Skip to main content

Pop Goes the Season?

Certainly it would be a brash to say that after two games this season the Mets are screwed because of Pedro's Hammy Pop but it's not a reach to say that this makes their post season chances significantly more questionable. As of now we do not know the full extent of Pedro's injury nor the given amount of time he will be sidelined, but for these here purposes let's assume near the worst and use Phil Hughes as a guideline. Hughes last season left his no hit bid with a hamstring strain and then went on to miss 3 months.

So if Pedro is gone for 3 months of the season, just where will the Mets go? Will the Mets be worse than last season? The simple answer is no, not really. They didn't have Pedro at all last season and this year they have Johan Santana. They're still a better team. So if Pedro, whom I named the Mets Key Player, is out for 3 months whom will be the new key Mets? I believe the pressure will now fall firmly on Mike Pelfrey's shoulders. Last season he wasn't ready and was eventually sent down. This season he won the 5th spot mostly because El Duque started the season on the DL. Now Pelfrey could potentially be in the rotation for a long time. At the very worst Pelfrey must transfrom himself into a .500 pitcher. Without their #2 starter the Mets need Pelfrey to better than average #5 starter to make up for the wins Peetey will be leaving on the DL.

With all that being said and even without Pedro, I still think the Mets have the best team in the NL East, and will still win the division even if he does miss 3 months.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Pedro being sidelined for a month, with a non-arm injury, would probably benefit the mets down the stretch b/c lets face it he only has so many bullets left in that arm so limiting his innings isn't the worst thing. Plus even with Pedro out the mets probably still have the best rotation in the NL East

Popular posts from this blog

M E T S = Mercifully End The Season

Do it before David Wright gets Hurt!

Numbers On Steroids: Bret Boone

Numbers on Steroids is a look at baseball players during the 90s to see if anything screams out at you. Mr. Boone was once the best power hitting second baseman in the league. How questionable was his success? Averages Say: Why the extra plateu in his mid 30s? At Bats Per Home Run Says: Lowest at Bats Per Home Runs at 37? Hmm.... Explaining It Away Yeak, this one is tough. Umm, late bloomer? He showed potential power early in his career and he just liked playing in Seattle a lot more than everywhere else? And umm, his career was kind of like a running backs in that it just all of a sudden fell off the map? Any of these convincing you? The Verdict Guy never hits more than 24 home runs in a season and then in his age 32 season he hits 37? And in SafeCo a pitchers park to boot? And he follows that up with 24, 35, 24 homer years still at SafeCo? And then he completely falls off the map in 2005 never to be heard from again? We've got a Screamer... Man Get Big Muscles In 30s. Hm...

Numbers On Steroids: Mickey Mantle

Numbers on Steroids is a look at baseball players during the 90s to see if anything screams out at you. This week it's throwing a curve ball and looking at All Time Great Yankees. Players that we know did not take steroids to see if this gives a defense to any of the players 'convicted' by Numbers on Steroids. Time to look at my dad's favorite athlete of all time, Mickey Mantle. Averages Say: What's with the mysterious dip at 27 and then the uptick? At Bats Per Home Run Says: That's a mighty jump from 22 to 24 Explaining As If It Was the 90s If you take a look at the numbers there are two time frames which in the 1990s would be questioned. First would be the incredible leap he took from his first year in the big leagues to his first MVP season in 1956. His batting average jumped 50 points. His slugging percentage jumped 90 points and he hit 15 more homers than his previous high. This wouldn't merrit a conviction nowadays though because the young age he...