Eddie was a small part of that 80 games below .500 "lovable" squad in 1962
Mets fans have a special fondness for mediocrity.
Ever since 1962.
Stunning to me was the low career WAR number of one former Mets player who is talked about often and thought of fondly by Mets fans:
ED KRANEPOOL
18 years - all as a Met - and 4.3 WAR. Just 4.3 WAR.
Maybe it was just a Baseballreference.com misprint.
Slow, steady Eddie.
Perhaps we liked him because we felt he was no more athletic than, or perhaps less athletic than, we ourselves were, yet he lasted 18 years as a Met.
And accumulated (if that is the right word) 4.3 WAR.
Just 4.3 WAR. In 18 years.
I imagine Babe Ruth may have had a month somewhere along the way with more WAR.
By comparison, pint-sized Bud Harrelson racked up 20.3 WAR.
The Hammer, John Milner, racked up 12.5 WAR in just two-thirds of the plate appearances that Eddie the K had in his lengthy career.
We loved Buddy - built like Twiggy, but he sure could field and bunt.
Kranepool was a likable guy - but he was a prime example of what has been wrong with the Mets for 6 decades.
Willie Mays, as a Giant, had 154.5 career WAR. The Met's top WAR 4, Wright, Straw, Beltran and Alfonso, totaled 146.5 WAR as Mets, 8 fewer than Willie the Jint.
Meanwhile, some guys like Gregg Jefferies are despised and ridiculed by many Mets fans, but had 20 career WAR, vs. beloved Eddie's whopping 4 WAR.
Far too often, we've celebrated mediocrity.
Embraced mediocrity.
Settled for mediocrity.
We deserve better, each and every season, from now on.
I much prefer...lovable WINNERS.
P.S.
As a side note, the aforementioned John Milner was a solid player until the age of 30. In this day and age, perhaps he gets a pretty lucrative multi-year contract at age 29. That would have been a big mistake.
At age 31 and 32, he had just 7 HRs, 28 RBIs in 188 at bats while hitting .220, and that age 32 season? It was the end of his career.
Beware the dangers of long term contracts. Guys get old. Don't pay them like they're elite.
ความคิดเห็น
แสดงความคิดเห็น