BIE 2.0

[G-Fafif]

There was no question (or need for a question mark) eleven years ago. I'm thinking that we may be on the verge of something pretty special with their homegrown successors.

Best Infield Ever 2.0, anyone?

[Zvon]

Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover.

[G-Fafif]

Zvon wrote: Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover.

Z, I hope there are many, many opportunities to capture their likenesses as a unit over the next several years. Remember, the first Best Infield Ever was broken up at the end of its one year together once Olerud was allowed to walk to Seattle (he always did like to walk). It's early to be penciling in Tejada -- and assuming anything else -- but four homegrown infielders, two approaching their peaks, two getting better every day...man, I am so excited to watch them perform on both sides of the ball.

[Gwreck]

G-Fafif wrote: There was no question (or need for a question mark) eleven years ago. I'm thinking that we may be on the verge of something pretty special with their homegrown successors. Best Infield Ever 2.0, anyone?

Best all-homegrown infield? I may hate them but I think I'd concede that all-around the MFY infield is stronger. Also no slouches: Cincinnati, Texas, Milwaukee.

[MFS62]

Zvon wrote: Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover.

NO!

I don't want to see any picture of any Met on the cover of SI.
Have you no sense of jinx history, man?
Put 'em on the cover of The Rolling Stone, if you may.
But not SI.
Please.
I beg you.
Later

[Zvon]

G-Fafif wrote: Zvon wrote: Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover. Z, I hope there are many, many opportunities to capture their likenesses as a unit over the next several years. Remember, the first Best Infield Ever was broken up at the end of its one year together once Olerud was allowed to walk to Seattle (he always did like to walk). It's early to be penciling in Tejada -- and assuming anything else -- but four homegrown infielders, two approaching their peaks, two getting better every day...man, I am so excited to watch them perform on both sides of the ball.

I never understood how they could let that bat get away.
Did we have a shortage on helmets or something?

I'm very excited about this infield as well.
Key here is Davis, who looks like he's been playing in the bigs for years already.
He is one cool dude.
If he can grow hitting wise, which I think he can and will,.......wow.

Tejeda?
1) Wanna see more of him. He looks like he could be the answer to my prayers.
2) I'm all out of wows

[Zvon]

MFS62 wrote: Zvon wrote: Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover. NO! I don't want to see any picture of any Met on the cover of SI. Have you no sense of jinx history, man? Put 'em on the cover of The Rolling Stone, if you may. But not SI. Please. I beg you. Later

I don't do Sports Illustrated covers.


But I will respect your wishes.
I am superstitious myself.

[G-Fafif]

Gwreck wrote: There was no question (or need for a question mark) eleven years ago. I'm thinking that we may be on the verge of something pretty special with their homegrown successors. Best Infield Ever 2.0, anyone? Best all-homegrown infield? I may hate them but I think I'd concede that all-around the MFY infield is stronger. Also no slouches: Cincinnati, Texas, Milwaukee.

We're not there yet, I grant you (which is a major concession given my giddiness at the moment). Tejada's only been a second baseman for about ten minutes, but my, they look fantabulous afield, and with none of them over the age of 27, one is given to projections.

How about Best Mets Infield Ever, defensively, since Olerud, Alfonzo, Ordonez, Ventura? Seeing as how Davis is already pretty good and no first baseman since Olerud (save for a half-season of Mientkiewicz when we didn't have a steady second baseman) has been more than barely adequate with the glove, I'll take that for now.

[G-Fafif]

I wish Inside Sports had a longer heyday. For its first two or so years, the greatest sports magazine of modern times (and I won't accept Milwaukee, Cincinnati or Texas as a substitute).

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

G-Fafif wrote: How about Best Mets Infield Ever, defensively, since Olerud, Alfonzo, Ordonez, Ventura? Seeing as how Davis is already pretty good and no first baseman since Olerud (save for a half-season of Mientkiewicz when we didn't have a steady second baseman) has been more than barely adequate with the glove, I'll take that for now.

I'll stipulate to that.

The offense is almost a push too, and should favor this squad within a few years if Davis and Tejada continue to develop even a bit more.

[G-Fafif]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: G-Fafif wrote: How about Best Mets Infield Ever, defensively, since Olerud, Alfonzo, Ordonez, Ventura? Seeing as how Davis is already pretty good and no first baseman since Olerud (save for a half-season of Mientkiewicz when we didn't have a steady second baseman) has been more than barely adequate with the glove, I'll take that for now. I'll stipulate to that. The offense is almost a push too, and should favor this squad within a few years if Davis and Tejada continue to develop even a bit more.

Never really worried about offense in singing the '99 infield's praises, particularly since offense was not Rey O's bag, baby. The other three guys had outstanding years in the middle of an outstanding offensive era, though none of them was a Reyes type, FWIW. Ventura was a monster most of that year, though Wright will (and has) put up comparable numbers. Davis is still learning to hit (a fast learner, he) and Tejada is a largely unknown quantity. We should be so lucky if they turn into Olerud and Alfonzo with the bat. But I'm not concerned with matching 1999's production in 2010 per se. I'm thinking we'll have this quartet around a while and we'll see what they become.

That's assuming MFS62 doesn't walk under a ladder with Zvon's next SI cover tribute in hand.

[seawolf17]

Gwreck wrote: Best all-homegrown infield? I may hate them but I think I'd concede that all-around the MFY infield is stronger. Also no slouches: Cincinnati, Texas, Milwaukee.

How is the MFY infield homegrown? I'm confused.

The Reds' 3B is Scott Rolen, and Casey McGehee of the Brewers and Elvis Andrus of the Rangers came up through the Cubs' and Braves' systems, respectively.

[G-Fafif]

Best all-homegrown infield? I may hate them but I think I'd concede that all-around the MFY infield is stronger. Also no slouches: Cincinnati, Texas, Milwaukee. How is the MFY infield homegrown? I'm confused. The Reds' 3B is Scott Rolen, and Casey McGehee of the Brewers and Elvis Andrus of the Rangers came up through the Cubs' and Braves' systems, respectively.

I think 'Wreck is finding a nice thing to say about our infield in the face of those that might have better "Best" qualifications at the moment.

I say why wait?

[Guest Kong76]

MFS62 wrote: Zvon wrote: Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover. NO! I don't want to see any picture of any Met on the cover of SI. Have you no sense of jinx history, man? Put 'em on the cover of The Rolling Stone, if you may. But not SI. Please. I beg you. Later

Michael Jordan was on 56 times and the Yankees over 60 ...
jinx schminx ...

[Guest Edgy DC]

Thank you.

As for best defensive Met infields, I celebrate the homegrowniness and projectivity certailny and all, but the class of 2006 was great. Sure Delgado was merely fair with occasional bouts of averageness, but Wright hadn't yet succumbed to the ninth-inning-yips, Reyes was coming fully into himself and Valentin --- coming late to the party and at a new position --- was nothing short of fantastic.

Even fifth infielder Chris Woodward made me stand up with confidence.

[G-Fafif]

Johan was on the cover right after he was acquired in 2008. And he gave up four runs in the first inning today.

Jinx!

[seawolf17]

Was that a real cover? Neat.

[Zvon]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: G-Fafif wrote: How about Best Mets Infield Ever, defensively, since Olerud, Alfonzo, Ordonez, Ventura? Seeing as how Davis is already pretty good and no first baseman since Olerud (save for a half-season of Mientkiewicz when we didn't have a steady second baseman) has been more than barely adequate with the glove, I'll take that for now. I'll stipulate to that. The offense is almost a push too, and should favor this squad within a few years if Davis and Tejada continue to develop even a bit more.

G-Fafif wrote: That's assuming MFS62 doesn't walk under a ladder with Zvon's next SI cover tribute in hand.

lol

G-Fafif wrote:

Awsumness. Who needs a stinkin' cover?

G-Fafif wrote: Johan was on the cover right after he was acquired in 2008. And he gave up four runs in the first inning today. Jinx!

lmao. Classic.

[ashie62]

Zvon wrote: Zvon wrote: Get me a picture of em together and I'll make the cover. NO! I don't want to see any picture of any Met on the cover of SI. Have you no sense of jinx history, man? Put 'em on the cover of The Rolling Stone, if you may. But not SI. Please. I beg you. Later I don't do Sports Illustrated covers. But I will respect your wishes. I am superstitious myself.

Hey, my altar ego resembles that remark and the answer is idiot.

[ashie62]

Davis, Tejada, Reyes, Wright. They do have a shot.

[Zvon]

Ashie62 wrote: Hey, my altar ego resembles that remark and the answer is idiot.

lolol.
How come you guys aren't on the Twins bench?

[G-Fafif]

While we wait for Davis, Tejada, Reyes, Wright to move into rarefied air and challenge for Best Infield Ever designation, I can report with confidence that becoming Best Homegrown Met Infield Ever will not be difficult to achieve. They may have achieved it already.

No kidding.

On Friday, the kids started their 13th game together as a unit. That places them SECOND in Met history already in that regard.

Most games started by a homegrown Met infield:

15 -- Kranepool, Boswell, Harrelson, Foli
13 -- Davis, Tejada, Reyes, Wright
11 -- Kranepool, Boswell, Harrelson, Collins

No other quartet with exclusive Met pedigree ever reached double-digits in games started. There have only been 11 others, actually (counting two that include Rey Ordonez, whom Elias recently noted was a St. Paul Saint before being signed by the Mets, but was for all intents and purposes homegrown). In chronological order of their debut, they are:

Kranepool, Heise, Harrelson, Moock
Kranepool, Heise, Harrelson, Boswell
Kranepool, Boswell, Heise, Moock
Kranepool, Boswell, Harrelson, Martinez
Kranepool, Martinez, Harrelson, Foli
Milner, Puig, Martinez, Boswell
Magadan, Backman, Elster, Jefferies
Donnels, Miller, Elster, Jefferies
Donnels, Miller, Gardner, Jefferies
Huskey, Alfonzo, Ordonez, Bogar
Huskey, Bogar, Ordonez, Alfonzo

In case you're wondering, "What about Wayne Garrett?" he came up through the Braves system, playing four seasons for their minor league teams before being Rule 5 drafted in December 1968. Best Rule 5 drafting the Mets ever made, I'm guessing...but he wasn't homegrown.

HOWEVER, even if you want to consider the 24 different infield combinations that were constituted of Garrett and homegrown Mets or, in one case, a combination of homegrown Mets and players whose minor league development came elsewhere but made their MLB debuts as Mets, there's not a gargantuan obstacle for the current Fab Four to overcome.

Most games started by those fellas:

50 -- Kranepool, Boswell, Harrelson, Garrett
23 -- Kranepool, Boswell, Martinez, Garrett
14 -- Milner, Boswell, Martinez, Garrett
13 -- Kranepool, Garrett, Harrelson, Pfeil

(Wayne also logged one start as part of an around-the-horn that went Pemberton, Puig, Garrett, Boswell.)

FYI, Bobby Pfeil was also a Met who made his MLB debut as a Met but wasn't technically homegrown. Others who filled out otherwise purebreed starting Met infields with that tag include Ron Hunt, Amos Otis, Gary Rajsich, Jason Hartdke, Shawn Gilbert, Marco Scutaro, Anderson Hernandez and Argenis Reyes.

Also deserving a category of his own is Kaz Matsui, too established a player to be considered homegrown yet technically meeting the criteria of never having been with another MLB organization before he was a Met. Kaz was part of four otherwise all-homegrown Met starting infields, none for more than 9 games:

Phillips, Garcia, Matsui, Wigginton
Wigginton, Reyes, Matsui, Wright
Brazell, Reyes, Matsui, Wright
Jacobs, Matsui, Reyes, Wright

While the first wholly Met-developed starting infield consisted of Ed Kranepool, Bob Heise, Bud Harrelson and Joe Moock (9/13/1967), props are due to two proto-homegrown infields. Each man made his MLB debut as a Met but all were originally signed by somebody else.

On September 15, 1963, the Mets fielded, from first to third at Dodger Stadium, Dick Smith, Rod Kanehl, Al Moran and Jim Hickman. They lost to Sandy Koufax 1-0, the only run scoring on an errant pickoff throw by Roger Craig in the first inning with two outs. The runner who would have been out had the throw not gotten away was future Met Tommy Davis.

On April 19, 1964, the first game the Mets ever won at Shea Stadium (on an Al Jackson shutout), Casey Stengel started Smith, Hunt, Moran and Kanehl. They'd get one more shot together on April 23, a loss to the Cubs, and that would be that. The next quasi-homegrown infield would materialize four times at the tail end of 1965: Kranepool, Hunt (originally Milwaukee Brave property), Harrelson and Collins.

In conclusion:

1) When Keith Hernandez, Doug Flynn, Robin Ventura, whoever was doing his thing in the Met infield, I never gave the slightest thought to "gosh, too bad he's not homegrown."

2) Yet it sure is nice that our four starting infielders for the foreseeable future (as much as anybody can foresee in this game) are all Mets, all the time. And that they've either proven top-notch or are showing signs they will do so.

3) Wow, it sure is tough to develop a homegrown infield that lasts. At least it has been for us. 49 seasons and no homegrown infield has started together for more than 15 games! Even if you want to stretch the definition to allow players whose debuts came as Mets after minor league experience elsewhere, no homegrown-ish infield has started together for more than 50 games.

Also, the Mets have never thrown a no-hitter.

[Centerfield]

Are we talking defensively or overall?

Defensively, the '99 team can't be touched by these guys.

Overall, I'm with you guys that the potential is there, but it's nothing more than a pipedream at this point. Davis, for all his early success, has an OPS that is under .800 (.778). He's 23, and certainly can get better, but that's not a star by any means. At a position like first base, you'd like to see much more production. (And it's certainly not enough to be hitting cleanup). We all agree Bay has been lacking right? He's been better than Davis (.787).

Tejada is even more of a stretch. Looking at his minor league stats, this guy has a .700 OPS in the minors. Again, he's 20 years old, and can get better. But in order to be a major league starter, he needs to hit better in the bigs than he has ever hit in his life.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Great job. I applaud the all-home-grown infield and happily consider my Mets dollar a contribution toward their care and feeding.

I'm going to guess finding the best all-rule-five infield is a non-starter.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Centerfield wrote: Tejada is even more of a stretch. Looking at his minor league stats, this guy has a .700 OPS in the minors. Again, he's 20 years old, and can get better. But in order to be a major league starter, he needs to hit better in the bigs than he has ever hit in his life.

Without the power, Tejada's offensive ceiling is lower, granted... but OPS tends to significantly underrate what he does well with the stick-- getting on-base in powerless fashion-- by weighting on-base percentage and slugging as equal. His wOBA numbers (about .320-.325 for his minors stint) are a little bit fairer to his game.

He's got a bit more room for growth (.304 wOBA in his short major-league stint, about .015 off the ML averages for middle-infielders), but he'll be better as he sees more major-league pitching, I suspect; he followed a similar track of floundering-then-adjustment-to-be-above-average-at-getting-on in the minors. But hell, if the lack of power stlll bugs you, look at the guy he's replacing, and realize that he's MUCH better with the glove, and MUCH cheaper. (Not to mention he's so adowabwy wittle!)

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

good work, Greg. The other night, with Thole catching and Pelfrey pitching, eveyone inside the cutout was a homegrowner.

[Frayed Knot]

Plus you can make the (stretchy) argument that, on account of both Pagan & Bay passing through the NYM system (prior to leaving then returning), everyone on the field save for Francouer was "home grown".




On a more general note; are Met fans getting overly giddy overly quickly over Tejada on account of his name being 'not Castillo' ?
Of course they are - but he shows signs of being promising so let's enjoy it while things are going well.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Plus you can make the (stretchy) argument that, on account of both Pagan & Bay passing through the NYM system (prior to leaving then returning), everyone on the field save for Francouer was "home grown". On a more general note; are Met fans getting overly giddy overly quickly over Tejada on account of his name being 'not Castillo' ? Of course they are - but he shows signs of being promising so let's enjoy it while things are going well.

Well his not being Castillo means:

1) He's "ours." (The benefit of which is more ineffable than the other two things, but makes him more fun to cheer/talk about.)
2) He's cheaper, and will be for the foreseeable future. (Which means that even if he's performing at an equivalent level at present-- and that's underselling it-- he's more valuable.)
3) He's younger. MUCH younger. (Which means that even if he's performing at that theoretical equivalent level, he's likely to improve some, no matter how much lower his ceiling may be than Havens' or FernyMart's.)

A team with Tejada on it and performing at even the level he's performed for the last month-- and that's a reasonable level of expectation for the rest of season, I think-- is a better team than one with this year's Castillo model in the same slot. Even Met fans who don't know their Fangraphs from their fanny sense that on some level, I think.

[Frayed Knot]

Great list of reasons why Met fans are/should be more hopeful with Tejada than Castillo and look forward more to his future.

But do you honestly think his being here for the dozen-plus games he's started in Castillo's place has made even as much as one game in the standings?
And do take into consideration his barely .300 OBA, his 2 errors, and that triple-play he hit into.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm not sure why cheaper and younger should have much meaning, as his presence doesn't mean Castillo's age and price go away.