Mets Game 78: Loss To Athletics
Athletics 8 Mets 5
Mets miss golden opportunity to sweep The Best Team In Baseball.
Mets Game Notes
Zack Wheeler was not quite as effective as he was in his previous start. Two innings, 6 earned runs on 6 hits and 2 walks. Ouch. The A’s hitters were aggressive and comfortable, leading me to believe that they received outstanding scouting reports on Wheeler, and/or were made aware of how Wheeler is tipping his pitches. Wheeler was gassing it up at 96+ MPH, yet the A’s were hitting both the fastball and the change-up like they knew it was coming. Maybe they did.
Kudos to the Mets for not going completely in the tank after falling behind 6-0 right away, and then 8-0. However, their five runs were scored so late in the game that the final score made this seem closer than it really was.
There was a conversation early in the ballgame by GKR that began with the announcement that Adrian Beltre collected his 2500th career hit, and that he was “absolutely” a Hall of Famer. Hmmm … I beg to differ, mainly because his biggest year came during the PEDs era, and all of his other best offensive years came in hitters’ parks — Fenway and the Ballpark At Arlington. In his defense, his years in Seattle weren’t as bad as people fault him for — I think he gets a bad rap as a Mariner because those years came after that monstrous 48-homer, .334 AVG, 1.000+ OPS season and as a result, expectations were astronomic. At the same time, there is that cloud of PEDs and offensive numbers padded by hitters parks that make his compiled numbers seem not quite as remarkable as if, for example, they were compiled in the 1970s. Toward that end, I was pleased that Keith Hernandez brought up Rusty Staub‘s career numbers, which to me always seemed borderline HoF, and, after seeing what he compiled in a more “even” time (meaning, pitchers were dominant, and/or balanced against the hitters), seem much more impressive in retrospect. Similarly, I have to start screaming “Steve Garvey!” upon suggestion that Beltre is a HoF candidate. Garvey played just about all of his home games in pitchers’ parks, at a time when pitchers were dominant, and was an absolute machine in his ability to put up rock-solid performances year after year. Was he a superstar? From 1974-1980, maybe. It doesn’t look that way when you compare his numbers to players of the past 20 years, but back then, he was the shiznit. I feel similarly about players like Reggie Smith, Ted Simmons, Ken Singleton, Staub and others from that era of balance who have been overlooked in the Hall voting. It still blows my mind that it took so long for Jim Rice to get in, and that Dick Allen never got more than 19% of the vote (not to mention my pal Don Mattingly from that era just a bit after). Allen, hands-down, was one of the most dominant hitters during one of the most pitching-dominant eras in history, putting up single-season performances that would look great in the height of the PEDs era. What the heck are voters looking at?
Another discussion among GKR was around the “embarrassment of riches” in regard to the Mets’ young catchers — Travis d’Arnaud and Kevin Plawecki in particular. Gary Cohen pointed out that things can change quickly, and it reminded me of when the Texas Rangers and Philadelphia Phillies had remarkably sparkling depth of “future stars” behind the plate. It was the mid- to late 2000s that the Rangers had Taylor Teagarden and Jarrod Saltalamacchia banging the door on a still-youthful Gerald Laird, and a kid named Max Ramirez was supposed to be better than all of them. Similarly, the Phillies had Carlos Ruiz, Lou Marson, and a kid named d’Arnaud all stacked up and wondering which one would be the backstop of the future.
Next Mets Game
Mets move on to Pittsburgh to play the Pirates at 7:05 PM. Daisuke Matsuzaka goes to the mound against Vance Worley.
…………….didn’t think so.
2. As someone who’s been very confused about the handling of his playing time, I’m almost glad he was demoted – so that he can get everyday reps at Vegas, in lieu of wasting away at the expense of playing Tejada.
It’s funny to me, how much is made of him “waking up” since Flores was called to sit and waste on the bench………guy’s hitting .225-ish, out of the 8-hole most nights. His OBP% is inflated by the times he’s been pitched around to get to the pitcher’s spot, or walked intentionally all together.
Let’s give it a rest, folks.
3. RE: Joe West’s call on Tejada, to punch him out in the 9th?
As a hitter, I’ll always hate when umpires take it upon themselves to challenge a guy to swing at a pitch they normally wouldn’t ever think about chasing. While that pitch had the outside corner of the plate, it somewhere in-between Tejada’s nipples and adam’s apple.
Darling and Cohen started to talk about it for a bit, questioning the call — and Hernandez just sat there, waiting to close w/”It was a strike.”
I had a good laugh at his certainty, upon waiting for the overhead to show him. Mex has been a treasure in that booth for what seems like forever…..back to the days when he called the ’02 or ’03 Mets a bunch of quitters.
4. RE: Collins – I’ve just flat-out given up on railing against him for the sake of it.
However, my long-standing and documented issues w/him will always be there with him and his staff. Last night, again, we have questions of whether or not the opposition was “stealing signs” – to the point of shellacking Wheeler (and dipping into your bullpen) by the 2nd inning.
Here’s a novel idea: switch your signs up if you think the guy you’re throwing it to knows what’s coming!
…………another example of an in-game adjustment, completely falling to the wayside.
Not gonna spend an inordinate amount of time on it, only because I have my mind made up already – this coaching staff is the pits, and has always been terrible about mechanical (not to mention, anything remotely resembling “astute”) in-game adjustment.
5. For all the talk of “how hard it is” to put a ball out of Citi Field, Chris Young sure flipped a magic switch on how to attempt to go about it, eh?
Funny thing w/Young is, he might have even had a 4th HR – provided he leveled-out another half inch on Tuesday night. 2 good, warm nights – weather-wise…..a little bit of added incentive (with the rumblings in the press) – who knows if some more balls start flying out of Citi Field (or on the road), off his bat during the summer months?
I’m hoping, anyway. Not that I love him as a player, or ever advocated for his services – but you’d like to get at least something in the way of production from the rental.
Steve Garvey career fWAR – 37.8. Not a Hall of Famer. Garvey may have had a lot of hits, 2599, but his OBP was still below average at .329 because he didn’t walk much.
Adrian Beltre is a tremendous defensive player – which Steve Garvey was certainly not – and that is the difference as to why Beltre is probably a HOFer and Garvery.
Jim Rice should not have been elected to the HOF, but Dwight Evans definitely should have been.
Ted Simmons – HOFer.
Dick Allen – similar to Albert Belle, never seriously even considered by the writers for the HOF due to his bad reputation and surliness (i.e., dismissed out of hand). Was he a model citizen to the writers? No, but most teammates have lauded him as a good guy and even a leader on the teams he played on, and Allen should be in the HOF.
Reggie Smith – very, very good player and consistently underrated during his career and in the aftermath but I don’t think he’s quite at the HOF level. But close.
Ken Singleton – unfortunate that the Mets traded him away, but let’s not get carried away with the HOF talk. He wasn’t at that level of excellence.
To me a HoFer is someone who either absolutely dominated at something for a good stretch — in other words, considered the very best in the game — or maintained a consistent level of all-around play significantly above his peers for 10-15+ years.
So for example I have no idea how Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy get booted from the ballot, because there was no one better than them for about a 5-year stretch. That’s what Hall of Famers, to me, should be — the very best ballplayers.
At the same time, HoF is irrelevant to me because of PEDs. I’ve stated before that the voting for HoFers should end, and the museum continue to honor and highlight whatever makes an impact on the game — whether it’s a player, event, or something else. I no longer pay much attention to the inductee voting because individual honors never meant much to me in the first place, and now, even less with the cloud of PEDs. I also don’t get all the sabermetrics entering the conversation. If you want to base HoF value strictly on numbers, then why have a vote? Just look at the stats, and if the numbers add up to whatever value it is (fWAR?), then the person is in. Maybe we can also stop with the playoff and World Series nonsense and just give the championship to the team that has the highest run differential:payroll ratio.
Joe – your observations on the “embarrassment of riches” in certain positions for a franchise makes me think of the early ’70’s Mets and their outfielders. Imagine if the Mets had held on to Otis and Singleton and traded Agee and Jones. We fans would have screamed bloody murder but the team would probably have been more competitive right through the 1970’s.
Will be interesting to see for how long, especially since he’s been aces for them this year…………and that it sounds like it’s not getting better after missing 8 games w/it already.
Like we said at least 5 years ago, he’s just one of those guys you can set your watch to. The fluke season he stays healthy and on the field? – that’s what you’re always gonna be hoping for.
“Giants placed OF Angel Pagan on the 15-day disabled list, retroactive to June 15, with a strained back.
The Giants held out as long as they could — literally, in terms of a max backdated DL move — but finally had to disable the outfielder. Pagan will be eligible to return on Monday, though it’s not clear at this point if he’ll be ready at that time. Gregor Blanco will continue to fill in in center field.
Jun 25 – 2:30 PM”
He ever gets moved out of CF – for any reason, and he becomes a tremendously overpaid corner outfielder – for what he actually brings to the table.
Even the oft-injured Pagan, playing a corner spot – would be preferable over someone like Chris Young at $7MM+.
Pagan’s deal was structured pretty shrewdly:
13:$7MM,
14:$9MM,
15:$9MM,
16:$10MM
Even if he’s out forever…….it’s still not remotely as bad as some of the deals we’ve seen afforded to garbage Met players through the years.
Fact remains, though: Pagan’s hurt with a pretty significant injury almost every year.
Your comments in these paragraphs are contradictory:
To me a HoFer is someone who either absolutely dominated at something for a good stretch — in other words, considered the very best in the game — or maintained a consistent level of all-around play significantly above his peers for 10-15+ years.
So for example I have no idea how Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy get booted from the ballot, because there was no one better than them for about a 5-year stretch. That’s what Hall of Famers, to me, should be — the very best ballplayers.
I agree with the comments in the first paragraph – that if someone dominates for a 10-15 year stretch they should be in the HOF. But your comments in the second paragraph cite two players that did NOT dominate for 10-15 years – Murphy and Mattingly.
The problem with both of those players – even more Murphy than Mattingly, but both – is sustained excellence. They were incredible for a short period of time, but did not sustain the excellence long enough to be considered HOFs by most.
The best thing about the baseball HOF is that it is more exclusive than the other three major US sports and I hope that continues to be the case. While Murphy and Mattingly and others were great for a while, I hope only the best of the best for a lengthy period of time are elected to the HOF.
As for being contradictory, I purposely used the conjunction “or” to explain two different definitions that have no scientific basis and apply only to what works in my head. When I see a player absolutely freaking dominate the game — be it as a pitcher, hitter, or fielder — for at least a few years, to me, that’s a HoFer, because to me HoF doesn’t necessarily require longevity. If the election of Sandy Koufax is any indication, then at least a few others agree with that sentiment. Koufax was one of the very best 2 or 3 pitchers in baseball for a four-year period, and that’s about it. Mattingly and Murphy were both among the top 2 or 3 hitters for a for a four-year period (it could be argued that Murphy was there for 5 or 6 years), and both had longer careers than Koufax.
To me it’s kind of like the Roy Hobbs perspective — he wanted people to look at him and say, “there goes the best to ever play the game” — and it doesn’t matter that he did it for one year or 20, because he was the best.
Now, I don’t think a guy can play one year and be a HoFer, but I believe a four-year stretch of absolute dominance can be enough to prove he’s one of the best of all-time, regardless of the total compiled numbers. Greatness is greatness, in my mind. Koufax, Murphy, Mattingly, Rice, Allen, and a few others qualify despite lack of longevity, in my opinion.
The last paragraph of my previous post and the last paragraph of your most recent post sets out distinctly why we disagree as the reason why guys like Ken Singleton are not HOFs:
I wrote:
The best thing about the baseball HOF is that it is more exclusive than the other three major US sports and I hope that continues to be the case. While Murphy and Mattingly and others were great for a while, I hope only the best of the best for a lengthy period of time are elected to the HOF.
And you then wrote:
Now, I don’t think a guy can play one year and be a HoFer, but I believe a four-year stretch of absolute dominance can be enough to prove he’s one of the best of all-time, regardless of the total compiled numbers. Greatness is greatness, in my mind. Koufax, Murphy, Mattingly, Rice, Allen, and a few others qualify despite lack of longevity, in my opinion.
So clearly you favor a much bigger HOF and if guys have (for example) five terrific years they should be in the HOF while I think that guys should only be in the HOF if they have been (a) great players (not very good, but great) and (b) for a long period of time.
So seems we just differ on who should be in the HOF because we have a different standard.