Blogging Mets

The Mets lost to the Brewers Thursday night for their 82nd loss, which means the Mets won’t even finish .500 this season. And that is an absolute disgrace.

.500 means nothing, really. Either way, it was a waste of a season, except for a couple of bright spots (Dickey, Pagan, Davis, Niese, Pelfrey, and, uh, that’s it).  But it would have been nice not to have a losing record. But I guess that just confirms what we already know  — this was a loser of a team.

It should not have been. With the payroll and the talent, this should have been a winning team. And you can’t blame injuries this time around. Last year, yes, but not this season. Pagan filled in admirably for Beltran, and by the time Bay got injured, his season was already lost. Santana went down when the Mets were dead in the water.

Besides, the Phillies lost Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley and Ryan Howard to injury at various times throughout the season, and they managed to pull it all together and finish with the best record in the National League, maybe in all of baseball when it is all said and done.

Mets fans are used to disappointment. We really don’t ask for much. As the Mets fell out of the playoff hunt, all we asked for was a winning record. And they couldn’t even give us that.

How does Ken Burns do it? No, not put together documentaries. I know how to do that. No, how does he manage to find the biggest blowhards to talk about baseball?

Burns was back the past two nights with “The Tenth Inning,” a continuation of his seminal nine-part baseball documentary. Aside from a dubious history of baseball (I remember someone at ESPN catalogued hundreds of factual errors in the nine-parter), Burns unearthed every self-important person who loves the sound of their own voice to comment. They included Bob Costas, Billy Crystal, Mario Cuomo (?), Doris Kearns Goodwin (an excellent presidential historian, but who cares what she thinks about baseball?), and many others whom I have blocked out of my memory.

This time, Burns continued the parade with Jon Miller, Keith Olbermann, Costas (again), Goodwin (again), Mike Barnicle, Tom Boswell, George Will, and Bud Selig. At least most of these people have more of an actual connection to baseball than the last time around, but still, it is painful to listen to them ramble on in their self-reverential tone.

I don’t understand why Burns didn’t interview more baseball players, managers and baseball executives. After all, who knows more about the sport than them? I know Burns is trying to show baseball’s effect on our country, hence talking to non-baseball folks. But the only players Burns interviewed were Pedro Martinez and Ichiro Suzuki (which was very surprising and fascinating, since he rarely gives interviews). He also spoke to managers Joe Torre and Felipe Alou. That’s it (unless I missed some — I spent part of part 1 on the phone).

He mentioned Curt Schilling several times. Why not talk to him (he’ll talk to anybody with a camera)? About the 1994 strike, he talks about threats Tom Glavine, an outspoken player rep, received. I’d rather have heard that from Glavine himself.

I had a few other issues. When talking about baseball and 9/11, Burns didn’t show the ceremony before the first game back at Shea. That was an historic moment. In talking about the Yankees-Diamondbacks World Series that followed, he went on about tight security at Yankee Stadium, but didn’t show then-President Bush throwing out the first ball. Whether you like the guy or not, that was another historic moment. I couldn’t have been the only one whose heart was pounding as Bush stood on the pitchers mound, praying he would get off the field before a terrorist sniper got him.

Then there was important information Burns curiously left out. For example, he mentioned Ichiro’s 200+ hit seasons, but for some reason didn’t say he broke the all-time record for hits in a season. Is Burns even a baseball fan?

From a production point of view, I hated the fake crack-of-the-bat and phony crowd noise behind every highlight. Why not just let the natual sound play? And it was oddly structured. The Barry Bonds saga was properly highlighted. But instead of just telling his story and moving on, Burns kept returning to Bonds in what seemed like every other segment. I guess he was weaving it into the fabric of his story since it was so important. That’s an effective device, but I didn’t like the way it turned out.

As a baseball fan, it was nice to see the highlights of the past 15 years. But this could have been so much better, especially if Burns had not taken himself and his subject so seriously. Yes, the steroid issue and the strike were serious business. But baseball is a game. It is supposed to be fun. There was nothing fun about this documentary.

There has been more talk lately about expanding the playoffs to include a second wild card team from each league. MLB Commissioner Bud Selig said he’s open to the idea. Proponents site two reasons for doing this — on-field fairness and off-field drama.

We’ll examine the latter reason first. Take a look at this year’s American League race. The Yankees and Rays are battling it out in the final days of the season for the AL East championship. This should be a very dramatic, tense time for both teams, as well as their fans. But it is not because the loser is assured the wild card spot. The same thing happened during those Yankees-Red Sox races over the past ten years or so. What should have been epic battles lost a bit of their luster because both teams were going to the post season anyway. So it’s a very valid argument.

But let’s move to this year’s National League race. The Giants, Padres and Braves are in a fierce battle for the final two playoff spots. One of those teams will spend October at home. It’s all very dramatic. If there were two wild card spots, all three teams would get in, and there would be virtually no drama (of course, the Padres and Giants would rather win the division than be the wild card, but they’d be in the playoffs just the same). The same thing happened during the 2007 and 2008 Mets collapses. If they were assured a wild card spot, those collapses would have had much less of an impact.

So the “drama” reason actually cancels itself out. The on-field reason holds much more water. Under the current system, there is not much of a disadvantage to being the wild card team. Yes, that team plays one fewer game at home, but so too does the division winner with the worst record. But the wild card team gets to set up its pitching staff the same way as the division winner. The thinking is that if there were a one-game elimination matchup between the two wild card winners, those teams would have to use their best pitchers, making the ace of the winning team unavailable until the middle of the next series, and probably only for one game at that. That gives a huge advantage to the division winner — an advantage many people feel they earned by winning their division.

I understand the argument, but I like things the way they are. Only eight teams make the playoffs in baseball, as compared to 12 in football, and 16 in basketball and hockey. That often times puts undeserving teams — sometimes with losing records — in the playoffs. In baseball, you can rest assured that the teams in the playoffs earned those spots. It means that much more.

Let’s say the two-team wild card system was in place in 2007 and 2008, and the Mets got one of those spots but lost the wild card games. Sure, the Mets and their fans could say “Hey, we were in the playoffs!” But deep down, we all know it would have meant nothing.

Not only is Rusty Staub one of the most popular Mets ever, he is my favorite Met of all time. The Mets held a retirement ceremony for him in 1985. First there is a video montage, then he makes an on-field speech:

No, this is not another article about Oliver Perez’s $12 million or Luis Castillo’s $6 million. This is about Omar Minaya’s wasteful ways that slipped under the radar. That’s because individually, these signings are relatively insignificant. But put them together and they add up. Here are six absolutely useless deals Minaya made in the off season:  

Alex Cora: $2 million
Kelvim Escobar: $1.25 million
Gary Matthews, Jr.: $1 million
Sean Green: $975,000
Mike Jacobs: $900,000
Fernando Tatis: $850,000

That adds up to $6, 975,000 (we’ll round it up to $7 million for easier arithmetic). Instead of these players, Minaya could have filled out the roster with six minimum wage players (who, incidentally, filled the roster spots when these guys were jettisoned). That adds up to $2.4 million, so Minaya wasted $4.6 million.

Minaya could have put that money to good use. Here are three players who were available as free agents in the off season, and what they ended up signing for:

Jon Garland $4.7
Orlando Hudson $5 million
Bret Myers $5.1 million

Any of those three would have greatly helped the Mets this season, much more than those awful players Minaya put on the team. Just another example of Minaya’s poor decision making as GM, and why he’s got to go.

Speculation on who will be the next manager of the Mets is running rampant (how do you think it makes Jerry Manuel feel?). The talk got a big boost Monday with an appearance by outgoing Dodgers manager Joe Torre on WFAN, where he refused to “shut the door” on managing again.

When asked specifically about managing the Mets, he said,  “I have not had and nobody that I know of has had contact with anybody. I am curious. When the season is over, I hope the phone will be ringing.”

He added, “That’s where it all started for me in ’77; it would really be weird.”

However, those Mets fans pining for Torre should curb their enthusiasm. “I don’t really anticipate managing again, but I think it would be unfair not to listen just out of curiosity to see if something excites me. I am not sure if something will intrigue me,” he said.

But the idea is certainly intriguing for the Mets. Torre is obviously a proven winner. But at 70-years-old, does he have the fire to take on the perennially underperforming Mets? Perhaps more importantly, would the Wilpons be willing to shell out the probable $4 million it would take to draw him to Flushing?

That is unlikely, and that’s probably a good thing. No disrespect to Torre, but the Mets need a fiery manager who can rouse these troops out of their four-year lull. Torre may not be that man.

Which brings us to Wally Backman. “Fiery” is his middle name. But the question is whether he is ready to handle a big league club after just one year managing in the low minors. If he was ready a several years ago when he was manager of the Diamondbacks for like two days, why wouldn’t he be ready now. Plus, he’ll come relatively cheaply.

Dusty Baker, if he leaves the Reds? Meh.

Bob Melvin? Boring.

Tony LaRussa, if he decides to leave St. Louis, falls into the Torre category. Too expensive, not the man for this job.

Bobby Valentine would certainly be the man if the fans made the choice. No other manager could get the fan base excited like Valentine could. Who buys tickets to see the manager? Mets fans would to see Valentine, who is still beloved from his first tour of duty here.

For all of his on-field brilliance, Valentine’s personality is grating, eventually leading his bosses to be happy to see him go. Given the state of the Mets, I think the Wilpons should suck it up and give him the job.

Then there is the problem of how much say Valentine would want in  personnel decisions. That is what probably scuttled his deal to be the Marlins manager. If the Mets were smart (insert your own joke here), they would give Valentine some input. He is a sharp evaluator of talent. They could do far worse than having Valentine’s opinions to consider.

Here’s an idea — promote Mike Rizzo to GM, and make Valentine a sort of assistant GM/manager. Rizzo may not be ready to run a ballclub on his own, but put Valentine at his side, and he’ll be all right. As far as money, instead of spending big on a GM like Kevin Towers and less on a guy like Wally Backman as manager, spend big on Valentine and lowball Rizzo. That’s a better combination, anyway.

Or, just make Valentine the GM. Although his managerial skills would be wasted.

Having said all of this, I don’t think there’s any chance Valentine is hired in any capacity. And that would be unfortuate. I think Backman gets the job, which wouldn’t be terrible as long as a competent GM is hired as well.

I had quite a dilemma Sunday morning. The Mets-Braves game and the Cowboys-Bears game both started at the same time (10am Pacific time). Which game do I watch? Well, it wasn’t really a dilemma at all. Even though I am a much bigger baseball fan than football fan, the Mets season is all but over, the Cowboys season is just beginning. It was an easy decision. I watched the Cowboys and flipped over to the Mets from time to time.

My flipping was timely –  I saw David Wright’s home run, and I saw Derek Lee’s grand slam. Really, what more was there to see? The Cowboys game was just as lousy. But hey, at least both games were over at around 1pm, so I was able to go out and enjoy the California sun.

But it put me in mind of a Sunday a couple of years ago, a day that was perhaps my finest day of sports watching ever. September 7, 2008. The Mets, then in first place by two games, had a day-night doubleheader against the second place Phillies. The Cowboys opened their season against the Browns. And all the times aligned beautifully.

The Mets game started at 10am and ended at around 1pm, just in time for the Cowboys. That game ended at 4pm or so, allowing me time to run out and get some food before the 5pm start of Game 2 of the Mets-Phillies.

What a perfect day! Well, almost perfect — the Mets did lose Game 1. But the Cowboys won their game, and the Mets took the nightcap, keeping their two game lead in the NL East.

Of course, the joy of that day was short-lived. The Mets collapsed for a second straight season, and the Cowboys would lose three of their last four and miss the playoffs in an epic collapse of their own.

No such late season collapses this year. The Mets did that in July. And the Cowboys look to be doing it even earlier in their season.

Ah, but that day in 2008. A sports fan dream.

This is just funny stuff, and unfortunately, much of it rings true.

An interesting little conversation on the Mets-Braves broadcast Friday night — Gary Cohen asked Keith Hernandez and Ron Darling whether the swing of Braves rookie Jason Heyward (left) reminds them of anyone. Darling said, “John Milner?” Hernandez said no, that Milner tried to lift everything. Cohen asked, “Stargell or McCovey?” Hernandez said no. Cohen said,” It’s not Junior,” meaning Ken Griffey, Jr. Then there was a play on the field, and the topic was dropped.

What’s the big deal, you ask? Well, Heyward is black, and all of the players to whom he was being compared are black. This happens all the time, not only with Gary, Keith and Ron. When baseball announcers and writers compare current players with former greats, whites are compared to whites, blacks to blacks, Latinos to Latinos – almost every single time.

Some of these comparisons are legitimate — after all, some players might model themselves on whom they idolized growing up, and often times the idol is of the same race or ethnicity. But some of these comparisons are simply ludicrous.  Many years ago, the Mets or one of their opponents had a very ordinary black pitcher on the mound, and the play-by-play guy (I forget who it was) said, “He reminds me of Dwight Gooden.” Hernandez jumped in. “I wouldn’t go that far,” he snapped.

There are rare occasions when players of different races and ethnicities are compared. But even then, race is brought into it. When Darryl Strawberry (left) was still a top high school propsect, Sports Illustrated annointed him “The Black Ted Williams.” Why not just “The Next Ted Williams,” which the magazine probably would have called a white prospect.

I’m not accusing anyone of racism. I’m sure people are doing this unconsciously. But it is amazing how often it happens. Listen and read closely — you’ll see what I mean.

When Joe DiMaggio was alive, he insisted on being introduced as “the greatest living ballplayer,” whether he actually was or not. Since he died, that mantle has not been bestowed upon anyone. It’s too difficult a task to assign the moniker to any one player, so I’ve come up with the top 10 greatest living ballplayers — five hitters, five pitchers, listed in order by oldest to youngest:

Hitters:

Stan Musial, 89

One of the most underrated superstars because he spent his career out of the limelight in St. Louis, Musial was a career .331 hitter with 475 home runs, 1951 RBIs and 3630 hits — fourth on the all-time hits list. He also won three MVPs.

Willie Mays, 79

Many people who saw Mays play in his prime say he was the most exciting player ever, if not the best. 660 homers, 1903 RBIs, 3283 hits — not bad totals.

Hank Aaron, 76

Also an underrated player in a small market, Aaron’s greatness cannot be denied — second in home runs with 755, first in RBIs with 2297, third in hits with 3771.

Pete Rose, 69

The all-time hits leader with 4256, including ten seasons of 200+, Rose was one of the fiercest competitors in the game. He is also second in doubles with 746.

Barry Bonds, 46

Say what you want about the alleged steroid use, Bonds was simply one of the best players ever. Number one in homers with 762, 1996 RBIs and seven MVP awards.

Pitchers:

Bob Feller, 91

Feller was 266-162 in his career, but missed three full seasons and most of a fourth while serving in World War II. In the three years before the war, he won 24, 27, and 25 games. In the two full seasons afterwards, he won 26 and 20. It’s safe to assume he would have won upwards of 350 games if not for the war.

Sandy Koufax, 74

Koufax has a six-year run that will never be equalled, winning three Cy Youngs and one MVP award. Had he not retired at age 30 because of arthritis, his numbers likely would have been among the best.

Tom Seaver, 65

Seaver made the cut over possibly better pitchers like Steve Carlton and Bob Gibson because he was a Met, and this is a Mets website, after all. But Seaver was no slouch — 311 wins, sixth in strikeouts with 3640, 2.86 ERA, three Cy Young awards.

Roger Clemens, 48

Like Bonds, leave out the steroid accusations, and Clemens was simply stunning. His 354 wins is ninth all-time, he’s third in strikeouts with 4672, seven Cy Youngs and an MVP.

Greg Maddux, 44

Maddux killed the Mets, but he is eighth in wins with 355, tenth with 3371 strikeouts and four Cy Young awards.