Escape From Philadelphia

Let's forget the obvious for a moment, that the five runs that the Mets scored after the fifth inning were instrumental in the Mets Wednesday victory because:

• the Mets were behind and actually needed the runs,
• the Mets were playing the Phillies ... ahead of them to start the night, and ...
• the Mets got those runs off of the Phillies bullpen, Kryptonite to Mets bats.

I got a comment on my last post which basically said that late runs are a non-story, and that seven runs late in the game still would have left the Mets one short. So I put on my white coat, entered my math lab, made all of the calculations and concluded that yes, seven runs is still less than eighth no matter when the seven runs are scored. Let that be a lesson to you kids: Math is useful and fun.

But here's the difference between late runs and early runs: Tuesday night: I had this feeling in the ninth that it was only a matter of time until the bullpen blew it. Wednesday night: I thought the game was over entering the ninth (and don't tell me that I had that feeling because the lead was three instead of one ... I've seen what this bullpen can do with three run leads and it's not f***ing pretty). And if I, of all people, was feeling a little invincible, imagine what they were feeling on the Mets bench.

Also, when you score runs early, you're most likely going to do it against one pitcher. When you score runs late, you're probably going to do it against three or four guys with all of the pitching changes, so you make a team feel like they have no options ... you know, that feeling you get when Snoop trots out Heilman, Sanchez and Feliciano all the time? That one.

Don't get me wrong, I'll take runs during any inning at any time. But those late runs, thanks to Carlos Delgado, Daniel Murphy, and Brian Schneider, kept those creepy feelings away ... at least until the next time we meet up with the Phillies (the team that the Mets officially won the season series with last night ... incidentally.)

So enjoy your day off today in the knowledge that at least for now, all is right and familiar with the world. The Mets are in first place, Fluff Castro is on the DL, and Skip Bayless is still an ever-loving tool:

"Way to go, Phillies!!!!!!!" -Skip Bayless on Wednesday's "First Pizza", or whatever they call that show these days.

Bite me, you contrarian cupcake crumb.

Don't Give This Sucker No Statue ... Give Him Guts!

All right, break it up you two.

Remember when Clubber Lang crashed the statue dedication for Rocky Balboa in Rocky III, and he let loose Mickey's secret that he was setting Rocky up with set-ups and bums to protect him? And Rocky didn't want to believe Clubber, but it was true?

That's what this Reyes/Hernandez tiff reminds me of.

When Hernandez (playing the role of Clubber) said on the air: "enough babying of Jose Reyes", he was right. When Jose Reyes (our Rocky Balboa) got pissed off, he was right too. So everybody's right and there's no need to take sides.

Look, Snoop Manuel came out and said that he wanted to Luis Castillo to be a more positive influence on Reyes. So some of the evidence of what Keith is saying is out there for us to see. And I'm willing to bet that Keith, as a broadcaster, sees other things behind the scenes with the team that we don't see ... it's that simple. And as a former player, he interprets things in a way that we have we have no chance of knowing. That's why he was hired, and that's why he's regarded as one of the best at what he does. Think about it: what do you think everyone has been talking about when Reyes slumped last season: "Oh, too bad Jose Valentin isn't around like last season", and other things to that effect. So, Keith basically spoke the truth ... just the same way he spoke the truth in '02 when he said that the team had quit. The team did quit! But Hernandez was made to apologize because Mike Piazza got all sensitive (it remains the one thing on Piazza's Met career I have an issue with). So Keith is absolutely right on this.

Besides, if Jose Reyes is indeed being babied, and I think there's enough evidence out there to prove he is to some extent, then you can't blame Hernandez, who lived through the Gregg Jefferies saga, for disagreeing with that tact. The Mets hired Keith to provide not only an ex-ballplayers' perspective, but his perspective. If people don't like that, then maybe we should get automatons to provide color commentary.

Jose Reyes? He's right too. Reyes should reject the notion of being treated like some sort of child who constantly needs a baby sitter or a mentor. He's 25 years old. And while 25 doesn't mean that you know everything (Look at me: I'm 37 and I know nothing), 25 with five seasons in baseball should mean that you have to be allowed to make your own mistakes and own up to them at some point. Reyes has generally done that. I don't mind Jose Reyes throwing tantrums. Reyes should be allowed to throw tantrums after plays like that, like most ballplayers have done at one time or another. I've thrown some doozies with a plastic bat and a metal chair, and again: note that I'm 37 years old. Here's the difference: I don't throw these tantrums in front of 57,000 like Reyes did against last Sunday ... I go to an office, shut the door, and have at it. When you don't wait until you go to the dugout or clubhouse to throw your tantrum, you give the New York media carte-blanche to make any assumptions they want ... and when you're a New York Metropolitan, the assumptions from the media are generally going to take the form of the worst one possible, like say the one about showing up Carlos Delgado.

Deserved? In some parts yes, because of what happened last year and so far this year. In some ways no, merely because even Mets deserve the benefit of the doubt until the facts come out, whether the team is in a winning streak or a losing streak. I don't subscribe to the Chris Russo school of "nothing you do is right unless you're winning ten in a row." (Can't Snoop Manuel be correct for going out and defending Carlos Beltran even though the Mets lost the game 11-0?) But that's the way it is in this city: When you're 10 games ahead, stories like this don't come out until years later as an anecdote to illustrate how intense Jose Reyes is. But when you're five games behind, stories like this make the front page that week and get talked about on ESPN round tables as fodder for the contrarians like Skip Bayless. It's just the way it works.

Oh by the way, playing the role of Mickey is Mets management, who are the ones that are taking great pains to make sure Reyes is comfortable. And you know as well as Keith does that babying and favoring fosters resentment. And that's the best reason not to baby a player: because resentment and division are exactly what the media hopes for to go and write the obituaries and win their Pulitzers.

I realize that by merely writing about this, I give the story more legs than it deserves (not that anyone actually reads this). But I truly believe that all parties are right on this and should continue to believe that they are. If anything, I would say that Jose needs to realize that Keith is merely doing his job, and would never be the announcer he is if he was worried about feelings or self censorship when it comes to team matters. And Keith probably needs to accept that in sports parlance, 22 years is a long time in baseball when you're talking about attitudes and mindsets of major league players. In other words: They don't make 'em like they used to. But I have a feeling that if Keith looks deep down that he'll realize that Jose Reyes, tantrums and all, is more like Keith Hernandez than we all think.