I'm still not sold on the Phillies. They are the NL's best hitting team, far ahead of the rest of the league with 592 runs scored. But that's only half the game: you have to be able to pitch too, and the Phillies are thirteenth in the NL with a team ERA of 4.74, which is hardly promising for a potential division champ.
The Mets, meanwhile, rank second in ERA at 3.86 and sixth in runs with a respectable 503 (hardly "lackluster"). I'm not sure where Ben's coming from when he complains the Mets don't hit for average and strike out too much - the Mets team average is .271 with 677 K's, which compares well with the Phils' .279/777 K's. It's true that Delgado has been close to "dead weight" - his line of .249/.322/.434 is pretty bad for a 1B on a contending team - but the rest of the team has picked up the slack. Beltran's line of .263/.340/.483 is a little disappointing by his standards, but is still valuable for a CF I think. And as for the Mets' starters: even if none of them are real intimidating, at least they're generally competent. That might not win them a playoff series, but it should carry them through the regular season.
So when Cole Hamels isn't throwing, the Phillies HAVE to win by outslugging their opponent, whereas the Mets and Braves (542 runs/4.12 ERA) each get it done both on the mound and at the plate. Ben predicts that the Phils are going to come out on top thanks to their ability to win high-scoring games like their victory over the Cubs last night. He tries to make that sound like a virtue, but to me it seems more like a more fundamental issue/problem is that the team is routinely getting into games like that.
Taking a look at the standings, the NL East contenders in fact have almost identical run differentials (NYM: 46, PHI: 45; ATL: 44), suggesting that all three are actually pretty close in terms of how good they "really" are. The difference, though, is that the Mets have a four game lead with only 54 left to play. As the teams below them aren't markedly better, I expect the Mets are going to hold on.
"See you in October"
4 comments:
One game proves nothing, and the Phillies haven't been playing especially well, but tonight's comeback victory kind of sums up the reason why I think they have a legitimate shot at the division. My point is not that Philly is a great team, by any means, only that the ceilings in the division and the league are low enough that a team like them can be competitive. This prediction should be read more as a broad criticism of the mediocrity of the senior circuit than an enthusiastic endorsement of a totally one-dimensional (but powerfully so) Philadelphia team.
Meanwhile, yes, I do maintain that the Mets' offense is lackluster: for a team many of whose team offensive numbers compare well to the Phillies, they're still scoring many less runs. An even closer statistical comparison, in terms of dingers and average, would be the Braves, who they're also trailing, by 40 runs scored. This suggests a lack of clutch hitting, among other things. And Beltran is valuable, but $14 million valuable? What GM would be satisfied paying a premium salary for numbers like those, especially after last year?
I won't be hugely surprised if the Mets retain their lead, but I wouldn't bet on it either. All I mean to say is that they're vulnerable, and in most divisions and in most seasons they wouldn't be in first place right now.
I know this argument must be getting boring for everyone else but I'm going to take one last shot at it.
I understand you're not saying that the Phillies are a great team. What I'm taking issue with is your argument that the Phillies are likely to overcome their current five game deficit.
Of course the 07 Mets aren't an all-time great team either. Of course it's possible that in a different season this Mets team might be in second or third. That's all pretty irrelevant to the argument though. The only division these Mets have to win is the 2007 NL East, where no matter how mediocre you think these Mets are, the Phillies are even more mediocre. The Mets have played five games better than the Phillies for the first 111 games of the season, so without specific reasons to think the Mets are about to crash and burn, I just don't see how you can reasonably expect that the Phillies will play five games better than the Mets for the last 51 games.
I mean, you keep saying the Mets don't score as many runs as the Phillies. But with the number of runs the Mets allow, their run output sure hasn't hurt them so far...
As for Beltran, I wasn't arguing that his performance this year justifies his salary. I didn't even have his salary in mind when I wrote what did. I was just saying that a CF batting .263/.340/.483 is a useful guy to have in a lineup, regardless of whatever expectations his previous numbers may have created - simple as that.
I'm pretty sure no one was paying attention to us.
Probably so.
Post a Comment