the Astros, the Red Sox, the Pirates and the Red Sox again until 2001, giving credence to yet another old saying, that if you’re a lefthanded pitcher, somebody will take a chance on you.

Who rounds out the Homegrown Lefty Top Five behind Koosman, Matlack, Niese and Schourek? I could have given myself as many guesses as he had Met starts — 36 — and I’m fairly sure I wouldn’t have come up with Eric Hillman, a contemporary of Pete Schourek’s, both for era (1992-1994) and height (6’ 10”). Hillman was as tall and as lefthanded as Randy Johnson…and that’s where the comparison ended. Nevertheless, Eric parlayed his 4-14 Met tenure into three years in Japan, including one season playing for Bobby Valentine on the same Chiba Lotte Marines squad that included future Mets Julio Franco and Satoru Komiyama.

I wouldn’t have come up with Hillman, but he’s half the answer, tied for fifth in this category. I wouldn’t have come up with the other half, either: Tug McGraw, not much remembered as a starter, despite a few intensely memorable outings among the 36 Met appearances he made in a non-relief role between 1965 and 1974. From Tug doing what he wasn’t famous for, you have to drop down to the 20 starts made by Bill Pulsipher in three star-crossed stints (1995, 1998, 2000). From there, it’s 1994-1995 Met fizzler Jason Jacome, with 13 — starts, not minutes…unless you want to count Greg A. Harris, who was a righthander in 14 Met starts in 1981, yet was continually mentioned as ambidextrous, and much later in his career threw lefty and righty in one game just to say he did. Hisanori Takahashi started a dozen games with his left arm in 2010, and he hadn’t pitched for a major league team before the Mets, but he spent ten prior seasons with the Yomiuri Giants of Japan’s Central League, so he doesn’t count as a homegrown Met lefty starter any more than Harris or Fernandez. And we can’t in all good faith count Mr. Tie, Rob Gardner, who made 21 starts for the Mets in 1965 and 1966. He came to the majors as a Met, but was originally signed by the Twins, so there’s another non-decision we reluctantly shift to Rob’s record.

So that’s eight lefthanded pitchers — Koosman, Matlack, Niese, Schourek, Hillman, McGraw, Pulsipher, Jacome — who meet the seemingly not onerous criteria of signing with the Mets originally and making as many as ten starts with the team following their initial big league promotion. By any measure, only the first two of those names qualify as what you’d call long-term Met rotation stalwarts. Niese is an unfinished product and a not altogether known commodity, given that he’s had only 64 starts…yet in a sense, he’s the closest thing we’ve had to a Koosman or a Matlack since Koosman and Matlack.

Talk about a lefthanded compliment.

Harvey's Version

My dad’s one of those people who scans the Paid Death Notices in the Times to see if anybody he knows has recently become somebody he knew. He was surprised to discover his cousin Harvey was among the listings two Sundays ago. He died at 81 on January 4…or to put it in terms Harvey would have appreciated, between the Giants beating the Cowboys to win the NFC East and the Giants beating the Falcons in the first round of the playoffs.

Here’s how Harvey’s listing memorialized him:

Loving husband, brother, father and grandfather. Internist, bibliophile, US Army veteran, lover of music and politics, unshakeable Yankees and Giants fan. He will be sadly missed.

I didn’t really know Harvey, save for two meetings from more than twenty years ago. As it happens, each of his unshakeables, if you will, made themselves readily apparent.

The first time was during the 1990 World Series when our Long Island branch of the family was invited up to Harvey headquarters in Westchester to break bread. Dad and Harvey had been close at some point, I was told. Then they weren’t. Then my mother died and folks were getting together again. Anyway, it was a lovely evening and a lovely dinner and all, and it led to the living room TV being turned on to catch the remaining innings of Game Three of what was turning into a shocking sweep of the A’s by the Reds. Everybody who drifted to the television declared temporary fealty to the Cincinnati cause. Harvey and his crew were all excited that good ol’ Lou Piniella was positioned to win a championship — Lou, Hal Morris, Jose Rijo, the GM Bob Quinn and anybody else who had some connection to the Yankees. Good ol’ Lou! He really deserves this!

Yeah — I added enthusiastically, elated that I was in a room of baseball fans — and Randy Myers! I’m a Mets fan, so I’m really happy for Randy Myers!

Except for Jack Buck and Tim McCarver doing the game on CBS, there was silence, save for the sound of Harvey & Co. staring at me like I had three heads.

Randy Myers…you know, the Mets closer who’s now one of the Nasty Boys. Yeah, I really liked Randy Myers. Sorry the Mets traded him.

Even Buck and McCarver were quiet now.

Yup…big Mets fan here. That’s me. Did I mention that?

Talk about a stranger in a strange land.

Just over a year later, the Harvey bunch was at my wedding, which took place on a Sunday afternoon in November, which is significant in that, well, it was a Sunday afternoon in November, and if you’re so inclined, that means one thing more than it means anything else. Knowing Harvey was a Giants season ticket holder and knowing the Giants were on the road to play the Cardinals meant I wasn’t at all surprised when Harvey sought me out shortly before four to let me know his party was gonna be getting going.

“Kickoff in Phoenix in ten minutes, huh?” I asked good-naturedly.

This time I got a look less like I was an alien and more like I’d found out his dirty little secret. Thing is I totally, totally, totally respected Harvey’s unstated reason for bolting my wedding. If the Giants hadn’t been having such a letdown of a season in 1991, I might have divined the location of the nearest television, my first hours of matrimony notwithstanding. I understand unshakeable fandom. I understand not wanting to miss a pitch, or in Harvey’s case, a down. The wedding of some vaguely familiar relative versus play-by-play on the car radio? I know which one I would have chosen if I’d been in his position that Sunday — and that’s with my wedding having been universally agreed upon by all who attended it as pretty darn delightful.

Thus Harvey fit the basics of one ilk of the classic New York sports stereotype: Westchester-Yankees-Giants. As evidenced during the 1990 World Series, we had little common ground on which to strike up a baseball conversation. But football would have been a different matter had we ever crossed paths again.

I’ve never quite hit the mark when it comes to locale-baseball-football around here. As a Long Island-bred Mets fan, I suppose I should have gravitated to the Jets as if by instinct, but the Giants — who didn’t train at Hofstra, didn’t (except for one orphaned season) play at Shea and didn’t rhyme with “Mets” — got to me first. They weren’t any good when they made themselves known to me in 1969, but they became my team in their sport, and I’m generally unshakeable about such affiliations. The Jets got to me eventually, and making room for them in my psyche proved an almost involuntary reflex, yet on my Permanent Record (namely the Sports Illustrated subscriber survey on which I had to pick an NFL team so I could receive bonus pages I rarely read and a 1995 highlight tape I never watched), I’m listed as leaning Giant.

When the Giants and Jets played in Week 16, I essentially rooted for plays to work. I couldn’t bring myself to pull for one team to succeed at the other’s expense. When it was over, I was thrilled that the Giants were going to have a golden opportunity to win their division (at the expense of the Cowboys, no less), yet I was genuinely sorry it pretty much screwed up whatever playoff chances the Jets had. My position on New York football teams, as formulated in the 1970s when neither was the slightest bit good, is the more each succeeds, the better it is for all of us. I figured my odds were improved with two local teams, even if the Steelers of that era would win more games in a year than the Jets and Giants combined.

I know many Mets-Giants fans, though probably more Mets-Jets fans. I also know Yankees-Jets fans, despite the prevalence of the Cousin Harvey stereotype. Doesn’t seem to matter what part of the Metropolitan Area you’re talking about these days when it comes to allegiance alignment. TV, radio and the Internet reach all five boroughs and all surrounding suburbs with pretty much the same speed. Also, it’s a free country, so Mets fans can do what they want with their non-baseball innings.

Me, I’m rooting for the Giants, which I’m not sure I expected to have the chance to be doing as January moved along. I’m thrilled they beat Green Bay. I’m happy they’re going to San Francisco with a trip to Indianapolis at stake. And I’ll be ecstatic when Pitchers & Catchers report and I only vaguely recall getting caught up in something that wasn’t the Mets.

For Donation: Reyes Shirt, Briefly Worn

Jose in the bag

That’s Joshua’s Jose Reyes shirt, off to Goodwill, and if you’ll excuse me I need a minute. There seems to be something in my eye.

Can't Fight City Hall

He could have been elected mayor at this moment.

If you didn’t make it to the ticker-tape parade the City of New York threw for its World Champion New York Mets in 1969, then by all means click right here for a delicious two-minute, forty-one second bite of it, courtesy of NYC Media. It’s part of a series called City Classics that combs the municipal archives for what would have to be characterized as Neat Stuff. For this episode (which I found on Channel 22 of my cable system), the fun starts at 1:10 and goes through 3:51. After that it gets kind of depressing.

They really knew how to name streets in those days.

Highlights include generous scanning of the Met-crazed crowd; a few words from John Lindsay, who had been hitching his re-election wagon to the Mets for several months; and the only man from whom the City Hall crowd really wanted to hear, Gil Hodges, who would have been voted into office immediately for anything he liked had his name been on a ballot. Gil humbly introduces the players and coaches who followed his lead into glory.

No. 1, eternally.

From there, we see the ticker-tape fall and the parade roll up the Canyon of Heroes. Everybody was very happy that autumn afternoon, including those of us who glimpsed it on TV in wonder as tykes. It still works as found footage. See how many Mets legends (and one villain) you can spot!

And if you’re not the type to forget ’69, then by all means visit Never Forget ’69, a fine blog whose updated URL belongs on your list of Mets bookmarks.

Tell Me Something Good

Johan Santana is throwing from flat ground in St. Lucie and hopes to be ready for Opening Day. Adam Rubin has the story here, MetsBlog offers SNY video here.

Even with too many other signs pointing downward, and even as there are “no assurances” that the ace of the staff will be ready to face the Braves by April 5 (or that Johan will ever really be Johan again), geez it feels good to know on a Thursday night in January that Johan Santana was throwing from flat ground in St. Lucie earlier today.

Also good: Friend of FAFIF Sharon Chapman on the run once more for the Tug McGraw Foundation. Details on contributing to a worthy cause here.

Fernandomania Curtailed

It’s scary that as fans, any team’s fans, we get hooked on new players and young players and changes of direction and we’re sure we’re going to benefit — if it’s March — this year or — if it’s September — next year. Yet we just don’t know. It’s the ultimate blind trust.

Theoretically, the future has never been more foreseeably agreeable for the Mets. If the three young pitchers who now seem to have assured themselves of rotation slots each succeed, our 2007 fortunes would figure to do no worse than shadow our 2006 accomplishments. That trio could easily go quartet by April 2008. The outfield would be rehabilitated next, with two of three fast-rising kids patrolling corners currently occupied by short-term elders. Not as publicized but just as tantalizing this spring is an eventual first base candidate who got some good swings in before being sent down. Thus, in a blink, we could be swimming in a plethora of prime: Maine, Pelfrey, Perez, Humber, Gomez, Martinez, Milledge, Carp joining Reyes, Wright and Beltran. Throw in two or three strategically signed free agents by our nonpenurious ownership and we’re looking at a nucleus that rivals our not-so-wild dreams from the crest of 1988. If you’re inclined to take it a step further, there’s the TV network and the new ballpark and the vast resources contemporary sports success seems to yield in staggering amounts every time you turn around. The foundation for this organization shapes up as solid as the accumulated brickage that will define Citi Field.

And you know what it all guarantees for our Mets and our Mets-related happiness? Absolutely nothing. It never did and it never will. Per the in-sickness-and-in-health vows each of us took when we betrothed ourselves to our team, the reality that everything’s a year-in, year-out crapshoot shouldn’t matter one little bit.

But it’s something to keep in mind.
—“Nothing to Foresee Here,” Faith and Fear in Flushing, March 18, 2007

I’ve never been simultaneously more right and more wrong as I was in the above four paragraphs I wrote nearly five years ago. The future, as judged by me, was so bright we’d have to wear shades…yet it could just as easily turn very dark very fast, I advised. We more or less know what happened from there.

I believed both scenarios as I attempted to cobble them together into a coherent worldview. The Mets looked messy in the middle of March 2007, which I tried to forget in the face of the prevailing reality of our burgeoning dynasty. It was just Spring Training, for gosh sake. The fact that the Mets were losing meaningless exhibition games was supposed to be meaningless. It probably was. On the other hand, here was all this unproven youthful talent poised to attach itself to the established youthful talent that had taken the National League by storm in 2006. Set against a tableau of progressive Met ownership and management, it was all going to combine into delightful hurricane-force ascendancy for years to come.

So wrong. Yet so right in that deep down I didn’t really trust what I was trying to convince myself (and anybody who was reading) of that weekend. Oh, I thought the franchise was in good hands but I had a hard time being sure that the stream of promise on display at St. Lucie was really going to amount to anything when the large contracts of the imported veterans ran their course. And if you couldn’t believe the Mets knew what they were doing in the wake of 2006, when could you believe in them and what could you believe in?

Basically, my problem — or perhaps my reluctant strength — as a baseball fan is I don’t really and truly believe in prospects, or more precisely, I only believe in them as far as I can throw their accomplishments onto paper. And if they have enough accomplishments to print out, they’re really not prospects anymore anyway.

Wright, 24, and Reyes, 23, had proven themselves by March 2007. Beltran, 29, had proven himself in other uniforms long before. Those other guys I listed? They were all supposed to be what was going to make the Mets formidable and then some well beyond that spring. In one sense or another, they were all coming. That’s what makes a good team great. Sure, acquiring the likes of Delgado, Lo Duca and Wagner solidified the Mets so they were able to make their successful run through the regular season in 2006, but it was going to be a self-regenerating organization that would keep the music playing. The Mets were going to stay good and get better because of John Maine, Mike Pelfrey, Oliver Perez, Philip Humber, Carlos Gomez, Fernando Martinez, Lastings Milledge and Mike Carp, to name eight. None of them was older than 25 in the spring of 2007. None except Perez had spent as much as a full season in the big leagues through 2006. All of them gave us reason to believe they’d be Met stalwarts before long.

Five years later, only one of them, Pelfrey, remains, and save for a couple of season-fragments, he’s been more stall and wart than stalwart.

They’re all different cases and each had his own story, maybe even his own concentrated period of Met competence. Hard to remember now, for example, that Maine and Perez were actually solid major league starters for all of 2007. Milledge had a few big hits that season as he competed with Gomez and Shawn Green for playing time. As grudgingly noted, Pelf was big for a while in 2008 and again in 2010. Far from Flushing, speedy Gomez keeps alighting with playoff teams, while Humber (White Sox) and Carp (Mariners) have found themselves, a little, in the American League.

But collectively, they never did a damn thing to advance the cause we thought we were onto on the cusp of 2007, and to date, nobody has done less in the major leagues than the young fellow we were led to believe might do more than any of them, Fernando Martinez.

Which will happen. Prospects don’t always pan out. Hell, they mostly don’t pan out, and not just Met prospects. Simple math says they can’t. There are 750 jobs available on MLB rosters from Opening Day until September 1. Every one of them is filled by somebody who at some point was a prospect. Relatively few of them are manned by players who can be or have been considered stars. The minors, on the other hand, are lousy with guys who aren’t going to shine at the top level of their profession. Odds are set tabbing this guy or that as a pick to click. One of those guys was Fernando Martinez. He was going to be a star. So we kept an eye on him.

We never saw much when exposed to him. Amid myriad injuries, Martinez came up for a while in 2009 and reappeared briefly in 2010 and 2011. With little exception, he didn’t hit, he didn’t get on base, he displayed almost no power, he showed little outfield instinct and very early on he didn’t run out a popup that was dropped and thus was out when he should have been safe. F-Mart was 20 at the time, and it was my desire to see his F-pas as a misjudgment born of inexperience…but those things are usually manifested by kids playing too hard, not hard enough, so it was probably mostly a very bad warning sign as regarded Fernando Martinez’s reportedly high ceiling.

The Mets’ leading outfield prospect from 2007 never became a Mets star and, as of now, he is no longer a Mets prospect or a shimmering possibility on anybody’s horizon. The Mets have waived him and the Astros have picked him up as a low-risk proposition. He’s 23, which is real-life young and not baseball-old by any means. But he’s also played six professional seasons, none of them full or fully healthy. By the hard-bitten standards of the sport, he’s been a bust.

I’m sure he feels worse about it than we do.

I suppose I’m disappointed Fernando Martinez isn’t a staple of the Mets lineup the way he was projected to be when he was signed out of the Dominican at the age of 16. I’m sorry in a general sense that things haven’t worked out for some kid I’ve never met, and I’m sorry in a Met sense that my team eternally gropes for some semblance of outfield stability. Yet “disappointed” may not quite describe my reaction to a big-deal prospect fizzling. Reyes and Wright notwithstanding, I just don’t expect Mets prospects, save for the ones whose potential looms as extremely loud and incredibly close, to pay off. I’m rarely at the Strawberry 1983 or Davis 2010 level of anticipation, probably because almost everybody in between was, in the vernacular, a bust, and I not so deep down know prospect letdowns are the norm, not the exception. Milledge 2006 might have been the last time I was truly chuffed at a prospect’s callup. Lastings’s failure to last as a Met — see him this summer as a Yakult Swallow — probably frayed my final anticipatory instinct where hotshot Met minor leaguers were concerned.

Guys will still come up and succeed and it will be satisfying when it happens. I knew next to nothing about Ruben Tejada when he arrived and I fell in love almost instantly. I maintained no ceiling for Bobby Parnell, so it’s been no skin off my nose from a proprietary sense that he hasn’t come close to reaching it. Fernando Martinez was going to be a big deal, but Tatis the retread was a far more impactful Fernando for the Mets and Teddy the utilityman was a more useful Martinez to the Mets. It would have been swell had it worked out differently. Overall, however, I’m resigned to “they’ll get here if they get here and maybe something good will happen but probably not” as opposed to “check out these numbers from the Arizona Fall League!” Doesn’t mean I don’t want to see Mets prospects get every chance to succeed. It just means I’ll be surprised the next time one succeeds in a big way.

I understand the impulse to game the farm system; to adopt a prospect early on and decide he will be The One; to imagine having a handle on how things will shake out circa Opening Day 2015; to know in advance the outline of the next chapter before a word of it is written. I just don’t share in that impulse, despite my team so badly needing a future in light of its ongoing lack of a present.

I get the fan obsession with figuring out who’s going to be big next. I just don’t believe there’s much percentage in it, thus I don’t get wrapped up in a Fernando Martinez or whoever’s the next version of him. But I do get it even if I don’t share in it.

Maybe it’s like what Roger Sterling expressed to Don Draper in the “Three Sundays” episode of Mad Men. “Don’t you love the chase?” Roger asked Don after an opportunity to grab a grand advertising account went by the boards. “Sometimes it doesn’t work out; those are the stakes. But when it does work out, it’s like having that first cigarette: your head gets all dizzy, your heart pounds, your knees go weak. Remember that? Old business is just old business.”

So is the Met prospect who never becomes a Met star, actually.

PED McCarthyism & Mike Piazza

Twenty years ago this week, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum reached its peak as an institution of relevance when it ushered into its ranks Tom Seaver with the highest vote percentage ever. Since then, its various machinations have churned in a fashion that have overlooked the contributions of Gil Hodges, ignored the accomplishments of Keith Hernandez, thoroughly dismissed the credentials of John Olerud and issued a ballot that couldn’t spare one lousy line to briefly consider the honorable twelve-year career of Edgardo Alfonzo (while the Phil Nevinses, Tony Womacks and Eric Youngs all had their day). True, I’m offering up a parochial anecdotal worldview, but if I’m going to remain excited over Seaver’s still unmatched 98.84% coronation from January 7, 1992, I’m also going to retain the right to generate dismay by the slights I detect through my generally present blue and orange lenses.

Thus, I’m going to skip over the perfunctory nod of approval for the 2012 induction of Never Met Barry Larkin and brace myself for the disappointment attached to Über Met Mike Piazza being unfairly passed over in 2013.

What? It already happened? That was quick!

It hasn’t happened yet, but unless groupthink-disseminated innuendo has gone out of style, it will. I could sense it coming en masse a bare 24 hours before Larkin received Jack O’Connell’s telephone call. All I had to do was pick up the Sunday papers.

• Tyler Kepner in the Times projected Piazza will be in the group of newly eligible HOF candidates to be “left out because of performance-enhancing drugs […] based on suspicion.” On Monday, in reporting Larkin’s election, Kepner reiterated in anticipation of next January, “No tangible evidence has ever linked Mike Piazza to steroids, but writers have long been suspicious.”

• Bill Madden in the News, while appraising the eventual Hall chances of about-to-retire Jorge Posada, referred to Piazza and Ivan Rodriguez as the gold standard among catchers of Posada’s era, but adding “it remains to be seen how the cloud of steroids — if not actual proof — around both their careers will affect their standing when they come up on the ballot.”

There ya go. They have in their hand a list of players suspected of using PEDs. Missing from the list is proof. Missing from any story while Mike Piazza played baseball — or since he retired — is the “actual proof” of which Madden made mention. A little hearsay here, a speculative allegation (perhaps imparted anonymously) there, maybe a rash of back acne reliably eyewitnessed, at least according to the eyewitnesses. Since the subject of Mike Piazza and how he managed to hit so darn well last came up in earnest, in 2009, there hasn’t been anything slightly revelatory, not even a fresh take on the ol’ “oh, everybody knew it” that was in vogue three springs ago.

Everybody knew it but nobody reported it, which I’m pretty sure is antithetical to the job of reporter.

When Mike Piazza was in his ten-year prime, it was de rigueur to refer to him as the best-hitting catcher ever. His inevitable first-ballot election to Cooperstown was probably referred to as a “no-brainer,” which would have been a shame since using all of one faculties would only enhance one’s appreciation of Piazza. If you had a brain or a set of eyes or a functioning figurative heart, you couldn’t have missed Piazza’s reign as the catcher of his decade, 1993-2002. If you wanted to argue he wasn’t a defensive wizard, didn’t win a World Series ring, was slow even for his position, you were entitled. But that was basically all you had.

He was the best-hitting catcher ever. Still is at last check. And at last check, he never tested positive as a PED user. His name never came up on any official list. He never volunteered he belonged on one. Except for recurring insistences that he had problem skin and “everybody knew it,” there’s been nothing.

But now there’s the so-called cloud. It must be there because national baseball columnists like Kepner and Madden are elevating it into the atmosphere. The cloud is aloft because two writers for large media enterprises say Mike Piazza may very well be controversial. Next thing you know, Piazza is in the company of those for whom the allegations over PEDs seem to contain some of that “actual proof”.

Funny how that works.

The use of PEDs may end all conversation for some voting writers when it comes to evaluating a Hall of Fame candidacy. It certainly seems to have done so in the cases of several heretofore “no-brainers,” numbers-packing superstars you never would have dreamed wouldn’t be admitted all but automatically to the Hall. Yet there are also those who have thought about PEDs and rejected them as a barrier to entry. Ken Davidoff in Newsday, the same day Madden and Kepner backhandedly slapped down Piazza’s chances, declared in the context of Jeff Bagwell:

“Until 2004, there were no collectively bargained rules covering steroids and such. My job as a voter is to recognize the laws that existed, not enforce retroactive, selective jurisprudence.”

Davidoff, incidentally, voted for Bagwell, tabbing the Houston first baseman as “one of the dominant hitters of his time. Did he use performance-enhancing drugs? First of all, there’s no tangible evidence. Second of all, I don’t care.”

There’s been nothing tangible brought against Bagwell in the same way there’s been nothing tangible brought against Piazza. Just speculation derived from Bagwell being kind of big and hitting a lot of homers at the same time as those who have had something tangible brought against them. Last year, on Bagwell’s first ballot, he pulled in a mere 41.7% of the vote. This year, prior the results being announced, he continued to be controversial by association. As SB Nation’s Grant Brisbee sardonically captured the argument against the author of 449 Astro home runs, “Jeff Bagwell played from 1991 to 2005, and he was muscular.”

Bagwell will not be joining Larkin at Hall ceremonies this summer, but maybe his exile on Muscle Beach won’t last forever. His vote-percentage bounced from 41.7% to 56% this year. That’s one of those shares that tends to eventually get authentically enhanced to 75% by the writers in their pack mentality. (MLB Network noted Monday that the only HOF candidate not eventually selected once he surpassed 50% on the BBWAA ballot is, somehow, Gil Hodges.)

Bagwell getting in after a few years doesn’t seem unfair if you factor out the utterly unfair McCarthyite standards applied to his candidacy. Don’t think Bagwell played well enough to be a first-ballot (or any-ballot) Hall of Famer? Don’t vote for him. Got a dead-certain cloud of proof to hold over his head? Reveal it and let the rain of judgment, sanctimonious and otherwise, fall where it may. Anything else is guessing at best, defamation at worst.

I was an admirer of Jeff Bagwell, maybe even a fan as far as sort of liking a Met opponent goes. While I watched him, I considered him pretty surefire for the Hall…but not nearly as much as I did Mike Piazza. No way Piazza wasn’t going in as soon as possible. The only controversy on his horizon regarded the engraved cap on his engraved head: hopefully Met, possibly Dodger. But then came a rebranding of his era from offensive to tainted. Then came actual proof or something a lot like it where some of his peers were concerned, including those who happened to play their last game in 2007, same year as Piazza. Thus, they will all debut on the same ballot that goes out in late 2012. By then, the portrayals of those peers and their non-performance liabilities will be sharply drawn…and if the chances of Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens or Sammy Sosa wither in the spotlight’s glare, then shouldn’t muscular Mike Piazza be subject to the same examination? Even though nobody has anything on him?

Kepner and Madden, whatever their intentions, have already gotten the ball rolling. Mike Piazza is suspect anew, no matter what he did or didn’t use.

So, no, I don’t expect to indulge in a Welcome to Cooperstown, Mike! piece in this space one year from now, and I can only hope the opportunity to lobby for an NY on his hypothetical plaque will come sooner than later. Should I be correct in my pessimistic outlook, I’ll hew to my line that the Hall of Fame doesn’t matter all that much, the same way I do as I continue to revere Hodges and Hernandez and Olerud (and Alfonzo) in the face of their continued and likely permanent absence from what others refer to as immortality.

Besides, Mike earned that categorization with me a long time ago.

Stuck in the Why and Now

Why did the Mets hire CRG Partners? Beats the hell out of me.

Intuition — which is often fallible — strongly suggests it isn’t just to tinker with bookkeeping, or to draw a couple of lines differently on the org chart. The nature of the Mets’ situation and the kind of business companies like CRG do both make you suspect something more is going on.

It also doesn’t help that, to be blunt, the last few years have trained me to automatically discount anything the Mets say about their own business affairs.

But the nature of that something more that might or might not be going on? You got me. And this is where I start to worry about how the world we live in has changed, and might be making us all a bit nuts.

I love all things digital. I made my bones as a journalist and writer in the digital world. My daily work life is almost entirely digital. Heck, Greg Prince and I began as digital friends, and our collaboration wouldn’t exist without a whole bunch of digital magic. Not so long ago, I used to listen to a Mets game a week by parking my car next to the Potomac River and cranking the scratchy radio, and my fondest hopes were for 30 seconds of Mets highlights on SportsCenter and the Washington Post to run two paragraphs from the AP instead of just the box score. Now, I can hear the Mets on my phone anywhere in the world, watch them on my iPad for a fairly modest amount of money, and I can absorb as much Mets news and opinion as I have time for, even on Jan. 9.

This is beyond a dream come true — we’re the fricking baseball Jetsons, even if we barely realize it.

But there is a downside, and I think you can see it at work with whatever’s going on with the Mets.

Between all this information, and all these voices, and the fact that the news cycle never stops, our habits for consuming information have changed. And so too have our expectations, which are curdling into demands. Between comment sections and Facebook status updates and text messages and Twitter, our vocabulary is increasingly dominated by two words:

1) WHY?

and

2) NOW!

This isn’t the end of the world, but it does leave us with a problem we don’t know how to solve yet. Our increasing voracity for information — summed up by those two little syllables — can leave us out of step with how inquiries get made and issues get solved. You see this, increasingly, with both people and organizations when they’re confronting allegations and potential scandals. We want to know why (followed, as always, by more whys), and we want to know now, and if we aren’t satisfied on either score, we will be inundated by voices accusing someone of incompetence, bad faith, or venality.

But what we’re in danger of forgetting is that sometimes it takes time to get to why. And that telling some stories now, before they’re complete, changes what happens.

Which brings us back to the Mets.

Let’s try a scenario: Suppose you were facing legal jeopardy that might be grim but survivable, or might mean your financial ruin. You’d need to be prepared for both eventualities. And that would mean hiring someone whose job was to think of the unthinkable, and figure out how you’d navigate that. It wouldn’t mean that you’d made up your mind to do something, just that you had accepted that you might be forced to. If you were in that situation, there would be a host of reasons — from deepening your own legal peril to not wanting to endure more distractions to distaste for the whole spectacle — for not discussing it publicly.

In 1995 this wouldn’t have been an issue. Today it is.

Here’s another scenario: Suppose you were the czar of a sports league, and you had accepted that one of your premier clubs was in such financial distress that its owners — who’d been your supporters in a lot of knife-in-the-back political fights — needed to step aside. Having reached that unhappy pass, would you move quickly, or deliberately? Quickly means likely legal strife, a blizzard of embarrassing press coverage, wrecked personal relationships and a cloud of suspicion the next time you have to do such a thing. Deliberately might land you in the same fix, but your chances are better.

Such a thing was never easy. But today the ceaseless choruses of why and now make it a lot harder.

(If this is too baroque for you, substitute firing the incompetent, litigious guy down the hall. Yeah, a public stoning is justified. But it’s probably smarter, if a lot less satisfying, to let his contract lapse or start filing the paperwork to eliminate his position.)

I don’t know if either of the above baseball scenarios has any basis in reality. I’m glad we know about CRG, and proud that one of our blog brethren ferreted out the news. And I understand that being discreet and deliberate can be a cover for perpetuating rotten institutions and hiding gross misconduct. But sometimes things take time and take place behind closed doors. That’s something we increasingly have trouble accepting, because we’re being trained to demand the opposite.

Hat tip to this Will Leitch post, which covers somewhat different ground but got me thinking.