To reach the impossible height. . .

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I would say that 2,500 hits and 350 homers is not even close to Tom Seaver territory.

Yeah. This is it. I would think that the batting equivalent would be something like 600 HR' s and a couple of MVPs. At least. Not to mention the psychic value of being the key player on a team transforming itself from baseball's most spectacular losers to WS champs. There are Hall of Famers, ferchrissakes, who don't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with Seaver. He was a once in a generation talent.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, someone more like what Mike Schmidt was to the Phillies.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Before the trade, Seaver was a Met for 10 full seasons and about half of another. And he was a top flight elite pitcher in every one of those seasons but '74. And even in his sciatic plagued '74 season with the mere mortal 11-11 WL record, he led the league in K/BB ratio. Even his split '77 Mets half season was among baseball's best. His combined '77 season was the NL's second best, only behind Candelaria's, but better than the undeserving Cy Young award winning Steve Carlton's, who led the league in wins while pitching for a playoff team, abbout 85% of the recipe for a Cy Young award back then.

[G-Fafif]

A changing of the guard, utterly unofficial as it would be, would be fascinating to feel unfold. If Mike Trout were having his career in a Mets uniform (and leading the Mets farther than he's led the Angels), I could imagine the non-existent Seaver statue looking over its shoulder a little.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Maybe that's why there's no Seaver statue. The Mets are waiting for someone who really deserves one!

[G-Fafif]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Yeah, someone more like what Mike Schmidt was to the Phillies.

I was trying to think of when fanbases "just knew". Schmidt had a fairly low bar to clear for a franchise whose success had been sporadic, to put it kindly. Mathewson and Ott were a high bar, but Mays leapt over them. Had Pujols stayed in St. Louis, maybe he could have been the Man. Clemente is Clemente, yet Wagner is still Wagner. Chipper never seriously chipped away at Bad Henry. Brooks and Palmer gave way to Ripken. Nobody could ever touch Teddy Ballgame in Boston, unless you value world championships over everything else, in which case Big Papi would be unrivaled.

[G-Fafif]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Maybe that's why there's no Seaver statue. The Mets are waiting for someone who really deserves one!

"Seriously, Dad, we're just gonna have to take it down and put up a new one if we get another great player."
"Good point, son. Probably best not to bother with the statue or the player."

[seawolf17]

G-Fafif wrote: Had Pujols stayed in St. Louis, maybe he could have been the Man.

Pujols as a Cardinal/Seaver as a Met is an interesting parallel, actually.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'm never too sure about this: What's more impressive- once in a lifetime or once in a generation? What's longer - a lifetime or a generation?

[G-Fafif]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm never too sure about this: What's more impressive- once in a lifetime or once in a generation? What's longer - a lifetime or a generation?

Hopefully a lifetime. Longer, I mean.

People still kvell about the time they saw Willie Mays or Sandy Koufax. If you can be a touchstone, you've got it going on. Is there that sort of gee-whizzitude to having seen Alex Rodriguez or Clayton Kershaw?

[nymr83]

As long as you saw Alex on the diamond and not in the booth...

[Ceetar]

Nymr83 wrote: As long as you saw Alex on the diamond and not in the booth...

he's almost as good in the booth.

But yes, Alex less so than Bonds maybe. Particularly because of the Yankee taint.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

G-Fafif wrote: I'm never too sure about this: What's more impressive- once in a lifetime or once in a generation? What's longer - a lifetime or a generation? Hopefully a lifetime. Longer, I mean. People still kvell about the time they saw Willie Mays or Sandy Koufax. If you can be a touchstone, you've got it going on. Is there that sort of gee-whizzitude to having seen Alex Rodriguez or Clayton Kershaw?

Nope. And-- SACRILEGE ALERT-- if Willie and Sandy played these days, and were every bit as good as they were in our timeline, THEY wouldn't either. That there isn't that same sort of biblical awe around Kershaw as there was/is around Koufax has little to do with talent, and everything to do with the changed world/culture. Was there that awe around Pedro at HIS prime, which was actually slightly better than Koufax's?

Edited April 26, 2018 by Guest

[MFS62]

I thought this was a thread about Freddie Patek.
Later

[G-Fafif]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Was there that awe around Pedro at HIS prime, which was actually slightly better than Koufax's?

I'd say, on a pro-rated scale, yes. Maybe not to the extent that people are telling total strangers about seeing him pitch decades later (which has been my experience whenever I get to talking with anybody who saw Koufax), but Pedro at his Fenway peak was a phenomenon in Boston and revered or at least acknowledged as something special nationwide, the caveat being the nation was less invested in the national pastime by then. Before him and after Koufax, Ryan, despite rarely posting the kind of record those guys did, had that kind of mystique that transcended merely being appreciated as a terrific pitcher by baseball fans and baseball people. In one of the many, many, many, many stories that has been written about baseball not being what it used to be, this one from the early '90s, it was fretted that research showed the most popular baseball player in America was a guy in his mid-40s on the verge of retirement.

Koufax's legacy perversely benefits from the nature of the length of his career, the going out on as top as one could and not by choice. We got the last of Pedro's prime and then the fadeout. He could still stir Shea given the right circumstances, but when he was giving up five earned runs for every nine innings pitched, it was tough to tell him apart from Brian Lawrence or Brandon Knight.

All the immediacy and access of our current era probably doesn't help when it comes to pedestals.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, I hate to say it, but there's Jeter...

[Fman99]

Ceetar wrote: Nymr83 wrote: As long as you saw Alex on the diamond and not in the booth... he's almost as good in the booth. But yes, Alex less so than Bonds maybe. Particularly because of the Yankee taint.

I never saw his taint.

[MFS62]

A-Rod was the best shortstop to ever play on a New York Team.
Too bad that egotistical shit Jeter never let him show it.

Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Before the trade, Seaver was a Met for 10 full seasons and about half of another. And he was a top flight elite pitcher in every one of those seasons but '74. And even in his sciatic plagued '74 season with the mere mortal 11-11 WL record, he led the league in K/BB ratio. Even his split '77 Mets half season was among baseball's best. His combined '77 season was the NL's second best, only behind Candelaria's, but better than the undeserving Cy Young award winning Steve Carlton's, who led the league in wins while pitching for a playoff team, abbout 85% of the recipe for a Cy Young award back then.

I revisited Seaver's '74 season after writing this post above. Mets fan of that era recognize that season as sticking out like a sore thumb -- or hip -- during Seaver's prime years, especially given his pedestrian 11-11 WL record. Seaver himself was famously disappointed after that year's campaign, plagued by hip and back pain throughout. Seaver's 1974 was sandwiched by Cy Young award winning seasons in the years just before and after.

When I think of Mets pitching and 1974, the first thing that comes to mind is Matlack's brilliant Cy Young caliber season -- he led the NL in pitcher WAR comfortably . Matlack's '74 was one of the best pitching seasons turned in by a Met starter ever. When people talk about the brilliant Met pitching of that era and how they needed to throw shutouts to get a win, Matlack, in 1974, might be the poster boy for that rule. In fact, he led the league in shutouts that year with nine -- yet still finished with a 13-15 losing record. -- nine out of his 13 wins were shutouts!

But back to Seaver, his '74 season was all-star caliber by just about every single measure, except W-L record. He was 4th in pitcher WAR; 8th in WHIP; 7th in H/9 inn. Seaver led the league in K/9 inn. and K/BB ratio. He struck out over 200 batters, was third in shutouts and finished among the top 10 in several esoteric BBRef rate stats that, no doubt, didn't exist in '74. Seaver, in '74 was more than all star caliber. He deserved to be on the fringes of Cy Young consideration, but wouldn't have picked up any Cy votes no matter how sophisticated the voters were because they only voted for the top three and Seaver, though undoubtedly a top flight pitcher in '74, wasn't one of the top three.

Koosman also finished in the top 10 in pitcher WAR in the NL in '74, the third Mets pitcher to do so. Had the Mets held onto ERA champ and top 10 finisher in pitcher WAR Buzz Capra, and had Capra pitched as well for the Mets as he did for the Braves that season, the Mets would have had one of the most dominant starting staffs in post WWII baseball history. What was it about those '74 Mets that Seaver and Matlack could pitch so brilliantly yet finish with such mediocre WL records? Did they have eight Rey Ordonez's in their lineup?

Edited April 27, 2018 by Guest

[metsmarathon]

i think that to truly surpass seaver, a player would need to at least come close to matching seaver in terms of peak metly value instead of eclipsing him on career longevity.

if curt schilling (78 bWAR to seaver's 76 metly bWAR) had been a met for his whole career (and presumably not been a hateful dick), would we really celebrate him moreso than seaver as the greatest met ever?