Where Mets Rank 2005

[Guest duan]

Ok, the world series in 2000 was the pinnacle of the Leiter/Piazza/Alfonso Mets. They got within Timo Perez actually running freaking hard on a Todd Zeile double again the wall of winning the whole thing. Well, no we weren't but we were petty damn close and if the raison d'etre is winning the world series then that would CLEARLY have been difficult time to "start rebuilding" that was the year to try and strengthen the team in a couple of key areas to go try and take a step up.

so the players that made the mets non-competitive in the years POST the world series were NOT Mike Piazza (who gave us better then average production till mid way through 2004) they were the routine signing of mediocre free agents for too much money and too long a time.

Lets start with 2000 -
Turk Wendell 3 years at 3.3 p/a
Rick Reed 3 years at 7 p/a
Kevin Appier 4 years @ 10.5 p/a
Roger Cedeno 3 years @ 4 p/a
John Franco 3 years @ 3.5

that works out @ 27 million per year.

Of these only Appier gave anything like a years decent service nor was there anyone here who was worth paying a premium for (like Piazza was in 1998) there was a bunch of guys with either injury histories/potential for reversion to replacement level performance/age

Sure we got out of some of these deals, but they set a pattern for panicky signings and trades in a desperate quest for relevancy!

If you ACTUALLY think that trading Mike Piazza after the 2000 WS was the right thing to do, you're not recognising where the real mistakes were made.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Come on now. It's so much easier just to accuse the other side of sleeping in Piazza Pajamas.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

I make too easy a target of myself by using hyperbolic rhetoric like Piazza pajamas. I can say it in a less attractive way for the Dickshots of this world, but I prefer not to.

Soupy's point is the most well-considered. Most of the posters who've disagreed forcefully with me over the years on this issue cut Fred some slack for "business" decisions. Some cut him a lot of slack , like Soupy. Some even say (Cooby comes to mind), that the W-L record is a blip on the radar screen of their enjoyment.

I cut him no slack. I don't give a shit if he makes a lot of money, makes a nice slice of change or loses his shirt, because that's his business, literally and figuratively. My business is watching a competitive team that, by sheer coincidence, also happens to be Fred's number #1 route to untold riches, so I can blow off my lack of concern for his wallet, knowing that my goal will lead to his goal anyway.

The despicable part of Omar's professing to be committed to being a buyer is that he doesn't avoid the questions, doesn't "no comment" them., doesn't "we'll see" them but aggressively confronts reporters asking them and laboriously asserts the ruinous policies that have messed up this team for years before he ever got here and, I'm afraid, (because I don't think the words coming out of his mouth are coming from his mind) will go on long after he leaves.

This is no longer a biggie to me, as I rejoice whenever the Mets get their asses handed to them these days, as they richly deserve, but a more cynical, manipulative managerial style I have never before seen. Well, maybe from my ex-wife's divorce attorney....

[Guest cooby]

Mind telling us what you're doing on a pro-Mets forum then?

[Guest soupcan]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Soupy's point is the most well-considered. Most of the posters who've disagreed forcefully with me over the years on this issue cut Fred some slack for "business" decisions. Some cut him a lot of slack , like Soupy. Some even say (Cooby comes to mind), that the W-L record is a blip on the radar screen of their enjoyment. I cut him no slack. I don't give a shit if he makes a lot of money, makes a nice slice of change or loses his shirt, because that's his business, literally and figuratively. My business is watching a competitive team that, by sheer coincidence, also happens to be Fred's number #1 route to untold riches, so I can blow off my lack of concern for his wallet, knowing that my goal will lead to his goal anyway.

You don't have to agree with Fred or even sympathize. I just get the impression that you think they are just stoopid for not dealing Piazza when in fact there are very valid reasons for not doing so.

Also if you think that owning a professional sports team is the source of 'untold riches' then I'm wondering how you got the keys to MFS' medicine cabinet.

Its well documented that these teams lose more money than they make and even those that do turn a profit do a relitively modest one at that. These franchises are playthings, toys and in many cases tax shelters that serve to massage the egos of their billionaire owners. Why do you think there are no more 'family-owned' teams? They can't afford them.

Teams are owned by multi-national conglomerates for the pupose of providing a vehicle to promote their other products. In terms of te Mets they are owned by Sterling Equities which is a real estate company. Don't think that lo, those many moons ago when Wilpon and Doubleday bought the team, that Freddy didn't know that one day a stadium would be built and Sterling would profit handsomely. Sure it took a lot longer than he thought but here it comes.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

I am pro-Mets.

Fred isn't. Your position, IMO, is utterly indefensible. I mean, I love you madly, and the Old Mole (who endorses your position) too, but your lack of concern for wins and losses just has me completely baffled.

I understand this team better than I do any other, I follow them more closely than most of the CPFers (in disgust and pain nowadays), I'm able to analyze their moves, wretched and self-defeating as most of them are, and I happen to feel that voicing that here serves a useful purpose. I try to be honest in my evaluations, and I'm not in the habit of trolling (stating views that I don't genuinely hold to get a rise out of you nice folks), which to my standards justifies posting now and then. But I'll stop anytime you ask, Cooby.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Soup--Piazza's a symbol of the problem. I actually like the guy, in many ways.

If I want to care, even a little, about the non-baseball rationales for running a fucked-up business, I'd spend more time looking over my stock portfolio.

[Guest soupcan]

I hear ya.

[Guest cooby]

Well no, I'm not asking you to stop.

I'm just curious as to how you knew what my jammies look like

[Guest cooby]

(Cooby comes to mind), that the W-L record is a blip on the radar screen of their enjoyment.

And this has more to do with the fact that I have a lot more than the Mets to think about in my life, not with the fact that I am a total airhead.

Wait a minute, that didn't come out right

[Guest Willets Point]

Everything seems right with this forum now.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

soupcan wrote: Why do you think there are no more 'family-owned' teams? They can't afford them. Teams are owned by multi-national conglomerates for the pupose of providing a vehicle to promote their other products. In terms of te Mets they are owned by Sterling Equities which is a real estate company. Don't think that lo, those many moons ago when Wilpon and Doubleday bought the team, that Freddy didn't know that one day a stadium would be built and Sterling would profit handsomely. Sure it took a lot longer than he thought but here it comes.

Maybe someone can explain this stuff to me. The Mets are essentially a charitable organization that runs at a loss year after year, yet is part of a gigantic money-generating mega-conglomerate: Am I supposed to commiserate with the poor Metsies for their difficulty keeping out of bankruptcy, or view them as a money-making monster for the crucial part they play in the big, bad mega-conglomerate's financial scheme to control the world?

Or are you spinning it both ways at once?

If the team per se loses money (on one set of books) but enable Fred to print cash for his real estate business (on another), am I supposed to then give a flying fuck that he's unwilling to lose a few more millions in his loss-leader here?

[Guest soupcan]

I don't pretend to know how exactly it works. I have been told by people who are in a position to know however, that it does. And very nicely.

Basically it is what I said it is. An advertising vehicle for those who can afford it and can validate the losses based on the returns it gives them in other areas.

I didn't say that any losses the Mets might incur should or would prevent them from continuing to spend money (obviously it doesn't) just that contrary to what people think - professional teams are not the cash machines that they are generally perceived to be.

P.S. I hate that this forum has no spell check.

[Guest Rotblatt]

I think that many owners do get back more money than they put in, but they are (quite legally) able to hide certain incomes in such ways that shows them to be losing money. Which is to their advantage for tax & PR purposes. It also helps when they're trying to bilk a stadium out of a city.

I've read a number of articles about the accounting of baseball, and I feel like I get it every time, but it never seems to stick.

So to answer your question, Sal, you're supposed to view them as a money-making monster that you desperately hope realizes becoming efficient and judicious in use of money--rather than cheap and/or stupid--is the way to become a bigger monster.

As for Omar, I can understand wanting him to be more honest with reporters & fans, but I prefer to judge him by his actions. And so far, he's done alright, if you ask me. What he does in the next month and a half will tell me what kind of GM he's going to be . . .

[Guest duan]

the issue of the way baseball teams make money, that's an ENTIRELY different ball game - for a start the restrictive labor practices would need to go, similarly the 'mlb' structure where it's a closed shop is hugely negative to genuine competition.

For example, you can make a profit, lose 162 games AND STILL get a huge chunk of revenue sharing changed even if your roster was comprised of 25* minimum wage players.

It's a very odd situation - one that CLEARLY gives rise to the kind of shadiness you are talking about (let alone the kind of stuff that's done by the Braves and the Cubs to artificially deflate their revenues).

[Guest duan]

if you've the remotest interest in all this kind of skullduggery you should start by checking out the late Doug Pappas' fantastic website [url]http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/baseball/index.htm[/url]

[Guest Vic Sage]

]Maybe I'm addressing everyone who hotly disputed my claim that Piazza was unlikely to drive in 80 runs last year. Maybe I'm addressing those folks who lost several hundred dollars to me backing up that foolish hope.

well, since you're apparently talking to me...

1) i don't go to see Mike Piazza ...i go to see my baseball team;

2) i never said we shouldn't trade him, i just disagreed as to the value of a good hitting catcher, even one in decline, so paying somebody to take him in exchange for a bag of balls (which YOU were advocating) was not a deal i was interested in;

3) That he's batted in the middle of the order for too long has had to do with the dearth of other options, but now has more to do with Randolph's inability to write out a lineup card. WWSB has had Reyes 1st and Wright hitting 7th-8th most of the season! It should come as no great surprise he's also been slow to adjust to Mike's continuing decline;

4) Despite his decline, Mike Piazza is currently 4TH IN RUNS CREATED amongst major league catchers, trailing only I-rod, posada and Varitek;

5) His presence hasn't kept us from the post-season, and it hasn't kept us from spending money, it has simply allowed us to continue to have one of the better hitting catchers in baseball in our lineup.

6) I don't see a steady diet of Ramon Castro being of much help to this franchise, now or in the future;

7) I don't care what hat Mike wears in the HOF;

8) I'd be happy to trade him or nor re-sign him if we have better catching options. But we don't right now. Whether we re-sign Mike should have to do with what our needs are, who is available, and at what price, and what we think a reasonable expectation is for his production next year. I take no position on it right now. Although a .260/20hr/60rbi season still makes him a productive catcher, as long as he's hitting 6th-7th, not 4th.

on a broader subject, your advocacy of "dumping" the best hitting catcher in baseball the year after he lead us to the WS (after 2 prior playoff seasons) was met with derision, and rightfully so.

In 2001, Mike was (again) 1st amongst catchers in RC (by a large margin);
in 2002, he was 2nd (just behind Posada);
in 2003, he was injured
in 2004, he was 8th
and this year, he's 4th

I don't see, from this, a catcher we needed to dump. Instead of signing other mediocrities to big money, perhaps we should've built the team more wisely, and then Mike's contributions would've been more valuable in the context of better teams.

You've gone on record as being an advocate for youth over experience, for rebuilding on principle, for your willingness to suffer 100-loss seasons as long as it might increase our future chances of winning the WS.

I, on the other hand, am not tolerant of 100 loss seasons, i don't value youth for its own sake, nor discredit experience, and, in the biggest media market in the world, Wilpon can afford to keep a team winning at the same time that we cultivate the players in our farm system... it doesn't have to be one or the other. I've lived thru rebuilding that led to nothing, and it was based on ownership's UNWILLINGNESS to participate fully in the economics of baseball at the time.

You can continue to rend your clothes over our Snidely Whiplash owner, and prop yourself up as the vindicated martyr, but i'm bored by the act.

[Guest KC]

So Bret, let me get this straight. You drag me through the muck on the
forum in a borderline character assasination in this thread but no men-
tion of the hostilities you have towards me and some Mets fans when
we see each other in real life? Saturday would have been the perfect
opporitunity to hold a kangaroo court. There were several CPFr's avail-
able to jury and a couple of colorful disinterested guests as well.

Uncle Ted or whatever his name was could have been judge.

[Guest Willets Point]

]Hey, I never claimed to be well. Look at my avatar, I have my arm around, and I'm shaking hands with, a man with a plastic baseball head.

And Mr. Met looks so happy to be with you too!

[Guest duan]

when I said this

"I don't know for how much money, but I'd really like to try and keep mike for another season. I kinda feel I'd love him to retire as the mets leading HR hitter of all time, the only way that could happen would be if their was a Piazza playing for the mets in 2006.

*point of reference here, I went to Shea first in 1997, but I really started following the mets in the summer of 1998 when I came back to NYC in June"

and then (in response to edgy/bigtrain whatever he's called now over here suggestion that the mets are gonna wait till the offseason before worrying about resigning Piazza) this

"definitely
they should wait and see, I'm just saying that emotionally, he's my strongest bond to the franchise, and I'd like three things to happen

1. Him to retire as a met
2. Him to retire with a met record, not just a mlb record
3. Him to go to HOF as a met

and if we don't keep him in 2006 i'd say he may well not do any of those things."

I was expressing what I'd like to see happen - not what will happen, not what should happen (although, at the end of the season I'd hope that it'd be the right decision - however, if in the cold light of day it isn't that's fine, such is the way of the world)....

It comes from this, Johnny Giles was talking recently about what it meant to be a player and how all that really mattered in the long term was what you left as your legacy; he was very articulate about it, talking about how, he looks back, and feels that the Leeds team with which he dominated England in the late 60s & 70s had left a tarnished legacy (due to their propensity for the nastier side of the game) and how he regrets it. In a sense, to him, the glory was fleeting, a legacy is forever. He knows that he played in one of the greatest football teams of all time, and yet they don't get treated with the same respect as say Matt Busby's Manchester Utd or even Liverpool of the 1980s.


I'm sure Sal's going to say now that Piazza's tarnishing his own legacy by his less then stellar play over the last 24 months. That's fine, he can think that. [/url]

[Guest Edgy DC]

In other news, Braden Looper's save last night, getting his tormentor Bobby Abreu, leaves him ensconced as the ninth most prolific savior in Mets history.

His season is cureently alone as the 37th saviest in Met history. The future awaits.

All-Time Met Saves in a Career 1) John Franco: 276 2) Armando Benitez: 160 3) Jesse Orosco: 107 4) Tug McGraw: 85 5) Roger McDowell: 84 6) Neil Allen: 69 7) Skip Lockwood: 65 Braden Looper Projected to End of Season: 61.4 8) Randy Myers: 56 9) Braden Looper: 43 10) Doug Sisk: 33 =orange]Braden Looper at Start of Season: 29 11) Ron Taylor: 28 12) Bob Apodaca: 26 13) Danny Frisella: 22 14) Anthony Young: 18 15) Doug Henry: 13 16) Harry Parker: 11 T17) Jeff Reardon: 10 T17) Turk Wendell: 10 T19) Dale Murray: 9 T19) Alejandro Peña: 9 T21) Ed Glynn: 8 T21) Greg McMichael: 8 T23) Cal Koonce: 7 T23) Rick Baldwin: 7 T23) Terry Leach: 7 T23) Rick Aguilera: 7 T23) Mike Maddux: 7 T23) Dave Weathers: 7 T29) Ken Sanders: 6 T29) Dennis Cook: 6 T31) Jerry Koosman: 5 T31) Jeff Innis: 5 T31) Mike Stanton 5

All-Time Met Saves in a Season 1) Armando Benitez, 2001:43 2) Armando Benitez, 2000: 41 3) John Franco, 1998: 38 4) John Franco, 1997: 36 T5) John Franco, 1990: 33 T5) Armando Benitez, 2002: 33 Braden Looper Projected to End of Season: 32.4 7) Jesse Orosco, 1984: 31 T8) John Franco, 1991: 30 T8) John Franco, 1994: 30 T10) John Franco, 1995: 29 T10) Braden Looper, 2004: 29 12) John Franco, 1996: 28 13) Tug McGraw, 1972: 27 14) Randy Myers, 1988: 26 T15) Tug McGraw, 1973: 25 T15) Roger McDowell, 1987: 25 17) Randy Myers, 1989: 24 T18) Roger McDowell, 1986: 22 T18) Neil Allen, 1980: 22 T18) Armando Benitez, 1999: 22 T21) Jesse Orosco, 1986: 21 T21) Armando Benitez, 2003: 21 23) Skip Lockwood, 1977: 20 T24) Skip Lockwood, 1976: 19 T24) Neil Allen, 1982: 19 T24) John Franco, 1999: 19 27) Neil Allen, 1981: 18 T28) Roger McDowell, 1985: 17 T28) Jesse Orosco, 1983: 17 T28) Jesse Orosco, 1985: 17 T31) Jesse Orosco, 1987: 16 T31) Roger McDowell, 1988: 16 T33) Anthony Young, 1992: 15 T33) Skip Lockwood, 1978: 15 T33) Doug Sisk, 1984: 15 T33) John Franco, 1992: 15 37) Braden Looper, 2005: 14 T38) Ron Taylor, 1970: 13 T38) Ron Taylor, 1969: 13 T38) Bob Apodaca, 1975: 13

[Guest cooby]

Oh yeah, this thread had an actual point to it once

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Just curious: Combined team saves in one season? Which season wins?

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Borderline character assassination, KC? I've never advocated the assasination of a borderline in my life. All I said about you (recently, here) was

"So maybe I'm addressing KC here. He doesn;'t want to credit me for having converted him? Fine. I don't need credit. " That's borderline? What border did I cross? You wrote a snide comment quoting me in your sig line, and I'm reminding you that you were totally wrong to cite it as if I were behaving like a jerk when I was merely being accurate.

And,Vic? I mostly agree with you here, except that your policy of not tolerating awful 100-loss teams has been our typical fate the last few years anyway, or 90-loss teams for sure, so I don't think your desired policies are giving you what you wanted. (Fabulous seats last night, btw. A funny spectacular show--we enjoyed it mucho.) I'm taking a leaf from your book here--being critical of policies while refusing to suggest specific moves I would have made, on the sensible grounds that I'm not salaried to make decsions on personnel but somebody is and that somebody isn't doing his job very well.

Fellas, calm yourselves down here. I don;t like the Mets' policies, and I'm trying to say how and why. If you get caught defending policies I don't like, relax--we're talking baseball. And if you dont want me attaching names to these threads, that's fine with me, but would you please speak to the hordes who demand to know who I'm addressing here? (As if that matters much---if it applies to you, then respond--and if not, then STFU), who's talking to you?) It's not like I'm going out of my way to bring you in by name--but what would you have me do when Dickshot asks who I'm talking to? Tell him "The voices in my head"? Maybe I should just say "You're disingenuous" and let it go at that.

OE: And I t hoght we were getting into some good stuff with the Fred/business issues. I really find that stuff murky and confusing, and I find it hard to accept that he gets cut the kind of slack he does around here for his penny-pinching, last-place-for-five-years ways.

[Guest Willets Point]

Well said, Bret.

Just curious, what motivated to you to start posting here again regularly? You had stated some good reasons not to when we met last month.

[Guest KC]

Of course it's well said, he an excellent wordsmith.

He's also full of crap and gets these circular arguments going with the
whole martyr thing and I'll have no part of it. I have to admit, I'm quite
fucking pissed off at myself for being drawn in one more time.

No one here really did anything wrong to him and if anything it pales
in comparison to things he's done to posters in the past.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Why, thank you, KC.

Willets Point wrote: What motivated to you to start posting here again regularly? You had stated some good reasons not to when we met last month.

I don't know. I think I had to do some real work, and this seemed like more fun. Maybe you'll remind me of my reasons next Wednesday? I may have been right the first time. (Also I was planning to go incognito, but Widey Dickshot blew me out of the water prematurely.)

Anyway, this needn't be about me nor about you guys. All's I was trying to establish was that Edgy and Norrin clearly felt last year that Piazza was a good bet to drive in 80 runs. Now, unless you accept the thesis that they're nuts or awful baseball judges, and I don't, there must have been some GMs who also considered that a real possibility. We should have found one of those GMs and figured out what was the maximum price we could extract from him. The Mets felt otherwise, mainly I think because of the non-baseball logic that Soupy is offering in this thread. I think that non-baseball logic requires us to feel bad for Freddy's bank account (maybe trading Piazza would have cost him some walkup sales in 2004, and that's just too damned bad for poor Fred.) This ongoing policy, of keeping your washed up veterans and maintaining a buyer's stance, and NOT DELIVERING YEAR AFTER YEAR, is getting very old, yet I don't hear any calls to back up the truck and endure a rebuilding season (which translates as A season in which we don't pretend to be a contender.) As long as that's unacceptable to you, and I haven't heard cries for it, I think we're on this treadmill to fifth place. That's why I;'m rooting for the Mets to lose--as long as you're taking solace in a fourth place finish or a .500 record through mid-May as positive signs, we're getting force-fed more of the same crap from Fred and Omar and the rest of the fakers.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Anyway I don't mean to hog this thread nor hijack it.

Maybe I should start another thread about Soupy's thesis, and whether you accept it: Are the Mets really a small part of a mega-real estate deal, and it doesn't matter if Fred's baseball biz is successful or not (to him)? By successful, I mean he wants a team that appears competitive, and puts fannies in the seats, and he'll take a pennant if it all shakes out that way by chance every so often, but there's no commitment to spending money to push the team into strong contention. The 80 to 90 win range is just fine for Fred, keeps the income stream going, but the main prize is the franchise's role in building his real estate empire. Is that how you read this? Or is Soupy flat wrong, and Fred's as dedicated to putting a winning team out there every year?

[Guest Edgy DC]

All-Time Mets Stolen Bases in a Season 1) Roger Cedeño, 1999: 66 2) Mookie Wilson, 1982: 58 3) Mookie Wilson, 1983: 54 4) Lance Johnson, 1996: 50 Jose Reyes Projected to End of Season: 47.52 5) Mookie Wilson, 1984: 46 6) Frank Taveras: 1979: 42 T7) Howard Johnson, 1989: 41 T7) Lee Mazzilli, 1980: 41 9) Vince Coleman, 1993: 38 T10) Vince Coleman, 1991: 37 T10) Rickey Henderson, 1999: 37 12) Darryl Strawberry, 1987: 36 T13) Howard Johnson, 1990: 34 T13) Lee Mazzilli, 1979: 34 15) Lenny Randle, 1977: 33 T16) Howard Johnson, 1987: 32 T16) Frank Taveras, 1980: 32 T16) Wally Backman, 1984: 32 T19) Juan Samuel, 1989: 31 T19) Tommie Agee, 1970: 31 T19) Lenny Dykstra, 1986: 31 T22) Howard Johnson, 1991: 30 T22) Lenny Dykstra, 1988: 30 T22) Wally Backman, 1985: 30 25) Darryl Strawberry, 1988: 29 T26) Bud Harrelson, 1971: 28 T26) Tommie Agee, 1971: 28 T26) Darryl Strawberry, 1986: 28 T29) Lenny Dykstra, 1987: 27 T29) Darryl Strawberry, 1984: 27 T31) Gregg Jefferies, 1991: 26 T31) Darryl Strawberry, 1985: 26 T33) John Stearns, 1978: 25 T33) Mookie Wilson, 1986: 25 T33) Roger Cedeño, 2002: 25 T36) Vince Coleman, 1992: 24 T36) Mookie Wilson, 1981: 24 T36) Mookie Wilson, 1985: 24 T39) Howard Johnson, 1988: 23 T39) Steve Henderson, 1980: 23 T39) Bud Harrelson, 1970: 23 T39) Cleon Jones, 1968: 23 T43) Jose Reyes, 2005: 22 T43) Howard Johnson, 1992: 22 T43) Joe Foy, 1970 22 T43) Lee Mazzilli, 1977: 22 T43) Mike Cameron, 2004: 22 T48) Brett Butler, 1995: 21 T48) Gregg Jefferies, 1989: 21 T48) Mookie Wilson, 1987: 21 T48) Kevin McReynolds, 1988: 21

All-Time Mets Stolen Bases in a Career 1) Mookie Wilson: 281 2) Howard Johnson: 202 3) Darryl Strawberry: 191 4) Lee Mazzilli: 152 5) Lenny Dykstra: 116 6) Bud Harrelson: 115 7) Wally Backman: 106 8) Roger Cedeño: 105 9) Vince Coleman: 99 10) Tommie Agee: 92 T11) Cleon Jones: 91 T11) John Stearns: 91 13) Frank Taveras: 90 Jose Reyes Projected to End of Season: 69.52 14) Kevin McReynolds: 67 15) Lance Johnson: 65 16) Gregg Jefferies: 63 17) Steve Henderson: 55 18) Jose Reyes: 54 19) Lenny Randle: 47 T20) Daryl Boston: 45 T20) Edgardo Alfonzo: 45 22) Keith Miller: 44 23) Rickey Henderson: 42 24) Bob Bailor: 40 25) Joel Youngblood: 39 26) Wayne Garrett: 33 T27) Hubie Brooks: 31 T27) Juan Samuel: 31 T29) Dave Kingman: 29 T29) Bernard Gilkey: 29 T31) Rey Ordóñez: 28 T31) Mike Cameron: 28 33) Ken Boswell: 26 T34) Carl Everett: 25 T34) Brian McRae: 25 36) Brian Giles: 23 Jose Reyes at Start of Season: 22 T37) Joe Christopher: 22 T37) Joe Foy: 22 T37) Joe McEwing: 22 T37) Roberto Alomar: 22

[Guest Willets Point]

Geez Louise, Cedeno never made it into the top 48 on that list in any of his other seasons with the Mets. What a blip!