The blog for Mets fans
who like to read
ABOUT US
Faith and Fear in Flushing made its debut on Feb. 16, 2005, the brainchild of two longtime friends and lifelong Met fans.
Greg Prince discovered the Mets when he was 6, during the magical summer of 1969. He is a Long Island-based writer, editor and communications consultant. Contact him here.
Jason Fry is a Brooklyn writer whose first memories include his mom leaping up and down cheering for Rusty Staub. Check out his other writing here.
Got something to say? Leave a comment, or email us at faithandfear@gmail.com. (Sorry, but we have no interest in ads, sponsored content or guest posts.)
Need our RSS feed? It's here.
Visit our Facebook page, or drop by the personal pages for Greg and Jason.
Or follow us on Twitter: Here's Greg, and here's Jason.
|
by Greg Prince on 12 September 2021 1:18 pm
Amid the myriad personnel moves the Mets have made this year, it’s easy to overlook the contributions of three players in particular. Dale Late has put his stamp on the starting rotation; Buck Short has become a presence in the middle of the order; and before being relegated to part-time duty, Mo Mentum looked to be a real factor. Indeed, the Mets were ultimately defined in their Saturday night game against the Yankees by the actions of the aforementioned trio.
Dale Late wasn’t sharp early, and allowed the Mets to fall behind by a substantial margin, but then he found his groove and gave the Mets enough innings to call it a good start.
Buck Short loomed as a threat all night, particularly as the Mets threatened to retake the lead they’d battled so hard to take after trailing, but his last big swing came up a little shy of making the crucial difference.
Mo Mentum? Frankly, I thought this might be the night we’d see Mo Mentum earn an everyday slot, but I’m sure those who analyze and strategize have their reasons for keeping Mo Mentum from really developing into the kind of player who can help the Mets sustain consistent winning.
As it was, there were several players who came through and kept the Mets in the game, but in the end, the club came up a day late, a buck short and had no momentum, falling, 8-7. Each of the Mets’ last eight losses has been by one run, coinciding with the additions of Late and Short to their roster and the subtraction of Mentum from their lineup.
***
Prior to Saturday night’s game, Citi Field hosted what appeared to be thoughtful and well-done ceremonies to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the September 11 attacks (“appeared,” because Fox kept cutting away from the ceremonies in order to yap and advertise). Manager Bobby Valentine, first base coach Mookie Wilson and eleven members of the 2001 Mets were on hand, as were hundreds of people with a specific connection to the events, aftermath and ongoing commemoration of 9/11. The current Mets broke out special home white NEW YORK jerseys to emphasize their bond with the city; wore the caps of the FDNY, the NYPD, the PAPD, the Department of Sanitation and the Department of Correction to honor those who gave so totally of themselves in the wake of the tragedy; and lined up alongside their interborough rivals to stress two opposing sides can sometimes come together. Even a person who isn’t particularly excited to see another New York team visit Queens under any circumstance considered it a nice touch.
The pregame production echoed that of the first game back at Shea Stadium in September of 2001 as well as the tenth-anniversary remembrance of September 2011. When it comes to reaching out to their community, the Mets organization indeed never forgets.
by Greg Prince on 11 September 2021 12:38 pm
I resent the Yankees. I’ve always resented the Yankees. I resented them from the first time I became aware of their existence. I understood neither the purpose nor appeal of their existence. It was 1969. New York had the Miracle Mets, the baseball team about to be certified world champions. I met the Mets as they surged into first place and I fell in love. Why wouldn’t everybody around here do the same? For what did New York need this additional, wholly irrelevant baseball team nestled in fifth place a million games behind Baltimore? Why would New York divert as much as a scintilla of its affection from the Mets to any other baseball team?
My resentment has alternately simmered and boiled for more than a half-century. Boiled a lot for a very long while. Simmers now. These days, out of sight, out of mind. I’ve trained myself to pay them as little mind as possible. For 156 to 158 games of a regulation season, it’s not that difficult. Don’t tune into that channel you don’t want to watch. Don’t listen to that station you don’t want to hear. Don’t click on the content you don’t want to consume. Live in New York, and some Pinstriped propaganda inevitably filters in, but I try to let it flow out. I’m not beyond monitoring standings in the interest of a stress-free October. Big picture only, however. I don’t dabble in their details. I don’t care to know.
This was mostly impossible in the years leading up to and out of 2001. The Yankees had won four of the five most recent World Series, including the last three. They won the 2000 World Series as visitors to Shea Stadium. It was an uncomfortably homey visit for them. Those Mets were an outstanding team in those days. The pennant in 2000. The ride of a lifetime in 1999. Those Mets weren’t as outstanding as those Yankees, though. An invigorating evening there, a delightful afternoon here, but never for more than a blip. The receipts don’t lie. We weren’t outstanding enough.
New York’s attention, except for that belonging to those of us bound to be classified as social misfits, was inevitably theirs. 1969 was ancient history. 1986 was slightly less so. Our version of 1999 and 2000, with its 97 wins one year and 94 the next and postseason dramatics both years, was rendered a footnote. I knew this was deep down a National League town, a town whose highs were never higher than when the Mets did the elevating. But that knowledge, like those ever fainter veins of orange and blue, was too deep to matter by 2001. Nobody called New York an American League town. It was an overwhelming success town, populated by millions, yet large enough only for pervasive winning. There was next to no room for the nicest of tries. We who didn’t flock to the ritual parades and dutifully celebrate the overwhelming success in our midst were dismissed as The Other. There were Yankees fans and there were The Other people — buncha weirdoes — who for some strange reason opted not to be Yankees fans. That was the extant dichotomy served up to us dally and nightly c. 2001. It was that framing I resented far more than however many rings were being counted, added and brandished.
You don’t need me or anybody to admonish you to never forget September 2001 in New York from a topline perspective. I think that’s covered. From a baseball perspective, in case you’ve forgotten, it was business as had been usual. The Yankees were cruising toward another division title. The Mets were fighting furiously to catch up to the Braves. I resented the Braves, too, but only situationally. The prevailing situation was the Braves won the National League East annually. I didn’t question the Braves’ existence. I just wished to finish a season ahead of them.
Then September 11. You remember that. The date nobody is going to forget led to six days of no baseball and me personally not caring when baseball came back. But baseball did come back on September 17. For two days I barely cared that it was there and questioned why I should care at all. By the third day, with the Mets completing a sweep in Pittsburgh, I began to care in earnest again. Began to. I wasn’t all the way back yet. The Mets had won 20 of their previous 25 games and had picked up eight-and-a-half games on first place in the process. It was hard not to begin caring again. The Braves — the first-place Braves — were next on the Mets’ rearranged schedule. Home games. At Shea. I was going to the first of them and third of them.
Short version: the Mets won the first of those games, on September 21. Mike Piazza hit the deciding home run in the eighth inning. That’s a very short version. You know about the home run. You’ve likely been reminded of the home run this week along with that game and its significance marking the first time a load of New Yorkers came together to do anything other than be despondent since September 11. I’ve read and heard several Braves from 2001 admit in 2021 it didn’t bother them to have lost to the Mets in New York that night, among them T#m Gl@v!ne, who told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “It’s probably one of the only games in the big leagues that I was part of the losing team and really didn’t care.” (We can guess one of the others.)
I wonder if the Braves really felt that way at the time or if they’ve revised their view of events twenty years after the fact out of empathy with the city that had just endured unspeakable horror. I wouldn’t hold it against them if in the course of competition they were legitimately bothered they lost that game. They’re not supposed to want to lose to the Mets in New York any more than in Atlanta. From all I could tell in Mezzanine, they were trying to win. It took Mike Piazza hitting an eighth-inning home run to beat them.
Helluva home run. A lot of people divined a lot of meaning from it, and I’m glad it gave them the boost they needed. I understood what it looked like as it soared out of Shea, but what it meant to me was Mets 3 Braves 2 and the Mets having lopped a little more off the Braves’ divisional lead. Despite my presence in the ballpark, I still wasn’t all the way back. I still wasn’t convinced baseball was of passing let alone paramount importance in New York in September of 2001. Even a Mike Piazza home run that was destined to endure as his signature swing wasn’t enough to more than nudge me.
The Mets won the second game of that series and whittled the Braves’ NL East edge down to 3½. Then, with me in attendance, they blew a three-run ninth-inning lead and lost in eleven in that third game. Brian Jordan, one of the 2001 Braves who says he “didn’t mind losing a game” in New York on Friday, wasn’t going to let it happen again on Sunday. Or the following Saturday, in Atlanta. Brian Jordan killed us and our comeback aspirations twice in a six-day span, each time with a lethal home run in the decisive inning. In September of 2001, I doubt I would have used “killed” and “lethal” for something as silly as a baseball game played in the shadow of unspeakable horror. But after Jordan took his first deadly swing against the Mets, I knew I was back because I was far more devastated by his home run than I had been uplifted by Piazza’s. The Mets mattered to me in full again. The Mets going to Montreal and sweeping three from the Expos in between Jordan’s hatchet jobs mattered to me. The Mets having one last gasp at Turner Field (and that gasp being smothered) mattered to me. I knew it only mattered infinitesimally in the scheme of much graver things, but I let it matter to me. There was no way it wasn’t going to eventually.
I was so proud of the Mets that September. Disgusted by them once Jordan unleashed his grand slam on John Franco to seal the 8-5 loss of September 29, but proud nonetheless. Proud of the late run they’d put on to salvage their season (25-6), and proud that they allowed us to briefly imagine a baseball miracle that might have made 1969’s seem ordinary, but proudest of how they conducted themselves. They came back from Pittsburgh on a bus once their games the week of September 11 were postponed and they put themselves to work as best they could. Perhaps all that blending into the New York background in the late 1990s and earliest 2000s imbued them with an additional layer of humility. Maybe they were just all good guys. They pitched in at the Shea Stadium staging area as if they weren’t big-time big leaguers. They visited the rescue workers who needed desperately, if only for a minute, to see something besides piles of rubble. They exchanged caps with members of one service agency after another and they wore the caps they received to represent them on the field of play. They’d won a slew of games down the stretch. They were winners regardless that the slew wasn’t adequate to the task of taking down the Braves.
And then the Yankees went to the World Series in October and a little of November and were lauded far, wide and singularly for being the focal point of what New Yorkers could at last cheer about.
The fall of 2001, particularly in New York, was a time for unity, for nobody being classified as The Other. I felt it in many ways, but not this one. I felt resentful. I felt like a clod for feeling resentful under the circumstances, and I tried to rein in my resentment, but resentment reigned in my heart. It wasn’t a contest, I kept telling myself. It was the aftermath of unspeakable horror and whoever and whatever could bring a little light into people’s lives should be welcome.
But I did not welcome the Yankees into this framing, certainly not at the expense of the Mets and what they did and how they represented themselves and their city. All the never forgetting, and the 2001 Mets were forgotten in a matter of a month. I would have been thrilled had anybody beaten the Yankees in the ninth inning of a seventh game of any World Series and stuck a spoke in the dynastic wheel that had run roughshod over New York’s baseball narrative for a half-decade. This stick, stuck as it was by the Arizona Diamondbacks in the ninth inning of the seventh game of the 2001 World Series, was a stick whose existence I exulted in without shame. The way I rationalized it, everybody got what they came for. Those who liked the Yankees and needed something to take their minds off of everything else got to keep watching their team for the extent of an entire postseason. The rest of us who resented the Yankees and needed something to take our minds off of everything else (if not the bleeping Yankees being in another bleeping World Series) got the pleasure of watching their arrogant ass vault forward from the haughty seat of their self-satisfied ten-speed.
Something for everybody.
If scheduling the two New York teams to play one another on the twentieth anniversary of September 11, 2001, was meant as a throwback gesture of unity, it hasn’t performed its magic on me. Not on September 10, 2021, at any rate. I always resent the Yankees coming into Citi Field just as I always resented the Yankees coming into Shea Stadium. I resent their fans and their caps and their sense of entitlement occupying any space inside our physical environs. I continue to resent the existence of the Yankees in any context, including that of Interleague opponent on a symbolic weekend. I’ll craft my own symbolism, thank you very much.
Nonetheless, on Friday night the stumbling Mets walloped the slumping Yankees, 10-3. It was beautiful, despite my misgivings that this opponent and this matchup existed. The Yankees, who I grant you are still a better bet to make their playoffs than the Mets are to make theirs, made too many egregious errors in execution and judgment to accurately aggregate. Jeff McNeil laid down the most gorgeous drag bunt with the bases loaded. James McCann delivered his first clutch hit since Queen Elizabeth let her subscription to Tiger Beat lapse. Francisco Lindor homered. Javy Baez made all kinds of defense-flummoxing contact. Tylor Megill was sharp for seven winning innings. Jonathan Villar, about to be out by the proverbial twenty feet, was safe at home on the most hilarious non-tag from Gary Sanchez you’ve ever witnessed. The play so defied credulity that you couldn’t scoff that it took the injection of replay review to overturn the initial incorrect call by Ted Barrett. Unless Sanchez was inhabited by the 2001 Bravelike spirit of believing it wrong that the Mets lose on this Friday night in Flushing, it was unfathomable to infer what was going through his mind as Villar almost accidentally slid under and past him.
We can differ on particulars as we go along, but we should all be united in kindness to one another; in acceptance of one another; in wishing well-being to one another; in acting in ways that don’t harm one another; in not unnecessarily and obnoxiously obstructing one another from living our best, healthiest and freest lives.
And we should all be able to resent the Yankees as much as we want and feel fine about it.
by Jason Fry on 9 September 2021 10:33 pm
The New York Mets are worth your time. They’ve got a rich history, by turns tragic and comic and occasionally even triumphant, that’s fun to be a part of. And one year, maybe even a year pretty soon, they’ll add something to the triumphant part of that history. And that’ll definitely be worth your time.
But the 2021 Mets? Not so much.
This year’s team can’t get out of its own way. It can’t beat good teams, as it made abundantly clear last month, but it can’t beat bad ones either. Remember a week ago, when this stretch against the Nats and the Marlins was going to be their springboard back into competition? Well, that stretch is done and they went 4-4. When you go 4-4 against the bottom of your division’s barrel, you’ve shown anyone who’s paying attention exactly what you are.
Meanwhile, look around you. Odds are you aren’t in a gulag. (And if you are, well, good on you for finding one with Internet access.) This is the sweet part of September, when the days are still kind enough for shirt sleeves and some of the nights are starting to turn pleasantly cool. Those are nights for languid dinners and romantic strolls and gentle reminiscing and making big dramatic plans. (Though hey, bring a mask.) Make the most of them, because in a blink of an eye the wind will bite and it’ll be dark early and you’ll want each and every one of those nights back.
My advice? Don’t waste the precious remaining ones on terrible ballclubs that can’t get out of their own way. On misbegotten outfits that can play down to any level of competition. On organizations that have rotted from the top and need pruning. On the 2021 Mets, who don’t deserve your belief or your hope, having rewarded neither.
Another incarnation of the Mets will show up pretty soon. Save your passion for that one, because maybe it will love you back in a way this version can’t.
That’s what I’m doing, or at least the mini-version of it. Tomorrow I’m heading to Rome, which means eight and a half blissfully Met-free days await me. That wasn’t the point of the trip — once upon a time I even cringed when I saw I was missing the Subway Series — but all of a sudden it feels like a Get Out of Jail Free card. In my absence be nice to Greg, whose patience with my vagabond ways has probably never been as sorely tested as it’s about to be. Be nice to each other. And don’t forget to be nice to yourselves. Whether that means more baseball or less of it … well, I suppose that’s up to you.
by Greg Prince on 9 September 2021 2:00 pm
Ten years ago this month, Mets fans hung on the statistic of batting average. Never mind that analytic understanding had taken its toll on the popular utility of what used to be considered the defining standard of hitting excellence. Never mind OPS. Never mind WAR. A Met was competing for the highest batting average in the National League. He could win the Batting Title! He could win the Batting Crown!
And so he did. Jose Reyes edged out Ryan Braun, .337 to .332, with Matt Kemp falling back at .324. Though it ended a little inelegantly, the batting title race was incredibly absorbing in September 2011, especially considering there was really nothing else at stake for the Mets as Terry Collins’s first term at our helm wound down.
I don’t remember batting average much infiltrating the Metsian discourse in the seasons or Septembers since, at least until September of 2021, when, on Wednesday night, every Mets fan grew hyperconscious of the grand old stat. Every Mets fan had to, not because there were a couple of batting averages that were close, but because there were a couple that were distant…very distant.
It was the bottom of the tenth inning in Miami. Sandy Alcantra had kept every Met off the board for nine innings, save for Michael Conforto, who had homered in the seventh. Alcantra, who just turned 26, allowed only four hits and struck out fourteen in the span of a regulation complete game. He dominated the Mets on Wednesday night like the Reds’ Jim Maloney dominated the Mets that night in 1965 when Maloney, then 25, held the Mets to no runs and no hits while striking out fifteen through nine. Because it was 1965, Maloney went back out to the Crosley Field mound for the tenth and struck out two more Mets while continuing his no-hitter.
But just as the Mets had Frank Lary in 1965, they have Rich Hill in 2021, and now as then, the old veteran in New York gray was a match substantively if not stylistically for the younger home team hurler. Lary, 35, went eight and gave up no runs, supported by Larry Bearnarth, who maintained the shutout for those usually futile Mets into extras. These Mets of today, ensconced for an evening in Hill country, were enjoying similar success in the tops of innings. Hill went six and struck out eight, giving up only a single run. Rich Hill is 41. Six innings is pretty much his ceiling. In 2021, six innings is almost every starting pitcher’s ceiling. In 2021, Alcantra going nine amounted to a miracle.
Hill was succeeded to the hill by Jeurys Familia, Aaron Loup and Seth Lugo. None was perfect. Each permitted at least one Marlin to reach scoring position. Lugo loaded the bases. None gave up a run. The Mets arrived in the tenth inning in a 1-1 tie.
While the Mets and Marlins were stuck at 1-1, the Braves and Nationals were dueling at 2-2 and the Phillies and Brewers were deadlocked at 3-3. Everybody in the National League East chase was essentially batting .500 for the night. None had ever been far enough above .500 for the year to put the other two away. The Mets, at 70-69, enjoyed contender’s privileges entering the tenth inning Wednesday night because of favorable league and geographic alignment. You don’t want to take 70-69 to any other division. It wouldn’t get you past the velvet rope. In the NL East, it had the Mets four games out and aspiring to meaningfully reduce that margin.
First, though, they’d have to score on the Marlins in the tenth. Even with a runner plopped onto second base to start the half-inning, that’s easier said than done. Done, as it turned out, proved difficult, then impossible. The Mets, despite no longer facing Sandy Alcantra, pushed their unearned runner, Conforto, no farther than third base against the presumably less imposing Anthony Bender.
Following Familia, Loup and Lugo out of the bullpen for the bottom of the tenth was Edwin Diaz. As the setting wasn’t Washington, perhaps a Mets fan could breathe a sigh of relief. As the situation wasn’t save — and a free runner was granted by Manfredian fiat to the Marlins — a Mets fan could only sigh. Whatever Diaz was dropped into, it was his task to guide us out of it.
He could’ve used some help from the dugout. What was it Al Pacino as supersalesman Ricky Roma said to Kevin Spacey as office manager John Williamson in Glengarry Glen Ross?
“What you’re hired for, is to help us — does that seem clear to you? To help us, not to fuck us up. To help those who are going out there to try to earn a living.”
Then Roma calls Williamson an epithet I’m not comfortable repeating, before labeling him a “company man”.
With Jazz Chisolm having materialized out of the imagination of Rob Manfred on second base, Magneuris Sierra bunted the unearned runner to third. It was a sacrifice; one out. Edwin Diaz then K’d Jesus Sanchez; two out, with Chisolm still percolating on third. First base was extraordinarily open in a tie game in which a hypothetical runner at first was of no consequence to the potential final score.
Now what? Now it was a choice for the dugout, for Luis Rojas. And it was where batting averages rose to hyperconsciousness. The next batter up for Miami was Bryan De La Cruz. De La Cruz, though he doesn’t have nearly enough at-bats to qualify for the Batting Title, stood on deck with a batting average of .336. The Marlin in the hole was Lewin Diaz. Lewin’s batting average at that moment was .108. Lewin Diaz was 4-for-37 on the season and 0-for-4 on the night. Bryan De La Cruz was 39-for-116 on the season and 2-for-4 on the night, having doubled in the second, singled in the fourth and looked good each time up. On the other hand — or in terms of hands — De La Cruz bats righthanded, while Lewin Diaz bats lefthanded. Edwin Diaz, you’ll recall from your familiarity with his form, is righthanded.
All things being equal, conventional wisdom suggests you have the righthander pitch to the righthanded batter. That wisdom goes back to the days when America leaned forward with baited breath to learn who was where in the battle for the Batting Crown. Then again, the righthanded batter in question had a very high average and the lefthanded batter was still working on descending into a bathtub with little guarantee that he might hit water. All things were not equal.
Rojas, a respected baseball lifer from the esteemed Alou baseball family and not someone who requires remedial schooling in such matters, could have instructed his Diaz to put De La Cruz and his .336 average on first base and pitch to the other Diaz and his .108 average. Righty-lefty be damned, 228 batting average points separated the manager’s choices. Not that anybody in the majors is incapable of hitting anything with a bat in any hand, but some percentages are too blatant to ignore. You gotta help your reliever here, especially one whose psyche may not be made of the sternest stuff after too many late innings pitched without a net.
Or as Roma said to Williamson, “I don’t care whose nephew you are.”
Luis Rojas, a valued company man within the Mets organization since 2006, had Edwin Diaz pitch to Bryan De La Cruz, he of the .336 batting average. Within three pitches, Bryan De La Cruz owned a .342 batting average, having lined a fly ball far over the head of Albert Almora until it banged off the center field wall. Chisolm crossed the plate quite safely. The Marlins, now twenty-three games below .500, had defeated the Mets, now exactly .500, 2-1. The third-place Mets’ six most recent losses have each been by one run. That will earn nobody looking to move up a set of steak knives, let alone a new Cadillac.
The contests in Atlanta and Milwaukee managed to go the Mets’ way. The Braves lost. The Phillies lost. The 70-70 Mets didn’t lose ground, except to the calendar, on which a day disappeared and the Mets didn’t close ground. They are still four games out of a division lead despite being absolutely average when it comes to wins and losses.
Which isn’t likely to cut ice, even in the glacial NL East of 2021.
(PS: In case you aren’t aware of how the game of June 14, 1965, ended, Johnny Lewis homered in the top of the eleventh to break up Maloney’s no-hitter. Bearnarth proceeded to hold the Reds at bay to preserve the 1-0 lead, saddling Maloney with an eleven-inning, albeit eighteen-strikeout defeat. It’s not recent, but by appearing in the final sentence of this essay, it constitutes the only happy Met ending readily available.)
by Jason Fry on 8 September 2021 12:17 am
Hope springs eternal if you’re a Mets fan, but even springs can lose their sproing. Come Tuesday evening, I have to admit I wasn’t particularly feeling it — if you’d shown me a flash card that said METS, I most likely would have responded by having a tantrum about Edwin Diaz and demanding to know why everything has to suck beyond endurance. But the games go on and so do I, so I sat down, albeit a bit grumpily, and watched Pete Alonso connect for a gigantic home run to give the Mets a 2-0 lead in the first inning.
Once that would have been heartening. But after watching the Mets lose a lead 4.5 times that big, not so much. If I had a medical chart, it would have read LACK OF SPROING.
Sometime after Carlos Carrasco turned in his usual inept first inning, my phone rang. It was our handyman, without whom our apartment would collapse into a pile of drywall and regret. For the next half-hour or so he clucked sympathetically as I showed him damage from Ida and details that needed to put right after a window installation, and every so often I could hear Emily upstairs, making noises. They didn’t sound like crows of triumph; more like disgust mixed with disdain.
That was about what I’d expected, but eventually I couldn’t take it any more.
“What’s the score?” I asked between bouts of assessing broken stuff.
“4-2.”
“4-2 good or 4-2 bad?”
“4-2 good.”
Emily told me that the Marlins’ pitcher had walked three guys in a row and then hit two guys in a row, which sounded so unlikely that my brain refused to process it and I needed it verified again later, to her consternation. It was that kind of game — six errors, too many other instances of dopey baseball to count or countenance, and a couple of thousand fans scattered around New Soilmaster Stadium who sounded unsure about whether being there meant they’d made good choices in life. (They hadn’t.)
Oh, and there was some doofus dressed as a fucking piece of toast or something. (Don’t tell me what it was in the comments, because I don’t care.) I hope that guy got paid. Actually, I hoped Jeff McNeil would find a reason to take offense at the thing’s presence (not impossible) and start pummeling it (less likely but also not impossible).
Honestly, isn’t this the way we should have known this deeply weird, deeply stupid Mets season would gutter into darkness? Our team’s fate was never to be on the last-weekend stage as gladiators bound for death or glory, much as we tried to wish that finale into being. It was to wind up in front of a tiny, bored crowd throwing haymakers at the Marlins and receiving the same, like a pair of blindfolded drunks.
It sounds tragic, but the 2021 Mets never flew high enough to deserve that word. “Farcical” doesn’t make sense either, because that implies some higher purpose squandered, and I don’t think that ever existed.
Honestly, the Mets and Marlins should play all 162 games against each other, every year. They’d make several errors a night; Pete Alonso would club 75 homers; some combination of Gary, Keith and Ron would sigh about the latest Marlins who don’t know how to pitch; McNeil would finally cold-cock that stupid piece of toast; and 54 different Marlin infielders with microscopic career OPSes would do Marlin things that left Edwin Diaz to glumly explain what he think went wrong this time. Some years the Mets would go 85-77 and some years they’d go 77-85 and none of it would matter much less than anything matters now.
Why not? We’d even win a few. Let’s do it. New Soilmaster awaits. Catch the torpor.
by Greg Prince on 6 September 2021 11:42 pm
“L’shanah tovah,” give or take the “L’” (and maybe the silent h’s), is a greeting that’s passed back and forth when the Jewish calendar changes, as it has from 5781 to 5782. The Mets could use a new year themselves. One-hundred thirty-eight games in, this 2021 business can’t quite work the kinks out.
On Monday afternoon, a few hours before sundown, the Mets labored the day away in Washington, rapping out a dozen hits, making several impressive plays in the field, riding the sixth-starter high-wire act of Trevor Williams for five innings, feeding off the thirtieth home run from Pete Alonso and nursing a 3-2 lead until the bottom of the ninth. With twelve hits, there should have been more than three Met runs, but the Nationals hadn’t made more out of eleven hits than two runs, so just take what the LOBs will give you and hand it off to Edwin Diaz for safe keeping.
Or, on second thought, don’t do that. Edwin Diaz has had many fine outings in 2021. He’s also made a terrific commercial for suite rentals at Citi Field. The best part of it is he’s not pitching in the ninth inning at Washington when he’s in it. On the mound at Nationals Park in the ninth inning, let’s just say Edwin Diaz will not win any awards for acting. Or closing.
Diaz stood sixty feet, six inches from Alcides Escobar and fed him four balls to lead off the bottom of the ninth. At that point, you understood the 3-2 lead was likely short-lived. “Oh look,” you might have thought, “there’s Juan Soto in the on-deck circle. I guess I can get on with my barbecue/synagogue plans now.” Except Soto was retired on a leaping two-handed grab by Jeff McNeil in foul territory just beyond the left field line. McNeil is not a left fielder by trade, but he seems more dynamic when untethered from second base, his usual position.
So we escaped the obvious dagger Soto represented. All Diaz had to do was, honestly, not be Diaz for a change. Look, we’re trying. We’re really trying not to be that hairtrigger fan who spouts fatalistic four-letter exclamations at the sight of our imperfect closer. We try to believe every upbeat stat meant to convince us that the Edwin Diaz we think we knew in our first horrifying year together isn’t automatically the Edwin Diaz who emerges from the bullpen in the present. We want to love Edwin Diaz or at least not cringe at the sight of Edwin Diaz. But Sugar, ya gotta meet us three-thirds of the way in a ninth inning like this. We need you to get three outs and not give up a run — certainly no more than a run with a one-run lead — when it’s Labor Day and we fancy ourselves playoff contenders.
At two-and-two on Josh Bell, Diaz almost had Bell struck out. Bell checked his swing, which it seems for decades wasn’t acknowledged by umpires as a thing. You moved your bat a little, you swung. Here, Chris Conroy wasn’t so stern and called it a ball. But James McCann asked for help from Pat Hoberg at third base. Hoberg, too, was lenient. The ball to Bell stood and now the count was full.
Two pitches later, Bell walked, Escobar was on second, and Andrew Stevenson was up. Andrew Stevenson has been trouble to the Mets since late in 2020 when he fluffed up Jacob deGrom’s ERA (albeit from 2.14 to 2.38). Stevenson was trouble on Saturday converting the nah, they can’t possibly blow all of a nine-nothing lead to wow, they blew all of a nine-nothing lead. Monday was no holiday, secular or otherwise, for Stevenson’s darker instincts. He fell into an oh-and-two hole, yet climbed out, singling to right. Escobar, still on our spit list from the 2015 World Series, motored home. Michael Conforto heaved a decent throw to McCann, but it was too late to prevent a tie.
Except, wait a sec — did Escobar touch the plate? It sure didn’t look sure. He definitely missed it on the front end, but the back end was tougher to tell. An umpire’s review (different from a challenge) was instigated. Our best hope, previously thought to be Diaz’s slider, was now on the replay shadow docket.
We got no relief. Like Bell’s checked swing, I didn’t think what we needed to go our way actually went our way, but maybe somebody in authority would see it differently. Somebody didn’t. The run stood, the game was tied.
Had there been a Players Weekend promotion this season with players wearing darling nicknames on the backs of their jerseys, Carter Kieboom’s could have been A MATTER OF TIME. Once Diaz began not getting Nationals out, it was a matter of time that some National with a bat in his hand would end the ninth with something other than a trudge back to his home dugout. Kieboom rapped a ground ball up the middle that a playing-in Francisco Lindor couldn’t smother (and probably couldn’t have pivoted to throw home if he had). Bell wrung the last iota of hope out of the ninth, indisputably touching home plate and saddling the Mets with their second 4-3 loss of the five-game series.
Now we’re four games out with 24 to play, which isn’t as swell as being three games out with 24 to play. The loss in D.C. wasn’t fatal, but it wasn’t helpful. Diaz leaving the mound with the door ajar is essentially a cookie-crumble in June or some earlier month. Buck up, go get ’em next time! In September, the same missed opportunity to preserve a win resonates more deeply. And now that he’s got this mini-disaster to go with his blown save from Friday night and the 11-10 implosion from September 2019 on his ledger, I think it’s fair to say we never want to see Edwin Diaz in Washington again. He could run for Congress unopposed from our district and we wouldn’t vote for him.
Not the happiest way to end what we think of as summer. Not the happiest way to usher in Rosh Hashanah, either. There’s another game Tuesday night. That’s not intended as a threat.
by Greg Prince on 5 September 2021 8:35 pm
Baseball teams need only one more run than their opponent when the game is over to be declared the winner. I’m pretty sure that’s how it works. Only pretty sure, because I have come to believe the Mets could find a way to lose a game in which they have the greater number of runs at its end. I don’t know how such a result would manifest itself, I’m just not ready to rule it out.
After Saturday’s 9-0 lead became a 9-9 tie, nothing feels off the table of possibility. That the Mets snuck two additional runs onto the board in a so-called extra inning didn’t keep me from wondering if claiming the “11” in an 11-9 final would necessarily earn them the W. They indeed were ruled to have won it in nine — evidence exists they scored their tenth and eleventh runs in the ninth without reflexively allowing a tenth, eleventh or worse run themselves — but the game was supposed to go only seven. “Supposed to” in the sense that seven innings was predetermined as regulation for half of a Manfred-rigged day-night doubleheader, and “supposed to” because the Mets led, 9-0, in the middle of the fourth. The overness of it not being over until it’s over is “supposed to” have a limit.
But it wasn’t over until it was extras on Saturday afternoon, therefore informing the way one was bound to process the doings in Washington come Sunday afternoon. With Saturday fresh in the mind’s eye, there was no we way we ever had enough runs on Sunday.
Not when we scored four in the top of the first (the Nats scored three in the bottom of the first).
Not when we led, 6-3, in the middle of the fifth (the Nats scored three to tie us in the bottom of the fifth).
Certainly not when a single Met run crossed the plate in the top of the eighth to push the Mets ahead, 7-6 (incidentally, when did Nationals Park, heretofore not known as one of those “no lead is safe” havens, move ten blocks from Lake Michigan and elevate 5,280 feet above sea level?).
Heading to the ninth, how many additional runs did you think the allegedly contending New York Mets would need to fend off the cellar-dwelling Washington Nationals?
Would one run do it? Francisco Lindor led off the ninth with a homer, securing us that usually All-Important Insurance Run. Yet we surely felt no more secure at 8-6 than we had at 7-6. Not after Saturday.
Would two runs do it? Between a Pete Alonso double and a Michael Conforto single, we added a second ninth-inning run and were staked to a three-run lead of 9-6.
Not enough. Not after Saturday.
Javy Baez singled for his fourth hit of the game. Jeff McNeil walked. The bases were loaded. Nobody was out. Kevin Pillar, the closest thing we have to Roy Kent, stepped up. Our indefatigable grizzled veteran (“he’s here, he’s there, he’s everyfuckingwhere — Kevin Pillar! Kevin Pillar!”) ripped into the best Austin Voth could throw him and sent it toward Capitol Hill. The Mets had amended their run total six times in the ninth and led by seven. Was lassoing a 13-6 lead enough?
Not really. Not after Saturday. Not in our gut. But in reality, yes. At some point, you have to stop not believing, at least in the scoreboard when the scoreboard blinks its big F at you and your seven-run advantage.
Do you gotta believe in the Mets at 3½ back with four weeks to go in a season that has seen them look intermittently unbeatable and nothing but beatable? We have one more with the Nats, whose players haven’t quite given up as much as their front office did, then three with the Marlins, who are always a pain. That’s the pillowy part of the schedule. Then come five consecutive series against teams with better records than our team. Our belief system will have to be fortified on a nightly basis.
One thing I believe might be beneficial would be to adjust every clubhouse calendar to make the Mets in general and Baez in particular believe every day is Sunday. Consider the last four completed Sunday games the Mets have played (worded as such to include this past Wednesday’s completion of the Sunday April 11 game, which is officially a Sunday game, which is inane bookkeeping, but never mind that right now). In those four games, this is what Javy Baez has done:
• Collected eight hits in thirteen at-bats
• Scored seven runs
• Driven in six runs
• Doubled twice
• Homered twice
• Stolen a base
• Run daringly
• Slid brilliantly
• Said something really stupid about the fans
• Lost a very expensive earring
• And, most importantly, contributed heavily to four Mets victories
Give Javy and the Mets a month of Sundays, and it could get 1973 as hell up in here across these final 25 games. Even without the calendar magically self-editing on the fly, we do have close to a month left in a year in which the Mets’ fate somehow remains to be determined. Is it enough?
We’ll see.
by Jason Fry on 5 September 2021 6:02 am
Even by the Mets’ standard of absurdity, the first game of Saturday’s doubleheader was something: A stately chug out to a 9-0 lead, unbelievably blowing that 9-0 lead, then somehow winning anyway. (Followed by the seemingly inevitable hangover loss.)
For me the game was a blogger’s version of the tortoise and the hare: A couple of minutes after Michael Conforto‘s two-run homer ran the lead to nine runs, I turned off my in-laws’ car and Emily and I trundled down to a lake in Connecticut that’s become a favored weekend/holiday getaway. I swam and kayaked and did healthy outdoor stuff; Emily read and snoozed; both of us were blissfully unaware of the disaster unfolding in Met Land.
When I picked up my phone again it was double-take time: 9-7? C’mon, really?
Yeah, really. And I had an unhappy feeling that things were about to get worse, as indeed they did: No sooner did I walk back into my in-laws’ house than Andrew Stevenson connected off Seth Lugo to complete the disaster. Insult to injury: The radio feed on my phone was a couple of pitches behind the TV, meaning I watched Stevenson’s ball plop down over the outfield fence while Lugo was still dueling him on my phone.
My reaction wasn’t the calmest one I’ve had as a fan:
So of course the Mets somehow won, escaping an eighth-inning execution by the skin of Trevor May‘s teeth and riding the highly traditional leadoff two-run homer from Francisco Lindor to a victory secured by Heath Hembree, of all people. Lindor homered off Kyle Finnegan, who was celebrating his birthday and just back from paternity leave. That seemed mean; on the other hand, the disaster came two years and a day after Kurt Suzuki‘s soul-killing, season-destroying homer off Edwin Diaz, one of the Mets’ regular-season moments I still find myself muttering about at random 3 ams. That game was no fault of Kyle Finnegan’s (let alone his wife), but the fact that it happened absolves any Met from any meanness inflicted on any National until the day several billion years from now when the sun finally gutters out.
Anyway, Game 1 was the Mets in a thoroughly confounding nutshell: They did something impressive, did something mind-numbingly horrifying, and stubbornly zigged each and every time a zag was obvious. Oh, and someone got injured, which is also a daily occurrence with this team. Unfortunately, Saturday’s victim was Brandon Nimmo, who makes the team immeasurably better with his play in center, jeweler’s eye at the plate and reliably high tempo on a team that has bouts of being logy. Hamstrings being hamstrings, Nimmo is probably done for the year.
His absence was certainly felt in the second game, dropped 4-3 by the Mets to Tommy John returnee Josh Rogers. The nightcap was low on absurdity but high on discouragement: The Mets scored a run in the first but shrank from adding on, scuffled along with a depleted lineup to no particular effect, and lost when Pete Alonso was caught looking with the tying run on second.
What did it all mean, beyond the obvious fact that baseball is cruel, exhausting and bad for one’s health? Damned if I know. On the one hand, the Mets have taken the first two of three from the Nats, blew a nine-run lead but didn’t lose, and actually made up half a game on the Phillies and the Braves. On the other hand, the Nats are hapless and yet against this mighty competition the Mets have blown a two-run lead in the ninth, given back a nine-run lead, and lost a game more conventionally.
It’s all absurd. But we’ve covered that.
by Jason Fry on 3 September 2021 11:34 pm
Maybe I need to see the therapist of my blog partner’s imaginings, because I figure any sane counselor would tell me and the Mets that we’re better off apart. Right now, we’re making each other insane, night after night.
On Friday night the Mets jumped out to an early 2-0 lead over what used to be the Nationals, largely thanks to their opponents’ mistakes, but there was ominous music all over the soundtrack. They missed chance after chance to bury the Nats under an avalanche of runs, somehow didn’t pay for that recklessness, and handed Edwin Diaz a 2-0 lead.
Now look. The nature of being a closer is that a blown save feels like your heart got ripped out of your chest, and every closer arrives on stage balancing on a tightrope. Even the best closers blow saves now and again, and we remember the now and agains even as we forget the streaks of ho-hum conversions.
That said, I don’t think I will ever be able to trust Diaz. The man could convert every save for three seasons in a running (he won’t) and donate a kidney to me and I’d still be like, “You’re going to blow this, aren’t you?” (If for some reason Edwin does give me a kidney, I’ll do my best to just think this and not, say, tweet it. Also, that would be nice of him.)
So. Diaz came in and blew it: leadoff homer to Juan Soto (who’d been bedeviled all night by Rich Hill, go figure), strikeout, walk to ageless Met killer Ryan Zimmerman, game-tying double to Riley Adams. Yeah, Brandon Nimmo dived for a ball he didn’t really have a chance for and Javier Baez made a less-than-perfect throw home, but still, he blew it. Adams was on third with one out, Diaz couldn’t get out of his own way, and the Mets were dead. They’d lost the game, their season was over, and maybe they’d be contracted on general principles.
Except the thing I cannot get through my head about this year’s seriously weird Mets team is that they will confound each and every certainty. Diaz struck out Carter Kieboom, got Luis Garcia to ground out, and the Mets would play on. So of course in the 10th they rose up in indignation and spanked the Nats for four runs.
(Those were the four runs they could have scored two hours earlier by not whiffing on every opportunity, but that’s the bitterness talking.)
Pete Alonso brought in ghost runner Francisco Lindor, and then tagged up on a long foul fly from Baez — a critical play, as it turned out. The Nats walked Michael Conforto and Kevin Pillar doubled in two. Jonathan Villar — who had four hits on the night — brought in Pillar. And then Jeurys Familia put the Nats down without breaking a sweat, giving Diaz the win.
Yes, Edwin Diaz got the win. Which is obviously absurd, but then the whole game was absurd. As was the postgame news that the Braves lost in Colorado, drawing the Mets within four. It’s absurd to think they could pull that off, given their seemingly endless list of faults. But they specialize in the absurd, don’t they? However it’s defined at a given moment.
by Greg Prince on 3 September 2021 12:17 pm
The Mets beat the Marlins by one run. But the Phillies beat the Nationals by one run, and the Braves beat the Rockies by one run, so by the end of Thursday, nothing changed at the top of the NL East, though at least we got to maintain the sensation/illusion that the Mets reside somewhere near there.
We’re five games back. I use “we’re” reflexively if advisedly. After Javy Baez told us to go thumb ourselves, the them-against-us quotient emanating from the Mets clubhouse was too high to elicit my standard first-person plural solidarity. “If we win together, then we got to lose together,” was Baez’s explanation last Sunday for why he wanted to boo those who booed him. Dude, I thought, “we” have been losing together, sometimes winning together all our lives. We’ve got the together part down pat, no matter how it sounds to you as it echoes off your diamond earring or the hole where it used to sit. I didn’t mind the tone-deaf letting out of his frustrations or his daring to tell the customer that the customer is sometimes wrong so much as I did some stranger coming in here and telling me — telling us — how to be Mets fans. We were Mets fans before you’d ever heard of us and we’ll be Mets fans once you have to be reminded of those two months you played in New York.
But we are five games back, the earmark of a positive trend…though I’m pretty sure we were once five games up. I can’t be certain, because history has been rewritten on the fly this week ever since we continued and completed the April 11 game on August 31. Because the game started on April 11, it goes into the official annals as the game of April 11. Never mind that only seven of 360 pitches thrown in the game were thrown on April 11. Never mind that five Mets who are now listed as having played their first game as Mets on April 11 (Baez, Patrick Mazeika, Heath Hembree, Chance Sisco, Brandon Drury) were nowhere near the Mets’ active roster on April 11. Because what the Mets won over a span of about four hours on the afternoon of August 31 was a continuation of a few minutes conducted in pouring rain on April 11, the win is credited to April 11 and a half-game bump in the standings that didn’t exist for more than four-and-a-half months has been retroactively inserted into the daily log for 2021. So maybe we’ve had a five-game lead at some point this year. Maybe it was five-and-a-half.
It’s hard enough to fathom what happens with the Mets day after day without altering the days that came before.
Still, we’re all caught up on games in terms of games that had first pitches and last pitches, even if we’re not all caught up in our division. At least we’re closer now than we were before the thumbs went down. Five games back in the scheme of recent things is as surprising as being told ahead of the season that Jonathan Villar would homer seventeen times or Jeurys Familia would garner nine wins. We haven’t lost a game in August, April or September dating back to No. 36 going up in the rafters. Jerry Koosman always did prefer to pitch in that cool autumn breeze, and we seem to be as refreshed as the weather — if as flooded by folderol as too many local neighborhoods were in Wednesday’s storm.
Not everything has something to do with everything else. I don’t know what Baez and the thumbs-down crew had to do with the dismissal months earlier of Chili Davis, but I read a column that linked them together. I don’t know what the very serious charge that Zack Scott had driven while intoxicated in the early hours Tuesday had to do with the Mets opting not to sign Kumar Rocker despite using their first-round draft choice on him, but I read that in a column somewhere as well. When the Mets spin out of control, everything gets caught up in the dreidel’s whirlwind. The conventional baseball wisdom coalesces around the Mets don’t know what they’re doing. Maybe they don’t. Or maybe some things they do they don’t know as well as they could while other things are coincidental. Hell, maybe the front office and its flawed parade of GM types knew what they were doing long enough to bring in the Villars, Pillars and Loups who have levitated the season just enough above sea level so that it hasn’t altogether drowned. Somebody in authority just signed off on bringing in Brad Hand.
From a thumb to a Hand and nobody making a fist in a week’s time. That’s progress.
However you use choose to use your digits, the Mets are five games back with a month to go, have a bunch of games remaining versus the two teams indisputably not in the top tier of the National League East, and have a whole bunch more against good teams from across the map. I don’t have a ton of faith that the current five-game surge (four, if you buy into August 31 having taken place on April 11) lays a legitimate path to glory, but here I am, being quite aware that the Mets are five games out with a month to go and staying on top of what the two teams above them are doing, which, honestly, I didn’t think I’d still be doing after the Giants and Dodgers shoved the Mets’ tail between the Mets’ legs eleven times in thirteen opportunities.
They’re five games out. We’re five games out. Only five games out.
***If I had been at Tuesday afternoon’s resumption of the aforementioned suspended game, particularly during the bottom of the ninth inning, no doubt my focus would have been on the field. Where else would a person be looking while five runs are being conjured to overhaul a four-run deficit? Yet I imagine there must be spot at Citi Field, somewhere in the 300s, where if you turned your back on the field and aimed your vision toward the Ralph Kiner Television Booth and the Bob Murphy Radio Booth, adjacent as they are, you could probably get a decent view of both Gary Cohen and Howie Rose at work. Your ears are the proper receiver for their words, but to see them both simultaneously calling a moment like Conforto hitting and Baez sprinting and sliding would be a sight to see.
Thanks to SNY’s sponsored booth cam, we do get occasional glimpses of Gary in all his Cohenness.
WCBS doesn’t seem to bother with visuals, deciding (not without radio logic) that the word picture Howie paints is enough.
For those who aren’t into clicking. Let me transcribe. It’ll be my pleasure.
Gary on TV:
Alonso the tying run at third, Baez the winning run at first, two out. And Conforto SLASHES one the other way, BASE HIT!! That ties the game! Alonso in. Baez digging for third, it’s kicked by Alfaro! HERE COMES BAEZ TRYING TO SCORE!!! HE SCORES and the Mets WIN it!!! Turn those thumbs around!! Javy Baez races home with the winning run, and the Mets win it, six to five!!
Howie on radio:
Baez the winning run at first, first pitch…swing and a ground ball, BASE HIT GOING INTO LEFT FIELD! The Mets have tied it! Alonso scores! Digging for third is Baez — the ball is BOBBLED! Baez comin’ around third, Alfaro’s throw to the plate, the slide — the ball gets AWAY! The Mets win! The Mets win! Put it in the books! The Mets come BACK from trailing five to one in the ninth inning, a single and an error in left field has won the game for the Mets, Michael Conforto gets the hit, they are POUNDING him as he had rounded second base, they’re gonna virtually unDRESS him between second and third, as they will YANK the shirt off of HIS back. Javier Baez had the hit that made it a one-run game, and then after Alonso had scored the tying run on that hit, and Alfaro — remember, a catcher by trade — in left field bobbled that ball, Baez flew around third and scored as the throw was not handled by Jackson, and the Mets have won the ballgame, six to FIVE!
I’m tempted to mix the calls together just to experience the sequence in Sensurround. But they probably come out better one at a time. Watch the action if it’s in front of you. Listen to the descriptions over and over afterward.
Russell Hammond’s message via William Miller to Stillwater’s leading band aid Penny Lane in Almost Famous was, “Tell her it ain’t California without her. Tell her we want her around like last summer.” Well, Howie, it ain’t gonna be the Mets without you in September. It might be in form and function, but the heart and soul we’ll have to ad lib for ourselves. As you recover from what ails you, know that we’re leaving an ear open for when you return to start next season. We want you around like every summer.
|
|