All you need to know about the Mets, right here:

Over the weekend, this tweet from Peter Gammons popped up around the internet (cap tip to Metsblog):

Interesting Elias note: since 2005, Mets are a .542 team with Wright, Reyes and Beltran in the lineup together, .480 with one or more out

Obviously, the point there was to illustrate how different a team the Mets are with and without those 3 cogs in the machine.  Personally, I find the stat meaningless since you have no idea what the team's comparative ERA might be or who else is in the lineup during those games, but I'll play along.  The Mets are a far better team with Reyes-Wright-Beltran than without.

The problem is, it's still not good enough a team.  During that same period of 2005 through today, a .542 season would not have been good enough to win a single playoff berth out of the N.L. East.  The worst winning percentage among  East Champions during that span was the Phillies' .549 in 2007, and the worst of the wild card teams was the Dodgers at .543 in '06 (N.L. standings from 2005 onward start here).  So per the figure quoted by Gammons, the safe expectation for the Mets when they have Reyes, Wright, and Beltran all playing together is to narrowly miss the playoffs.  Wouldn't you know it?  In addition to the one division title, that's exactly what happened--twice--during the peak of the Reyes-Wright-Beltran era with The Collapse and Shea Goodbye.

I almost tire of saying it: As good as these three guys may be individually, what the Mets have been doing with them simply hasn't worked, and it's past time for a new approach.

Now, what I'd really be interested in knowing is the team's record with and without Paul LoDuca.

The Math

(Special "Ribs on the Grill, Margarita Within Reach, Buffett Wiggling Out of the Speakers, Lying in My Hammock, 4th of July/Start of My Vacation" Edition)

After a dramatic win to take Game 3 of the Subway Series, Act II, the Mets yet again find themselves at .500.  Last night, while perusing the web, I saw an internet post stating that the difference between .500 and 90 wins is only 9 games, or a scant 5% of the season.  I replied to that post, and will repeat the gist of my response here in more detail.

Yes, 9 games is the difference between 90 wins and 81.  Yes, 9 games is only slightly over 5 1/2% of a 162-game season.  The problem is, the Mets aren't working with a 162-game season at this point.  In fact they're working with less than half of a 162-game season, as 84 of those games are already in the books.  As fate would have it, the Mets are also right at .500 at the moment.  That 9-game difference between .500 and 90 wins has to be made up in 78 games.  Now those 9 games comprise 11.5% of the remaining season, a much larger portion than our original claim of 5%.

Looking at it more directly, in order for the Mets to win 90 games, they have to go 48-30 the rest of the way.  48-30 works out to .615 ball from now until the end of the season.  Only one team in all of baseball has that high a winning percentage at the moment.  The A.L. East-leading Yankees, who just took 2 out of 3 from the Mets are only at .610.  That one team that's playing .615 or better?  The Phillies, who at 53-32 are roughly one-half game above that percentatge.  Essentially, for the Mets to go on to win 90 games, they have to turn into the Phillies the rest of the way.  The Phillies have one of the best starting rotations in recent memory.  The Mets?  Not so much.

Is it possible?  Well, anything is.  Is it remotely likely?  Heck, no.  I've seen other people say that "we're only 7 out of the Wild Card, and we blew that big a lead in a couple of weeks back in '07."  The difference is 1) The 2007 Phillies only had one team to catch for the division title as opposed to the 6 the Mets currently trail in the Wild Card, and 2) sadly, we are talking about the team that blew said lead, not the one that erased it.

Enjoy the 4th, take the opportunity to listen to Vin Scully at least for a while tonight if you can, enjoy the rest of the season.  Just don't kid yourself.

Read this now.

http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2011/06/24/robs-case-for-trading-reyes/#comments

I want to buy this Rob guy a beer.  I think the exact same things, but dang if he doesn't explain them a lot better.

And in response the eternal and totally-missing-the-point question of "who do you get to replace him?" let me once again say, "You don't, nor do you have to."  It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jose Reyes is not the key to winning championships.

A telling choice of words from MetsBlog

[NOTE:  Apparently the "scheduled publish" feature is still not working properly.  This was supposed to go up first thing in the morning yesterday.]

So sayeth Brian Erni:

Tomorrow’s matinee is a huge game for this team. A win would give the Mets the series win and a 3-3 home stand.

So this is what we're down to, huh?  "Huge" is now defined as not losing 2 out of 3 to a last place team that arrived at CitiField with a record of 33-40?

Seriously, just chew on that a while.  Swish it around, taste it.  Ponder the fact that it's really been so long since the Mets were in honest contention for anything meaningful that a pivotal moment in the season now consists of the opportunity to split a home stand with the bottom half of the American League West.

I remember huge.  Huge is a weekend series between the 1st and 2nd place teams with a half game between them.  Huge is sweeping the team nipping at your heels as if to say, "Nice try, but this is our year, not yours."  Huge is a playoff game in October.  This--while I'm sure it will be a perfectly enjoyable afternoon game coinciding on a day off for me--is a lousy, laughable substitute for huge.

That was fun while it lasted.

Normally, I refrain from posting on weekends, but as you can see, it's been a while.  I got hella busy with work and managed to get sick for all but a couple of days of a two-week stretch, so the blog here fell pretty low on the priority list.  That said...

Here we are, with the Mets having played pretty well for the past couple of weeks, polishing up a 6-4 road trip and not one, but two series wins against a winning Braves' team, yet they are again: 2 games under .500, which appears to be the team's permanent home in 2011.

That's just the way it is with the Mets of this era.  They have flashes of brilliance, but things always revert back to mediocrity.  The last two days have been a microcosm.  After digging out of the hole and sitting at .500 for a day, and on the verge of sweeping the Braves, they hand it right back.  And they don't just lose--no, that'd be to boring for this era of Metsdom.  They lose on the combination of an error and a balk.   Then, the bad taste of that lingers through Friday and they drop the home opener against the Angels, who should have been at a disadvantage after flying from end of the continent to the other.

Like I assume most Mets fans are, I'm just enjoying the season for what it is one game at a time.  Even that's tough, because as long as they hang around on the fringes of contention (4 1/2 out of the wild card as I type this), the higher the likelihood the franchise continues in this purgatorial holding pattern instead of making some big moves one way or the other.  Contending is awesome.  Rebuilding is at least interesting.  This limbo situation is just "meh."

Yes, there's still plenty of season left.  Yes, it may not take 90 wins to make the playoffs.  But until this team can stay over .500 for more than 24 hours, I'm forced to believe they simply are what they are: usually pretty good at some things, usually pretty bad at others, and almost perfectly mediocre over the long haul.