What makes what the Mets just did in sweeping the Phillies so impressive was how badly the Phillies needed this series. If they take the series, but do not sweep, they are 5.5 games out. If they lose the series but take one, they are 7.5 games out. If they get swept? They are 9.5 games out against a team firing on all cylinders. Just chew on this, the Mets have not lost more than two games in a row all season.
In addition to not having a losing streak over two, the Mets have only had two ten game stretches in which they did not net at least five wins. The only two times they didn't win five during a ten game stretch, they netted four wins. Basically, they have been incredibly consistent even when they have played bad. They minimized the damage in bad stretches and it will be terribly hard for the Phillies or anyone else in the NL East to make up ground on this team. If the Phillies wanted to keep up with this team, they needed to make a stand. However, they failed miserably and got swept by the best team in baseball.
Enough of how good this team is in relation to the teams playing today. We know they are good and possibly even the best team in baseball, but how good is this team in relation to Met teams of the past on the offensive end? It is certainly faulty comparing yesterday's teams and their offense as baseball changed significantly over the years and we are in the midst of an offensively explosive era, but comparing this team with yesterday's Met teams certainly paints a picture.
All 2006 numbers are obviously predicted:
o================================================oI was shocked the 2006 Mets were not near the top in triples and were behind 1996, 1978, 1970, 1979, 1980, 1969, and 1962. However, I was not shocked that the 2006 Mets were no where near the top when it came to walks, but it is clear that this team is just about the best offensive team the Mets have every had. In relation to the rest of the National League in 2006, the Mets are 2nd in runs scored, first in doubles, fourth in homeruns, 2nd in RBIs, 5th in average, 2nd in slugging %, and first in steals.
| Runs Doubles Homeruns |
| 2006 865 | 2006 349 | 2006 219 |
| 1999 853 (WC) | 1999 297 (WC) | 2000 198 (NL) |
| 1987 823 | 1998 289 | 1987 192 |
| 2000 807 (NL) | 2004 289 | 2004 185 |
| 1986 783 (WS) | 1987 287 | 1999 181 (WC) |
| RBIs | Stolen Bases | Slugging % |
| 2006 830 | 2006 177 | 2006 .454 |
| 1999 814 (WC) | 1987 159 | 1987 .434 |
| 1987 771 | 1989 158 | 1999 .434 (WC) |
| 2000 761 (NL) | 1980 158 | 2000 .430 (NL) |
| 1997 740 | 1991 153 | 2005 .416 |
| On Base % | Batting Avg. |
| 1999 .361 (WC)| 1999 .279 (WC)|
| 2000 .346 (NL)| 1996 .270 |
| 1986 .338 (WS)| 1987 .268 |
| 1987 .338 | 2006 .267 |
| 2006 .336 | 1995 .267 |
While the Mets may be leading the Mets teams of the past in many of the important categories, the '86 team was first in avg, obp, slug, runs, hits, and walks. They were in the top five in doubles and homers and could have arguably been a better offensive team in comparison with when you take into account the time they played. From '86 to '88 they were actually very dominant and finished between first and third in hits, homers, walks, avg, obp, and slug every year in the National League. That team of the mid to late 80's was the best Met team ever constructed and went to the playoffs twice. This team is on their way to rivaling them and while it is early, I think it is obvious they will give them a run for their money and could unseat them as the best Met team in history.
One of the bigger surprises of the first month of 2006 was not just Glavine's resurgence after three so-so seasons in New York, but the way he was doing it. A high strikeout rate and his ability to keep the ball in the park was putting him on track for his best season since he was competed for Cy Young awards.
Now six weeks later, Glavine is still "earning" wins, but his other numbers have taken a nosedive.
Except for the fact he was stellar in the second half of last season as well. Let's wait until this happens four games in a row. How perfect can you be? The guy went 20+ starts with at least six innings pitched and was the model of consistency. He could not be expected to keep that up for the rest of his career.
For those who regarded Willie Randolph more as a passenger than a driver during two eras of Yankees' success, the Mets have provided the ideal vehicle to prove otherwise.
Um, yeah. It's Willie. It's all Willie.
The Wilpons certainly have provided the resources for a successful reconstruction project and general manager Omar Minaya, who grew up in Queens, has chosen the roster wisely. But the Mets' drive to the best record in baseball and a 9½-game lead in the National League East likely would not have been achieved without Randolph's direction.
Yeah, and the Yankees would not have won without Torre.
Lastings Milledge arrived in the clubhouse at 11:55 a.m., only 70 minutes before yesterday's first pitch, prompting a second straight day of tutorials on how to conduct oneself in the majors.
Yes. We get that you cannot be late. However, it is the kid's first time and the team has dealt with it. It's a non-issue, but thanks to whomever wrote that article about Milledge being a cocky malcontent because everything is magnified now.
Milledge ticked off his teammates by showing up for yesterday's 1:05 p.m. game at 11:55 a.m. He didn't break any rules, because the Mets were not taking batting practice and did not have an official mandatory reporting time. But he was, by far, the last player to arrive.
Is it possible that no one told him? Maybe, but he knows now and to make a bigger deal out of it than it should be is just the New York media hype machine. Just because Sugar Pants always knew better does not mean Milledge has the same rationale. Cut the kid some slack.