Maybe it's the over importance of the media these days, but it seems like sports fans (and I will focus on Mets fans because that's what I am) seem to just blindly accept very generic axioms made by sports commentators and analysts as scientific law. The biggest one right now, and for so long that it seems to be as old as adding salt to a pot makes it boil quicker, is that "pitching wins World Series". Not true or at least not wholly true. The Phillies won 2 years ago with what could only be described as a mediocre rotation. Right now I would give the best pitching to the Padres or the Giants, neither of which are favorites for the pennant or the World Series.
But take it a step further, I will challenge you to find any team that ever have won a championship with only a good rotation. You won't. Do you know why? 2 big reasons: because PITCHERS CANNOT SCORE POINTS (unless they bat them in, if you have a good hitting pitcher you only have him every few days in national league parks, so this is usually a non-factor) and you CANNOT WIN ANY BASEBALL GAMES WITHOUT SCORING POINTS. These 2 points are rarely spouted by ESPN or WFAN even though, unlike the old pitcher dogma, these 2 points are always true. See my friends, baseball is not like football or basketball where the defense can actually do things that lead to points. In football a safety can pick a ball off and run it in for 6 points or a linebacker can strip the ball and run it in or they can just tackle someone in the endzone and pick up 2 points themselves without touching the ball. In basketball the most successful teams capitalize off of transition, meaning that following a defensive stop, if the team hustles they could get to the other end before the other team can set up their defensive strategy and score what is known as a fast break. Baseball has no fast break. There is NOTHING that the pitcher can do on the mound that could help the offense to score points when the team switches side every half inning besides making them feel warm inside at the start of that half inning.The Mets should have felt plenty warm with the pitching they've been getting up and down the rotation.
Again lets take it a step further. Last year Oliver Perez had a number of starts in the beginning of the year in which he would go roughly 5 innings and give up 4 points. Great? No but is it absolutely ludicrous to expect 4 points out of your offense? There are countless teams with starting pitchers as good as Perez. These pitchers do not get sent down on most teams. Know why? They can still win. The Mets have a chance to win no matter how crappy their pitching is. The fact is though, through the course of the last 3 years their pitching has been relatively good. This year they have undeniably 4 playoff caliber arms and an above average (post K-Rod debacle) bullpen.
So what is the Mets' problem? The same problem they've had for the last 3 years. They do not score. The theme that broadcasters have been bringing up is that Santana gets no run support. This is true but neither do any of the other starters for the Mets. Last year they said the same thing while Santana had a stupendous stretch in the beginning of the season as he was called one of the best pitchers in baseball who can't scratch out wins. Before Santana they were saying the Mets gave no run support to Pedro.
The big glaring problem is no big bat, which is more (that's right I said MORE) important than having great starting pitching. World Series winning teams more consistently have one or two hitters that demand tremendous respect and force pitchers to be nervous when pitching to them and offer protection to 2 or 3 other hitters up the lineup. This player, or this type of player is the type that wins World Series. Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz were more important than Schilling. Puholz is a bigger factor than Carpenter, Wainwright and Suppan put together. Howard and Utley were definitely more important than Hamels. And If the Yankees did not pick up Texeira along with C.C. and they would have lost to the Phillies last year.
In 2006 the Mets had Delgado (and Cliff Floyd most of the year) Delgado is a streaky hitter, but when he was hot, he was death to opposing pitching. His best season with the Mets was 2006 and the results were self explanatory. Then his cold streaks got longer and throughout a particularly long cold streak in 2008 Willie Randolph was fired because the Mets could not win without his bat. The cold streak ended soon after Willie was fired and Jerry Manuel ended the season on a positive note because the team was much more successful after the coaching change, which coincidentally corresponded with Delgado's reappearance in the stat line. Last year Delgado was disabled most of the year along with everybody else on the team. So they dropped him at the end of the year and (this is the saddest part of the whole thing) they sign Bay to take his spot. The Mets really did attempt to address the problem and nobody (except Peter Gammons, crap that guy is smart) going into this season believed that this guy was washed up. I mean all he had to do was do what he's been doing the past 5 years and the Mets would be up another 15 games. Plus you add to that the fact that Beltran's been out most of the year you have a serious offensive nightmare.
I just think Mets fans should be a little more realistic, yeah you hate the fact the Phillies have the ability to pick up Halliday and Oswalt but what difference would it make if they came to the Mets. If the Mets can't score they can't score. Oswalt could be putting up ones and twos all year and it won't do the club any good if they're losing 1-0 or 2-1. So what do we do? They've talked about breaking the core for three years but if anything the Bay signing can teach you is that nothing is a lock. On the other hand I think it makes more sense than changing managers.
I just don't see how anybody can seriously think that a change in management will have any impact whatsoever. Unless Jerry starts batting in runs himself I don't see what can be expected of him. There is something missing in this offense, plain and simple. If you want to say it's Omar, mishandling the farm system, I guess you can make a point of that but even as little as the Mets pay out in the draft, there are plenty of successful teams spending as much, so I don't really buy that argument (Phillies and Braves spent a million less in draft bonuses this year while the Pirates and Nationals were tops). You can blame him for the host of bad contracts but that is just a reaction to public sentiment and the whole win now or not at all attitude that the fan base has.
I just feel steady hands do a better job of holding down a fort but how steady can a hand be when they're worried about their job status every year? If you bring a guy in every 2 years they are expected to win immediatley. They never get a chance to build the team. The people making the decisions are never worried about long term because it won't be their problem when they get there. This leads to bad decisions made as a response to emotional outcry, which ends up being bad contracts. Instead of swapping out all the management and having a new regime start from square one, why don't we deal one of our big names for some young talent that might truly change the dynamic of this lineup? Take time and research, maybe listen to Gammons every once in a while. Might not pay off tomorrow, but with time, and consistency it could pay off. On the other hand we could just stay on the same every 6 months fire the manager bandwagon that has worked so well so far.
