Friday, April 09, 2004

Game 2 - Mets
Well, That Didn't Take Long

Braves 18, Mets 10
Record: 1-1

The dream season for the Mets lasted exactly 12.5 innings. While the Detroit Tigers, last reported here sporting lineup cards featuring Tanner-Leak-Engelberg-Whurlitzer, are 4-0 en route to another 100-loss season, so their rem sleep is lasting far beyond the Mets' camp. Instead, we were gently roused from a 6-0 lead in the 3rd inning of Game 2 when Chipper Jones hit a tater to make it 3-0. An inning later, we were unceremoniously dumped from the bed into a vat of ice water when the Braves plated 11 runs off Steve Trachsel, Grant Roberts, and Dan Wheeler. Eleven runs. Wow.

And so, just 25 hours into the new season, we have our first embarrassment of the Mets season, the first time an opponent blue-pencils their team record book at our expense. This is more familiar territory for us fans, and it reeks vaguely of home. That the Mets gave up 18 runs is a punch in the nether regions, but in stark contrast to many of the 2003 football-score-deficits, there were a number of bright spots:

1. Scoring 10 runs on 15 hits against Atlanta is new ground, and even in wretched defeat good news. Seeing former Met and Rob Russell fave (a little too much so) Mike Hampton take a shellacking is never a bad thing.

2. Mike Piazza is tearing the cover off it these days. '03 was a lost season in many ways for Piazza. This season he is starting strong. Plus, after clearing the fences three times in two games, he's just one HR shy of the by-now dreaded catcher record, and it'd sure be nice to be rid of that chatter when discussing his inevitable move to first base. [He played a few innings at first during garbage time on this night.]

3. After two games, it's Braves 4, Mets 0 . . . in errors! By this time last year, Cedeno, Burnitz, Vaughn, and the rest of Team Hands Like Feet had more fumbles and punts than the Jets and Giants combined.

Two games is two games, to be certain, but let's go the silver lining route rather than the doom and gloom of, say, The Boston Globe.

Keep your heads up, lads, there is reason to believe. Or at least there isn't overwhelming reason to disbelieve.

No comments: