I've sounded off about this a few times in the last few weeks but listening to Michael Kay's tv show today I was struck by it once again. Kay makes it seem like the Mets have been proven to be geniuses because they were criticized for not starting Harvey the first 2 games and yet look at them-they're 4.3!
So Kay seems to think that this 'torrid start' vindicates their decision on Harvey. I actually agree with Kay's arch nemesis, the other Michael-yep Mike Francesa that that whole debate over Harvey not starting on opening day was sort of much ado about nothing.
How does a 4-3 start somehow vindicate this decision? I mean don't know that a 7-0 start would have-nor would an 0-7 start invalidated it-as it's kind of a trivial decision that as Francesa says doesn't matter much either way. At 4-3 how can we talk about vindication?
I'm fascinated by the fact that everyone seems to think that the Mets have proven to be back-after 6 losing seasons-based on a 4-3 season. Have they played well? They've played ok. They did do something impressive in going into Washington and beating the Nationals 2 of 3-as the Nationals have been the class of the NL East in recent years and certainly have had the Mets' number.
Then the Mets left and went to Atlanta and lost 2 of 3. Ok,so overall not terrible, they'd played 6 tough road games in arch rivals' stadiums and come out 3-3. Then they come home at beat the Phillies, which they should do if they are in anyway a contender not a pretender.
Decent start but NY pundits act as if they're running away with the pennant or something. Seven games into a 162 game season, nothing has been established yet.
Meanwhile the Yanks start 1-4 and everyone decides they're finished. Yes, their bats were quiescent in those 5 games but then they came back to blowout the Red Sox 14-4 and last night Stephen Drew's grand slam led the Yanks to a comeback win over the Baltimore Orioles, 6-5-the O's were last year's Al East champs and dominated the Yanks like the Nationals dominated the Mets.
Yet at 3-4 the Yanks are now officially also-rans while the Mets at 4-3 are world beaters. This is what expectations do for you.
P.S. It remains to be seen how good the Yanks or Mets do this year but the Mets are definitely a classic Bud Selig team: we always hear that 'small market' teams can't keep up with 'big market' teams yet the Mets-obviously share the biggest market in baseball with the Yankees have one of the lowest payrolls in the majors this year-they are 21st with a payroll of $101 million dollars. Comparatively the Dodgers lead the majors at $272 million; the Yanks have fallen to second this year with 219 million
http://deadspin.com/2015-payrolls-and-salaries-for-every-mlb-team-1695040045
For the record, MLB players are not overpaid as the recent explosion in MLB revenue has been from tv.
"But—and this cannot be emphasized enough—just because there is more money does not mean the players are necessarily doing better. MLB's money is coming largely from its TV contracts, which are so lucrative that despite rising salaries, the players' share of league revenues remains in steady decline since 2002."
Where is Marvin Miller when he's needed?
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/to-become-less-conservative-as-you-get.html
UPDATE: Darn I wish I already finished this post but, yes, the Yanks are now 3-5. They were down 4-1 to the Os and came back but fell short 4-3. Meanwhile the Mets lead the Phillies 6-3. So the Yanks are 3-5 now while the Mets will probably be 5-3. I guess the pundits are right now-I mean at 4-3 there maybe some debate but at 5-3-or 3-5-there is none. The Mets are going to the World Series, the Yanks are officially also-rans.
P.S.S. The correlation between team payroll, attendance, and wins is spotty anyway-and that's just correlation which doesn't prove causation anyway.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/how-are-wins-attendance-and-payroll-all-related/
UPDATE 2.0: With Miller gone maybe the best the players can get is Scott Boras
http://www.hardballtimes.com/scott-boras-and-the-means-of-production/
So Kay seems to think that this 'torrid start' vindicates their decision on Harvey. I actually agree with Kay's arch nemesis, the other Michael-yep Mike Francesa that that whole debate over Harvey not starting on opening day was sort of much ado about nothing.
How does a 4-3 start somehow vindicate this decision? I mean don't know that a 7-0 start would have-nor would an 0-7 start invalidated it-as it's kind of a trivial decision that as Francesa says doesn't matter much either way. At 4-3 how can we talk about vindication?
I'm fascinated by the fact that everyone seems to think that the Mets have proven to be back-after 6 losing seasons-based on a 4-3 season. Have they played well? They've played ok. They did do something impressive in going into Washington and beating the Nationals 2 of 3-as the Nationals have been the class of the NL East in recent years and certainly have had the Mets' number.
Then the Mets left and went to Atlanta and lost 2 of 3. Ok,so overall not terrible, they'd played 6 tough road games in arch rivals' stadiums and come out 3-3. Then they come home at beat the Phillies, which they should do if they are in anyway a contender not a pretender.
Decent start but NY pundits act as if they're running away with the pennant or something. Seven games into a 162 game season, nothing has been established yet.
Meanwhile the Yanks start 1-4 and everyone decides they're finished. Yes, their bats were quiescent in those 5 games but then they came back to blowout the Red Sox 14-4 and last night Stephen Drew's grand slam led the Yanks to a comeback win over the Baltimore Orioles, 6-5-the O's were last year's Al East champs and dominated the Yanks like the Nationals dominated the Mets.
Yet at 3-4 the Yanks are now officially also-rans while the Mets at 4-3 are world beaters. This is what expectations do for you.
P.S. It remains to be seen how good the Yanks or Mets do this year but the Mets are definitely a classic Bud Selig team: we always hear that 'small market' teams can't keep up with 'big market' teams yet the Mets-obviously share the biggest market in baseball with the Yankees have one of the lowest payrolls in the majors this year-they are 21st with a payroll of $101 million dollars. Comparatively the Dodgers lead the majors at $272 million; the Yanks have fallen to second this year with 219 million
http://deadspin.com/2015-payrolls-and-salaries-for-every-mlb-team-1695040045
For the record, MLB players are not overpaid as the recent explosion in MLB revenue has been from tv.
"But—and this cannot be emphasized enough—just because there is more money does not mean the players are necessarily doing better. MLB's money is coming largely from its TV contracts, which are so lucrative that despite rising salaries, the players' share of league revenues remains in steady decline since 2002."
Where is Marvin Miller when he's needed?
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/to-become-less-conservative-as-you-get.html
UPDATE: Darn I wish I already finished this post but, yes, the Yanks are now 3-5. They were down 4-1 to the Os and came back but fell short 4-3. Meanwhile the Mets lead the Phillies 6-3. So the Yanks are 3-5 now while the Mets will probably be 5-3. I guess the pundits are right now-I mean at 4-3 there maybe some debate but at 5-3-or 3-5-there is none. The Mets are going to the World Series, the Yanks are officially also-rans.
P.S.S. The correlation between team payroll, attendance, and wins is spotty anyway-and that's just correlation which doesn't prove causation anyway.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/how-are-wins-attendance-and-payroll-all-related/
UPDATE 2.0: With Miller gone maybe the best the players can get is Scott Boras
http://www.hardballtimes.com/scott-boras-and-the-means-of-production/
No comments:
Post a Comment