I'm Glad For John Franco, But Where's Jesse Orosco?

I’m very happy that John Franco has become the latest member of the Mets’ Hall of Fame.  He is more than deserving of the honor, having pitched 14 seasons with the Mets and becoming the franchise’s all-time saves leader.  However, I am surprised by the fact that Franco was inducted this year, when there is another reliever who’s been waiting longer and is equally, if not more deserving of enshrinement into the team’s hallowed Hall.  My friends, where’s the love for Jesse Orosco?

When John Franco became the Mets’ all-time leader in saves in 1994, he broke Jesse Orosco’s record.  Prior to 1984, when the Mets became a perennial contender, Orosco was the sole bright spot on a last-place team.

In 1983, he went 13-7 with a 1.47 ERA and 17 saves.  He actually led the team in wins that year despite pitching exclusively out of the bullpen.  For his efforts, Orosco made his first All-Star team, finished 3rd in the Cy Young vote and actually finished 17th in MVP despite playing for a 94-loss team.  The following year, Orosco became the first Met to surpass 30 saves in a single season and was voted to his second All-Star team, the first reliever in franchise history to make multiple trips to the Midsummer Classic.  Two years later, Orosco made the final outs (and taught us all how to toss our gloves in the air in celebration properly) in both the NLCS and the World Series.

From 1981-1986, Orosco was 43-36 with a 2.31 ERA and 91 saves.  Think about that for a second.  He had a 2.31 ERA over a six-year span, a period in which he tossed 483.2 innings.  This is not a small sample of innings.  Simply stated, Jesse Orosco was one of the most consistent and effective relievers in Mets history.

It might be said that Franco’s selection was made so that each of the past two Hall of Fame classes wouldn’t focus so much on the 1986 team, what with Davey Johnson, Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden and Frank Cashen getting the call in 2010.  But Mookie Wilson (1996), Keith Hernandez (1997) and Gary Carter (2001) were selected consecutively (no Met was selected from 1998-2000).  Tom Seaver and Jerry Koosman were also selected in consecutive years when they got the call in 1988 and 1989, respectively.

If you want to take things a little further, here's another Hall of Fame nugget for you.  Tug McGraw pitched in eight postseason games for the Mets.  In those eight games, he was 1-0 with two saves and a 1.66 ERA.  Jesse Orosco also pitched in eight postseason games as a Met.  In his eight appearances, Orosco went 3-0 with two saves and a 1.97 ERA.  Both McGraw and Orosco played longer for other teams than they did for the Mets (the Tugger pitched ten seasons in Philadelphia, while Orosco pitched for another 16 years with various teams after leaving the Mets) and they both won another World Series elsewhere, with McGraw recording the final out of the Phillies' first-ever title in 1980 and Orosco winning a ring as a member of the 1988 Dodgers.  Of course, Tug McGraw has been in the Mets' Hall of Fame since 1993, while Jesse is still in limbo.

Speaking of the World Series, John Franco was the last Mets pitcher to win a World Series game, as he was given credit for the victory in Game 3 of the 2000 World Series.  Jesse Orosco is the last Mets pitcher to be on the mound when the Mets won a World Series.  There’s a big difference between winning a World Series game and winning a World Series.

Hey, I have no problem with John Franco making it into the Mets’ Hall of Fame and I congratulate him for becoming the 26th Met to receive the honor.  But he shouldn’t have been selected before Jesse Orosco.  Orosco had just as many accomplishments as a Met as Franco did, but he’s been waiting for the Hall honor longer than Franco did.  Hopefully, the Mets will get it right and induct Orosco next year.  He’s sure waited long enough to get that call.

New Homestand, New Hope

After defeating the Philadelphia Phillies on Sunday night in an emotional extra-inning affair, the Mets return to Citi Field to begin a week-long homestand against the San Francisco Giants and the Los Angeles Dodgers. Although the Mets are still in last place with a 12-16 record, they're not as far out of contention as their record and division standing would suggest. In fact, parity in baseball has made fans in every major league city hold on to hopes of meaningful baseball games in the summer.

Because baseball doesn't have a salary cap, it's difficult to achieve parity. Usually the teams with the highest payrolls have the best chance to extend their seasons past 162 games. More often than not, these teams usually finish well above .500 and have a relatively simple time making their way to the postseason. However, in the early going this season, an overwhelming number of teams are right around the .500 mark.

As of today, only five teams in baseball are more than three games above .500. Those teams are the Indians (19-8), Marlins (18-9), Phillies (18-9), Rockies (17-9) and Yankees (17-9). With identical 16-13 records, the Angels, Rangers and Cardinals can all lay claim to having the sixth-best record in baseball.

Want more proof that there's parity in baseball? Of the 30 teams in the major leagues, a whopping 20 franchises (or two-thirds of all clubs) are between three games over .500 and four games under .500. At 12-16, the Mets are one of those 20 teams that are separated by a mere 3½ games.

Let's now focus strictly on the National League. As of now, only four NL teams have winning records (Marlins, Phillies, Rockies, Cardinals). The Mets have played three of these four teams (they don't play St. Louis until after the All-Star Break) and are a combined 4-9 against them. Against all other opponents, the Mets have a winning record (8-7). After 28 games, the Mets have played nearly half of their schedule against teams that have winning percentages above .650. What about those three .650+ teams? How have the Marlins, Phillies and Rockies racked up so many wins early on? A quick look at their early season schedules reveal quite a tale.

The Marlins have played 27 games, but only six of them have come against teams with winning records. The Phillies have also played 27 games, with only two of those games being played against above-.500 teams (they split those two games against the Marlins). Meanwhile, the Rockies have played three of their 26 games against a winning team, losing two of three to the Marlins.

That means the Mets have played more games against the "elite" teams in the National League (13) than the Marlins, Phillies and Rockies have played combined (11). Of course the Marlins, Phillies and Rockies have good records. They've feasted on the dregs of the National League!

In addition, neither one of those three teams has played more games on the road than at home. The Mets, on the other hand, have played 15 of their 28 games away from Citi Field.

Now the Mets come back home, where they won their last four ballgames before going 3-3 on their recent Washington/Philadelphia trip. They will be facing the Giants and the Dodgers, teams with a combined 28-30 record. Meanwhile, the Marlins will playing six of their next nine games against teams with winning records (Cardinals, Phillies), while the Phillies will be facing their first real test of the season, with series against the Marlins and three of the other five division leaders (Cardinals, Rangers, Rockies) over the next three weeks.

The Mets are in last place now, but they have the opportunity to make a statement this week at home against the Giants and Dodgers. Parity is the name of the game in the major leagues this season, and the teams that have risen above it have done so by taking advantage of their weak early season schedules. But all that is about to change in the next few weeks. Will the Mets be able to rise if the other teams fall? If they do, this week's homestand could give new hope for the team and its fans.

You Call This A Rivalry?

New York and Philadelphia are separated by less than 100 miles, making the Phillies the closest geographical rivals to the Mets in the National League. However, upon further inspection of the NL East standings over the past half-century, "rivals" might not be the correct word to use.

Since the Mets came into existence in 1962, both the Phillies and the Mets have finished with a winning record in the same season a mere eight times.

• 1975: Phillies (86-76, 2nd place); Mets (82-80, 3rd place)
• 1976: Phillies (101-61, 1st place); Mets (86-76, 3rd place)
• 1986: Mets (108-54, 1st place); Phillies (86-75, 2nd place)
• 2001: Phillies (86-76, 2nd place); Mets (82-80, 3rd place)
• 2005: Phillies (88-74, 2nd place); Mets (83-79, 3rd place)
• 2006: Mets (97-65, 1st place); Phillies (85-77, 2nd place)
• 2007: Phillies (89-73, 1st place); Mets (88-74, 2nd place)
• 2008: Phillies (92-70, 1st place); Mets (89-73, 2nd place)

Meanwhile, over the same time period, other well-known traditional rivals have had much more of a rivalry. Since 1962, the Red Sox and Yankees have both finished with winning records in the same season 30 times, including each of the last 13 seasons. The Dodgers and Giants have both been above .500 in the same season 22 times since 1962. Even the Cubs and Cardinals have both finished with winning records in the same season 14 times in the past half-century, which is remarkable considering that the Cubs have only had 18 winning seasons overall since 1962.

Prior to 2007, the Mets and Phillies never had a bonafide rivalry. Although the two teams finished in first and second place in the NL East in both 1986 and 2006, the Mets won the division handily each time. Not until the back-to-back collapses suffered by the Mets in 2007 and 2008 did the teams play for a division title. Unfortunately, those two seasons were the only two in which the Mets and Phillies had a legitimate rivalry in the standings, as the Phillies continued winning in 2009 and 2010, while the Mets forgot how to do so.

Therefore, although it is very early in the season, when the 3-1 Mets take on the 3-1 Phillies tonight at Citizens Bank Park, it will mark one of the few times over the past half-century that both teams have been in the top two positions in the NL East as they played each other.

It may be silly to say that tonight's game is a battle for first place, but why not say it? After all, battles for division supremacy between the Mets and the Phillies have been about as rare as the Cubs winning the World Series. But at least the Cubs have more of a rivalry with another divisional foe.

Enjoy seeing tonight's first place showdown between the Mets and the Phillies while you can. It might be the only time we can say that this season.