But Emaus was removed as the everyday starter after only six games. And he’s started half of the last eight. It’s pretty easy to see why — he’s posted an anemic 162/.262/.162 in 42 PA — but is it the right decision, based on such a limited number of plate appearances?…

Face it, the Mets aren’t going anywhere this season. Daniel Murphy isn’t the answer, even as a stop-gap option. If the Mets did the unthinkable and attempted to demote Emaus, the team would have to offer him back to the Blue Jays and have him clear waivers. There’s no way the Mets hold onto him under those circumstances.

– Eric Seidman, FanGraphs.com.

OK, here’s the first thing that strikes me about this: Why is Murphy simply dismissed as “not the answer, even as a stop-gap option”?

I know Murphy is not an aesthetically pleasing defender at any position — he knows it too. But he looked to be a rangy defender at first base and hasn’t yet shown he can’t handle second. At 26, Murphy is only a year older than Emaus. And unlike Emaus, Murphy has 741 plate appearances of not embarrassing himself at the Major League level.

The crux of Seidman’s argument is correct: Teams should not give up on young players with promise because of a handful of crappy at-bats. But considering the personnel in the Mets’ case, I’m not sure why it’s so terrible to give Murphy at-bats against certain righties and an opportunity to show can cut it at second base.

It’s true that Emaus, like all young players, would likely benefit from regular at-bats. But Emaus is 25, so it’s not exactly like the Mets have again called up Ruben Tejada to ride the pine or Jenrry Mejia to pitch in mop-up situations. And since it’s entirely likely Emaus will prove to be little more than a platoon player, he’ll probably need to be able to succeed in irregular at-bats, too.

As Seidman notes, Emaus is still starting about half the Mets’ games. With enough time, he should have plenty of opportunities to show whether he’s worth keeping around. And since the Mets have another youngish player at the same position working to prove his merit as a Major Leaguer, it’s unclear why Emaus should be prioritized.

One day in college, I slept late or had too much work to do or for some other college-y reason couldn’t make it out to a Georgetown basketball game at the MCI Center on a Saturday afternoon. I watched it from the couch in my living room, otherwise empty as my roommates were all at the game. I don’t remember the exact situation now, but the game came down in part to a goaltending call against the Hoyas. When it happened, I was certain it was the wrong call, and I stood and yelled and stomped around my living room like a crazy person.

Then they showed the replay. Totally goaltending. The ball had reached the peak of its arc and was on its way down when the Georgetown player swatted it into the seats. He broke the rules. Ref made the right call.

My roommates returned home a bit later and we got to recapping the game. They explained that from the student section they had a great view of the block, and they could say for sure that it was a b.s. call. I told them the replay made it pretty clear it was the right call but they didn’t believe me. They saw it with their eyes, up close.

There was no TiVo then and none of us really felt up to arguing after a Hoyas loss, jaded though we were by that point. I shrugged and they shrugged too, and soon enough we got to our usual early-evening Saturday habits of playing video games and watching The Big Lebowksi for the billionth time.

But I think about that a lot now when I talk to Mets fans, especially so early in the season.

I bluster on all the time about how our eyes can deceive us. In that afternoon, I have a pitch-perfect example: My roommates, smart guys with strong vision all, legitimately saw something that didn’t happen. I don’t think they were just trying to convince themselves of it so they could blame the ref instead of the then-miserable Hoyas for the loss. I don’t know the science behind it, but I’m pretty sure at some point in the pathway between the eyes and the conscious part of the brain some chemical bias altered reality and showed them a b.s. call.

We all do this all the time, I fear. We see things the way we hope to see them, regardless of if that’s the way they really happened. Mets fans certain that Mike Pelfrey is crazy watched him melt down on the mound again on Saturday evening, losing his cool and getting knocked around for 11 hits in five-plus innings.

Those of us who believe — or want to believe — Pelfrey’s early-season struggles are not mental so much as the byproduct of yielding too much contact watched a bunch of bloops and bleepers find holes and victimize the starter, the type of misfortune that tends to even out over time.

Some Mets fans somehow already know that Brad Emaus is not a Major League-caliber player, so when he whiffs wildly or dribbles out or botches a play in the field, they say, “See? Can’t you see it with your eyes? He stinks!”

Angel Pagan, doing all of the same things, gets the pass he earned by being an excellent Major Leaguer for the last season and a half. He is slumping; we know he can perform at the level so we see he is pressing or struggling or “just not seeing the ball well.”

Pedro Beato, we see, is fearless; he has the closer’s mentality. Bobby Parnell is lost.

You get the point, and it’s one I’ve already belabored plenty. I appeal to evidence more than appearances on this site because I am not a scout; my eyes are not trained to assess baseball players or teams, and even if they were I’m not certain I’d believe them. Most players look crappy when they’re playing crappily. Most players look awesome when they’re playing awesomely. We need lots of data to clearly distinguish the truly awesome from the downright crappy.

What we know about the current Mets is that they’re 5-11 and have endured an awful stretch. But 1/10th of the regular season does not provide enough meaningful evidence with which to draw any conclusions. Emaus and Parnell need more opportunities to show what they will or won’t do this season. Pagan and Pelfrey should be fine if they’re healthy. We shouldn’t go too crazy over Beato or Dillon Gee just yet.

This is all just a long-winded way of saying what I typically say: Absolutely nothing.

The starting rotation has combined for a 6.20 ERA. They are averaging 5.1 innings per start. And they have made three quality starts in thirteen games. Chris Young has been the only good starter, and Dickey the only other mildly acceptable starter. The other three have found the fifth and sixth innings to be some sort of impenetrable barrier to be crossed only by an intrepid reliever.

The result is an overtaxed bullpen that leads the league in innings pitched — and thus is already running with eight relievers, which is turn is handicapping the bench — and offense that is constantly forced to climb out of holes, only to watch any lead it builds immediately slip away. It has not been entirely the pitcher’s fault, as the fielding has been clownish. But a lot of it has been the pitcher’s fault. They’ve walked a batter every other inning. It’s difficult for any team to win when it’s giving up 6 runs every game, and blaming anything else seems almost silly in comparison.

– Patrick Flood, PatrickFloodBlog.com.

Flood lays it down at his eponymous blog. Seems to me like a pretty accurate assessment of the Mets’ struggles so far.