Blog Roundup: Post-NFL Edition

Football season ended in spectacular fashion (if you’re a fan of the non-baseball Giants), and baseball season approaches.  Pitchers and Catchers report later this month, and, like the cycles of the sun and the moon, America’s Original Pastime will move to the forefront once again.  Are Mets fans looking forward to the new season, or dreading it?

The Blogs have the answer:

  • Faith and Fear in Flushing is thinking playoffs after seeing the Giants win the Super B…er…Big Game.  In particular, Greg outlines just how many New York teams have made the playoffs since the Mets last postseason visit.  (The Islanders?  Really?)
  • Amazin’ Avenue looks at minor league free agents that left the Mets this offseason.  Hu was that guy?
  • Eddie Kranepool Society sums up the restlessness of Mets fans nicely.  The season better start soon, or else we might riot.  Then again, once we see the on-field product, we may be more likely to riot.
  • Metstradamus isn’t happy about how the Mets pulled writer Howard Megdal’s credentials, after he wrote a critical book about the Wilpons and their finances.
  • Paul’s Random Stuff brings our attention to a bottle of Dom Perignon signed by Bill Buckner.
  • MMO reports that the Mets farm system is ranked #22 in MLB.  Optimistic yet?

Well, at least we can look forward to the offseason drama dying down, and the on-field drama ramping up.  Right?  Oh yeah, and more great reads on Mets Today.

Paul is a freelance writer, blogger, and broadcast technology professional residing in Denver. A New Jersey native, he is a long-suffering Mets fan, a recently-happy Giants fan, and bewildered Islanders fan. He's also a fair-weather Avalanche and Rockies supporter. In his spare time, he enjoys the three Gs: Golf, Guitars, and Games.
  1. MikeT February 8, 2012 at 3:29 pm
    I get pretty tired of farm system rankings fairly quickly. My argument is that we are comparing the system to others, but that is not an indication of what the organization actually has. Just because 21 other teams have better potential players than the Mets (according to one source, and this is only an opinion mind you), doesn’t mean that Mets have a bad system. It means compared to their peers they are relatively not as good. If you have a math class where everyone has an A and you have an A- are you the dumbest person in your class? Technically, but that does not make your dumb or bad at math and you certainly should not feel bad for yourself.

    My argument is that ranking systems is stupid and the more appropriate method of classifying systems is to evaluate and assign a rating. Regardless of where a team’s rating ranks them, this is way more meaningful. And no I’m not arguing that the Mets are an A- amongst A’s.

    The other thing is that if all 21 teams ahead of the Mets get zero home-grown not yet MLB players to make an all-star team in the next few years and the Mets get one, then what good exactly are these rankings? In short: these rankings don’t tell us much, all they do is give fans something to talk about, which I guess is the point. Just don’t take them too seriously.

    • Joe Janish February 10, 2012 at 12:45 am
      Not sure I agree. I think many of these rankings are based on depth of a system, and if you subscribe to the theory of throwing paint at a wall to see what sticks, then the organizations with the most depth would have the best chance of producing the most MLB players. Having a large quantity of MLB-ready talent has value both in directly filling holes and indirectly building a team (i.e., trade bait). And if the Mets are 21st among all organizations in minor league depth, then they theoretically have less chance of filling their 25-man roster with homegrown talent and/or have less trade bait to work with.

      Further, I also disagree with your All-Star theory. If the Braves produce 8 non-All-Stars who contribute to the MLB team, but the Mets produce 1 All-Star, that doesn’t necessarily mean the Mets did a better job. If this was the NBA, where one extraordinary player can carry a team, I’d agree with you. But there have been many superstars who never made it to a World Series.

      Also, taking your A / A- example to task: if 4 teams in the NL East win 90 games or more, and the Mets win 89, then the Mets may have a “good” record but still will finish in last place — so who cares if they’re “good”? Where a team ranks amongst its peers is absolutely important, whether it’s in grading its farm system or anything else. It doesn’t matter how effective you are — it only matters how effective you are in comparison to your peers, because that is ultimately who you are competing against.