Jeff Pearlman: King of Lazy Analysis

This is just lazy writing. Really, really lazy writing. I probably put more effort into these three intro sentences than Jeff put into his whole column.

Yes, Jason Bay is going to be big in New York-

Oh yeah? He is?

a big bust, that is

Oh wow. WHAT A HEADLINE. Absolute facial. You've been figuratively dunked on by Jeff Pearlman, Jason.

The statement came 28 years ago.

In the winter of 1981-82, the New York Mets were Big Apple nobodies -- a star-less, charisma-less franchise coming off of a miserable 41-62 strike-shortened season. The team had drawn 704,244 fans, seventh in the National League (and not even half the total of the cross-town Yankees), and its marketing exclamation, "The magic is back!" rang hollow. Unless Joel Youngblood and Pete Falcone possessed some sort of secret, Houdini-esque abilities, the magic was not back. It was, in fact, dead.

I fucking hate it when Gen-X sportswriters needlessly drop the names of irrelevant players from days gone by. We get it, Jeff. You followed the Mets back then, so you can name two of their completely unremarkable players. If I'm a sportswriter 20 years from now, which I won't be, you all have free license to slug me in the face if I lead off a column with "It was 2007, and the Colorado Rockies were making an incredible run at the playoffs on the backs of guys like Jamey Carroll and Josh Fogg."

With this as a backdrop, Frank Cashen, the team's general manager, pulled off a headline-stealing deal. In exchange for three middling players, Cashen landed slugging outfielder George Foster from the Cincinnati Reds, immediately signing him to a five-year, $10 million contract.

Did Cashen think the former National League MVP was the missing piece that New York needed to turn itself into a winner? Hardly. While the Mets offense was nothing to brag about, it was the club's rotten starting rotation and lowly middle infield that required the most attention. "But signing George was a message to baseball and to our fans that we were in it to win," Cashen said. "From here on out, we would do whatever it takes."

Mets wins in the 4 years prior to that crappy strike-shortened season: 64, 66, 63, 67. Mets wins in the 5 years prior to the Bay sigining: 83, 97, 88, 89, 70. So while Foster might have been a "we're dedicated to winning!" signing, there is no way you could possibly under any circumstances make the same argument about Bay. And this is just the first of many times Jeff will try to make a comparison that simply isn't there. Because he's lazy. A lazy idiot.

The outcome: Foster hit 13 home runs in his first season in New York. He played an abysmal left field, was booed mercilessly, shunned in his own clubhouse and -- even as he went on to spend 3½ more decent seasons with the Mets -- labeled one of the biggest busts in the team's history. By the time the team won the 1986 World Series, he was out of baseball.

Oh no!

Why? Because George Foster was a bad fit.

It sounds more like his skill set was declining at the time he was signed (he was 33; Bay is 31), and kind of an asshole to boot (no one has ever said that about Bay).

As we approach 2010, New York Mets history is about to repeat itself. According to WFAN, the team has agreed to sign Jason Bay to a four-year contract worth nearly $66 million. Like Foster 28 years back, Bay is in his early 30s.

He is two years younger. It matters. A lot.

Like Foster 28 years back, Bay will play left field and bat in the middle of the order.

IT'S ALL LINING UP TOO PERFECTLY!!!

Like Foster 28 years back, Bay will arrive in Queens accompanied by enough hype and hope to fill three stadiums.

Like Foster 28 years back, this will not go well.

Jason Bay is a good ballplayer. A fine ballplayer. Heck, an excellent ballplayer. With Boston last year, residing in cozy Fenway Park,

Know how long it took me to find this? Ten seconds. Turns out, Citi was actually a better HR park than Fenway last year. In fact Fenway has historically been a pretty bad HR park. Of course, Citi might be rougher on pull-hitting righties like Bay than Fenway is since the GREEN FACKIN' MONSTAH, MOST LEGENDAHRY WALL IN THE HISTAHRY OF WALLS can occasionally function as a short porch. (Of course, it can also turn balls that would be HRs anywhere else into doubles.) But at least acknowledge the issue, you know? To be fair, Fenway was the best doubles park in the whole league while Citi was 19th. But Jeff's about to give you Bay's HR total from last year.

the 31-year-old All-Star hit 36 home runs with 119 RBIs, thus making him the pulse of an otherwise aging Red Sox lineup. He has cleared 30 home runs in four of his last five seasons. Bay also happens to be one of the game's truly good guys -- likeable, agreeable, approachable, laid-back. The complete package.

So... not at all like Foster.

Yet for all the positives Bay brings to an organization, he lacks the one tool that the Mets truly need -- an ability to move walls.

When New York's brain-dead powers-that-be decided that Citi Field should feature spacious outfield grass and power alleys from here to Hagåtña, they unintentionally dictated the type of team that GM Omar Manaya is required to assemble.

Even if this is true, how does it make them braindead? They have to make either a pitchers' park, a hitter's park, or a neutral park. They have to choose one. As you'll read, Jeff provides nothing to help us understand why he considers them dumb for having chosen to make a pitchers' park.

Namely, the modern-day Mets must replicate the '85 Cardinals, who were constructed around speed and pitching; around doubles and triples into the gaps;

Like I just said, Citi was good for HRs and bad for doubles last year. It happened to be very good for triples, even better than it was for HRs, but who builds a team around triples? True, the Mets needed more pitching. They also needed some pop in their lineup. Jeff will make that point for me shortly.

around shutouts and 2-1 wins. In Flushing, the signature has to be run generation -- Jose Reyes leading off with a single, stealing second, stealing third, being brought home via a sac fly.

He can still do that with Bay in the lineup. He can also single and come home on a Bay home run. Also, building a team around sac flies is dumber than building a team around triples.

The Mets need men who take lots of pitches and work deep into counts;

Bay's career OBP: .376. Must be one hell of a talented free swinger to put up that number without taking lots of pitches!

who can hit to the opposite field and run like Miguel Dilone.

Ah, who could forget ol' Miguel Dilone and his 267 career SBs, putting him in 194th on the all-time list? Thanks for bringing him up, Jeff! Also, they already have two guys who hit to the opposite field and can run fast (even if they're desperately trying to trade one of them).

Sluggers? What sluggers? Playing in Shea Stadium in 2008, David Wright was a power monster, producing 33 homers and 124 RBIs. Playing in Citi Field in 2009, Wright was, well, George Foster circa 1982, with a paltry 10 homers and 72 RBIs. Or, to put it more bluntly, the Mets' leading home run hitter last season was Daniel Murphy -- with 12.

Talking about how the Mets had no significant power threats in their lineup last year does not very well convince me that they shouldn't have signed Bay.

If Bay has an absolutely outstanding 2010, he might hit 25 homers. He might.

If he stays healthy, I'm somewhat certain he'll hit more than 25. He'll also have a good OBP and hit plenty of doubles... and maybe even some triples too! Playing in a pitchers' park doesn't mean you don't sign good hitters.

In their new digs, the Mets also require arms. Lots and lots of arms. They require starters who can hold a game close -- guys like John Lackey; guys like Javier Vazquez; guys... whom the Mets completely ignored as others pounced.

Yeah, they screwed up a little bit there. Should have made some better moves on SPs. I doubt they "completely ignored" Lackey, though, and I highly doubt the division rival Braves would have sent them Vazquez. In any case, even when you need pitching and don't get it, that doesn't mean you ignore good hitters.

No doubt those Met fans who had been waiting for their team to make a statement will be pleased.

If those fans wanted the team to "make a statement" because the fans don't think the team is dedicated to wins, those fans are fucking tards who should be sterilized. The team has had a top 5 payroll for the last several years.

Bay, like Foster, is a big name with big power and big skills.

He's also two years younger, a much better OBP guy, not obviously on the down side of his career like Foster was, and not an asshole who will be hated in the clubhouse.

He will also be a big bust.

You are a lazy writer, who will almost certainly be wrong. Just like you've been wrong before.

We Get It, Santana Makes the Mets Better

But that's no excuse for this rare puff piece by John Donovan.

Johan Santana's impending trade to the Mets will be, when and if it's consummated later this week with a contract extension, the rarest of baseball swaps, one that completely and immediately transforms a team and the balance of power in the league.

It's a huge upgrade, no question. Santana seems to hover around 10 wins above replacement per season. I tend to think you're exaggerating a little bit about the balance of power shifting, because the Mets were getting 4 wins out of Glavine and about 3.5 from Sosa/Pelfrey. Whichever slot in the rotation you're displacing with Santana, it's like a 6-7 win upgrade. Very significant, but not "team-transformingly" insane, especially considering we don't know how much Pedro Martinez will pitch. Anyway, nothing really offensive there. I just like hearing myself type.

Let's compare and contrast the Mets with and without Santana!

Let's face it: The Mets, without Santana, are just another NL East schlub.

Mets with Santana: Not a "schlub", for whatever that's worth.

They are a bunch of chuckers without an ace

Mets with Santana: A bunch of chuckers with an ace. Johan Santana does not make the other starters better. Chuckers before trade, chuckers after trade.

a collection of hitters who cease to hit at the most inopportune times

Mets with Santana: Supposedly a more clutch hitting team? Will Johan Santana's bat at the plate be fixing this problem, John? Because even the most moronic of Mariottis can understand that a new pitcher that throws once every five days has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with the timing of the hitters' base hits

all marched around by a sometimes stone-mugged manager who presided last year over one of the most embarrassing nosedives in baseball history.

Mets with Santana: Managed by a happy, animated, enthusiastic-mugged manager whose near-perfect in-game tactics are surpassed only by his ability to vomit sunshine. Make a note, Donovan, Santana does not make anyone else on the New York Mets better. Period.

Without Santana or someone a lot like him, the Mets are non-factors. And in New York, that's almost worse than being terrible.

That's a pretty bold claim, considering that it took one of the most monumental collapses in baseball history for them to lose the division last year. Now you're saying they weren't even a factor?

What general manager Omar Minaya has pulled off here, in this stunning series of fortunate events, is to make the Mets mean something again.

In that case, that's one thing that the Mets and that sentence do not have in common.

When Santana pressured the Twins to trade him before the start of spring training or not trade him at all -- Santana has full veto power over any trade -- new Minnesota GM Bill Smith was stuck. He went for the prospect-heavy package that the Mets offered; outfielder Carlos Gomez and pitchers Phil Humber, Deolis Guerra and Kevin Mulvey.

And the Mets, out of nowhere, are players again. Real players.

Give me a break, Donovan. Even you had to feel stupid tying that sentence. At least give me a story. Like, maybe that there was a sweet episode of The Wire on TV or something in the background, so your brain checked out and your fingers just kept going.

Ragging on the Mets: If You're Going to Do It, Don't Be A Moron About it

I once read an article by Larry Dobrow. It sucked. Let's see about this one:

Last year at this time, the New York Mets were the prohibitive favorites to rep the National League in the 2007 World Series. As late as early June, the Mets were on the verge of shedding their traditional other-team-in-town status and steamrolling everything in their path.

There is no way the Mets will ever shed their other-team-in-town status, until they get the World Series deficit to a more favorable ratio... and since it currently stands at 26-2. Might be a few years.

And then, they weren't. They played .500 ball from that point, showing the self-contentment of an overfed zoo animal and the urgency of a guy just exiting a toilet stall. Everyone dotes on the September collapse, but the Mets could have gone 0-for-the-month if they hadn't taken the summer off.

Actually, everyone dotes on the right answer, and savvy columnist Larry Dobrow is an idiot. On September 12, the Mets were 21 games over .500 with a record of 83-62. Over the last three weeks of the baseball season, they won only five games. No wonder everyone dotes on that.

Given that the National League is about to get more competitive -- hello, Brewers, Dodgers, Diamondbacks and Rockies -- can we Save This Franchise?

I guess the Dodgers are getting more competitive because they hired a New manager. For example, their owner was quoted:

"I think we're in good position right now," McCourt said. "We don't have to make a deal. We made the biggest move we needed to make in signing Joe."

Yeah. Sure. The Mets need to make more moves because the Dodgers signed a manager. Also- note that the four teams that Larry cites are NOT in the Mets' division.

I think we can. Martha, get me my protractor, my analysis cloak and my Metsie stamp set.

Wow. The implications of the existence of an "analysis cloak" are staggering. Alert the media!

Wait - don't.

Short-term outlook: Most of these "Save This Franchise" dispatches have taken a look at organizations that are beyond help -- the Pirates, Reds and their ilk. The Mets, after last September, are perceived as a team in disarray. That's an irresponsible suggestion, bordering on moronic. The Mets will win their division by a wide margin and should be installed as the easy favorite to claim the pennant.

Fuck you, Larry. The Reds rule. Whoops. Sorry. Larry actually makes a decent point here: that the Mets are still a solid team, although his suggestion that they should be the favorite is an exaggeration.

Assets: They have best young three-player core in the majors (David Wright, Carlos Beltran and Jose Reyes). They have capable veterans at first base, second base and in left field. Their rotation is anchored by two 25-year-old starters, who averaged eight strikeouts per inning in 2006, and Pedro Martinez, still cowboying up, down and all around after all these years.

Pedro cowboyed it up, down and all around to the tune of 28 IP in 2007.

Even if trigger-happy general manager Omar Minaya doesn't lift another finger -- for that to happen, he'd have to be kidnapped, felled by a stroke, or suspended by an evil arch-nemesis in some kind of viscous jelly -- they resemble an 88-win team ... which, not so coincidentally, is what the Mets were in 2007. If they had won one more game in September and the Phillies had won one less, none of these conversations are happening.

I actually kind of like Larry's point here. The Mets seem to be an above-average team, and their late-season slump doesn't seem to fit with the rest of their season. I don't know what their Pythag W-L was (anyone know?) - perhaps the late slump was just regressing to their expectation. Larry's last sentence is sensible - most of the doomsayers wouldn't be doomsaying if the Mets hadn't missed the playoffs.

They recently improved by subtraction when the Braves took the aging and ineffective Tom Glavine off their hands. I wonder if the Mets sent a thank you note or perhaps a fruitcake.

Tom Glavine was almost perfectly averagely effective last year - 96 ERA+, though I think it's insignificant that he is "aging", since he's "thrown over 180 innings every year of his entire career". So I don't think either of those adjectives are accurate.

Also, for the geographically impaired, the Mets reside in New York, where their TV and marketing intake pays for an awful lot of $4.97 quarts of milk. This is an advantage akin to being born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a platinum umbilical cord dangling below your navel.

True. You'd think the Mets could parlay that advantage into more success, like how the Yankees parlay their even larger market share into a steady stream of World Series titles!

No, the Mets don't have the ticket, merchandise or broadcasting revenue streams that their privileged cross-town rivals do.But when you remove New York Post back covers from the equation, they're not competing with the Yankees.

Duh.

Their real competitors are the two National League teams that can match them resources-wise, the Cubs and Dodgers. Those are the only ones who, like the Mets, can spend stupidly without consequences. If the Braves or Brewers hand out a dumb long-term contract that occupies 15 percent of their payroll, they're screwed. If the Mets do the same, they can swallow it and move on.

Duh. Except that they're really competing with teams like the Rockies and the Brewers, who manage to be successful with half the resources and who, I suspect, have organizations that are simply more competent at assembling winning baseball teams.

Liabilities: They're old and creaky at a handful of key spots. The aforementioned vets -- Carlos Delgado, Moises Alou and Luis Castillo -- have all seen better days, especially defensively. If Delgado's bat doesn't gain back the speed it lost last season, they'll be power-deficient from the left side of the plate.

Luis Castillo has never seen better days. He has only had an above-league-average OPS in three of his ten seasons - and for a speedy guy, he's only scored 100 runs ONCE (!).

Can you win a pennant while being power-deficient from the left side of the plate?

As has been mentioned several zillion times, the depth in the starting rotation and bullpen doesn't inspire confidence. Counting on Orlando "El Dorque" Hernandez to give you 175 injury-free innings as a fourth starter is like counting on a wedding band to pull off "Paranoid Android."

Quite the pop culture reference, Larry. Though I think, as I mentioned, Tom Glavine has no problem throwing over 175 injury-free innings, but you don't seem to like him because he's old.

As for the 'pen, they're sure putting a lot of eggs in the Duaner-Sanchez--won't-go-on-any-more-late-night-munchie-runs basket.

Yawn. I'm hungry.

This team could probably use more 'tude, I guess. When the going got rough last September, the Mets collectively looked like they needed a hug and a warm bowl of soup.

Yes. That's what they need. More 'tude. YOU WERE DOING SO WELL, LARRY! You identified real problems in the Mets' team! Now you are telling me they need hugs! If Richard Fucking Simmons had been on the 2007 Mets, they would've made the playoffs.

That wasn't the case when things didn't go their way in 2005. They got up, dusted themselves off and started swinging, literally and metaphorically. Besides, I'm from the school that five-game winning streaks tend to cure most chemistry and attitude issues.

I am from that school too. Still, Larry should've supported this point with a stat about how the 2005 Mets actually overcame losing streaks so as to support his assertion that they "literally" did overcome something.

Larry goes on to suggest some solutions, most of which involves the Mets "being aggressive" an "using their market power" which is pretty much "what the Mets have done in the past". I'd write about it, but it gets boring.

Actually, this article isn't all that bad, though it doesn't really say much. I just have a baseball jones and even 80 degree weather in Baton Rouge winters isn't enough to satisfy me.

Why Wallace Matthews Should Not Have a Job

This column, and Larry's Dennis Dodd column from earlier today have both lead me to believe that the more stupid, vague jokes per column, the less intelliegent the columnist.

Exhibit A: Wallace Matthews. Wallace is very stupid and doesn't understand baseball. Let's examine his diatribe against the New York Mets. It's full of real "humdingers", as someone from Jon Heyman's time would say. Oh, and not to mention, a healthy dose of WRONGism!

Time again to knock stuffing out of Mets

We'll give him a pass. It was written on Thanskgiving.

It is Turkey Day, which means it is once again time to brine, stuff, baste and roast the Mets.

Having enjoyed more free rides this offseason than a serial turnstile-jumper circa 1977, the Mets made a comeback on Tuesday by trading Guillermo Mota for Johnny Estrada, who is Paul Lo Duca, only worse.

Serial turnstile-jumper circa 1977??? Here's some solid advice, Wallace. Any dumb jokes or references that require most readers to do a Google search to understand are best left out. Apparently there was some sort of power outage in New York that lasted a couple of days in 1977. Big whoop.

If this article was about the minor leagues, he'd be saying, "The Mets' farm system is going through a position player famine worse than the fish market circa 1838!"

This was blockbuster news because previously, during the same time period in which the Yankees had lost to the midges, passed their ownership torch from George to Boy George, fired one guy named Joe, hired another and entered into negotiations with three big-ticket free agents, the only activity in Mets camp was the removal of a bunion from El Duque's foot.

Oh great! Let's criticize the Mets for not being active in the offseason by using the Yankees as a basis of comparison! The Yankees have done a ton of really stupid things this offseason, but that doesn't matter, because Wallace Matthews is crediting them for being active. Oh, if only the Mets gave $45M to an aging reliever, $52.4M to an aging catcher, and needlessly endured negative publicity by shortchanging then replacing a manager who was perfectly fine. Then they'd be on the right track!

At least they think it was a bunion. The guy's so old, it might have been a vestigial toe.

At this point, the fictional comedy club in Wallace's mind explodes with laughter.

So far, this offseason is shaping up as even worse than last year's, when the Mets at least had an excuse. Having failed to make it out of the 2006 NLCS by, arguably, one called strike, GM Omar Minaya believed, with some justification, that all his team needed was a turn of the wrench or two to make the adjustments that would put the Mets in the World Series.

This year, having witnessed the worst collapse in New York baseball history, Minaya knows it's going to take a lot more than that. The problem is, what the Mets need most can't be had on the free-agent market.

Worst collapse in New York baseball history: see 2004 ALCS

Okay, now for the meat of Matthews' point. What is this thing that the Mets need! It's a riddle. The only hint is: it's not on the free agent market. So that rules out servicable starting pitchers and another good outfielder. But....both of these things are actually things the Mets need! What could Wallace mean here?

Heart transplants are not available.

Oh.....HEART transplants! We're in Eckstein territory! I don't think anyone told Wallace that Eckstein is a free agent!

Character can't be bought even for A-Rod type numbers.

Actually it can. 4 years of character can reportedly be bought for $36M. The Mets are apparently interested in this man, and you're still clueless.

As far as we know, not even BALCO has figured out how to bottle killer instinct.

Killer instinct. Because baseball is a sport in which you need killer instinct. Because you're always trying to use physical aggression to outfight somebody for something in baseball. This is what's wrong with the Mets, people!

Worst of all, Estrada looks to be just another part-time player on a roster that is chock full of same. Aside from David Wright at third, Jose Reyes at short and Carlos Beltran in center, the Mets don't have one everyday player who looks capable of playing a full season.

Whew. Ignorant lunchpail-alert Wallace is gone. We're back to ignorant WRONG Wallace.

Is Carlos Delgado really a part-time player? He's failed to log 500 at-bats once since 1996.

Ditto with Luis Castillo since 1999.

Then there are the corner outfielders: Moises Alou, who is a good half-player, or half of a good player, managing to appear in 87 games last season; Endy Chavez, who made it into 71 games, Lastings Milledge, who showed improvement but was lucky to make it through the year with his head still attached to his shoulders, Marlon Anderson, Ben Johnson and Carlos Gomez. Help.

Okay, you did a great job of exaggerating this problem. These 6 guys compete for 2 spots in the starting lineup.

"Team X is having serious problems. They have 5 guys that can catch, but they're never all healthy at the same time!"

As for first base, wouldn't Carlos Delgado look so much better in an American League uniform? At least you'd see him only four times a game.

Carlos Delgado, 2007: +9 FRAA. Carlos Delgado's fielding is not a reason the Mets failed in '07.

Which brings us to the starting pitching. Right now, it's El Duque, a man of indeterminate age, and Pedro Martinez, a man of indeterminate ability, although being in the walk year of his contract can only help. John Maine is dependable, but as for the lone lefty, he's Oliver Perez one start, Oliver Hardy the next. Cover your eyes when Mike Pelfrey and Phil Humber are given the baseball.

Oliver Hardy. What. The. Fuck.



That is a picture of Oliver Hardy. Wallace Matthews just made a joke that sometimes, Oliver Perez pitches like an actor who was born in the 19th century.

Oh yeah, and "cover your eyes" when Phil Humber, one of the best prospects in baseball, is pitching. He threw 7 innings last year. Call it quits on this one, boys!

Happy Thanksgiving, Mets fans. Enjoy your bird today, because a diet of turkey doesn't go down nearly as well in April.

Citizens of New York, fear Wallace's horrific tales of indigestion to come!

Extra: "Killer Instinct Necessary to Win Divisions"

Wallace Matthews has a great theory as to why the Mets are faltering.

These Mets lack a killer instinct

There you have it. The New York Mets are finding themselves out of the NL East league because they have no killer instinct, as evidenced by them not killing anything lately.

Pity poor Willie Randolph. Try as he might, he can't turn these sleeping dogs into pit bulls.

I'm going to go ahead and skip to the last sentence of the column real quick.

But deep down, he's got to know that no matter how much he whips them, he can't turn this litter of pussycats into a pride of lions.

This is basically the same dumb metaphor. I've got one! "No matter how many dumb metaphors Wallace Matthews puts into his articles, he still can't turn his writing into something that makes any sense"

Right now, he's got three gamers - David Wright, Moises Alou and Paul Lo Duca - and a clubhouse full of Mister Softees who wouldn't have survived one day in the crucible of Brownsville, where Randolph's character was forged,

Let's have a one-player draft between you and me Wallace. You can go first and pick either of these two players.

Mister Carlos "Softee" Beltran: .276/.355/.527 EqA: .302. WARP: 8.1 Good at fielding? Yes

Mr. Paul "Gamer" Lo Duca: .276/.314/.284 EqA: .247. WARP: 2.8. Good at fielding? Not particularly

Now normally I'd say Beltran is a better guy to have, but....

Catch: The latter is FIERY and has KILLER INSTINCT

Now I see why you want Lo Duca.

Side note: Why is Moises Alou considered a "gamer"? He's about the last guy on the Mets roster someone would label a "gamer", except like Jose Valentin or something. The guy is 41 years old and is bad at fielding! (I heard somewhere good fielding is what makes a "gamer") So which is it? "gamer" = killer-instincty, hussle-y, gritty? Or "gamer" = good at baseball? Either way, you're wrong.

let alone the walk in the park that is the National League East.

Or, at least, should be.

The NL East isn't like, amazing, but it's hardly the NL Central, the only true, "walk-in-the-park"-y division.

Their non-performance against the Washington Nationals, a team with nothing to look forward to but winter vacation, was inexcusable considerng the gap in talent and payroll between the two teams.

Yes, and no bad teams ever beat any good teams in a best of 3 series. The Marlins actually aren't 6-0 against the Cubs this year, because there is no such thing as "variance" or "small sample size".

When you factor in that the Mets not only should want to beat such a team, but desperately need to, it borders on the shameful.

The Mets want to beat the Nationals, as opposed to other teams.....whom they are indifferent to beating.

All season, the Mets have taken a day or two off each week, hence their inability to put together a five-game winning streak until two weeks ago.

And yet, they and their fans have been lulled into a false sense of security by the weakness of their division, which has kept them in first place every day of the season since May 16.

Here's the problem. It's hard to call the 2nd best division of a 3-division league "weak", especially when the difference between the best teams and the worst teams is far less pronounced than it is in the AL.

But now, faced with their first real test, they are floundering like a prizefighter who has won 35 setups in "preparation" for a title fight. And every time you think you have seen their worst performance of the year, they surprise you by taking it one step lower. And who knows when it will bottom out?

I would imagine that if it hasn't already, it would have to be sometime in the next week, Wallace.

And what's the "title fight" here? Playing the Washington Nationals? This comparison does not hold water.

Read on if you want to. It's a bunch of garbage about how the Mets don't "look like a playoff team" and "don't care about winning". Piss off, Matthews.