Rickey never saw him play

Please god, let it be so.

Mets players give brain aneurysms to their fans, they don't get them.

When did Metsichism first start as an intellectual movement? In what year did they first become the "Oh no, no matter what we're doomed!" team?

When did Metsichism first start as an intellectual movement? In what year did they first become the "Oh no, no matter what we're doomed!" team?

1962

I love this.

When did Metsichism first start as an intellectual movement? In what year did they first become the "Oh no, no matter what we're doomed!" team?

1962

When Frank Cashen resigned and it sunk in that that the mets had essentially returned to the organization incompetence that had preceded him. So, about 1992/93.

If Ike Davis turns into John Olerud I will be very, very happy.

#6, I think Rafael Santana's verse is my fave. And Strawberry isn't even trying to rhyme.

edit - ok, this might top all:

when they want a batter
filled with terror
they call on me,
Rick Aguilera

Ike Davis, age 23: .247/.324/.419 ==> 100 OPS+

Dan Murphy, age 24: .266/.313/.427 ==> 95 OPS+

If Ike Davis turns into John Olerud I will be very, very happy.

John Olerud's kids will be very confused.

Ray, the comparison to Dan Murphy has some weight, but there are good reasons to think Ike Davis at least has some factors in his favor. First, he's had substantially less minor league experience than Murphy had when he made his debut. So the fact that he's able to do as well or better with less seasoning (above and beyond being a year younger) is a point for Davis. Second, Davis has plus power; Murphy (despite my irrational exuberance in his favor) really didn't have any single plus asset you (or the scouts) could point to that he could build on. When you have the kind of raw power that scouts project can make you a 30 home run guy, that represents a threat that pitchers have to respect, and that opens up possibilities for a hitter like Davis as he develops that just don't exist for Murphy. And third, Davis is a legitimately fine fielder, whereas Murphy (at first base; the less said about him in the OF the better) was surprisingly OK with potential to maybe get to be good.

All that said, if Ike Davis ever comes anywhere close to John Olerud's value, I will be way beyond shocked. I think his ceiling is a solid, somewhat above-average regular who will be overrated because he puts up gaudy home run and RBI numbers. But overrated can still be good. To get there, Ike will have to fix the big ol' hole in his swing caused by his unusually low hands, which makes him vulnerable to high heat. If he learns to consistently lay off that stuff, he can force pitchers to bring it down, and he can be good. He'll always have problems with the very best fastball pitchers, but hey -- so do most hitters, right? He can be outstanding without being able to hit Josh Johnson. But he can't get consistently beat by the guys with 90-91 up high. So it's no exaggeration to say his career depends on not swinging at their high heat, and making his living off their mistakes.

I'd compare him to Casey Kotchman more than anyone else.

That's without looking at any numbers, which probably makes my opinion a waste of valuable bandwidth and time.

I apologize for making you read it.

This guy ain't touching Olerud, but he's got substantially more discipline than Kotchman.

If everything breaks right, he could be Richie Sexson.

If everything breaks so-so, maybe more like Adam LaRoche.

Davis is at .248/.329/.419/(101 OPS+) this morning. The most similar line ever put up by a rookie 23-year-old first baseman is Travis Lee's for the 1998 Diamondbacks: .269/.346/.429/(103 OPS+). How's that for a pessimistic factoid.

All that said, if Ike Davis ever comes anywhere close to John Olerud's value, I will be way beyond shocked. I think his ceiling is a solid, somewhat above-average regular who will be overrated because he puts up gaudy home run and RBI numbers.

"Gaudy" would really, really surprise me. I don't see Davis having, for example, 40+ HR power, especially in Citifield. I think Davis definitely has the potential be a 30 HR guy though.

"Gaudy" would really, really surprise me. I don't see Davis having, for example, 40+ HR power, especially in Citifield. I think Davis definitely has the potential be a 30 HR guy though.

Well, since the Mets' all-time record in a season is 41, if that's your standard for "gaudy," then I agree -- Davis isn't likely to meet it. But Carlos Delgado never hit 40 for the Mets, either, and his HR/RBI numbers grabbed some attention (top 10 MVP in 2008, for example).

Davis does have plus power; he's shown that in bursts already. Whether he can make the adjustments he needs to make to allow his power to consistently come through, and whether it will be somewhat dampened by Citi Field, are legitimate questions. But it is consistent with his profile and potential that he could put up a season with a .260/.340/.520 line that includes something like 35 home runs, and if the Mets happen to have a good line-up of table-setters on base that year, that could mean 120 RBI. That's pretty gaudy by my lights.

Or, since this is the Mets, he could top out at .260/.325/.470, 25 home runs and 90 RBI.

Well, since the Mets' all-time record in a season is 41, if that's your standard for "gaudy," then I agree -- Davis isn't likely to meet it. But Carlos Delgado never hit 40 for the Mets, either, and his HR/RBI numbers grabbed some attention (top 10 MVP in 2008, for example).

I suppose that once I've seen 70+ HR in a season, 30-something just doesn't seem like a lot of HR anymore. I feel like a player with 30 HR is just a run-of-the-mill power hitter, not something jaw-dropping. 30 wouldn't even crack the top ten in the NL in 2009.

40 is when people really start to take notice as a dramatic amount of HR.

But it is consistent with his profile and potential that he could put up a season with a .260/.340/.520 line that includes something like 35 home runs, and if the Mets happen to have a good line-up of table-setters on base that year, that could mean 120 RBI. That's pretty gaudy by my lights.

I'll agree with that. 120 RBI, on the other hand, is going to draw some attention. I also agree that getting an .860 OPS (with a mediocre OBP of .340) out of your 1B isn't anything spectacular, but that many will see 120 RBI and react more positively than they should.

Or, since this is the Mets, he could top out at .260/.325/.470, 25 home runs and 90 RBI.

Give Ike Davis a full year and start the season with a healthy Beltran, and he probably gets pretty close to 90 RBI in 2010. With no adjustment other than giving him the same rate of production over 650 PA, he's already at 81 RBI.