Better living through chemistry

Just before noon Saturday, Rod Barajas sat near his locker cradling a portable iPod dock. The speakers blared Biz Markie, then Snoop Dogg, then Pearl Jam. Some Mets lip synched Biz’s rhymes or nodded along to Dr. Dre’s beats, then sang with Eddie Vedder. Alex Cora emerged from a back room of the clubhouse with a Guitar Hero controller just in time to mimic Mike McCready’s solo on Yellow Ledbetter.

Done with their hitting, stretching and infield practice and still with more than an hour to go before their matchup with the Braves, the Mets were having fun.

Who could blame them? They arrived in the clubhouse the winners of four of their last five games, the latest a neat 5-2 victory on Friday in which Jason Bay finally showed signs of life and Ike Davis blasted his first Major League home run.

They went out and won that day, fueled by a few late runs and a series of missteps by their opponents. Then they won Sunday, too, a rain-shortened contest in which Mike Pelfrey tacked five more innings onto his career-best scoreless streak despite yielding, on average, two baserunners per frame.

So what happened? How did the 4-8 Mets, the lifeless, hapless crew with a near-riotous fanbase become the likable gang of winners that swept the Braves to move above .500 and into second place?

Maybe Barajas’ excellent taste in music catalyzed a clubhouse chemical reaction that synthesized a dominant ballclub. Maybe Mike Jacobs’ departure inspired his teammates to start winning for fear they, too, would be ticketed for Buffalo.

Or maybe we are once again wracked by the wrath of randomness, searching for reason where it does not exist.

What has changed in the Mets’ last seven games since they stopped being a 4-8 team and became a team that wins six of seven?

There’s Ike Davis, sure. And Davis inarguably represents an improvement over Jacobs on both sides of the ball. But Davis entered the lineup with Jeff Francoeur and David Wright — the team’s hottest hitters in the first two weeks of the season — enduring wretched slumps.

Angel Pagan, too, marks an upgrade over Gary Matthews Jr. But since securing the Mets’ starting center-field spot, Pagan has notched a downright Matthews-esque .558 OPS.

Over these seven games, the team’s pitching has been great, for certain. Mets hurlers have thrown 59 innings with a 1.98 ERA. But in that stretch, they’ve allowed 91 baserunners. They’ve let runners reach base at a higher rate than in their first 12 games, when they yielded a 3.77 ERA.

Perhaps sometime in the past two weeks Dan Warthen uncovered some ancient secret to allowing tons of baserunners without letting them score (not allowing home runs certainly helps), but it’s way more likely that Mets pitchers have been fortunate to withstand so much peril and emerge relatively unscathed.

It’s way more likely the Mets reaped the benefits of playing two consecutive series against struggling teams.

Lucky, you might say.

And that shouldn’t discredit their performances, at all. So much of baseball — and so much of what’s awesome about baseball — is comprised of luck, randomness and chance. It’s the reason one of the game’s oldest and most well-worked cliches states, “That’s the way the ball bounces.”

Though the Mets lost eight of their first 12 games, they were never a team bad enough to lose 66 percent of their games. And though the Mets won six of their last seven games, they are not a team good enough to win 86 percent of their games. That both those things happened likely demonstrates, more than anything, the dangers of reading too much into too small a sample.

Now the Mets stand at 10-9, and perhaps that record presents a better indication of their true talent level. Maybe the Mets are a team that can win a little more than half of their games. But 19 games are, like 12 games and 7 games, too few to really tell us anything.

Every win the Mets add to their total is inalienable, and so we should enjoy these stretches because we know the Mets will need every victory they can get across the 162-game season.

And winning makes baseball fun for everyone, from the guys bobbing and singing and guitar soloing in the clubhouse Saturday morning to all the Mets fans who braved the rain to enjoy the short victory Sunday night.

But to pretend the Mets have turned some corner in these seven games, and will by some magic continue winning without appreciable production from some of their best hitters and despite far too many opposing hitters reaching base, is silly.

The Mets will again suffer rough stretches, fans will again call for the heads of Jerry Manuel and Omar Minaya, and members of the media will again wonder how a team of professionals could play such mindless baseball.

Then it will get better again. And then worse. It’s baseball. That’s the way the ball bounces.

Jets draft John Conner

Awesome.

I’m sad to see Leon Washington go, but the truth is he was actually a robot sent back from the year 2029 to play for the Jets for a few years, get hurt, sign his tender, then be traded for a fifth-round pick with which the Jets could select John Conner.

Capitalism in action

Three times now, while waiting to turn onto 126th St. to park in the media lot at Citi Field, someone has approached me, motioned to me to roll down my window, and offered to fix the dent in the front bumper of my crappy car.

I imagine these men are representatives of the much maligned auto-body shops in Willets Point, and though I have no interest in actually getting my car fixed — it’s not worth it, as the car won’t pass inspection in August regardless — I’m curious about this system.

It sure seems like the guys are specifically waiting there to offer body work to Mets fans, employees and media members, so I wonder if the agreement is that they’d knock out dents during the game. If so, that’s awfully convenient.

The second baseman must always bat second

Just got tonight’s Mets lineup from our producer Carly:

Pagan
Castillo
Reyes
Bay
Wright
Davis
Francoeur
Barajas
Maine

I spent some time weighing in on batting orders before the season started, but it’s been such a hot-button topic lately that I’ve sort of soured on the subject. Bottom line is it just doesn’t make a huge difference.

Reyes will finally bat third, which means we can finally stop hearing about it, which will likely be the single best outcome from this lineup. To me, it doesn’t seem like a great plan to drop your best hitter down in the order, but the batting-order optimizer actually calls for the fifth hitter to be better than the third and fourth hitters, so you know, what do I know? Plus it’s not like Wright’s exactly destroying the ball lately.

And I don’t know if Jerry Manuel thinks there’s a rule in place stating that the second baseman must always bat second, but he’s done that in every game this year, including the ones when Cora started. Maybe I understand the logic in putting a batter there who could knock the leadoff hitter over, but that assumes the leadoff hitter got on base, of course, which won’t happen somewhere between 60 and 65 percent of the time.

And I’m not certain I love the idea of Barajas, who rarely takes pitches, batting eighth, where he’s likely to get pitched around. Yesterday’s walk notwithstanding, Rod Barajas has shown that he will not be pitched around.

Whatever, whatever. That’s already more thought than a lineup shakeup probably merits, especially for a team struggling to score runs. And if Jerry Manuel thinks batting Reyes in front of Jason Bay might get Bay out of his slump, then, well, cool.

Whiff counts and pitch counts

I was a guest of my buddies Scott and Ted on last night’s Rockiescast to forward my longstanding and mostly baseless theory that the Marlins are baseball’s most hilarious bro squad.

You can listen, but the funny part about the Marlins mostly focuses on their efforts against Dodgers’ knuckleballer Charlie Haeger a couple weeks ago. Though the Fish ultimately won the game, Haeger struck out 12 Marlins in six innings. And while Haeger is obviously his own unique snowflake and all, you rarely see knuckeballers whiff batters at that rate.

In fact, Tim Wakefield has fanned 12 batters — his career high — in precisely one of his 424 starts, and it took him eight innings to do it. He’s only cracked double digits five times. Charlie Hough whiffed a career-high 13 in a complete-game win over the Royals in 1987, but he only thrice managed to strike out 10 or more batters in 440 starts.

So it seems at least mildly notable that the knuckleballing Haeger managed to whiff so many in only his fifth career start, especially considering his 6.3 career K/9 rate in the Minors. And it makes me laugh to consider that fact in light of my supbrosition about the Marlins.

“BRO! WHAT THE F@#$ WAS THAT?”

“I dunno, bro… we better swing harder.”

Anyway, before we even got to that point we meandered onto a tangent about pitch counts, specifically in regards to Ubaldo Jimenez throwing 121 yesterday coming off his 128-pitch no-hitter on Saturday. I questioned Jim Tracy’s logic bringing Jimenez back out for the eighth inning after he was already up well over 100 pitches, then went off on my standard Nolan Ryan spiel (though I got some of the details of his ridiculous 1974 start wrong).

I expressed my skepticism that 100 pitches should be the magic number for every pitcher, since it almost seems too perfect, and since, presumably, all arms are different.

Then today I stumbled onto this massively interesting graph from Sabernomics charting the median and range of pitch counts for starting pitchers since 1988, when STATS first started tracking pitch counts. Turns out 100 has pretty much been the median MLB pitch count for the past 22 years, it’s just that the range has gotten significantly narrower.

And according to The Book Blog, Dodgers starters were averaging right around 100 pitches per start back in the late 50s and early 60s.

Clearly there are a ton of elements to the whole pitch-count conversation I haven’t touched on, but my point is this:

Maybe the next time I run on about how no team will ever find the next Nolan Ryan if everyone keeps limiting pitchers, I will consider just how special Ryan was, in his time or any. Obviously.

And while I can lament that we may never see another pitcher throw a 13-inning, 19-strikeout, 10-walk outing, I should recognize that pitchers are limited for the sake of prolonging their careers.

So maybe we won’t ever find out if Ubaldo Jimenez has the capacity to do what Ryan used to do, but we should remember that we’re sacrificing that knowledge for a better chance of seeing Jimenez pitch every fifth day for the next 10 seasons. That seems like a tradeoff worth making.

Dallas does anger

The whole thing started when Rodriguez went from first to third on a foul ball by Robinson Cano. On his way back to first, Rodriguez ran across the pitcher’s mound, which Braden saw as a sign of disrespect.

“I don’t care if I’m Cy Young or the 25th man on the roster, if I’ve got the ball in my hand and I’m on that mound, that’s my mound,” Braden said. “… He ran across the pitcher’s mound foot on my rubber. No, not happening. We’re not the door mat anymore.”

Rodriguez said he had never heard the unwritten rule that a player shouldn’t run across the mound. When Braden started yelling at him, Rodriguez didn’t know what it was about. “I thought it was pretty funny, actually,” Rodriguez said.

Chad Jennings, LoHud Yankees Blog.

Probably worth checking out the video of the incident. Dallas Braden really loses it. Dude freaks out.

For the most part, I think the unwritten rules of baseball are dumb. If it absolutely needs to be a rule, write it down, and don’t get all bent out of shape if a guy bunts to break up a no-hitter or whatever. As far as I’m concerned — and I know Leo Durocher is with me on this one — a baseball player should do everything he can to win, letting sportsmanship and respect and all the vague and illusory ethics of the game fall to the wayside. Sure, it wasn’t particularly nice of A-Rod to yell, “Ha!” in Toronto, but it worked, and so good for him.

In this particular instance, though, I kind of understand where Braden is coming from. Granted, he probably overreacted a bit, but Rodriguez running over the mound and stepping on the rubber offered the Yankees no actual advantage in the game, and likely felt to Braden like a violation of his personal space. That’s how all his quotes made it sound, for sure.

I wasn’t watching the game and I haven’t seen a whole lot of Braden, but pitching in a Major League Baseball game requires a whole lot of focus and, for most guys, a great deal of intensity. Think of Johan Santana and his whole “I’m a man” thing. Smart money says Braden was in that type of zone (albeit a less effective one), A-Rod interrupted it, and he flipped.

Understandable, and not really a story in the grand scheme of things. Just another reason for opposing players to dislike A-Rod, beyond the whole “awesome hitter who punishes us at every opportunity” thing.

Videos two

First, talking Jets with Brian Bassett. In person, this time:

Second, making up a game show as we go along, challenging Mets fans to play GM. This was fun to tape, even if it was extremely loud in McFadden’s.

I taped the comment about Omar being not so bad compared to some Mets fans before I saw which footage our video guys chose for this show. Not pictured: The several people who said “trade David Wright” or “trade Jose Reyes,” just on principle, for the sake of trading them.

The two fellows in this screengrab are heroes, for what it’s worth:

Sean Carroll on time travel

It’s likely that we can’t do time travel. But we don’t know for sure. The arrow of time comes from the increase of entropy, meaning that the universe started out organized and gets messier as time goes on. Every way in which the past is different from the future can ultimately be traced to entropy. The fact that I remember the past and not the future can be traced to the fact that the past has lower entropy. I think I can make choices that affect the future, but that I can’t make choices that affect the past is also because of entropy. I can choose to have Italian food tonight, but I cannot choose to have not had it last night. But if I travel into the past, all that gets mixed up. My own personal future becomes part of the universe’s past. We’re not going to make logical sense of that. So the smart money would bet that it’s just not possible.

Physicist Sean Carroll, in a New York Times interview.

This is a pretty tremendous — if too brief — interview. Carroll puts a whole lot of crazy, big-picture science stuff into layman’s terms and nails precisely why I never paid much attention in my high-school science classes but now read Discover and the Science Times whenever I can.

As for the time travel thing, it strikes me that he’s probably right, and that’s depressing. I fantasize about time travel a lot, and I read and watch enough science fiction that sometimes I feel like it’s inevitable that we’ll eventually figure out a way to manipulate time. But when you really, really think about the implications of it, as Carroll suggests, it just doesn’t seem possible.

For what it’s worth, I wonder if time-travel narratives are more popular, relatively, in somewhat recent Western culture than in others. This Wikipedia page mentions incidences of time travel in ancient Hindu mythology and a Japanese folk tale from the 8th century A.D., but naturally it would take a lot more research to determine exactly when, why, and how often people started speculating about moving forward or backwards in time.

It feels like something that should be universal, but I guess I have only lived in a world where speculating about time travel is a regular happenstance. To me it seems at least partly driven by the Butterfly Effect; probably half of my time-travel fantasies involve going back in time to convince myself against some decision I made — even if it’s not something I particularly regret — just to see how it would impact my life now.

The other half involve tasting dinosaur meat, observing a dystopian future, harassing historical figures, and all the standard time-travel fare.