Any way we can get Nyjer Morgan to turn his wrath on Willie Harris?
|
Any way we can get Nyjer Morgan to turn his wrath on Willie Harris? I missed all of yesterday’s outburst against the Cubs, monitoring it in dribs and drabs while saying farewell to summer at Coney Island and watching the Brooklyn Cyclones win their season finale, which they used as a tuneup for the playoffs. (If you’re near New York City, instead of enduring horrible baseball, go see the Cyclones — playoff tickets are available, and this looks like a team with some bona fide prospects on it.) Anyway, I saw the Mets had scored 10, gave a little silent cheer, and then shook my head patronizingly about 15 minutes later when the guy in the row in front of me announced they’d scored 18. Let’s not get carried away, I thought, then checked my cellphone again. Wow, wouldja look at that? I missed the first inning of today’s game because I wasn’t paying attention, but after what happened at Wrigley Field, I wasn’t particularly surprised to find the Mets already up 2-0. Or when they added another run two innings later. I even allowed myself to be briefly annoyed that after a summer of lurching spastically down the road like a 16-year-old with a learner’s permit and a stick shift, the Mets had finally found third or even fourth gear. Watch them go on a run, I thought. Just to annoy me. But no, all of a sudden the Mets looked around, realized they were the post-San Juan Mets of 2010, and they weren’t supposed to be doing what they were doing. With two outs in the top of the third, the Mets had three hits. With 27 outs in the bottom of everything, they still had three hits. And meanwhile, nobody could pitch. Mike Pelfrey came unraveled in a horrible fourth inning, and afterwards the Mets principals were predictably at odds about what the problems were: Pelfrey said he just couldn’t throw his fastball for strikes, Jerry Manuel said he lost focus, and Dan Warthen helpfully chipped in that Pelfrey had gone off to La-La Land. Raul Valdes, just returned from Buffalo, came in and was horrible. Sean Green, last seen being battered by Dan Uggla in the second game of the season, came in and was horrible. Pat Misch, who’s been mostly horrible, bucked the trend by retiring a batter. Ryota Igarashi — who definitely deserves consideration as one of the more horrible Mets busts — came in and was horrible. Oliver Perez, who can never return from being Oliver Perez, came in and was Oliver Perez. And then, mercifully, it was over. Soon we’ll say the same about this strange fizzle of a season. And yet, with two outs in the top of the ninth, I left off listening to Wayne Hagin slop paint on the word picture with his trademark clunky, tardy strokes and strolled over to the set. Why? Because Mike Nickeas, soccer scion, was up in search of his first big-league hit, and even in the worst of times I’m a sucker for a first big-league hit. But watching Nickeas try to be the first Met in 20 plate appearances to get a hit, I had an unwelcome flashback to the final game of the 2003 season. Back then, there were two outs in the ninth and the Mets were down 4-0 to the Marlins, having collected three hits on the afternoon. All that stood between them and winter was Mike Glavine, looking at what turned out to be his final chance to go into the Baseball Encyclopedia with a ‘1’ under the H column. Glavine singled, which depending on how you felt either kept the season alive or interfered with a staggeringly terrible year’s being mercifully euthanized. (Because you’re curious despite yourself, Raul Gonzalez then reached on an error and Vance Wilson was rung up on a called strike three. None of the three would ever play for the Mets again.) I remembered that I’d actually cheered for Mike Glavine’s hit, for a number of reasons. Because I’m a Mets fan, obviously. Because even though 2003 had been a horror show, one of the few seasons in which I actively loathed my ballclub, being mad at the Mets was better than winter. Because my dislike for T#m Gl@v!ne’s alibis and subtle shifting of blame hadn’t yet curdled into naked animosity. Because none of that was his brother’s fault. And as previously noted, because I’m a sucker for a first big-league hit. Standing there watching Mike Nickeas peer at the pitcher, I tried to remember all those becauses, and not get distracted by how harebrained it was letting Mike Glavine be a Met in the first place. But it was already stuck in my head: Mike Glavine, hideous baseball, dopey decision-making, 2003. By force of will I made myself fast-forward to 2010, and watched Mike Nickeas strike out. 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. 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. 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. 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 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? 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. 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. 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! 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. |
||
|
Copyright © 2025 Faith and Fear in Flushing - All Rights Reserved |
||