Mets, Rays Headed in Opposite Directions
Monday, September 29th, 2008Now that certain matters have been decided in another scintillating season, it’s time to acknowledge some mistakes. Two in particular stand out. Readers with better memories than I may have others in mind.
Let’s talk about the Mets and the Rays.
In June, when the Mets were flailing about in their most underachieving way, I said to their general manager, Omar Minaya, and in July wrote that if the Mets won 12 games in a 15-game stretch they would win the National League East championship. From July 5 through July 23 they won 12 of 15 games.
In case you missed it, the Mets did not win the N.L. East title. They should have; they had enough opportunities to win enough games to finish in first, but they squandered too many of those opportunities.
Last season they squandered a seven-game September lead by losing 12 of their last 17 games. This season they squandered a three-game September lead by losing 10 of their last 17 games. It was like Yogi Berra once said: “It’s déjà vu all over again.”
If the Mets are to avoid another déjà vu development next September, they would be advised to have an 18-game lead with 17 games to play.
But the Mets messed up their season long before the final 17 games. Their inconsistent hitters and their abominable bullpen combined to undermine their chances of winning the division title.
According to the Elias Sports Bureau, the Mets lost 14 games in which they had leads in the eighth inning or later. Only St. Louis among all major league teams lost more such games, 17, and Detroit lost as many. The Mets also lost eight games in which they had a lead of four or more runs at any time in the games. Only Baltimore, with nine, lost more such games.
But hitters were equally to blame. The season-ending series with Florida epitomized the hitters’ shortcomings as the Mets scored a total of five runs in three games. They won one of the three games (2-0) because Johan Santana pitched a three-hit shutout.
The hitters, in fact, failed the pitchers by not scoring more runs and giving them a cushion and room for error – or home runs – where every pitch was not critical and potentially fatal. Had the Mets scored four more runs in the last game, the home runs that Scott Schoneweis and Luis Ayala gave up would have been meaningless.
A game in the 1999 league championship series between the Mets and Atlanta stands out in my mind as a prime example of why relief pitchers should not always be blamed for a loss.
Kevin McGlinchey, a Braves rookie reliever, squandered a one-run Atlanta lead in the 15th inning, giving up a grand slam single to Robin Ventura with the game tied again. That was the hit that did not count as a home run because Ventura’s teammates mobbed him and impeded his advance around the bases.
McGlinchey was the losing pitcher and blamed for the loss, but he should have never pitched in the game. From the fifth inning through the 14th, a 10-inning stretch, the Braves put 14 runners on base and scored none of them.
So it was with the Mets this season. Their 799 runs were the second most scored in the league, but they left 1,220 runners on base, fourth most but not far below Atlanta’s league-leading total of 1,274.
But I will take my share of blame for the Mets’ failure. I guaranteed a division title and didn’t produce it.
I did not, on the other hand, guarantee Boston the American League East title, though I did write 17 days before the end of the season that the Red Sox would overtake Tampa Bay and finish on top.
I was derided by Rays fans for expressing such an outrageous and heretical view, and in the end they were right about the Rays and I was wrong. The Rays came close to faltering, but each time they seemed close to slipping behind the Red Sox they grabbed their personal life preserver and held on to the division lead.
Twice in eight days the Rays lost the opener of a three-game series to the Red Sox. The first loss, on Sept. 8, cut their lead to half a game; the second, exactly a week later, sliced their lead to two percentage points. It was after the first of those two losses that I felt the Red Sox were ready to burst the Rays’ spectacular bubble.
The interesting thing to me about my view was that it didn’t evoke even one response from a Red Sox fan asking if I had undergone a lobotomy, considering my view of the Red Sox in previous seasons. Not one. But I did hear from Rays fans, who berated me and accused me of not having watched the Rays over the course of the season.
“So I ask you, exactly,” one reader wrote, “why do you think the Rays will fold now when they have met every challenge presented to them this year?”
To the Rays’ credit, they continued meeting challenges. In each instance where they lost the series opener to the Red Sox and were in danger of falling out of first for the first time since the day after the All-Star break, they won the next two games of the series and rebuilt their lead.
They lost two of three to the Yankees between the two Red Sox series, but they evenly divided a four-game series with Minnesota and swept a four-game series with Baltimore. They followed the Orioles sweep by losing three games to Detroit, but they clinched their first division title during that series.
I salute the Rays for their perseverance and their gutsiness but most of all for their ability to overcome Vince Naimoli.
There was all of that talk with the Red Sox about the curse of the Bambino and there is talk about the Cubs and the Billy goat curse, but those curses were fantasy. The curse of Vince Naimoli, the Rays’ original owner, was real. He made a travesty of the Rays, known under him as the Devil Rays, and the Rays had to dig themselves out from the deep, deep hole he buried them in.
Along with shedding the Devil, the Rays exorcised Naimoli. It was a job well done.







