|
Centerfield wrote:
Now, I know that this is painting with a broad brush and a lot of preconceived notions but I just can’t help but feel that 41’s take is such a typical Republican point of view.
Come in with the notion you want to believe and stick to it. Even when logic and data suggest otherwise. Focus on numbers that support your thinking, even if those numbers are belied by better, more exhaustive information.
Mix in a hint of inaccuracy (the team was never 12-1). Remember to be judgmental (“I can’t believe you guys are talking about bailing”). And you are almost there.
Finally, before you leave the house, check if your opinion justifies the behavior of rich white men. Yes? Congratulations! You’re ready to be a Republican! |
In defense of 41F's baseball views, it's true that defending the Mets justifies the behavior of rich white men. But that's also true of defenders of the behaviors of the Yankees, Royals, Indians, Diamondbacks, Red Sox, White Sox, Cubs, and Rumble Ponies, as well as more or less anyone else who has earned money from owning or being in the front office of a professional baseball team. And pessimism is fine, and really the only sane choice if you root for the Mets, but not-bailing is part of the life of being a fan. It's why I ignore football, basketball, and hockey. Rooting for 1 1/2 baseball teams is draining enough.
And what a 21-19 record tells us about the Mets is that the Mets are 21-19. The fact that they were extremely fantastic over their first 12 games and rather crappy over the following 28 doesn't provide any extra information on the surface. You could dig a little and maybe see that the competition was different. That was true last year when we started 7-3 by beating up on weak teams, but I don't think it's true this year. We won series against the Nats and Cardinals during the 11-1 stretch, and lost series to the Reds and Padres during the 10-18.
You can argue that it's a different Mets team now than it was at the beginning of the season. This is true to some degree. The slide downhill began when we lost both our catchers in two or three days. Catching is subtle. We all know it's one of the two most important non-pitching positions on the field, but I can't tell much difference between "good" and "bad" catchers by watching them. The Mets have been looking better since the Mesoraco trade. Could be the change from Plawecki/D'Arnaud to Lobaton/Nido was creating a bigger hole than we realized. So maybe things start picking up again now.
All in all, though, I think the 21-19 record is about what the Mets are right now - a .525 team. Closer to good than bad, and maybe able to go deep into the postseason with some luck, health, and good trades, but not the best team in baseball by a long shot.
As far as why the Mets are mediocre, can we tie a rock to the idea that The Yankees Are A Big Market Team That Acts Like One And The Wilpons Are Cheap and toss it into a very deep lake? First, sustained excellence in baseball is nearly impossible. The only teams that have been consistently reasonably competitive over the past fifteen years are the Yankees and Cardinals, and even that's giving the phrase "reasonably competitive" a very broad interpretation. Every other team, including the other Big Market teams (say, the Dodgers, Giants, Red Sox, and Cubs, and maybe throw in the White Sox, A's, and Angels) has had ups and downs, just like the Mets.
Second, as far as the Yankees going big and the Mets going small, I call bullshit. The Yankees' payroll is $166.1 million. The Mets' payroll is $150.6 million. Does anyone really think that the difference between the Yankees and the Mets can be explained by $15.5 million? The players signed by the Yankees to multi-year contracts for more than $10M per year are Giancarlo Stanton, Masahiro Tanaka, Jacoby Ellsbury, Brett Gardner, and Aroldis Chapman. That's one new signing, one mediocre signing, one signing that makes Jason Bay look like a smart deal, one aging centerfielder finishing out a middling career, and a very good closer.
This isn't why the Yankees win and the Mets don't. The Yankees win because they drafted Luis Severino, Aaron Judge, Dellin Betances, Gary Sanchez, and Gleyber Torres, and because they somehow figured out that Didi Gregorius was good at baseball. Or, at least, that he was good enough to hit pop-up home runs in that joke of a ballpark they play in. The key players the Mets drafted or made early-career trades for are DeGrom, Syndergaard, Flores, Lagares, Conforto, Rosario, D'Arnaud, Plawecki, and Familia. Other than DeGrom and possibly Syndergaard, those guys aren't as good as the players the Yankees drafted, at least not yet. And the Yankees have a deep pool of talented young players in the pipeline. We have two first basemen who maybe possibly might could turn out to be pretty good if we're lucky.
It sucks to have to admit it, but the Yankees win because they've been smarter. Or luckier. I'm not sure which. I've spent plenty of time wondering about whether the Mets inability to develop top quality players within the org is due to bad luck or bad skills, and I have absolutely no clue. But I am convinced that the core problem with the org is player development, not some refusal to act like a Big Market Team.
And, for what it's worth, I think the Stanton trade/contract takeover was monumentally stupid and arrogant, and may be the beginning of the end of Yankee dominance. Way too much can go wrong at $30M+ per year (for the later years), even for the MFYs. It'll be tragic to those who feel (MFY bandwagoners) and comic to those who think (that's us).
|
