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.

Hessmania, Now Featuring Ruben Tejada

Amid an eighteen-run Met explosion, how could there not be a few bangs, pops and whiffs off the bat of the object of my offensive obsession, Mike Hessman?

The best news where Hessmania was concerned Sunday is the admission into Club Hessman — One Met Home Run and One Met Home Run Only — of a 70th member, our second baseman of the present and future, Ruben Tejada.

While the Mets were scoring a month’s worth of runs yesterday afternoon, nobody was having a better year than Tejada, cramming what seemed like an entire season’s offense into this one game. The staggering five runs batted in on two hits and a sacrifice fly speak for themselves, but let us remember, if we can go back that far, that Ruben actually turned this game around in the fifth inning when it was still in doubt. The bases were loaded, the score was tied and the Mets were doing what they always do: nothing.

Lucas Duda struck out swinging. Josh Thole struck out looking (on a pitch Howie Rose grumbled was too close to take). This was Typical Mets, leaving ’em loaded, not taking advantage, preparing to fail…the whole bit. The Mets, as a team, were batting under .200 with the bases loaded for the season. Remember, batting with the bases loaded is supposed to be the most advantageous situation in baseball. The pitcher has to throw strikes. Strike are easier to hit than balls.

Can’t anyone here play this most elemental part of this game?

Young Ruben can. He looped a Ryan Dempster pitch into center field, brought home two runs and changed the trajectory of Sunday from a back-and-forth slugfest to an out-and-out mugging. If there was enough season left, I’d be tempted to put a pin in that hit as the turning point of 2010. As was, it placed us on the straight-and-narrow to a romp of a win, and when you don’t have nearly enough of those, you’ll take what you can get.

Ruben’s first major league homer, the punching of his ticket into Club Hessman, should also prove fleetingly memorable in that it sort of mirrored the hit that has kept Mike Hessman in Club Hessman. You’ll recall Mike should have two Met home runs, but his second, called gone on August 13, was video-reversed into a split-the-difference triple (and thus the legend of Mike Hessman, extra-base anomaly, was born). On September 5, Ruben hit a ball toward left, same general neighborhood at Wrigley where Mike launched his at Citi. And as with Hessman’s homer that became a triple, a fan reached out in an attempt to catch the ball. But at Wrigley, they have a basket atop the left field fence, so ultimately the umps weren’t fooled.

Since the ball bounced back onto the field and Ruben was new to this sort of thing, he kept running until he thought he had earned a triple — slid into third and everything. He hadn’t finished dusting himself off when Ted Barrett broke the news to him that he should get up and trot home. He’d achieved something 33.3% better than a three-bagger.

One guy, 20, hits what he’s sure is a triple and it turns out to be a homer, and it could be a significant step forward in a budding major league career. The other guy, 32, hit what he was sure was a homer and gets mangled into a triple and he remains Mike Hessman.

Nonetheless, let’s tip our cap to Mike the minor league home run king for being a part of the 18-run, 21-hit onslaught as our starting third baseman. Next time a Mets team scores 18 runs and somebody is tempted to look at the boxscore from 9/5/10, they’ll be surprised that the Met at 3B was not David Wright (the last time before this that the Mets scored 18 runs, at Arizona on 8/24/05, the third baseman was David Wright and he homered twice). Mike Hessman may not have had quite been the trigger man Ruben Tejada was Sunday, but he contributed by doubling once, walking once, scoring once — and lining out hard once.

He also struck out twice, the only man on either side to do so on a day that featured 31 hits from all comers. Thus, Mike Hessman continues to do two things in excessive proportions: swing and miss a lot; and collect extra bases when making contact.

Which brings us to our next stops along the Mike Hessman Met Historical Tracker:

• Mike Hessman has struck out 17 times in 41 Met at-bats. The only Met position player to strike out that often in a sample no larger? Spare 1996 outfielder Kevin Roberson, who lasted 36 at-bats, striking out in 17 of them. He also managed three home runs in his brief tenure, including a three-run, ninth-inning tiebreaker of Dan Miceli at Pittsburgh that proved the winning margin on April 27, 1996. Roberson was given a brief shot at the starting right field job, but it didn’t take. The Mets could not settle on anyone as a full-time rightfielder for several months in 1996. Great to know how some things never change.

• Mike Hessman has collected 6 hits in 41 Met at-bats, 4 of them for extra bases. The only other Met position player with a comparable profile is 1990 outfielder Darren Reed. Reed’s Met stopover encompassed six games in May, five more in August and recurring appearances in the denouement of our not-quite ’80s dynasty that September. Darren’s dossier includes 39 Met at-bats, 8 Met hits and only 2 Met singles. Reed put up 4 doubles, 1 triple and, à la Hessman, 1 Met dinger (it came the day the Mets were eliminated from divisional contention). What makes Reed and Hessman baseball soulmates is they were each marvelous hitters when it kind of didn’t matter. Hessman, we know, has crashed 329 home runs in the minors (and, at the rate he’s going, will have the chance to Crash more next year). Reed’s bailiwick was Spring Training production. Before he was traded to the Expos in early April 1991, Darren gave the Mets a .337 batting average, seven homers and 28 RBI in four Grapefruit League campaigns. He was named outstanding rookie in camp in 1989 — anybody else remember that the Mets used to give a watch to the winner of the John J. Murphy Memorial Award? — and drove in more runs than any March Met the spring he was shipped off, yet the big club could never carve out space for him.

• Yes, Ruben Tejada and Luis Hernandez are very recent Club Hessman inductees, but is this a long-term stay or just a layover? You enter the Club when you’ve hit your first Met home run because there’s no guarantee you’ll ever hit another. Obviously, certain contemporary Mets’ memberships loom as more temporary than others. We are hoping, for example, that Fernando Martinez makes it back to the bigs and hits at least one more home run in his Met life. He’s supposed to be able to do that, isn’t he? But what about our new pair of Hessmanites? Hernandez homered once in 221 at-bats as an Oriole and Royal before becoming a Met (but did go yard eight times for Binghamton and Buffalo this season). His long-term utility here is sketchy; seems like a guy who will require many more opportunities before he hits another home run. Best guess: Luis Hernandez stays in Club Hessman for the long haul. As for Ruben, whose previous flirtation with warning track power probably took place on a Little League field (nah, not really — he has eleven minor league homers since 2007), he’ll get more chances this year and probably next. I say another Met home run is in his future.

Ruben Tejada, whose OPS has only now surged to .494, projected to hit a second home run? Really? Listen, when the Mets score eighteen runs in one game, a Mets fan is entitled to go out on a limb.

We're Gonna Get Chai, Chai, Chai in the Late Day Sun

Eighteen — as represented by chai — is considered good luck in Judaism. And when you get as lucky as the Mets did by scoring eighteen runs the Sunday before Labor Day at Wrigley Field, then there’s no need to belabor the point by saying much beyond mazel tov!

So sit back and enjoy, knowing that there was one day in the otherwise offense-starved 2010 season when we rooted for a team capable of scoring eighteen runs.

And not giving up nineteen in the process.

Metamorphosis

In my last job I shared an office with Steve, an Englishman who was a passionate fan of Liverpool. Liverpool, Steve explained, was the football equivalent of the Mets — badly run, generally luckless and often an object of derision for other football fans. Steve loved them as much as I love the Mets, and so we would trade tales of these teams that were thoroughly hapless and yet somehow commanded our lifelong loyalty.

This morning I couldn’t wait to tell Steve about the newest Met.

Mike Nickeas, it so happens, is the son of Mark Nickeas, who began his football career as an apprentice with Liverpool. (He’d later play with Plymouth Argyle and Chelsea, about which I know nothing.) I’m always happy to welcome a new Met into the fold, and doubly excited when the new Met is also making his big-league debut. But here was a player who was a link between two different sports in different nations — a player Steve and I might have dreamed up except for the fact that his existence seemed so thoroughly unlikely. How great was that?

Mike Nickeas was given the start because he’d worked well with Jenrry Mejia, making his first big-league start and hopefully finally moving beyond the damage his own club did to his development by wasting him in middle relief earlier this year. So how’d Nickeas do? Well … let’s just say it was the kind of day fans of the Mets and Liverpool are all too used to. Mejia did better, showing an effective changeup and curveball at times to complement his fastball. Yes, he lost, but he’s 20 — the youngest Mets starter since Dwight Gooden. Unless you’ve got a Dwight Gooden on your hands, sprung fully formed from the head of the Zeus of pitching, 20-year-old starters are inconsistent and lose a fair amount. They grow up in public, and growing up in public is messy.

So too are the late-2010 Mets. The youth movement is finally here, and they look, well, young. There’s Ike Davis bashing a home run and making several nifty pickups at first, but he’s the same Ike Davis who stumbled through a mediocre summer after a marvelous spring. There’s Ruben Tejada making a season-in-review highlight play to gun down Geovany Soto while airborne from the outfield grass, but this is the same Ruben Tejada who makes us long for the powerful bat of Anderson Hernandez. There’s Jon Niese enduring the ups and downs of a young starter, and Josh Thole trying to prove he’ll hit enough to stick in the lineup. There’s the hulking Lucas Duda, who’s made nice plays in the field grafted onto mental errors. There’s Jenrry Mejia showing good complementary pitches, and then not so good ones. There’s applauding the sight of Mike Nickeas behind the plate and then having to watch him scurry to the backstop.

They’re young players with some genuine promise, but their arrival it means September will be bumpy, with plenty of 2010 bruises we hope turn into 2011 calluses. But that’s OK with me. I’d rather watch young players make young player mistakes than see an excess of old players hanging around because of their supposed intangibles. The Mets who came back from San Juan were not just bad but boring. That team is gone, and turning into something else. We don’t know what yet, but these are the early stages of figuring it out.

Toast and Marmol Ade for We

In this new post-realization era of 2010 Mets baseball — in which we fully realize we’re toast — 7-6 losses of games which we once led 3-0 should seem, as R.A. Dickey might eloquently put it, inconsequential. For the big picture, sure, but in terms of leading by three and losing by one, it’s pretty frustrating.

We scored six runs, we had our untitular ace on the mound and we lost anyway. We got the go-ahead run to bat against Carlos Marmol with two out in the ninth, but ultimately Josh Thole couldn’t handle it when Carlos served up his patented spiked Marmol Ade. As is, Josh doesn’t look old enough to drink anything stronger than apple juice.

Wrigley Field was the perfect place for these ever-youthening Mets to spend Friday afternoon. The Near North Side Day Care Center gave them a chance to learn to play with others. Big kid Lucas Duda demonstrated promising social skills, becoming familiar today with his bat (a ringing double to right) and his arm (a laser throw from deep left). And little Luis Hernandez — not so young, but a new kid to us — really took to Show & Tell, sharing his very first home run with the children on the other side of the fence. He gets to take Thole’s recently vacated 69th spot in Club Hessman as a reward.

(Mike Hessman: No kid, but with a .139 average in his knapsack, he’s swinging like a toddler overmatched by tee ball.)

Encouraging moments in the potential redevelopment of this sagging franchise, but not enough to compensate for knuckleballs that didn’t knuckle. And to think they flew R.A. Dickey to Chicago ahead of the ballclub so he’d be well-rested.

That may be the problem. Chicago is notorious among ballplayers for its tempting nightlife scene. Not that ballplayers really need much convincing to partake in a thriving nightlife scene or maybe overdo it on the Jack Daniels. Tim McCarver used to wink at us about road trip evenings spent visiting “museums and libraries” (wink, wink). Thus, my theory is R.A. got into town yesterday and, being R.A., actually visited museums and libraries. Shoot, he was all alone and the Art Institute stays open late on Thursdays.

Why did Dickey look so bad against the Cubs? Maybe R.A. overdid it on the Edward Hopper.

Or maybe the Cubs are just that good. Lemme check the standings…no, they’re not really any good. They’re technically much worse than we are. Who knew? I didn’t.

OK, I did. but the point is we play the Cubs infrequently and at odd intervals. Our last six series against them:

• April 2008 @ Wrigley
• September 2008 @ Shea (sniff)
• August 2009 @ Citi
• September 2009 @ Wrigley
• April 2010 @ Citi
• September 2010 @ Wrigley

Are these regularly scheduled games or some kind of recurring goodwill tour? I suppose all non-divisional opponents kind of pop in and out of our lives without much rhyme or reason, but we never seem to get the Cubs when there’s anything on the line for everybody. Lately it’s because neither of us in any good, but that September 2008 series was strange as could be for a different reason. We were contending and needed it desperately. They’d already clinched and didn’t need it all (which didn’t stop them from impolitely taking two of four). The rest of the time it’s as if the National League carefully constructs its grid of matchups and then remembers at the last minute, “Damn, we forgot somebody.”

Forgetting or barely remembering the Cubs, I was surprised to find out who comprises them these days. Xavier Nady? No kidding! When we were good and he was ours, Xavier Nady was the definition of a complementary player. We’d bat him sixth or seventh, he’d get a big hit now and then, he’d play a competent right field, we’d trade him and act like it was no big deal. If we had him now, he’d be batting cleanup for us (and then he’d suffer a concussion). And Blake DeWitt? On the Cubs? No kidding! That guy used to kill us when he was with the Dodgers?

Now he kills us when he’s with the Cubs.

This seems an appropriate interval to go crotchety and demand to know why we don’t play the Cubs more often, irritating presence of Xavier Nady and Blake DeWitt within their ranks notwithstanding. The Mets and Cubs used to be an event, even if the event was a battle for fifth place. Friday afternoon, Wrigley Field, weird camera angles, hung over ballplayers, Dave Kingman breaking windows for or maybe against us, games suspended on account of darkness…you didn’t need a pennant race to make it interesting. You just needed the Mets and the Cubs doing this regularly.

Well, one trip a year to the ivy-covered burial ground is better than nothing, even if nothing is what we came away with this Friday afternoon. Good to know, per the late Steve Goodman’s timeless lament, that they still play the blues in Chicago when baseball season rolls around. And it’s surprising to know that Omar Minaya takes JetBlue to Chicago when the baseball season has gotten out of hand. If, as Deadspin reported, his fellow passengers were a little frank with Omar, I imagine they might have thrown a Wilpon from the plane.

Though I imagine Fred and Jeff fly private.

Huge dork that I allegedly am, I think I’m going to prepare for tomorrow afternoon’s game by staying in tonight, relaxing with a little Tin Tin and repeatedly checking the forecast for Wrigley Field. You know what they say about the weather in Chicago: If you don’t like it, wait ten minutes and it will change. Let’s see what they’re expecting, nonetheless…

Weather.com says it will be a sunny 65 degrees at gametime, with the wind blowing from the west-northwest at 18 miles per hour. Sounds like it could get a little chilly, and with our best young pitching prospect making his first start, I am — given my terrifying memory — filled with dread and visions of Tim Leary’s aching right forearm from when another long-ago baseball season rolled around.

It was too cold for such a valuable arm to be put at risk that April day in 1981, so my advice for our kid pitcher Jenrry tomorrow?

Take a sweater, Mejia.

The Night I Believed We Were Done

Thursday night, the Mets won a baseball game, which is a result any Mets fan welcomes. And I indeed welcome it. (“Hi win, good to see you. I’d almost forgotten what one of you looks like.”) But I have to admit, in one of those “bad fan” episodes to which Jason occasionally cops, I’m not exactly broken up the Mets lost three of four to the Braves during their extended stay in Atlanta.

Perhaps you’re familiar with some variation on the phrase “put it out of its misery”. That, I believe, is what the first three games at Turner Field accomplished for the 2010 Mets. While it wasn’t a happy task, it needed to be completed, and the Braves (assisted by the Mets, I suppose), got it done.

The Mets were ten games out of first place when the week commenced. There were 32 games remaining in the season. Not a few Mets fans I knew — generally as sane as they are loyal — were spinning comeback scenarios. If we sweep, we’re only six out!

I didn’t want to throw cold water on these sad, sweet dreamers, so I didn’t say anything along the lines of, “You’re nuts. This team has more holes in it than the logic applied to the Citi Field ticket pricing structure. If they were any good at all, they wouldn’t have slipped so far from first place in…the first place.”

I didn’t say it, but I sure as hell thought it.

It was crazy. We’d been watching a Mets team dig its own grave for two solidly depressing months. Why should we, beyond the instinctive act of Believing, actually believe they could — as one urban-myth foreign-language translation of “Come Alive! You’re in the Pepsi Generation!” had it — bring their ancestors back from the grave? Why would the Mets do at the dawn of September what they couldn’t do throughout July and August just because we wanted them to? Just because arithmetic and a handful of isolated precedents said it was remotely possible?

Because I was pretty good at arithmetic as a kid and because I was a pre-adolescent witness to one of the most famous isolated precedents in which a team — our team — arose from the family graveyard, I continued to consider the possibility that something akin to a 1973 could occur in 2010. I considered it plenty but, ultimately, I rejected it. I had to. I had to be Lloyd Bentsen in this regard and set the record straight:

2010, I rooted in 1973.

I knew 1973.

1973 was a friend of mine.

2010, you’re no 1973.

Well, you’re not. If you had shown the slightest sign of being similar once you began ignoring your snooze alarm and sleeping through almost every series from San Juan on (22-33 between June 28 and August 29), then I would have Believed. But it became more and more difficult to take you, 2010, seriously.

Yet you sat out there, winning one and losing one, losing one and winning one, slipping further from where you’d been last time you were in Atlanta, even if you never fully fell away from remote possibility. It was ludicrous to peer into a ten-game deficit and extract from it a potential four-game sweep. It made no sense whatsoever.

But I couldn’t argue with absolute certainty that it couldn’t happen. As lousy as the Mets had been for two months, one month theoretically could change everything. Games that aren’t yet played, after all, are games that aren’t definitively lost.

This conceivably ajar casket annoyed me more than it should have. I knew…I mean I knew the 2010 Mets were going nowhere after they left Atlanta in early August. But I gave them the weekend in Philadelphia to change my mind. They didn’t. Nevertheless, I quietly reserved the “stranger things have happened” exception to which just about every fan is entitled just in case strange things began to occur.

They did not. The Mets grew slighter and shabbier and sloppier and more and more out of it.

Still…ten games out…sweep four…then it’s six…and anything can…

I wanted this to stop. I wanted the tease to come to a halt. It wasn’t even a good tease, but it teased nonetheless. It teased against everything I understood about our current club, which was it was in no way, shape or form capable of turning on a dime and blitzing its statistical betters. I was tired of my last shred of innate optimism being played for a sucker by the largely lackadaisical 2010 Mets.

And, on some level, I think I wanted the desecration — however unintentional — of the blessed memory of 1973 to stop.

You know why 1973 is special? Because it happened only once. The Mets were a lousy team for five months, still wallowing well under .500 and still planted in last place just before August ended. In a division in which nobody was taking control, they pulled themselves together, began winning ballgames in relatively prodigious amounts and passed all five of their competitors in just over three weeks.

It was remarkable. It took guts and talent and luck and everything for the 1973 Mets to become the 1973 Mets. And if it were easy to apply that kind of alchemy to a flailing baseball season, 1973 wouldn’t stand out.

There have been a few comparable late-season comebacks since then, but none quite as at odds with the larger sample that preceded it. The Rockies’ mile-high rise to the 2007 Wild Card, for example, was appropriately dizzying, but they weren’t stubbornly trending in the wrong direction through July and August. The 1995 Mariners refusal to lose was a thrilling demonstration of what the human spirit could achieve, provided it was aided by the exploding talents of Ken Griffey and Randy Johnson and aided by a shaky California Angel club. The team ahead of them wasn’t as good as the 2010 Braves or 2010 Phillies, and they themselves weren’t ten games under .500 on August 30.

The Mets, of course, have never had another 1973 since 1973. We’ve had lots of Mets teams flounder well into August, yet only one since 1973 has remotely approached what their ’73 predecessors pulled off. That was the 2001 Mets, a team whose chances I wouldn’t have wasted a plug nickel on after 122 games, when they wallowed in fourth place in the N.L. East at 54-68, 13½ behind the Phillies and Braves following their seventh consecutive loss. Hell, the Mets were 5½ in back of third-place Florida.

The 2001 edition was about as dispiriting a Mets team as I can remember over those 122 games. They came off a pennant but carried no momentum forward. Every slight sign of progress was painted over by a stubborn coat of futility. They were never over .500 after the first week of the season; they fell 8½ games out of first by the middle of May; their longest winning streak was five games, once. Yet one of my friends kept insisting these alleged “defending league champions” were not done. He insisted it so much, it began to piss me off. C’mon, I implored will you look at this team? They’re dead! They have no chance! Stop bringing up 1973 — it’s not fair to 1973.

Through June and July and half of August, I was as right as I was miserable about the Mets. Then, stealthily, the Mets began to win. Nothing so bold as a lengthy winning streak or, at first, a series sweep, but a palpable, steady, undeniable turn in fortunes. A couple in L.A.; a couple at home to Colorado; then a loss. Three more wins, against San Francisco, followed by a frustrating loss to the Giants and an even more maddening defeat at the hands of the Phillies. But then we beat Philadelphia twice, and take two from Florida. A loss to them, but down to Philly and, at last, a three-game sweep. Then the first three of a four-game series in Miami.

The depressing 2001 Mets were, all at once, the uplifting 2001 Mets. With virtually no fanfare, they’d won 17 of 21. They weren’t a force of nature like the ’86 team or pulling rabbits out of every hat as in ’69, but they were methodically winning every series they played. The Phillies had gone into the tank over the previous three weeks, posting a dismal 7-14 (1-5 against the Mets) and were only 3½ ahead of us in second. The Braves, so reliably the default winner in the division, were stuck in neutral: 10-10 between August 17 and September 8. We were in third, seven games behind Atlanta. That should have been daunting given that only 19 games were left on the schedule, but six of them would be us versus them.

Striking distance, in other words.

The next three weeks in September 2001, of course, would be unlike any three weeks New York or the Mets ever experienced. Keeping to the narrow parameters of our pennant race discussion, however, suffice it to say that amid an environment that first rendered baseball irrelevant and then seemed to imbue it with impossible amounts of meaning, the Mets would continue to make up ground. On the eve of the first of those six games against Atlanta, the Mets had crept to within 5½ games of the Braves. The Mets — at 74-73, a game over .500 for the first time since they were 2-1 — were as alive as alive could be after winning 20 of 25.

In what was almost a footnote to the sense of urgency, solemnity and occasion at Shea Stadium on Friday night, September 21, the Mets picked up another game on the Braves, winning 3-2. The next night, they did it again, topping the division leaders, 7-3. The Mets, who had been 54-68, 13½ games out on August 17 were 76-73, 3½ games out on Saturday, September 22.

There’d be a horrible loss (as perverse as it feels, even nine years later, to use such a phrase to describe a baseball game in the context of those times) on Sunday, September 23. There’d be a tantalizing rebound sweep in Montreal in the week ahead, though, making the final three games between the Mets and the Braves, at Turner Field, immensely consequential…at least where a baseball schedule was concerned. The Mets entered this second series three games out of first place and, with Philadelphia having found its footing again, two games out of second place. The team that was once 54-68 was now 79-74.

A 25-6 August/September spurt, a pickup of 10½ games in the standings and maybe the most welcome diversion a grieving city was ever granted would have to be the Mets’ legacy for 2001. That would have to do as their miracle. They’d lose Friday night, September 28, in Atlanta. They’d lead late Saturday afternoon, September 29, but a second, possibly more horrible loss materialized in the ninth inning. The Mets, who had won ten consecutive series, needed desperately to win an eleventh. It didn’t happen. The 2001 Mets faded one week shy of the season’s end, finished 82-80, in third place, six games behind Atlanta and, save for one incandescent Mike Piazza home run, were quickly forgotten by most of New York. Forgotten by most Mets fans, I’m guessing, too.

When it was over, I got in touch with my optimistic, insistent friend from May and June and apologized for questioning his sanity and for not digging deep and having a fraction of the faith he never gave up. I had been proven wrong, but — to the extent one could be, considering all that was going on around us in New York the fall of 2001 — I was happy. Happy about the Mets.

And yet, it cannot be overstated that despite pulling themselves together and charging against two contenders and overwhelming odds, the 2001 Mets didn’t get where they wanted to go.

They didn’t win their division.

They didn’t go to the playoffs.

They were, in the standings, an also-ran.

Don’tcha see? Don’tcha see how mind-bogglingly hard it is to attempt to resurrect a foregone conclusion of a losing season as August closes in on September? The 2001 Mets were striving first as a baseball team and then as a repository for municipal hope. They were wearing NYPD and FDNY and PAPD and all the rest of those caps. They were playing with the wind at their back. And they — Piazza, Alfonzo, Ventura, Zeile, Payton, Leiter, Benitez, Franco, Payton, Valentine — at last, showed why they had been defending champions.

Yet they couldn’t do it. The 2001 Mets came the closest after 1973, and they couldn’t do it.

That’s how hard it is to do what the 1973 Mets did. Again, it takes guts and talent and luck and everything. The Mets had those elements working for them for 31 games in 2001, and it still wasn’t enough.

In 1973, such alchemy over the final 29 games (21-8) was just barely adequate to the task at hand. But this one time, bare adequacy did the trick. The 1969 Mets won 100 games. The 1986 Mets won 108 games. The 1973 Mets won 82 games…barely. Yet all three Mets teams captured the same immediate prize by the end of their respective regular seasons. Each was a division champion.

Guts and talent and luck and everything accomplished what the 1973 Mets had to accomplish and created what the 1973 Mets left us for as long as this franchise shall stand. It created a reason to Believe.

And such powerful Belief should be deployed judiciously.

At the risk of contradicting myself as regards previous assertions of allegiance to particular Met seasons, Met stretches and collections of Met players, the 1973 Mets’ roar from last place at the end of August to first place on the First of October may stand as my signature “moment” as a Mets fan. I’ve romantically linked myself to many Mets teams, and outstanding timing allowed me to privilege of celebrating both Met world championships, but 1973 may have no equal in my personal pantheon. My team was 10 under, 6½ back and behind 5 teams with a month to play and it overcame everything. Your soul never forgets that sort of thing.

This is why suggestions that the Mets of 2010 could do something along the lines of what the Mets of 1973 did struck me as almost sacrilegious let alone spectacularly unrealistic. If you’re going to weave miracle September scenarios, you had better come correct. The Mets of 2010 showed no signs they would ever get anything right prior this series in Atlanta — and that may be why the Mets of 2010 ending August and beginning September with three losses in four games to the first-place Braves was a not an altogether unwelcome development where my psyche was concerned.

The tease was over. The grave was nailed shut. The spirits of the Mets’ ancestors from 37 Septembers previous wouldn’t be coming out to play.

I knew, I knew, I knew they wouldn’t, but now I know they won’t. I guess I knew it after Monday’s loss and Tuesday’s loss and Wednesday’s loss, but I fully appreciated it, at last, after Thursday’s win. I appreciated that nobody I knew would be telling me that it’s a steep hill to climb, but we’re not out of it yet, we could still get hot, the Cubs aren’t any good and neither are the Nationals and we play well at home, and if the Phillies start losing and then we have the Braves come in and…

No. No more of that. No stranger things will be happening. The 2010 Mets are done. It was going to happen eventually, just as well it’s happened with undeniable clarity.

I knew it was good we won Thursday because it’s good for the Mets to win. I knew if we got anything out of Lucas Duda and Joaquin Arias, it wouldn’t a spark, just a glimpse, maybe for 2011, probably just for the hell of it. I knew Johan Santana leaving with a strained pectoral muscle represented a discordant note because it’s never good to have your ace leave a game in discomfort, not because we might not have him for his next big start. There are no more big starts. We didn’t pick up ground on the Braves Thursday night. We won and they lost, but there is no common ground between us anymore.

Oh, that it wasn’t so. Oh, that there be a reason to obsess on the standings. It was wonderful in June to track every move our competition made. Such a sense of purpose is one of the gifts of any successful baseball season. For all the obnoxious taunts Phillies fans aimed in the general direction of my Mets garb when I was in Philadelphia last month, the most hurtful remark I heard any Phan make came a week later, after we lost to them at Citi Field. What was said wasn’t said directly to me, but within a conversation I overheard on the train afterwards.

“The Braves,” one of them reported to the other, “are losing.”

Damn, I thought, they get to worry about the Braves. And the Braves fans, however many or few of them there are, get to worry about the Phillies. They have matrixes and spreadsheets and numbers dancing in their heads. They have Games Ahead and Games Behind and Games Remaining. They have Head-to-Head and Home Field. They have a playoff chase and a pennant race in their immediate future.

We didn’t. I knew it then. I knew I knew it. It was only a matter of time before I knew it for absolute certain.

I do now.

Meanwhile, somebody’s giving away a Mets book written by some “huge dork” with a “terrifying memory”. I don’t necessarily dispute either characterization. Try to win it here.

Rosters Expand, Mets Contract

The Braves shoved nine runs down the Mets’ throats Monday. They shoved nine more there Tuesday. They were en route to dishing up their usual nightly serving on Wednesday when they realized it was hardly worth the trouble. Why bother scoring nine runs when no more than two would be necessary? Mighty thoughtful of Bobby Cox to call off the dogs after his team scored four runs in the first two frames.

The Mets are counting backwards these days. They scored thrice on Monday, twice on Tuesday and once on Wednesday. You’re on your own if you decide to bet against a Braves shutout tonight.

Two hits for our boys in toto on Wednesday, or more than they accumulated with runners in scoring position Monday (1-for-14) and Tuesday (0-for-5). For the record, the Mets were 1-for-5 in those situations on Wednesday, which I find incredibly surprising.

The Mets had five runners in scoring position against Tommy Hanson, Jonny Venters and Billy Wagner? Really? Didn’t seem like it. Didn’t seem like we lost only 4-1 either. Not that the evening was sans highlights. In presumed tribute to their traded teammate, the Mets nailed two Braves at home. Alas, as was the case across the recently concluded Era of Frenchy, two highlight plays at the plate don’t make for an actual win.

But there was one other Met clip worth watching repeatedly: Lucas Duda’s all-out sliding corral of Brian McCann’s sinking foul fly ball to left. It took extreme effort to catch it and Duda showed plenty of enterprise in tracking it down. It also took the slightest major league experience to know that with Martin Prado on second and one out, Prado could very well attempt to tag up and advance. Thing is, it was Duda’s very first inning in the bigs, so no, he did not have the slightest major league experience. Confused, perhaps, by the sphere he had just successfully cradled in his glove, Duda hesitated for, oh, about ten minutes before seeking a cutoff man. By the time he found one, Prado was on third.

No harm done for two reasons:

• Prado would be thrown out at home to end the inning;

• And, really, what’s the difference at this point?

Lucas Duda had to leave in the eighth with cramps in one of his hamstrings, but otherwise didn’t suffer any more calamities the field or star in any more star-crossed highlights for the rest of the evening. At the plate, he was, like several of his teammates, 0-for-3, meaning he awaits his first safety and his concomitant liberation from what we shall dub the Sandy Senior Tour — that unfortunate group of position players who batted as Mets but never recorded a hit in the blue, orange, white and/or black.

The Sandy Senior Tour — named for Sandy Alomar, Sr., its most prolific compiler of unsuccessful at-bats — forever journeys through purgatory seeking redemption…or just a scratch single. It never comes and, thus, their Tour never ends

Given the shortage of fully functioning Met outfielders (to say nothing of vital signs), Duda should get a crack at substantial playing time the rest of the way and therefore sooner or later avoid the previously noted ignominy that haunts the likes of feisty Alomar (0-for-22 as a Met), Bart Shirley (0-for-12), Rich Puig (0-for-10), Joe Nolan (0-for-10) and Keith Hughes (0-for-9). They are the leaders of the 23-member Ohfer Pack…24, technically, if you count young Lucas.

That’s not a club the kid wants to be in, and here’s hoping his stay in it is as short as he is tall. But there is another club Lucas Duda joined the moment his manager inked his name onto Wednesday’s lineup card.

Let’s call it the New Toy Club.

It was September 1. The Mets called up Duda and they immediately gave him first taste of major league action. That’s a distinction he shares with ten other New York Mets: minor league callups with no previous major league experience getting into a game on the very first day the rosters expanded.

That, of course, as the toys of Toy Story 3 would tell you, is the way to do it. Toys are supposed to be played with.

The New Toy Club’s members were the Lucas Dudas (Dudii?) of their day…of their September 1, to be precise. There was no sitting, observing and absorbing for them. It was deep end of the pool time. They got wet immediately and the Mets got to see right away if they sank or swam.

NTC’s pair of charter members joined on September 1, 1965. The first of them, Rob Gardner, wasn’t just told to sink or swim. Instead, Wes Westrum named him starting pitcher and tossed him square into a circle of sharks disguised as Houston Astros. A life preserver was not included.

Gardner’s first batter, Bob Lillis, tripled. His second, Joe Morgan, singled (and probably didn’t shut up about it for half-an-hour). His teammates consoled him by immediately committing consecutive errors behind him, allowing Jimmy Wynn and eventual Met third baseman Bob Aspromonte to get on base. It was 2-0 when another name from the unforetold Amazin’ future, Rusty Staub, reached Rob for a three-run homer.

Top of the first, 5-0 Astros, nobody out. Welcome to the big leagues, kid.

Gardner, 20, would make it through three innings, giving up another homer, a two-run job to Jim Gentile (who was then in his fourth year of being wronged by the Orioles — check out what took 49 years to rectify and how it was done) and leaving trailing 7-1. Westrum mercifully pinch-hit for Gardner in the bottom of the third with the second New Toy of the day, 19-year-old Kevin Collins. Youth struck out and then moved to short in a double-switch. Collins wound up going 0-for-4 striking out twice in what became an 8-5 Met loss, the first L of Gardner’s career.

The two New Toys from 1965 would each have one moment in the Met sun…or, in the pitcher’s case, the moon.

After losing his next three decisions, Gardner was given what loomed as the penultimate start of the year, on the season’s final Saturday. He pitched — and this is not a typo — fifteen shutout innings. Yet it wasn’t enough. His opponent, the Phillies’ Chris Short, did exactly the same. Two relievers for each side also gave up nothing. The Mets played an eighteen-inning game on October 2, 1965 that, thanks to a curfew (New York State’s, not the National League’s), went into the books as a tie. Nothing for Gardner. Nothing for Short.

And the teams had to make it up as part of a doubleheader the next day. Gardner didn’t pitch. The Mets lost both games.

As for Collins, he helped the Mets win the 1969 World Series, not so much by hitting .150 as a part-time infielder in April and May but by being packaged with Steve Renko, Dave Colon and Bill Carden in June. The foursome were crated up and shipped to Montreal in exchanged for first baseman Donn Clendenon. Four months later, Clendenon was World Series MVP for the World Champion Mets.

It was unfathomable that such designations were just over two years away from Flushing when, on September 1, 1967, the Mets unwrapped another New Toy — which the Mets were doing in one form or another constantly in 1967. They did it so much that you’d have thought they were operating under their own roster-expansion rules.

The Mets ran through 54 different players 43 years ago, including a staggering 35 who made Met debuts. But only one was Joe Moock, a 23-year-old third baseman who entered his first game on 9/1/67 as a defensive replacement for Jerry Buchek in the bottom of the eighth of an 8-2 loss at Wrigley Field. He’d lead off the top of the inning and strike out in his first at-bat. At least it was to a Hall of Famer: Ferguson Jenkins. Moock’s next action came nine days later, his first start. He again went up formidable competition in Reds ace Jim Maloney. And he struck out twice.

All told, Moock got into thirteen games at the tail end of 1967, going 9-for-40. His final hit — of the year and his major league career — came off yet more intimidating talent, the Dodgers’ headhunting Don Drysdale. Moock kept his head against this Hall of Famer, however, knocking in Tommy Davis and Ron Swoboda with a first-inning single. (He also holds the distinction of being one-quarter of the Mets’ first purebred homegrown infield, a distinction you can read about here.)

The next New Toy wasn’t scooped out of his box until September 1, 1981. And when it was, an audible sigh of disappointment could be heard among Mets fans, as if we had asked Santa Cashen for a Davey Concepcion, and all we got to play shortstop was a lousy Ron Gardenhire.

Today Gardy is a successful manager in Minnesota. In the early 1980s, I found Gardenhire a most dispiriting (.232/.277/.296) presence on the Mets roster, from his debut as a 23-year-old pinch-runner for Staub at the Astrodome (he didn’t score), through his mysterious survival of the dreaded Compensation Pool process (the hideous contraption that cost us Tom Seaver the second time) right up to his last game, on the last day of 1985, when he tripled (but again didn’t score) the day after the Mets were eliminated from an emotionally draining pennant race.

It should be noted that as Gardenhire was swinging, connecting and racing to third, DiamondVision identified him as ON GARDENHIRE. Figured he’d wait until it was too late to be truly on.

There was another double-opening of New Toys on September 1, 1984, as the Mets battled fiercely to remain relevant in a pennant race that was quickly getting away from them. After winning the first game of a doubleheader against the Padres behind Dwight Gooden, Davey Johnson tried to get lucky with another rookie hurler, 22-year-old Calvin Schiraldi. Schiraldi wasn’t so lucky that Saturday at Shea (foreshadowing!), being treated by Tony Gwynn, Steve Garvey and Kevin McReynolds right out of the gate much as Rob Gardner was by the Astros a generation earlier. Schiraldi was pulled in the fourth inning.

Fortunately, the Mets came back and defeated San Diego 10-6 in what we hoped would be (but deep down pretty much understood wouldn’t be) a preview of that year’s NLCS. Helping our cause and getting us to within five games of the Cubs was the other New Toy getting played with that day, Herm Winningham. The 22-year-outfielder was getting quite a workout, being given a first look in the first game as a late-inning replacement for Mookie Wilson and then the start in center in the nightcap. Herm went 2-for-5 and drove in the first run of a five-run fourth by doubling home John Stearns.

It would be a great first month for Winningham, constituting one of the greatest seasons any Met has ever enjoyed. He went 11-for-27, for a .407 batting average, the only Met to ever hit .400 in a minimum of twenty at-bats. If it wasn’t exactly Ted Williams, it was unprecedented in Met annals and remains unmatched since. It also helped make him pretty attractive to the Montreal Expos. Seventeen years after Kevin Collins sacrificed himself to Quebec for the good of New York, Herm did the same, joining a package that also consisted of Mike Fitzgerald, Floyd Youmans and incumbent shortstop Hubie Brooks. Together, they brought back Gary Carter.

Carter’s accomplishments as a Met were myriad and often stirring, but none was more memorable than the two-out single he produced in the bottom of the tenth inning of the sixth game of the 1986 World Series. There were two out and the Mets trailed by two. Their opponents led the Series three games to two; maybe you’ve heard about it. The upshot is if Gary Carter didn’t get on base, the greatest season in Met history would have been kaput. But Carter singled, as did Kevin Mitchell and Ray Knight, setting the stage for a plate appearance by the player for whom Winningham briefly caddied, Mookie Wilson.

Pray tell, who did Carter, Mitchell and Knight single off? The one and only Calvin Schiraldi, who was in his final minutes as implicitly trusted closer for the American League (and nothing more) champion Boston Red Sox. Schiraldi — who would give way to Bob Stanley and the most phenomenal nine-pitch at-bat in baseball history — became a Red Sock the previous winter when the Mets traded him and some other youths to Boston for, essentially, Bobby Ojeda.

The same Bobby Ojeda who started that very same Game Six that was lost by Calvin Schiraldi.

The Met tenure of the next New Toy didn’t carry the same dramatic overtones, but his unwrapping was a big deal in its time. On September 1, 1990, the Mets were locked in a divisional duel with the Pirates, each team taking turns in first place. Our team entered the day a half-game out. Manager Buddy Harrelson needed a pitcher and, despite the presence of ’86 veterans Ojeda and Ron Darling, opted for a kid from Tidewater. His name was Julio Valera, coming off a 10-10 year in Triple-A. Valera, 21, was highly thought of, so he was handed the ball in a must-win game at a juncture of the season when every game was must-win.

Valera did not pitch brilliantly (6 IP, 3 ER; technically a quality start), but he outdid Rob Gardner and Calvin Schiraldi as September 1 babies went. More importantly, he was supported by two Met homers — one by Darryl Strawberry, the other by the just-acquired Tommy Herr — and departed with a 5-3 lead. Ojeda and Darling pitched in relief, John Franco got the save and the Mets moved back into first by a half-game with a 6-4 win over the Giants at Shea.

His debut would be the sole highlight of Julio Valera’s Met career. The Pirates would knock him around the following week, he’d not look good against the Cardinals five days after that and Buddy never used him again in 1990 as the Mets faded into second place as precursor to disappearing from serious contention for the next six years. Julio would make two relief appearances in 1991 and be traded to California early the next season for shortstop Dick Schofield.

Schofield happened to be starting for the Mets on September 1, 1992, when the next New Toy got to make his maiden appearance. Ryan Thompson, unlike the other contents of the toy chest, did not come through the Met farm system. He’d been a Blue Jay prospect right up to his debut day, when he was officially identified as The Player To Be Named Later in what Mets fans were bemoaning as the David Cone trade. We surely weren’t thinking of it as the Jeff Kent trade. Kent was the slightly more established name in the surprise deal (Coney was going to be a free agent and general manager Al Harazin decided to cut his losses without shopping his most attractive commodity), but it was hinted, in the best tradition of Dan Norman, that the outfielder who’s coming with him from Syracuse might be a genuine stud.

Might be. Manager Jeff Torborg was excited that Thompson had “all the tools,” while assistant GM Gerry Hunsicker acknowledged, “He’s a question mark.” Per usual, the 1992 Mets had trouble getting their story straight.

Thompson, 24, may have worn a genuine stud in one ear — he carried a reputation as quite the fashion hound — but mostly he was a genuine bust. That is if you took the reports on his promising future seriously…which we probably did because, as September 1992 dawned, we really needed something to cling to. We’d be clinging a little sooner than planned on 9/1/92. Thompson wasn’t in the starting lineup that night at Shea, but Torborg inserted him to play center in the fourth inning, replacing Vince Coleman. Why? Because Coleman was ejected for protesting a called strike three to end the third and, for Vince measure, shoved his manager, who had taken the field to protect his player, as said player argued vehemently with umpire Gary Darling.

Amid that mess, Thompson debuted, struck out, flied out and was removed in a double-switch that engendered no shoving of the Jeff Torborg. As they would on the occasion of Lucas Duda’s introduction to the bigs, the Mets lost to the Braves, 4-1. Ryan would spend parts of four seasons as a Met, not particularly helping a team that wasn’t going anywhere anyway.

You may have noticed that to this point, we’re 0-for-8 as regards long-term Met impact for members of the New Toy Club. These guys had a few Met moments among them, but mostly the best you could say about any of them was a few of them made for pretty good trade bait (Thompson marginally so — he and Reid Cornelius landed us Mark Clark in 1996). Happily the next September 1 kid actually contributed positively to a winning Mets ballclub.

If the gods didn’t have an interesting sense of humor, Jay Payton would not be part of the New Toy Club. His debut should not have come on September 1, 1998, but rather in May when he was up from Norfolk to fill in for the disabled Bernard Gilkey. Torrential rain, however, interfered with those plans, postponing consecutive weekend games, so it was back to the minors for the next four months for Payton, who shouldn’t have had to have waited until 1998 at all, as he was one legitimately one of the Mets’ best prospects upon his being drafted in 1994. Injuries, serious ones, delayed his development indefinitely. He was out all of 1997 recovering from surgery on his right elbow — his fourth operation — and saw limited action the year before that.

It would take the annual widening of the roster to make Payton, 25, a New York Met, and his first game, at Jack Murphy Stadium, turned into quite a doozy. San Diego jumped all over Hideo Nomo and took a 5-0 lead after four. It was 5-1 in the bottom of the sixth when Bobby Valentine replaced left fielder Tony Phillips with Jay. Mel Rojas entered the game at the same time and, naturally, the Padres extended their lead, making it 6-1 going to the seventh.

Then the Mets woke up, with Payton’s first at-bat coming in the middle of a seven-run rally. He singled and scored on a Jorge Fabregas two-RBI hit (Jay would single in his second at-bat as well). Now up 8-6, the Mets promptly gave it back, with Turk Wendell and Dennis Cook faring worse than Rojas in the bottom of the seventh. The Pads went in front 9-8 and held on. It was the kind of maddening “almost” game the Mets had a habit of losing in 1998, the kind of game that left the Mets and their personnel hodgepodge (Nomo? Phillips? Fabregas?) just shy of winning the Wild Card.

Of course one could also point to a baserunning mistake made later that September by rookie callup Jay Payton. Pinch-running for Phillips on the final Friday of the season at Turner Field, Jay attempted to go from first to third on a John Olerud single to center with only one out. He was gunned down by Andruw Jones; the Mets lost 5-4; the Mets finished one game behind the Cubs and Giants; the Mets missed a playoff spot that seemed surely within their grasp.

It wasn’t all Payton’s fault, but it wasn’t the brightest of first months. Fortunately, though he was only a bit player in September 1999 after another year in Norfolk, he emerged as the Mets’ starting center fielder in 2000 and, at age 27, turned in a splendid rookie season. He placed third in Rookie of the Year voting behind Rafael Furcal and 2010 Brave center fielder Rick Ankiel, and went on to start every game of the postseason for the 2000 National League champs.

Flanking Jay Payton most of that October was someone he likely had never met prior to that September. But on September 1, 2000, he and all of us were introduced to the mixed blessing we came to know as Timo Perez. At just about the same moment Payton and his teammates were getting acclimated to Tokyo in advance of their 2000 season-opening series with the Cubs, the Mets were purchasing the contract of the speedy 25-year-old outfielder from the Hiroshima Toyo Carp. After a solid minor league season, the Mets brought him up at the beginning of September and tried him out immediately. Pinch-hitting in the ninth inning of a tie game at St. Louis, he singled on the fifth pitch he saw in the majors and immediately lit out for second in quest of his first stolen base.

He was thrown out.

As the Mets scuffled that September (1-7 to start the month), Valentine deployed his New Toy more and more. Timo showed flashes, most notably an inside-the-park homer at Philadelphia, and earned his way onto the postseason roster, thus becoming the first September 1 Met New Toy to see playoff action the same year he was brought up. Timo would, following an injury to starting right fielder Derek Bell in San Francisco, prove indispensable in pursuit of the National League championship. He took over right, batted leadoff and personified “catalyst” as the Mets captured their fourth pennant. He even caught the final out against the Cardinals to clinch the flag.

Then, in the 2000 World Series, he personified “idiot” or perhaps a more unkind word. In brief, it was the top of the sixth at Yankee Stadium, opening game, zero-zero score. Perez singled against Andy Pettitte to lead off the inning. With two outs, Todd Zeile launched a long fly ball to left. It looked very much like a home run on TV.

It must have looked the same way from first base because Timo Perez, playing in his thirty-fourth major league game, broke into a trot — clapping his hands so as to put a little swirl on it. The ball, however, did not clear the wall; instead, it hit high off the fence and was played there by left fielder David Justice. Justice fired to shortstop Derek Jeter, who wheeled and threw to catcher Jorge Posada. Somewhere along the way, Timo accelerated, but not soon enough.

He was thrown out.

The Mets blew their first chance to take a lead. The Mets blew all kinds of chances in that game and in the games that followed. I never gave up, not until the final out of Game Five, but honestly, I knew the World Series was lost when I saw Jeter making a relay throw on a runner who would have scored had he been RUNNING FROM FIRST BASE.

Which Timo Perez wasn’t.

He would be a Met until 2003. He’d do a few good things. Nobody remembers them. Nobody remembers the NLDS and the NLCS. Nobody remembers anything but Perez clapping and trotting (while Zeile did much the same). Gads, what an image.

Lucas Duda won’t have to deal with World Series protocol this year. He is, as one assumes his ten New Toy predecessors were on their Firsts of September, just happy to be here. He was sure happy last night — unabashedly so.

“It was pretty awesome, even though I had to leave in the eighth because I had cramps in my hamstring,” he said after his first game. “Who makes their major league debut and comes out due to cramps? That’s not the way I wanted to start it. Hopefully, maybe I’ll get back in there and finish a game.”

And when he reaches first, I don’t expect he’ll take a darn thing for granted.

It's a Case of Mike Hessman Obsession

While we wait for Mike Hessman to resign the presidency of Club Hessman (players with exactly one Met home run, current membership 68), we notice he suffers from a touch of Dave Kingman. But just a touch. See, Mike strikes out a lot…while lagging 153 Met home runs behind SkyKing.

If you’re going to strike out in plentiful fashion, it really helps to leaven your standing by making things count when you actually hit the ball.

In our never ending quest to understand Mike Hessman’s developing role in Met history, we considered Mike’s 12 strikeouts in 33 at-bats and wondered whether any Met has ever struck out so much so often in a Met tenure that spanned no longer than Mike’s. So we entered the relevant data into Baseball Reference’s incredible Play Index tool and discovered once again that Mike Hessman stands nearly alone in yet another weird offensive category.

The only other Met to strike out as much as Mike Hessman has in a Met career that encompassed no more at-bats than Mike Hessman has collected was Eli Marrero, one of the more transient 2006 National League Eastern Division Champion New York Mets. Marrero was the warm body we gladly accepted from Colorado in exchange for the contract of and associated indignities connected to Kaz Matsui. Marrero did not let us down when he joined the Mets in June.

That is to say he was not Kaz Matsui, which is all any of us ever wanted out of anybody. He also wasn’t exactly Mr. Put the Ball in Play. Eli Marrero recorded an official at-bat 33 times — same as Mike Hessman. But he struck out more than Mike: 15 K’s in 33 AB’s. At that rate, over a full season…

Like we’d ever find out. Omar Minaya, who used to take a lot less time to rid himself of largely useless players, jettisoned Marrero after two months of his not being Matsui. Even that skill can take you only so far. Eli never played in the majors again. Kaz would eventually help the 2007 Rockies to the World Series (oh, the irony) but has spent most of 2010 among the Triple-A Colorado Sky Sox, where he’s been a teammate of another former/would-be future Rockie, Jay Payton.

As with most facts relating to Mike Hessman, I find this all very interesting, but it doesn’t obfuscate 12 strikeouts in 33 at-bats against two singles, one double, one unlikely triple and that one home run. But it does make me perhaps the only person not related to Mike Hessman who actually looks forward to seeing what Mike Hessman will do next.

Go Mike!

Goodbye Ranger, It's Been Nice

Jeff Francoeur is suddenly a Texas Ranger, in the leaderly company of Alex Cora. Rod Barajas is a happily homestanding Los Angeles Dodger. Jason Bay is a dizzy denizen of the Disabled List, perhaps wishing life worked as it does in the cartoons and that if he could just slam his face into another outfield fence, it would cure him of his concussion…or that maybe he would wake up, go back in time to when he was a free agent and choose another path for his once-thriving career.

In the meantime, no Bay, no Barajas, no Cora, now no Francoeur. No wonder the Mets aren’t playing well — all their clubhouse chemists have left the laboratory.

So what happened? What happened to the improved vibe from which we were going to benefit? How come David Wright, off whose shoulders the pressure of having to be dutiful team spokesman was going to be taken, doesn’t look any happier as we enter the final turn of 2010 than he did a year ago (save for his not being the dizzy one this time around)? Why aren’t the Mets more cheerful? Or, for that matter, appreciably better?

To paraphrase Prof. Francoeur himself, if clubhouse chemistry is so important, then why don’t they put it up on the scoreboard?

One hundred ninety-nine games spanning two seasons notwithstanding, it’s almost like Jeff Francoeur never happened…which I understand would suit a vocal faction of Mets fans just fine. Francoeur came here and was exactly what his past indicated he would be. A cottage industry sprang up for the sole purpose of robustly cataloguing his many offensive shortcomings. The harping and carping over Jeff Francoeur swinging and essentially missing was nearly as relentless the swinging and missing itself.

The drumbeat of griping didn’t necessarily wear well. But neither did Francoeur, whose departure (which brings us infielder Joaquin Arias and, presumably, playing time for callup Lucas Duda) makes 2010 the thirteenth consecutive season in which the Met to make the most starts in right field one year is not with the team at the conclusion of the following year. Jeff Francoeur is the entry on that dubious list for both 2009 and, barring some bizarre decision to bring him back this winter, 2010.

Consistent with the Mets’ past 14 months constituting one overlong holding action, Jeff’s entire Met tenure was kind of a zero-sum proposition — we were lousy when he got here, we were lousy with him, and I wouldn’t count on marked improvement just because he’s gone. But he did unleash some very nice throws. The pattern held right down to his last game which, in accordance with the general trend of this club lately, wound up the final loss in the Age of Frenchy. He nailed Martin Prado at the plate in the fifth. Great throw. The Braves scored three runs in the moments leading up to it and they would score four more in the moments leading out of it, but great throw.

Terrible approach at the plate. Terrible stubbornness when it came to learning to or maybe refusing to take pitches. Terrible presence in the middle of a rally. Terrible, brutal, endless slumps. But great throws and an All-Star smile. I don’t know if the attitude necessarily synched to the numbers — you’re batting .237, what the hell are you smiling about? — but every ballplayer, if he can manage to, should look like he knows he’s living the life.

Jeff Francoeur is making $5 million this season. On his way out of the visitors clubhouse at Turner Field, he said something about how he’s gonna miss “the guys” and how he’ll be “flying” someone to Chicago this weekend to sit in for him at the Mets’ fantasy football draft. Making $5 million for getting on base 29% of the time, he could really do that. The guys let their baseball season go south, but it sounds like they have a helluva football league brewing in the chemically correct clubhouse that Frenchy built.

You are living the life, Jeff. You don’t need a fantasy draft. Your life is a fantasy. And now the fantasy takes you from fourth place to first.

How could you not be smiling?

It appears Scott Jarzombek of the Poughkeepsie Journal smiled a little bit when he read Faith and Fear in Flushing: An Intense Personal History of the New York Mets. Read the review here and check out what Scott calls “the definitive Mets fan book” here.

Now Appearing on Baseball Tonight: Other Teams

One of the many things I love about the Web is it lets me get all the Mets news I can stand. Newspapers’ Web outposts, newspapers’ blogs, national Web sites, MLB, former beat writers’ sites, independent blogs of all stripes and persuasions, minor-league blogs … you name it. There is more Mets news than I can take in on a given day.

You already know this — after all, you’re reading a Mets blog, one Greg and I hope does its part to fill some of that bottomless appetite for Mets news. And we’ve all grown pretty used to this world.

But now and then I remember how different things used to be.

Emily and Joshua and I are spending our annual week on Long Beach Island, which for some reason I think of as “away from the things of man,” to steal a line from the alternately enchanting and horrible movie Joe vs. the Volcano. LBI is nothing of the sort, of course: It’s just 75 miles from New York City, SNY is a cable channel, WFAN comes in perfectly strong, and in the pancake houses and burger joints and amusement parks you’ll find plenty of Mets caps along with Yankees and Phillies headgear. I even do some fraction of my share of recaps while I’m here. Thinking I’m far away from it all is just part of the vacation mindset.

Still, thinking that lends itself to reflection, and to remembering. Which brings me back to the way things used to be.

The Mets’ game against the Braves tonight was already meaningless; it quickly became depressing. Pat Misch was pretty obviously living on borrowed time from the beginning; it’s kind to say he’s effective when he can mix up his pitches and hit his spots and less kind to note that you could say the same thing about every pitcher to face a batter since Abner Doubleday. Misch pitched bravely and well in garbage time last year; this year he’s looked decidedly ordinary, and may soon slide over to make room for Jenrry Mejia, hopefully fully recovered from the Mets’ ill-advised, self-inflicted experiment with making him a setup man.

Beyond Misch’s troubles, a cameo by a predictably awful Ollie Perez, and my first glance at Luis Hernandez (whom I doubt I could pick out of a police lineup that also included, say, Abraham Nunez and Wilson Valdez), the game was chiefly notable for the presence of various Braves. There was Jason Heyward, smashing a home run off Misch that somehow didn’t bring down a television satellite. There was Brian McCann, doing the same thing to Perez. There was Martin Prado, who’s done enough damage to us by now that we can all pronounce his name just fine. There was Bobby Cox and Chipper Jones, being sized up by anonymous, colorless ESPN drones for their potential places in history.

The Mets quietly got done losing and Baseball Tonight came on. Big show! Lots of excitement! Reds! Cardinals! Rays! Yankees! And that’s when my mind began to drift back to how things used to be.

It’s the summer of 1992, or maybe 1993 or 1994. I’m living outside Washington, D.C., and they’ve enraged me by taking WOR off the cable package. WFAN is sometimes faintly audible through hiss and static — but clear as a bell if you’re near the Potomac River, which somehow amplifies the signal. There are plain-text AP sports stories on America Online, along with some Mets chat. There’s even a really smart, well-spoken guy on the AOL boards named Greg who I’m getting to be friends with. But while nearly two decades later I see a new world coming into view, at the time this is thin gruel at best. If I want to see or hear the Mets I have to go into Georgetown and beg a sports bar with satellite TV to tune them in, or sit by the Potomac in the cramped front seat of my little Honda CRX.

And sometimes I do those things. Mostly, though, I try to catch glimpses of my team on SportsCenter, or hope for something when Headline News does its sports report every half hour. Will the Mets game be discussed before the half-hour mark on SportsCenter? Sometime between the 40-minute mark and the last commercial? Or will we get mentioned in passing as the credits roll, or not at all? Will the Mets get a highlight from CNN? Will they get mentioned in the voice-over as they show the scores? Or will there be nothing?

Oftentimes it’s nothing. Because in 1992 and 1993 and 1994 the Mets are totally irrelevant. Not to me, of course, but to everyone I have to rely on for information. These people are in a hurry and have a lot to talk about and most of it is way more important, to a general audience, than anything the New York Mets happened to do that night.

In other words, it’s a lot like what happened after the Mets lost and I goofed around on email and Facebook while half-listening to Baseball Tonight. To the outside world, for the foreseeable future, we are once again totally irrelevant.

Man of Letters Lowers E.R.A., Adds R.B.I.(s)

R.A. Dickey’s initial preparations really paid off, eh? The knuckleballer’s erudition, real or imagined, reads even better when you can find his name among the National League leaders in Earned Run Average…which you now can. It wasn’t his earned runs allowed that were keeping him out until now, but rather his relatively few innings pitched, a symptom of the Mets wasting a quarter of the season on Oliver Perez, and Dickey thus not getting the ball until May 19.

R.A.’s now pitched 133 innings, which qualifies him for ERA (or, in his honor, E.R.A.) leadership as you need at least one inning per every game your team has played for your number to count.

Dickey’s does: By giving up one earned run in seven-plus innings, it fell Sunday to 2.57, seventh-best in the N.L.

These are the National League starters ahead of Dickey in Earned Run Average:

Roy Halladay, Tim Hudson, Josh Johnson, Mat Latos, Adam Wainwright and Jaime Garcia.

These are the National League starters behind Dickey in Earned Run Average:

Everybody else.

What would have struck you as most surprising a hundred or so games ago?

• R.A. Dickey: Seventh in the league in E.R.A.

• R.A. Dickey: Five R.B.I. (or R.B.I.s; I can never decide), or more than the Mets’ Opening Day first baseman, center fielder and top lefty pinch-hitter accounted for combined.

• R.A. Dickey: Nine wins by the end of August, the ninth of them finished without incident by reigning Mets closer Hisanori Takahashi.

It’s all pretty surprising from the perspective of the middle of May, but it’s kind of business as usual now. Well, maybe not the offensive production, but a good starter helps his own cause, and we all know by now that R.A. Dickey is a good starter.

We also know that even with the unlamented departures of Mike Jacobs, Gary Matthews and Frank Catalanotto (4 R.B.I. among them) well in our rearview mirror, the Mets still can’t hit much, which is why R.A.’s two-run double in the second was as heaven-sent as the man himself. R.A.’s two-bagger made it 2-0, en route to a four-run inning.

It was, here on the 29th day of the month, the Mets’ first four-run inning of August. The Mets had gone longer without scoring four runs inside of three outs (July 28) than they had gone without letting Oliver Perez pitch (August 1, with no end in sight).

R.A. Dickey also has more R.B.I./R.B.I.s than Perez and John Maine combined, but by now that’s not the least bit surprising.

A Mets fan gets excited by Dickey’s pitching, Dickey’s hitting, Dickey’s bearing, Dickey’s everything. A Mets fan can feel good that the current rotation has been, save for an occasional hiccup, as solid as any Mets rotation in ages.  Though we were burned by the awarding of “scholarships” to two pitchers who didn’t deserve automatic berths this April, I think we can allow ourselves some confidence about Dickey, Santana, Niese and (probably) Pelfrey as we inch toward 2011. No offense to Pat Misch — and lord knows none has been generated on his behalf — but our likely look at Jenrry Mejia in a starter’s role in the next couple of weeks could provide us with a true glimpse of what awaits next April. All told, starting pitching could actually be a building block rather than a stumbling block for next season.

Next season…yup, that’s where it’s at these days. If we were just a little closer in the standings, I’d permit myself a day of delusion heading into Atlanta, picking up on Keith Hernandez’s insistence on a sweep at Turner Field. As ludicrous and impossible as that sounds, he implored them go take four in Georgia while the Mets were winning, the Braves were losing and our deficit seemed about to be cut to nine. Sweep four on the wings of Misch, Niese, Pelfrey and Santana and then we’re suddenly five out and that handful of dead-enders who are desperate to Gotta Believe might be proven not so crazy.

But then Atlanta came back on Florida, and reality, as it has done roughly every other day since the season-killing West Coast Trip concluded, set in. We’re a stubbornly .500 club that’s ten behind our division leader. We’re in fourth place. We’re eight behind for the Wild Card and in seventh place there. We’re without our shortstop again. We’re without our left fielder still. We’re the proud possessors of one four-run inning in August. We have one player who’s accumulated more than 57 R.B.I.(s). We have one player  with more than 15 homers. The guy who’s second on the team hasn’t hit one out in over a month. The guy who’s third on the team has been a Dodger for a week.

Every other day, it’s not so bad rooting for the Mets. That’s how .500 works. So savor these not-so-bad days. Savor R.A. Dickey’s E.R.A. and R.A. Dickey’s R.B.I.s and don’t let whatever happens the rest of the way dampen that initial enthusiasm.

As for the every-other-days that are not so good, you’ll be excused if you find yourself watching the Mets lose and muttering F.U. at them every now and then.

***

Congratulations are in order for Josh Thole, former member of Club Hessman. By belting a Bud Norris delivery off the Pepsi Porch in the sixth, Thole increased his home run total to two, meaning there are now only 68 Mets who have hit exactly one home run.

Thole also became the 23rd Met to homer at Citi Field in its two seasons of existence; David Wright leads the team all-time in post-Shea Flushing power with 13 round-trippers. Seven of the 23 have hit only one Citi Field home run, three of them this year — Thole, Santana, Jacobs — and four of them last year — Castillo, Evans, Church, Castro. The current active Met roster has totaled 55 Citi Field home runs between 2009 and 2010.

But it’s a great park for triples, I keep hearing.

As for current Club Hessman president Mike Hessman, he walloped one foul in the eighth before striking out, but can console himself with having collected his fifth Met hit Saturday night, a pinch-single off Brett Myers. Mike Hessman is now one of exactly 19 New York Mets to have registered exactly 5 New York Mets hits…but one of only two to have more extra-base hits than singles. His companion on the subcommittee? Let’s just say move over Ken Henderson, you have powerfully aberrational company.

While we’re busy passing out celebratory cigars, how about one for Luis Hernandez, proud papa to his very first New York Met base hit? Hernandez, whose 26-year existence on Earth had eluded me until Friday, became the 891st Met ever on Saturday night. On Sunday the temp infielder’s eighth-inning single off Fernando Abad made him the 665th Met with at least one safety to his credit.

Not quite three-quarters of our all-time roster has done at least once what Luis did — which means just over a quarter have not. Of the 226 Mets who never managed as much as an eighth-inning single off Fernando Abad, 201 were pitchers. R.A. Dickey’s offensive prowess notwithstanding, let’s be kind and leave them out of it —  even John Franco, who came to the plate 15 times in 14 seasons and never so much as successfully bunted a guy over.

That leaves 25 Met position players who never had a hit as a Met…but two of them, Joe Hietpas and Shane Halter, never came to bat. Hietpas was legendary Moonlight Graham material (catching the last half-inning of the last game of 2004) and Halter…well, let’s just infer he never fully won Bobby Valentine’s trust. He pinch-ran five times and played defense twice in 1999, but never, as Bob Murphy might have said, got a stick.

Excepting those sparsely utilized fellows, 23 non-pitching Mets batted in their Met careers and came away with non-batting averages.

With Luis Hernandez leaving their ranks, the most recent .000 was etched into the books by 2008 Mets flotsam Abraham Nuñez: 0-for-2 in twilight of Willie Randolph. He did his worst in San Diego and wasn’t invited to fly to LaGuardia to swing and miss for the home folks.

The most allergic to success was quickly lapsed 1986 Mex insurance policy Tim Corcoran. He went 0-for-6, but he did coax two walks, one of them, amazingly, intentional. Even more amazingly, the strategy worked. Corcoran took his base and the Padres’ Lance McCullers struck out pinch-hitter Darryl Strawberry and flied Lenny Dykstra to center. The Mets won anyway. It was 1986. The Mets always won anyway.

The most productive was Ike Hampton, who was presumably Liked a little by manager Yogi Berra for driving in a run on a sac fly among his four hitless 1972 at-bats. No other Ohfer Met position player drove in anybody.

And the most futile? A gent who played here 43 years ago but would probably be familiar to anyone who’s been paying Met attention in the past half-decade: recent coach Sandy Alomar, Sr., who established a record that appears safe…more safe than Sandy ever was in 1967.

Sandy came up 22 times and was retired 22 times. He struck out six times and grounded into a double play for poor measure. His ledger does, however, show one run scored as a Met: Alomar was pinch-running for Jerry Buchek and was driven home by Buddy Harrelson on April 20 — the day Tom Seaver earned his first major league win. Would love to tell you Sandy’s run was pivotal in sending Tom toward Cooperstown, but no, not really. Seaver was already out of the game and the Mets were already in the lead.

He may seem like nothing more than an answer to a trivia question you weren’t asking, yet on the day Luis Hernandez took a one-hit lead on Sandy Alomar, Sr., Sandy Alomar, Sr., made slightly bigger albeit completely unwanted news. Alomar, manager of the Gulf Coast League Mets, and his pitching coach, Hector Berrios, were said to have engaged in “an on-the-field argument” at the end of a G.C.L. Mets game last week, and the Mets suspended them both for the rest of the season. Granted, there were only two games left in their season, but if Sandy is out, Sandy is out.

And if his Met playing dossier proves anything, Sandy Alomar, Sr., was unmatched at being out.