Mets 6, Braves Terrible

Julio Teheran didn’t have it yesterday. He battled, and did a good job to escape with only four runs on his line; he walked five men and departed with the bases loaded with one out in the fifth inning, having needed 102 pitches to get 13 outs.

For the second day in a row, the Braves offense recorded eight hits; for the second day in a row, the Braves improved on the previous day’s scoring total by a run. But while the Braves scored 1, 2, and 3 runs against the Mets, the Mets scored 7, 3, and 6 runs against the Braves. This may be because Braves starting pitchers threw a total of 14 1/3 innings while Mets starters went 19 2/3. It is also because our offense is awful and theirs is merely mediocre.

It’s galling to watch the Braves get swept by the Mets, but it is clear that the Mets are a better team than we are right now, and it’s mainly because of the pitching. We already knew this team couldn’t hit. What’s worrisome is the possibility that they can’t do anything else, either.

86 thoughts on “Mets 6, Braves Terrible”

  1. If we get thrashed by Philadelphia and a weakened Washington club over the next week, then I think we can safely wave the white flag on realistically competing for a wild card.

  2. I have given up hope for the wild card already, and am merely hoping for a non-repeat of the year that lead to my nom de blog – 1988.

    That was the year, if you’ll recall, when in the wake of another 100 loss season, someone asked Gerald Perry what he thought about that Braves’ season and he replied – “This would’ve been a good summer to paint the seats.”

  3. How dare you Sutton up this board with a charming anecdote and a quote from a retired ballplayer!

  4. Really think Fredi is going to have to stop playing match ups with our relief corp. he’s going to have to start letting these guys go multiple innings if they are throwing well

  5. We get it Edward, you like Heyward and you like Sutton, and anyone who doesn’t like them as much as you is a target for derision.

  6. @3, it’s not suttoning up unless done mid-pitch in the bottom of the ninth of a tie game with two outs and the bases loaded

  7. Yeah, I don’t mind Sutton’s schtick per se but I do mind when I realize I’ve been listening to a putative baseball game for five minutes and I have no idea what’s going on down on the field.

    A time and a place for everything, Don. That’s all.

  8. Sutton is a bit too folksy for my tastes but I generally agree with his analysis. He can’t do play-by-play. Simpson is better than Sutton at PBP on the rare occasion he does it but his annoying analysis has been covered ad nauseum here.

  9. I love Don Sutton. I love to hear him talk pitching, and I love any kind of connection to the olden days of the game.

    But to say that his 3 innings of play-by-play are anything better than “serviceable, I guess,” is just crazy to me.

  10. Jeffy is batting cleanup against us tonight. Though vs. LHP traditionally he isn’t that bad.

  11. @10, Not so fast on those grades. Sutton doesn’t call the ninth, remember? And you apparently like him as the color guy. (@11, Stu: That’s trolling. None of the rest of it was, I promise.)

    @7, You don’t get my drift, actually. There was an actual disagreement about how well he calls the game as it’s happening (or even, a la Spike, that he gets in the way of the broadcast when he’s particulartly long-winded)–that’s real, and I carried on a real discussion about it. Then there’s saying, roughly, that he does a bad job because he tells anecdotes of baseball yore, quotes experts in the field, and fills time by giving capsule biographies about the principals in a radio program in which brief periods of action are interpolated with rest periods of milling about on a warm evening. The second is an absurd argument to make. It would be as absurd as criticizing Seat Painter for reminiscing about the 1988 Braves on a Braves message board.

  12. Okay everybody – let’s make like Freddie Freeman and hug it out.

    We’re all just a bit testy due to a string of ugly losses. To the Mets.

  13. @15, To use your model: It’s a head-scratcher for me to read that his 3 innings of play-by-play are anything worse than “serviceable, I guess.” Folks were coming off much stronger than that in the last thread.

  14. If only the rest of the lineup could hit like Freddie Freeman, the mood around here might have a bit more cheer.

    I was walking up to the stadium from the 7 train the other night & I saw a Braves fan and we started talking. He was, shall we say, a little more excited about the season than I was.

    He rattled off, “If this happens and that happens and this & that,” so finally I said, “In your heart of hearts, do you think this team is any good?”

    “Um, no.”

    “Right. Go Braves.”

  15. @20 – Fan, short for fanatic. Gotta love that dude’s enthusiasm. Alas, I am a cynic. And a glutton for punishment. And I root for the laundry no matter how bad they are. At the risk of being cast as insane, I actually started having a glimmer of hope a couple of weeks ago. Reality sucks.

  16. @21, At 8-7, we’re right in the thick of things. I will have hope until we’re out of contention. And at that point, which will probably come before the ASB, I will have hope for next season. I will follow the development of our prospects and young major leaguers, hoping that by next year (or even the year after) we will contend again.

    I don’t think that’s crazy–it’s just being a fan. If we had no hope, we probably wouldn’t keep watching.

  17. I don’t have high hopes for this year’s team, obviously, but that doesn’t mean there’s no way to squeeze some enjoyment out of it. Watch because we’ll eventually see some new young guys. Watch because each individual game is a couple hours of unscripted theater, even if you kinda know what’s going to happen over the course of 162. Watch because you like the Braves, and you like baseball.

    I don’t think they revoke your Braves fan card just for thinking this team is gonna suck. The roster does suck.

  18. when ignorance is bliss…

    so i read here that someone called Cornely has been called up. i am quietly excited, this has to be an improvement, maybe some pop..

    then someone posts that his K rates are ‘eye’ popping…deflated, another all or nothing type like last year…

    @26…ah, he’s a pitcher.

  19. Juan Jaime’s K rate was eye popping as well. Unfortunately his walks were causing the pressure buildup that lead to the eye pops.

  20. On the subway headed to Senior Citizen’s Bank Park. Bundled up for what looks like is going to be a chilly affair. Not gonna get too worked up over the outcome, but if Jeffy gets a big hit against us tonight, that might send me over the edge

  21. Scientists have discovered that Aaron Harang is actually a cyborg programmed to produce “quality starts”.

    Read the full story at

  22. Remember when there was a good player in the MLB named Eric Young? I do. It was the mid-90’s.

  23. The part where they say the Red Sox don’t have a need for Cole Hamels bc they’re in first place?

    Right–a 3 way tie for first, 2 games out of last and u don’t need more pitching…

  24. Andrelton is always looking for something to do on the field. Now he is backing up the left fielder.

    I love the way he plays the game, Willie Mays Hayes popups not withstanding.

    Literally backing up the left fielder.

  25. @55, no it’s cool because we got Cahill for his money and you’re stupid if you don’t think that’s better spent.

  26. Ironically this is exactly the kind of game he had time after time with the Braves last year.

  27. Because who would want the pitcher who’s ten years younger, has some upside, and who we can control for longer if we want…

    I don’t think Cahill’s going to work out, but it’s still a more defensible move for where the team is at, vs Harang for 1/$5 mil.

  28. The Harang and Cahill moves aren’t in any way related. We passed on Harang months before Cahill was on the table.

    We passed on Harang because we didn’t believe in him. If he came out and started doing again, his age, and the fact that NO ONE really believes in him, make him a poor trade chip. Likewise, for the same reason further success from him wouldn’t make him into a good trade chip, success wouldn’t turn him in to a valuable long term asset.

    We picked up Cahill because the scouts must have liked something, and/or Roger must think he can help him, IN CONJUNCTION with the fact that if he DOES work out, he is eminently tradeable, and again, for the same reasons he’d be valuable as a trade chip, success from him might cause you to keep him as a long term asset.

    Passing on Harang when we did made perfect sense. Picking up Cahill when we did also made perfect sense. We even jettisoned this years Harang-Candidate, Wandy Roderiguez, to fit Cahill in to the rotation. Again, because age, contract control, and the fact that even if he’s successful, no one will buy high on Wandy Roderiguez.

    Aaron Harang, or Wandy Roderiguez, might have helped our team win more games. But in a season where “more games” probably means 82 instead of 78, the best-case scenario of having a guy with pedigree for 3 years, or trading a guy with pedigree and 3 years of control, still wins out, even in hindsight.

  29. @67, Well, I’ll give you one thing, you’ve gotta be some kind of philosopher to see such value worth fighting for in Aaron Harang…

  30. This guy can’t throw a strike. Kelly swung at a bad pitch on that hit and run but what can you do.

  31. @71, you never followed any portion of the discussion. You called the trade a win if we got innings out of Cahill. I said roughly “nuts to that, we could’ve gotten better out of Harang for the same money”. You chose to attack me with abandon. Hey, if you’re going to be so aggressive, don’t act all crazy when someone calls you on it.

  32. @73, Listen, I’m not the one calling anybody’s posts “mindless blatherings.” You gotta relax.

    I still think it’s totally a worthwhile trade if Cahill can just give us innings. That he has a little upside, extra control, and youth on his side makes it better.

  33. AJP has to have the worst hands of any catcher I’ve ever seen. I only watched three innings tonight, and he dropped at least 4 pitches that hit his glove square on which rolled away from him afterwards.

  34. 100 losses, here we come. This bunch is atrocious in different ways every night lately.

  35. This was a horse’s ass of a game. On the bright side, we match up well with these Phillies

  36. I think a good slogan for this offense is “See our ad in Golf Digest” since it helps out the other team’s staff so much.

  37. What I think is being ignored is, if Cahill throws 175, that means he made approximately 30 starts and averaged 6 innings in them. With his recent past, him staying in the rotation for 30 starts would mean he must have drastically improved.

    Which is to say, it isn’t just the innings. If Aaron Harang pitched 175 innings for us, we got 175 innings, great. If Cahill throws 175 innings, we get 175 innings, and we probably recovered an asset.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *