2000 Mets Vs. 2007 Mets
In honor of Rick Reed's 42nd birthday...
... I was looking at the Mets pitching staff of 2000. That was the year, some of you may recall, that we made it to the World Series and were beaten by some American League team that I forget the name of.
In any case, I was struck by how much better the starting pitching staff was. Hampton, Leiter, Reed, Jones, Rusch. 1 through 3 would be the ace on the current team.
Our lineup is better balanced offensively now -- remember Benny leading off?!? However, with Beltran, Delgado and Green under-performing this year, the middle of the lineup in 2000 had more reliable RBI producers then with Zeile, Ventura and Payton.
With Endy hurt, the 2000 bench was far superior, with Lenny Harris, Melvin Mora, SuperJoe, and the late-in-the-year emergence of Timo (not running on Zeile's long fly notwithstanding).
Bullpen, better in 2000... minus a certain (c)loser... so that's a wash.
Manager, I give the nod to Willie.
Further thoughts?
This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.
5 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
not so clear-cut
Hampton, Leiter, Reed, Jones, Rusch. 1 through 3 would be the ace on the current team.
2000 ERA+:
Hampton 139
Leiter 136
Reed 106
Rusch 109
Jones 86
Entire staff 105
2007 ERA+ (up to yesterday):
Glavine 98
Maine 117
Perez 121
Duque 134
(fifth starters: Sosa 102, Pelfrey 71, Lawrence 102)
Entire staff 105
Stats for easy reference: 2000 2007
This looks almost like a push to me, though not quite, and you're definitely overrating Rick Reed. The 2007 Mets have a deep rotation front-to-back, and have been surprisingly good overall.
About the hitters, I'm not going to bother producing numbers, I'm just going to say that anyone seriously wishing for the return of Zeile and Payton as middle-of-the-lineup "power" hitters, to say nothing of Joe McEwing (whose best baseball skill is likeability), rather than what we've got now, has got to lend me their rose-colored nostalgia glasses so that I can write a bestselling memoir about the happy qualities of the Reagan era and the realistic graphics of the Commodore 64.
rose colored
however, re the pitching staff (and i agree i overrate reed) the one-two combo at the top is clearly superior. i admit i am surprised at the strength of this year's numbers. things have been dicey of late and perhaps that influenced me. curious to see where the #'s will end up.
as for middle of the order ... as i said i think our lineup top to bottom in 2007 is better. with the exception of beltran (i should have left him out), the slugging and ops numbers in 2000 were in fact a bit better ... when you compare zeile and ventura (and payton) to delgado and green. admittedly, ventura did not have the kind of year in 2000 than he did in 1999.
as for the bench, without endy, what DO we have now? david newhan? i'll take superjoe over him as a last roster spot every day of the week.
and as ridiculous as it may sound, i am nostalgic for ole ronnie ... but ONLY when i think about the disaster who holds the office now.
Bench
2000
by Josh @ Amazin' Avenue on Aug 17, 2007 4:52 PM EDT reply actions
Very Similiar
Both teams were pretty uneven during the course of the year. See month by month break down for 2000.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYM/2000_sched.shtml
Although I do not think that in game managerial decsions have a huge impact on wins and losses, I think that you would have to give the nood to Valentine in that area.
Without looking at the numbers, I think that the current lineup is better at every position other than 2nd and catcher (note howver, that the performances of Piazza and Alfonso were far above league avergae for their positions).
Also note that Melvin Mora was shipped off to Baltimore for Mike Bordiick and therefore probably should not be counted as a bench player for the 2000 team (Incidentally, that turned out to be a shitty trade that doesn't get much attention).
2000 bullpen was bettter, but as Anonymous demonstrates the starting staffs were pretty even.
If these two teams were to play each other 100 times, I think that it would be pretty close to 50/50.

by 





























