My guess is this column was written on Friday afternoon.

That’s not bad. It’s atrocious.

It's marginally below league average, but okay, Celizic.

So they beat up on a last place team. Big deal.

I was going to say the same thing, Le Samourai. While a .330 OBP is not what a competitive team wants from its leadoff guy, I wouldn't even call it "bad," much less "atrocious." It's more in the range of "mediocre" or "needs improvement." Reyes is on pace for about 70 walks and 90 strikeouts, which doesn't scream "no discipline at the plate." So maybe he's not the superstar many were expecting. He's not exactly a problem.

And "whackiest"? Is that supposed to be some mafia reference?

I was going to say the same thing, Le Samourai. While a .330 OBP is not what a competitive team wants from its leadoff guy, I wouldn't even call it "bad," much less "atrocious." It's more in the range of "mediocre" or "needs improvement." Reyes is on pace for about 70 walks and 90 strikeouts, which doesn't scream "no discipline at the plate." So maybe he's not the superstar many were expecting. He's not exactly a problem.

Another thing is that a lot of people lose sight of the fact that while, yeah, you want guys at the top of the order to get on base (though this is really no less true for guys at the bottom of the order), you also want them to hit for power too. OPS (or EqA or VORP or wOBA or whatever metric you like better) is still a better way to measure a leadoff hitter than just OBP (allowing for the fact that you have to weight OBP more than SLG), same as any other player in the lineup. It's almost as if people forget that you like your leadoff hitters to get into scoring position too, not just get on base. If player A is a .290 EqA guy with a .340 OBP, he's a better leadoff hitter than the guy with the .275 EqA that has a .350 OBP (ignoring for the sake of simplicity the very, very small differences that optimal lineup ordering can make).

So in Jose Reyes you have a guy who OBPs at about league average (his OBP is 8 points below, but his average is only .263 and I'd expect that to go up as his lowest BA outside of his disastrously rushed 2004 season is .273 - and even that was 2005, just a year later), hits for power a little better than league average, and is the best baserunner in baseball. He's doing this while playing shorstop, and playing it excellently. This is not a player - this is not even a hitter - to ##### about. If you're getting above league-average production offensively from the shortstop position, you're already one step ahead of a lot of the competition.

Blame the black holes of Carlos Delgado and Angel Pagan, not Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran (who has a solid-if-unspectacular, though perhaps underperforming, line of .259/.374/.448/118 OPS+, which, from a very good defensive centerfielder who is also a fantastic baserunner like Reyes, is not a player anybody should ever be ######## about).

I feel sorry for Celizic if the Mets' and Yanks' woes continue. After he writes a few obligatory Boston-related stories, he'll actually have to write about teams west of the Hudson River...and he'll be lost.

is the best baserunner in baseball. He's doing this while playing shorstop, and playing it excellently.

This simply isn't true at this time in the season. It was true last year, sure, it will probably be true by the end of the year. But Reyes has not been the best baserunner in the majors (5th in SBs, 2nd in CS, got caught of second last night), and he's second worst in the majors (worse than Jeter) in ZR this year. He's middle of the pack in RZR, but he's still nowhere near excellent by any measure up to this point in the season. You can slump in all aspects of the game, just because we know Reyes is better than his numbers show defensively doesn't mean that his production hasn't been poor so far, due to ball distribution or bad luck or just a plain old statistical slump. A month and a half of defensive stats may be as worthwhile as two weeks of hitting numbers, if that, but the numbers say he's been slumping in the field. This has nothing to do with I think of Reyes going forward, but if you add up the numbers, he has been slumping, even if the numbers are not significant in the long run. I think if you're going to slam Celizic for picking on a guy for slumping this year (although he did focus on the wrong numbers, so you still have a point), you should check the current numbers, insignificant though they might be.

Blame the black holes of Carlos Delgado and Angel Pagan

This really isn't fair to Pagan. He's supposed to be a defensive replacement, and is actually hitting about average for a CF (.275/.346/.374 vs an NL average of .254/.331/.401) The fact that he is in LF is due to injuries more than anyone ever thinking Pagan could hit well enough to be a corner OF.

Reyes isn't a good baserunner. He's a great base stealer and he's fast, but he makes a ton of dumb outs.

If I were a mediocre right-handed pitcher and saw that my next start was scheduled to be against the Yankees, I would start throwing with my left hand.

I think we are making too much of Reyes' "struggles" at the plate. He is hitting .332/.455 and a .350/.450 batting line was a somewhat optimistic expectation for him. He is hitting for more power than he ever has actually. He has made more errors than he usually does but his defense has generally been very good. Jose Reyes' play hasn't been the Mets biggest problem at all.

Heck, the Mets are 4th in the NL in scoring and are averaging nearly 5 runs a game. Their offense hasn't really been a problem either. They are scoring more than anyone else in their division.

Reyes isn't a good baserunner. He's a great base stealer and he's fast, but he makes a ton of dumb outs.

False. He makes very few "dumb outs." He made one last night (arguably -- you could also argue that the out at third was simply the result of his having taken a big lead and simply being the victim of being hung out to dry by the comebacker to Wang), but he makes very few dumb outs. If he did, he wouldn't score as many or more runs than you would expect given his OBP and speed -- and yet he does.

It is true that during his awful patch at the end of last year, when he was doing everything badly, he made some bonehead decisions on the basepaths (like trying to steal third with two outs). But that was no more typical of his baserunning than the way he hit during that period was typical of his hitting.

Reyes is a very good baserunner. He is aggressive and he challenges the defense. Works for me.

Heck, the Mets are 4th in the NL in scoring and are averaging nearly 5 runs a game. Their offense hasn't really been a problem either. They are scoring more than anyone else in their division.

Neither the offense nor the defense are "problems" per se, but they could sure use one or both doing better. They're on pace to win 87 games, and their pythag has them on pace to win 91 games. They still aren't doing badly, it's just that sample size issues have caused them to be behind the D'Backs by 4.5 games. With 121 games left for the Mets, that's not that hard to make up.

They need to make up ground on the Dbacks? Home field advantage is not that important.

I think in the minds of all you guys they just need to get back to where they were the decisive favorite over the Phillies. Don't worry, after Brett Myers's injury gets diagnosed and our rotation for the rest of the season includes J.A. Happ or Jeff Weaver, things will be back to normal.

They still aren't doing badly, it's just that sample size issues have caused them to be behind the D'Backs by 4.5 games. With 121 games left for the Mets, that's not that hard to make up.

And we should care if they finish behind the Diamondbacks because. . . . ????

I mean, home field in the NLCS would be nice if it ever comes to that, but that is SO putting the cart before the horse. I care about winning the NL East, period. Everything else -- finishing with the best record in the league, beating the Yankees -- is just so much noise.

And we should care if they finish behind the Diamondbacks because. . . . ????

I'm comparing them to the D'Backs because that's the team leading the NL. If you're talking about just the NL East, they're a game back, and it's far from time to panic.

Randolph may be a crappy manager, but being a game back when you've had injury troubles is not exactly an indictment of a manager, nor is it a sign to panic.

If you're talking about just the NL East, they're a game back, and it's far from time to panic.

I think it's just kind of weird that the tabloids have been in high panic mode. I get that there is hangover from last year, and that they have to focus on the Mets and Randolph because the Yankees just hired a new manager so you can't really be on Girardi Watch . . . .

But the notion that the Mets can be basically even in the standings with the only teams that count (Phillies and Braves) and be staring disaster in the face is just bizarre.

If I were them, I'd just laugh at the nonsense of it. Willie Randolph should just learn the true value of rolling his eyes, and laughing at how ridiculous it is. I suspect it'd be immensely valuable for his team to relax and laugh.

I don't think the Mets need to worry about anyone outside their division.

False. He makes very few "dumb outs." He made one last night (arguably -- you could also argue that the out at third was simply the result of his having taken a big lead and simply being the victim of being hung out to dry by the comebacker to Wang), but he makes very few dumb outs.

Did you catch the 1-0 game against the Nats last week?

I don't think that's a dumb out, Robert. It was worth the gamble trying to get to third with one out where he would have represented the tying run. You don't do that with nobody out, and you don't do it with two outs. He thought he could beat Guzman to the bag -- and it didn't work out. I have no problem with that kind of aggression in that particular situation at all.

If I were them, I'd just laugh at the nonsense of it. Willie Randolph should just learn the true value of rolling his eyes, and laughing at how ridiculous it is. I suspect it'd be immensely valuable for his team to relax and laugh.

Willie has reason to be worried. People are calling for his head.

I am pretty interested to see how Pelfrey fairs againsts the Braves lineup in his next start. He has pitched well in his last two starts and has been throwing his four seamer more to get ahead in the count. If he can hold his own against the Braves, the Mets are going to have an interesting decision to make when Pedro comes back.

If he can hold his own against the Braves, the Mets are going to have an interesting decision to make when Pedro comes back.

Really?

Santana
Pedro
Maine
Perez
Pelfrey

Where's the decision? Vargas goes back to New Orleans. Plus, I don't think Pedro's all that close -- I'd say mid-June, so both Pelfrey and Vargas are going to get several more starts before any decision has to be made.

I don't think that's a dumb out, Robert. It was worth the gamble trying to get to third with one out where he would have represented the tying run.

I disagree, but I can leave it at that.

Where's the decision? Vargas goes back to New Orleans. Plus, I don't think Pedro's all that close -- I'd say mid-June, so both Pelfrey and Vargas are going to get several more starts before any decision has to be made.

I don't think Vargas can be sent down without having to clear waivers and the Mets might decide to send Pelfrey down to keep Vargas. Pedro's pitching in a simulated game today. I wouldn't be surpised if he only makes one or two rehab starts after that and then gets called up.

I don't think that's a dumb out, Robert. It was worth the gamble trying to get to third with one out where he would have represented the tying run. You don't do that with nobody out, and you don't do it with two outs. He thought he could beat Guzman to the bag -- and it didn't work out. I have no problem with that kind of aggression in that particular situation at all.

Well, david Wright is on deck, and he's probablty got a better chance os stealing third than he does of making that play. And it was 8th inning down by one. I don't take the risk there once in scoring position. In the 5th inning, sure. In the 8th - no. I thought it was a bad decision.

Well, david Wright is on deck, and he's probablty got a better chance os stealing third than he does of making that play. And it was 8th inning down by one. I don't take the risk there once in scoring position. In the 5th inning, sure. In the 8th - no. I thought it was a bad decision.

Perhaps, but there's a difference between "dumb" and "wrong." I think Reyes's move there falls into that gray area where you can argue it either way. Given his speed, that the base was unoccupied, and the value of getting the tying tun to third with one out, especially with David Wright coming up . . . those things all suggest it was a gamble worth taking. Your argument that he might have had a better shot at just stealing it points the other way.

My point: if it's arguable, then you can't really say it was dumb. Dumb is making that play with two outs -- you absolutely can NOT do that, since the benefit of getting to third v. being on second is so much less.