Everybody else is doing it, so why can't we? Forty-one-ish games into the season and the Mets have had an up-and-down three months to say the least. Things could be a whole lot worse, though, even if the Mets have fallen well short of expectations to this point. That's what these mid-season report cards often come down to: how did Player X perform relative to what could have been reasonably expected of him? So with that as our lead-in, here are my first-half grades.

Rotation - C: The starting rotation appeared to be a strength heading into the season, and I guess relative to the offense it *has* been pretty good, but again we're talking about expectations and in that regard the Mets' starters have disappointed as a whole. Mets starters are eighth in the league in ERA and ninth in WHIP, which is fine for a middling team with a small-town payroll, but these are the Ny Effing Mets with more money committed to player salaries than any other team in the National League, so middle of the pack isn't going to cut it. Pedro has been either awful or injured and, while I think he'll pull out of it alright, he's giving the Mets nothing right now. Santana has been fine; unspectacular, but still very good. Oliver Perez, save his most recent outstanding start against the Yankees, has been equal parts terrible and inconsistent. Maine has been pretty good, though not last night.

Rock stars: Mike Pelfrey, I guess

Boxcar hobos: Pedro Martinez, Oliver Perez

Bullpen - B-: This grade could be a bit higher because most of the bullpen principals have been quite good. Billy Wagner, with the exception of that execrable stretch of three games at the beginning of June, has been awesome. Scott Schoeneweis's low-three ERA seems unsustainable give his 12-to-12 strikeout-to-walk ratio, but he's been solid despite any smoke and/or mirrors he keeps stashed in his locker. Joe Smith has been inconsistent, but his numbers are pretty good across the board. Feliciano continues to walk a lot of guys, but his ERA and strikeout rates are very strong again. Duaner Sanchez was said to be the key to this relief corps heading into the season, and he's been decent. Like Smith, his numbers are mostly solid, though his ERA is nigh four and his strikeout rate is unspectacular. Aaron Heilman was horrendous in April and May but ungodly in June, so there may be hope for him yet.

Rock stars: Billy Wagner, Pedro Feliciano

Boxcar hobos: Matt Wise, Jorge Sosa

Offense - C-: I'm a little torn on this grade because I'm not sure how much blame to assign to the players and how much should be heaped on the front office and ownership. The offense has not been very good, but a lot of the guys who haven't been very good were known before they even took a swing to not be very good. Marlon Anderson, Endy Chavez, Fernando Tatis: these are not good players. I hate them because they suck, but I don't blame them so much because even their respective mothers could have told us they were terrible. I'll go back to my favorite analogy to these bums: I don't blame a spoon for being unable to to cut my steak; it's a tool ill fit for the job, much like Tatis playing baseball. After a slow start, Jose Reyes has been terrific, and is at or around the top ten players in baseball in VORP. His power is much improved over last season and his walk rate has crept back up to the rate he established last season. Wright has been a little underwhelming, but I still feel like he could break out at any moment. Beltran has been his typical emotionally-subdued but otherwise extremely productive self. Delgado drove in nine runs the other day, so he's good for zippo over the next six weeks now. Church has been mostly terrific and partially injured, but his on-field performance has exceeded any expectations I had of him.

Rock stars: Ryan Church, Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran (yes, Carlos Beltran)

Boxcar hobos: Carlos Delgado, Luis Castillo, Brian Schneider

Manager(s) - C: I don't really know how to evaluate managers, and I don't know if I ever will. Willie Randolph seemed like a nice enough guy, though he had awkward bullpen usage and often relied too heavily on established, ineffective veterans in all facets of play (bullpen, offense, defense). I didn't always care for his lineup construction, and rumors trickled in after his ouster that he had lost his clubhouse. All of this paints a pretty crummy picture of him as a manager, but even considering all of that I still don't know that he cost the Mets any more than a few games over the course of a season relative to a "great" manager, whomever that might be. Jerry Manual took over and has shown a bit more fire and a little less reliance on "his guys".

Front office - D-: Omar Minaya brought in Johan Santana for a truckload of money and a mixed bag of prospects, and despite his best efforts the Lastings Milledge deal has sorta worked out for the Mets so far (though perhaps not in the long run). However, his biggest failing (stop me if you've heard this one before) was his inability to provide reasonable contingency plans for injuries to Moises Alou and continued ineptitude from Carlos Delgado. That the first line of support has been the likes of Tatis, Anderson and Chavez is as big an indictment of Minaya's shortcomings as a GM as anything you could hold against Randolph as a manager. There are some important decisions to be made in the next three weeks about the viability of this team as a legitimate playoff contender, but despite assurances from ownership that his job is safe, Minaya has to feel that this could be a watershed season in his career as Mets GM. The NL East seems weak enough that a small bump could put the Mets over the top, but will Minaya trade away what few chips remain in the farm system for a shot at the postseason? Unfortunately, his short-term outlook and the Mets' long-term success may be diametrically opposed come July 31.

Overall - C-: The Mets are still just three (or so) games out in the NL East, but clearly they have failed to meet expectations in almost every area of their play. There's still a half-season to turn things around, but it'll get late early (Yogi!) if they keep losing every other game.

Agree or disagree, leave your grades in the comments. Or, go one step further and make some prognostications about the next 41 81 (or 40 80, now) games.

Spring training games -- or, more specifically, player performances in spring training games -- are meaningless, and I don't know that I can stress this point enough. It's easy to get wrapped up in spring stats, to look at Raul Casanova and remark, "Wow, this guy is slugging .629! How the heck could Tampa Bay let this guy go?" The obvious answer, at least to anyone with at least an elementary understanding of sample sizes and random variation, is that Casanova, given a couple hundred plate-apps, would more closely replicate his pathetic career marks of .234/.301/.380 accrued over 1026 at-bats than the .314/.368/.629 that he has hit in an impossibly inconsequential 35 spring at-bats.

Casanova is just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of players who have ever had a spring training performance remarkably out of line with their career norms. "But he's in the best shape of his life", a random uninformed friend or possibly Dusty Baker might reply. Perhaps, but to make an ostensibly intelligent roster decision based on such a small number of plate appearances against arbitrary and often woeful competition is lunacy, especially when you consider how much money is riding on the success or failure of baseball teams in general and the Mets in particular.

I don't mean to single out Casanova, whom the Mets might have to promote to begin the season with Ramon Castro probably heading for the disabled list. Casanova might actually be a bad example because, given a blessing of good team health, he wouldn't be competing for a big league spot at all. A better example is the guy who is trying to distinguish himself from the pack in order to slide into a big league role that would really be available to him even if the rest of the team were healthy.

Two guys who *are* competing for an actual spot are Angel Pagan and Brady Clark, both of whom might make the club with Moises Alou out of action for the next month and the Mets' likely inclination to carry an extra position player in the season's early going. Neither is a terrific player, but the Mets don't really have any superior options immediately available to them. Or, at least options that wouldn't require giving up some non-existent minor league talent in return.

The Mets are also trying to finalize their Opening Day bullpen, a task which is still on the "To Do" pile and the results of which may hinge -- somewhat remarkably -- on the principals' performances in the last two exhibition games of the spring. That's right: forget everything anyone has done in their major or minor league careers up until this point. Those large sample sizes collected over a period of months or years? Not arbitrary enough. Instead, let's pick two random games -- say, the next two -- and base some fairly important baseball operations decisions on the decidedly random performances in said two games. It sounds completely ludicrous, but it's exactly what the Mets are doing. To wit:

The Mets don't know [what's going to happen], either. Two exhibition games now remain, and manager Willie Randolph has made it clear that he's willing -- almost eager -- to use both of them. His decisions need perspective; these games will provide it.

The article linked above was written by Anthony DiComo for Mets.com. I can't really tell if DiComo is editorializing something that Randolph has actually said -- that is, that he will base his decision(s) for the final bullpen spot(s) on the microcosmic results of the next two games -- or if this comment is DiComo's alone. I think we know that Randolph hasn't made up his mind yet, and he will really wait to see what happens tomorrow and Saturday before deciding to go one way or another. I don't think that I am exaggerating the truth when I say that Willie Randolph is going to construct the back end of the Mets' bullpen according to the events of two utterly meaningless spring training games. If he weren't, he would have already made his cuts and his promotions at this point. If we assume that he doesn't yet know which relievers will round out the bullpen, then it's pretty clear that everything that happened before today has not provided sufficient empirical evidence to sway him one way or another.

I'm not sure if there's a portmanteau rich enough to describe my feelings about this, but here goes: it's prepoculous. Preposterous and ridiculous. That's right: suck it, Carroll!

"His decisions need perspective; these games will provide it." How? How could they possibly provide any perspective other than that of sheer randomness? If Matt Wise goes out there and pitches like dogshit tomorrow while Mr. 6.46-career-ERA-mostly-as-a-reliever Brian Stokes pitches three scoreless innings, Stokes makes the Opening Day cut and Wise takes a long walk off a short pier? The level of asininity required to make a call like that is beyond comprehension, and yet it is almost certainly going to happen sometime in the next two days. Perhaps multiple times.

All we can do is throw up our hands in unbridled bewilderment and hope that the better players happen to actually perform better in these next two arbitrarily-selected talent showcases.