A Message to Bernie Sanders Supporters

If you're a a Hillary-hating Bernie Sanders supporter, I'm going to consider it a small victory that you're even reading this sentence.  I say that because I'm sure you're sick and tired of reading articles like this.  I'm sure you're sick of people telling you "I really wanted Bernie Sanders to be president too, but now that there's no chance for him to win the presidency this year, we need to hold our noses and vote for Hillary to keep Donald Trump from becoming president."  I'm sure you consider people who tell you that to be traitors to Bernie's movement.

Well, I guess I'm one of those traitors, but I'd like to humbly ask you to spend a few minutes of your day having a discussion with me - and I do mean a discussion rather than a one-way lecture that talks down to you and insults your intelligence.

If you're kind enough to read further and have anything you'd like to say to me, please email me at hillbernletstalk2016@gmail.com.  I promise to spend as much of my free time as a I can to have a civil discussion with any Bernie Sanders supporter.

Ever since I came to the disheartening realization that a true progressive would not be elected president this year, I've been trying to convince Bernie supporters to vote for Hillary to keep Trump and the GOP from taking the White House.  Thus far, none of my appeals have been successful.  Perhaps that's simply because I'm in the wrong here.  Perhaps there's no way for a Bernie supporter like you and person like me to find common ground.  However, I want to give this kind of discussion one more try.  I want to start by responding to a sentiment I've heard from many Bernie supporters, a sentiment exemplified by the quote below ( This quote can be found 10:44 mark of this podcast ( about 15 minutes before the end of the podcast ).):

"I'm really sick and tired of hearing about 'Vote Hillary, or you'll get Trump'.  I'm like, OK, that's not what voting is about.  You're not supposed to vote based on fear.  You're supposed to vote based on what you believe in and who you think will be the best president.  If that's Hillary, fine.  If that's Trump, fine."

I've got a very different idea of what voting is about.  I believe voting is about exercising our power to effect public policy.  I believe voting is about exercising our power to choose the path our nation takes.  It's a great power and ( as this guy might say ) a great responsibility.  I believe that if you refuse to cast a vote for any of the candidates who have a chance of winning an election, you are ceding that power and shirking that responsibility.

OK, so that's my side of the argument ( which I've decided to call "The Spider-Man argument" ).  Now, it's your turn - please go ahead and email me.  FYI, I haven't gone into the details of Clinton's or Trump's policy positions, because I believe 99% of the people reading this understand that Donald Trump will take our nation on a very different path than Hillary Clinton.  However, if you happen to be a person who insists that there would be no difference between Trump's policies and Clinton's policies or believes Clinton would be just as bad as Trump for our nation, please read what I wrote in the "P.S." below and let me know what you disagree with.

Thanks for taking to time to hear me out.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Rich

P.S.  OK, while I could recite a long laundry list of policy positions differences between Clinton and Trump, I'm instead going to make a case for why their presidential policies will be very different.

Either Hillary or Trump would be a first-term president.  All presidents have their own ideas and policy goals, but one thing that all first-term presidents have in common is that they want to become second-term presidents.  It's very difficult to become a second-term president if you have to face a primary challenge in your re-election campaign ( just ask Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush ).  In order to avoid a primary challenge, first-term presidents rarely ( if ever ) stray very far from the standard policy positions of their political party.  So, I guess what I'm trying to say here is that regardless of what crazy or dishonest things Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump might say in hopes of getting elected, in the end, a President Hillary Clinton or a President Donald Trump will follow about 95% of the policy positions of the party that nominated them.

So, President Trump would rubber-stamp any bills passed by by a Republican Congress and veto any bills passed by a Democratic Congress.

President Clinton would rubber-stamp any bills passed by a Democratic Congress and veto any bills passed by a Republican Congress.

Perhaps most importantly, Donald Trump would nominate conservative justices for the Supreme Court, while Hillary Clinton would nominate liberal justices to the Supreme court.

So President Donald trump would generally follow the orthodoxy of the Republican party and President Hillary Clinton would generally follow the orthodoxy of the Democratic party.

Now, I understand that typical Democratic policies are much too far to right for you ( as they are to me ), but do you really want the our nation's policies to be as far to the right as typical Republican policies?  Do you really believe there is no difference between the policy positions of the Democratic party and the policy positions of the Republican party.  Do you really think Democrats are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to things like tax fairness, the social safety net, voting rights, women's rights, racial justice, reproductive freedom, union rights, climate science, education, and LGBTQ rights?

Some Bernie people have told me that none of this matters because the GOP will still control Congress, and President Hillary Clinton would not be able to do any good due to congressional gridlock.  Some say with ( with great justification ) that President Hillary Clinton would just compromise with a GOP Congress like her husband did, and would not do any good in her years in office.

Well, to those making those arguments, I'd just like to counter with the following:

This election isn't about the good that President Hillary Clinton might do, it's about the bad that President Donald Trump certainly would do.

Yes, I understand that our nation needs positive change and Hillary certainly will not provide that change.  She doesn't have the political will to make positive changes.  I believe Hillary Clinton's Presidency would almost certain be a status quo presidency.  I know that "status quo" is deeply disappointing compared to the vision Bernie Sanders laid out for our nation, but a "status quo" America would feel like a paradise next to President Trump's America.

I, like you, want our nation to move forward in a liberal progressive direction.  I'm sorry to say that this in not going to happen this year.  However 2020 is only 4 years away.  We can still primary Hillary in 2020, win the White House and take the nation in a progressive direction 4 years from now.  However, we've got a long way to go before our nation gets to where we want it to be, and it's going to be far harder to do starting in 2020 if we spend the next 4 years sliding backward in a conservative direction under President Trump, rather than remaining in a "status quo" state under President Clinton.  We've all fought hard to get our nation this far down the progressive road.  Many that have come before us have died to get us this far down this road.  Let's not dishonor the memory of all that have worked so hard and sacrificed so much by ceding the progress we've made to Donald Trump and the GOP.

Let's protect the progress we've made so far by voting in November to make sure Donald Trump never sits in the Oval Office.

Ichiro 4257

Earlier this month, Ichiro Suzuki recorded the 2,979th hit in his major league career, giving him 4,257 hits combined between Major League Baseball ( MLB ) and the Japanese equivalent of major league baseball ( where he recorded 1,278 hits from 1992 to 2000).  The number 4,257 was considered significant by some because the MLB record for hits in a career is 4,256.  This record is held by Pete Rose,  and after Ichiro recorded his 4,257th hit, Rose and his supporters started to make noise that Ichiro's 1278 Japanese hits shouldn't count towards his total because the Japanese major leagues are inferior to the American major leagues.

Well, my first impression here is that the Rose crowd is being a bit too defensive, because nobody's been trying to say that Rose no longer holds the MLB record for career hits.  When it comes to the MLB record, of course Ichiro's 1278 hits in the Japanese league don't count.  Clearly only MLB hits can count towards the MLB records.  That fact is true by definition, regardless of whether Japanese major league baseball is as good as major league baseball in America.

The larger point that I think Rose and his fans are trying to make is that Ichiro's 4,257 professional hits do not make him a more prolific hitter than Pete Rose.  They want to make it clear to anyone who will listen to them that Pete Rose is the "Hit King" and always will be.  They want to make it clear that Ichiro would not have had anywhere near 1278 hits from 1992 to 2000 if he had been playing those years in America instead of in Japan.

I actually agree that Ichiro wouldn't have gotten close to 1278 in MLB from 1992 to 2000.

He would have gotten more than 1278 hits, probably a lot more.

There are a lot a complex mathematical and sabermetrical ways to justify this belief, but the easiest argument is the following.

Prior to playing in MLB starting with the 2001 season, Ichiro played 7 full seasons in the Japanese Pacific League from 1994 to 2000.  In those 7 season he amassed 1,242 hits ( He amassed 36 combined hits in 1992 and 1993 as a teen-age part-time player. ).  In his first 7 years in MLB from 2001 to 2007, he collected 1,592 hits.

Let's take a moment to let this sink in.  After getting 1,242 in 7 full seasons in Japanese baseball, he got 1,592 hits in first 7 seasons in Major Leauge Baseball.  So, if the Rose supporters are correct that it is harder to get hits in MLB than in Japanese baseball, why did Ichiro get 350 more hits in his first 7 years in Major League Baseball than his his last 7 years of Japanese baseball?  Well, while it is easier to get a a hit in a given at bat in the Japanese Leagues ( Ichiro hit .351 in Japan but only .333 in his first 7 years in MLB ) it's harder to get a large number of hits in a Japanese baseball season, because there are less games in a Japanese baseball season than an MLB season.  In the MLB, they play 162 games, but in Japan the season was only 130 games long  from 1994 to 1996 and only 135 games long from 1997 to 2000.  So even though the easier level of play in Japan helped Ichiro hit for a higher average in Japan than in MLB, the much shorter Japanese season kept his season hit totals below what they probably would have been in MLB.  The most hits Ichiro ever got in a Japanese baseball season was 210 ( in 1994 ).  Ichiro's had more than 210 hits in a season 8 times in MLB, including an all-time MLB single season record of 262 hits in 2004.

All of this doesn't prove that Ichiro could have gotten more than 1,278 MLB hits prior to 2001 if given the chance, but I think it makes it highly likely.  If Ichiro has come to America at the age of 18, his biggest impediment to collecting at least 1278 MLB hits before 2001 would have have Major League GMs.  Ichiro wasn't an effective player in the Japanese leagues in 1992 and 1993 ( he hit .253 as an 18-year old in 1992 and .188 as an 19-year old in 1993 ).  It's unlikely that any MLB team would have promoted him to majors in 1994 based on his 1992 and 1993 numbers.  However in 1994, he hit .385 in Japan.  That .385 average in Japan probably the translates to over .400 in AAA minor league ball.  If Ichiro had hit over .400 in AAA ball in 1994, it seems unlikely that he would not have started 1995 in the major leauges.  In fact, he probably would have been promoted to MLB at some point during his 1994 season.  In any case, if we assume Ichiro would have only played 6 full season in MLB prior to 2001 and he would have collected hits at the same pace as he did from 2001 to 2007 (  1592 hits in 7 years is a 227.42857 hits per year pace ), we would estimate that Ichiro would have gotten 1364 MLB hits from 1995 to 200 ( 1364.57, but I'll round down to be more conservative about his potential hit total ).  1364 is still plenty more than 1278.  If Ichiro had collected 1364 MLB hits from 1995 to 2000, he would have broken Rose's MLB record of 4256 last season.

However, Ichiro didn't get those 1364 extra MLB hits.  He didn't get those 1364 extra MLB hits, just like Ted William didn't get close to 200 extra MLB home runs during the years he missed while serving his country as a Navy pilot in World War II and the Korean War,  Satchel Paige didn't get hundreds of extra MLB wins when he was kept out of MLB because of the color of his skin.  The history Major League Baseball is full of "What if?"s, but "What if?"s don't count, so Rose is going be the MLB "Hit King" until somebody manages to get 4257 hits in an MLB career.  Rose's career hit record is one of the great records in sports, but those who want to prop Rose up should not try to push Ichiro down.  Fans of Rose may not want admit it, but I think history will judge Ichiro to be a greater player than Rose.  The numbers actually say Rose was little bit better as a pure hitter ( Ichiro has a better lifetime average, but Rose has a better OPS+ due to a higher walk rate and the fact that he played in played in an era of low scoring while Ichiro played much of his career in a high scoring era.  However, I think Ichiro career OPS+ ( 108 vs. Rose's 118 ) could have closer to Rose's if he could have added 6 or 7 MLB seasons in his prime from 1994 to 2000. ), but Ichiro's contributions on the base-paths and his spectacular fielding put Ichiro just ahead of Rose in my opinion. *

* For what it is worth, according to baseball-reference.com, Rose accumulated a career WAR of 79.1 and Ichiro has a career WAR of only 59.6.  However, as we've noted before, Ichiro played 7 full seasons in Japan before he played in America.  Ichiro had a total WAR of 40.9 is his first 7 years in the USA.  I we assume Ichiro could have accumulated 6/7 of that total if he had played in MLB from 1995 to 2000, he could have gotten 35 more WAR before 2001 and would now have a total of 94.6 WAR for his career.  Of course, there is no way to be sure he's be as good from 1995 to 2000 in MLB as he was from 2001 to 2007, but I believe he would have accumulated enough extra WAR in those years to surpass Rose's 79.1.  In any case, they were both incredible players.  It worth noting that while Ichiro's total of 40.9 WAR from his age-27 season to his age-33 season ( 2001 - 2007 ) is very impressive, Rose had 42.2 WAR from his age-27 season to his age-33 season ( 1968 - 1974 ). 

I hope people will view this post as being more pro-Ichiro than anti-Rose.  I admittedly think that Rose should not forgiven by MLB for gambling on baseball games,  but I also think was one of the greatest players I ever had the privilege to watch.  I still fondly remember his 44-game hitting streak, and I rooted for him during his entire chase of Ty Cobb's career hit record.  He broke a record that most people thought could ever be broken, and no one can ever take that away from him.

So, who's the real "Hit King"?  It's still Rose, because "what if?"s don't count, but nobody will every convince me that Ichiro wasn't a better player than Rose.  In the end, I'll be telling my grandkids about both of these guys.

Rich

The Mets Championship Belt

For this post, I'm borrowing an idea from Bill Simmons.  He's written several column about "championship belts" in various disciplines, my favorite of which was The Action Hero Championship Belt.  I've decided to apply this idea to baseball, specifically the New York Mets.  Here are the rules  ...

1) The "championship belt" holder for a given team is generally the best player on a team at given time.  However ...

2) A great player doesn't have to relinquish the belt because of just one bad season.  For example, here are Mike Schmidt's home run totals with the Phillies from 1974 to 1987.  The numbers in blue indicate years he led the league in homers.

1974  36

1975  38

1976  38

1977  38

1978  21

1979  45

1980  48

1981  31 ( strike-shortened 102 game season - on pace for 49 over full season )

1982  35

1983  40

1984  36

1985  33

1986  37

1987  35

Schmidt had an off-year in 1978, but he did not lose the Phillies Championship Belt.

3) A great player could even retain the belt for several consecutive bad seasons at the end of his career depending on ...
- how great the player was
- how great the typical belt-holder is for the player's franchise
- whether or not another great player is on the horizon as the older great player declines.

4) The "championship belt" title could be vacant for a period of time if the team does not have a great player during that period of time.  Whether or not a player can be considered a "great" player for the team is tied to the history of the franchise.  It's a lot easier to be a "great" belt-worthy Marlin than a "great" Yankee.

5) The belt can be awarded retroactively.  For example, when Mike Schmidt had his bad year in 1978, he would not have been stripped of the belt at the time.  However, let's say the Phillies best player in 1978 had been a Willie Mays caliber player who wound up being  better than Mike Schmidt for the rest of his career.  Well, in that case, this hypothetical "Willie Mays" of the Phillies would retroactively be awarded the 1978 Phillies Championship Belt years after 1978.

In other to further illustrate these principals, I'm going to list the holders of the Yankees Championship belt from 1920 until the present.

Babe Ruth : 1920 - 1934

There's no doubt Gehrig was more valuable than Babe Ruth in 1933 and 1934, and Gehrig was clearly not a flash-in-the-pan who was unworthy of the Yankees belt.  However, Babe Ruth is Babe Ruth.  Babe Ruth was going the be the Yankees belt holder as long as he wore pinstripes.

Lou Gehrig : 1934 - 1938

By 1938, Lou Gehrig was already feeling the effect of the ALS that would end his life 3 years later.  Joe DiMaggio was certainly better in 1938 than Gehrig, but if the Yankees belt has been a real thing, nobody was taking it away from Gehrig until he walked off the field 8 games into the 1939 season.

Joe DiMaggio : 1939 - 1951

Yogi Berra was a great player and great Yankee.  Yogi was better than DiMaggio in 1950 and 1951 ( when Yogi won his first MVP award ), but much like Ruth, DiMaggio was iconic.  Ernest Hemingway didn't write about "the great Berra".  Nobody wrote songs about "Joltin' Yogi Berra".  DiMaggio relinquished the Yankees belt when he walked out of the Yankees clubhouse for the last time.

Mickey Mantle : 1952 - 1968

Sorry, Yogi.  You would have been a belt-holder for at least a decade for almost any other team, but these are the Yankees we're talking about.  Berra did win the MVP in 1954 and 1955, but Mantle is up there on the Yankees Mount Rushmore with Ruth/Gehrig/DiMaggio, and actually had far superior advanced stats than Berra in 1954 and 1955.   While it's clear Mantle was washed-up from 1965 to 1968, there wasn't actually any Yankees ready to seize the belt in the those years.  Mantle was so well-respected at the end of his career that 1968 MVP Denny McLain gave Mantle a going-away gift by  grooving a gopher ball to Mantle  10 days before Mantle's career ended.

1969 : Vacant

After 49 seasons of Ruth/Gerhrig/DiMaggio/Mantle as the standard bearers of the Yankees, nobody on the sub-500 1969 team was worthy to wear the Yankees'belt.

Thurman Munson : 1970 - 1976

Roy White was actually the Yankees best player in 1970, but 1970 was also the Rookie of the Year campaign for a player who would lead the Yankees to their first pennant in 12 years during his MVP season of 1976.  There's no doubt Thurman was the heart and soul of those 1970's Yankees until his tragic death in 1979.  One could argue that the belt should have belonged to Thurman until he died, but I think the belt changed hands when a force of nature arrived in the Bronx in 1977.

Reggie Jackson : 1977 - 1981

I've seen a lot of impressive things in my 40+ years of watching baseball, buy it's hard to top what Reggie did in his last 3 at bats of the 1977 World Series.  Reggie hit first-pitch home runs off of three different pitchers, the last of which was a mammoth shot into the black seats beyond the center field fence at Yankees Stadium.



Soon after Reggie arrived in New York, he was quoted as saying ...

"This team, it all flows from me. I’m the straw that stirs the drink. Maybe I should say me and Munson, but he can only stir it bad.” *

* Reggie now denies he ever said that.

Considering his alleged insult of Munson, lots of Yankees fans ( and I'm sure the players ) hesitated to accept Reggie as one of their own, but nobody could deny he was king of the Yankees hill after that night in October.

Back 1973 when Reggie was on his way to winning the MVP ( and the 2nd of 3 straight World Series titles ) with the A's, he said ...

"If I was playing in New York, they'd name a candy bar after me."

Of course, Reggie turned out to be right ...

Not gonna lie - it was a pretty good candy bar.  I had a bunch of them in my day.

BTW, to follow up on his three home runs to end his 1977 World Series performance, he homered in his first Yankees Stadium at bat in 1978.  The fans showered the field with Reggie bars.

1982 - 1983 : Vacant

Dave Winfield was a great player, a worthy Hall-of-Famer, and probably the best all-around player for the Yankees in the 80's.  However, be it fair or not, his 1-22 performance in the 1981 World Series ( and George Steinbrenner's "Mr. May" quote ) will always be one of the first things people think about when they think of Dave Windfield's Yankees career.

Don Mattingly : 1984 - 1995

Donnie Baseball's last great season was in 1987.  After that, his chronic back problems limited him to being a good player rather than a great player.  While other Yankees certainly had better seasons than Mattingly from 1988 to 1995, there is no doubt that the Yankees were Mattingly's team up to and including his fine performance in the 1995 playoffs ( .417 batting average and a 1.148 OPS over 5 games ).

Derek Jeter : 1996 - 2014

Derek wasn't always the best or most valuable Yankee during his career ( especially during the last few years of his career ), and it could be argued that closer Mariano Rivera was the biggest reason why the Yankees won 5 World Series ( and 7 AL pennants ) during the Jeter years ( I'd be one to make that argument ), but Jeter was the easily the most iconic Yankee since Mantle and probably the most revered Yankee since Dimaggio.  I'll always contend that he wasn't as good as Yankees fans think he is ( He's certainly a worthy first ballot Hall-of-Famer, but Yankees fans treated him like he was the best player in baseball, which he never was at any point during his career. ), but in Yankees circles, he's a legend whose shoes will be extremely difficult to fill.

2015 - 2016 : Vacant

Nobody has filled Jeter's shoes yet, and nobody will until the Yankees start winning pennants again.

Ok, so with that ( longer than anticipated ) preliminary complete, let's get to the Mets.

1962 - 1966 : Vacant

If you know anything about the Mets' history, there is no need for any explanation.

Tom Seaver: 1967 to June 15, 1997

Mets fans probably don't need of summary of Tom Seaver's resume to agree with this, but I'm going to list a few key points anyway.

1967 Rookie of the Year

1969 : Went 25 -7 with a 2.21 ERA, won the Cy Young Award, and most importantly, led the Miracle Mets to their first World Series title ( The Mets has finished in 9th or 10th place every season prior to 1969 )

April 22, 1970 : Struck out the last 10 batters of a game to finish a game with 19 strikeouts.  No Major League pitcher before or since has struck out 10 batters in a row.  Who knows how many more he could have struck out in a row if the game has not ended?

1973: Wins his second Cy Young Award and and leads the Mets to their 2nd National League Championship.

1975: Wins his 3rd Cy Young Award.  At the time, no pitcher has won more than 3 Cy Young Awards.

1976 : Seaver struck out 235 batters that season, marking the 9th consecutive season he'd struck out 200 or more batters.  No pitcher before or since has matched such a streak.  Not Nolan Ryan, not Randy Johnson, not Walter Johnson, not Bob Feller, not Pedro Martinez, not anyone.  ( BTW, in case you are wondering.  If the 1981 strike has not happened and Ryan has struck out 200 or more in 1981, his best streak still would have only been 7 years ( from 1976 to 1982 ).  Also, Randy Johnson did manage to keep his 200-strikeout season streak going by striking out 204 in the strike-shortened 1994 season ( and 294 in the slightly shortened  1995 season ), but he never stuck out 200 or more for 9 straight season because he struck out less than 200 in injury-plagued 1996 and 2003 seasons.  Also note that Pedro Martinez could have had 9 straight 200 strikeout seasons if 1994 and 1995 has been full seasons, but his 174 K's in 144 teams games in 1995 is only on a pace for 195 strikeouts in a 162-game season. )

Seaver was, as his nickname spelled out was "The Franchise".  The first words of his Hall of Fame plaque summed up his impact perfectly.

"Franchise power pitcher who transformed Mets from lovable losers into formidable foes."

 I was born in January 1970 into a family of Mets fans still basking of the glow of the Mets World Series triumph in October 1969.  Seaver was almost like a patron saint in my family.  Family members used to tell me I looked like Seaver in hushed tones, as if it connoted something divine.  We were all devastated when the Mets traded Seaver on the night of June 15, 1977.  After that, nothing would be the same for a long time.

June 15, 1977 - June 15, 1983 : Vacant

It was a long six years in the wilderness.  The Mets finished in last or next to last every year from 1977 to 1983.  However, things started to change when the Mets made the best trade in team history on June 15, 1983.

Keith Hernandez : June 15, 1983 - 1984

With apologies to Mike Piazza,  Donn Clendenon, Gary Carter, Syndergaard/d'Arnaud, and Yoenis Cespedes, no trade has had a greater positive impact on the Mets than the deal that sent Keith Hernandez from the Cardinals to the Mets on June 15, 1983.

Much like Seaver did in the late 60's, Hernandez was the leading force behind the Mets transforming from perennial losers into a championship team.  He led the Mets to a 90-win 2nd place finish in 1984 and finished second in the MVP voting.  He was great in 1985 and 1986 as well, but he lost the belt in 1985, becasue Dwight Gooden's 1985 season was the best season a pitcher has ever had since baseball started to use a lively ball with a cork center in 1920 ( prior to 1920, baseball did not have cork centers and pitchers dominated the game. ).

Dwight Gooden : 1985 - 1986

Gooden had a sub-par year in 1986 ( 17 - 6 /  2.84 ERA / 200 Ks ) by his 1985 standards ( 24 - 4 / 1.53 ERA / 268 Ks ), but the Mets won the World Series in 1986, so the glow of his 1985 season was still shining through  his 1986 season.  However, when checked in drug rehab just before the 1987 season, that glow was gone forever.

Darryl Strawberry : 1987 - 1990

Darryl from 1987 - 1990 :

1987 : 39 HR, 104 RBI
1988 : 39 HR, 101 RBI
1989 : 29 HR, 77 RBI ( only played 134 games that year )
1990 : 37 HR, 108 RBI

He could have been a lot greater if not for the booze and coke, but he was pretty damn good anyway.  In 1988 he led the NL in OPS and OPS+.

David Cone : 1991 - August 27, 1992

After Strawberry signed as a free agent with the Dodgers after the 1990 season, both the Mets and Darryl went into a tailspin ( Darryl had a pretty good season in 1991, but he was never a star after that ).  The only bright spot on the Mets in the years immediately following Darryl's departure was David Cone.  He led the National Leauge in strikeouts in 1991 ( following up a 1990 season when he led the league in strikeouts ) and was leading the league in strikeouts in 1992 when the Mets traded him.  He also had a 19-strikeout game in 1991.

Now that I think of it, it's a bit unfair of me to say the Cone was the only bright spot after Darryl left considering that Howard Johnson led the National League in homers and RBIs in 1991 ( while also stealing 30 bases to record his 3rd 30-homer/30-steal season ).  However,  as important as Hojo was to the Mets 1986 title team, the guy could never manage to string 2 good seasons together.

 August 27, 1992 - 1995 : Vacant

The less that can be said about the awful 1993 season and the false promise of Generation K, the better.

Todd Hundely : 1996

Yeah, I know.  After documenting Yankees belt holders like Ruth, Gerhig, DiMaggio, and Mantle earlier in this post, it's pretty pathetic that Todd Hundely could be considered worthy of the Mets belt, but as the Mets stumbled to their 6-straight post-Strawberry losing season in 1996, Todd Hundely's pursuit of the single season home run record for catchers was a ray of hope. Hundley's 41 home runs in 1996 was a single-season record for catchers at the time, and is still tied for the best single-season home run total for a Met.

Rick Reed : 1997 - May 22, 1998

OK, once again - the fact that former MLB scab Rick Reed is worthy of the Mets belt while a Yankees Hall-of-Fame hurler like Whitey Ford didn't come close to claiming a Yankees belt is pretty sad, but I was there in 1997, and nothing got me more excited about the 1997 Mets than Rick Reed.  The Mets finally broke their streak of 6 straight losing seasons and the pitching of Rick Reed was the biggest reason why.  The 1997 season laid the groundwork for strong Mets teams of the late 90's and early 2000s.  Reed followed up his strong 1997 season with an All-Star berth in 1998, but the belt changed hands in 1998 because a certain Hall-of-Fame catcher joined the team.

Mike Piazza : May 22, 1998 - June 21, 2004

From the time he joined the team in 1998 until 2002 ( his last great year ), Piazza had the greatest 5-year run of excellence a Mets every-day player has ever had.   His performance faded each year after that but he held on the belt for a while after that until the next great Met came on the scene.

David Wright : May 21, 2004 - 2015 

When all is said and done, David Wright is going to hold nearly every Mets career batting record.  That plus 2 gold glove awards makes him the clear choice as the all-time greatest every-day player for the Mets.  Here are his Fangraphs WAR numbers from 2004 - 2008.

2004  2.3 ( half a season )
2005  5.8
2006  4.7
2007  8.4  ( Won Gold Glove Award )
2008  7.0  ( Won Gold Glove Award  )

  For those who are not familiar with the scale for WAR, a WAR of 5 makes you an All Star, a WAR of 7 or greater makes you an MVP candidate and a WAR of 10 or greater makes you Mike Trout.

Wright's belt run almost ended with his subpar 2009 - 2011, but he was so good in 2012 and 2013, that I think it's fair to say that he deserved to keep the belt at least until the end of 2013.

Year   WAR
2012   7.5
2013   6.1 ( in just 112 games )

After that injuries kept him from contributing much in 2014 and 2015.  However, because Wright managed to return from spinal stenosis in late 2015 and helped contribute to the Mets run to the NL Championship, I think it's fair to let him keep the belt through 2015.

2016 : ???

However, I think it's clear now that Wright will never again return to his 2013 level.  He usually misses at least 2 games a week due to the spinal stenosis, and as of this writing he seems ready to head to the 15-day DL.  2004 - 2015 was a great run, but I think David Wright's run as the Mets belt-holder is over.

So, if David Wright is no longer the Mets belt-holder who is?

Well, to be honest, a month ago I was sure it was Michael Conforto.  Conforto was actually my inspiration for writing this post.   When Conforto got his 3rd hit in an April 30 game to raise his batting average to .370, I decided the the torch was being passed from Wright to Conforto, and came up with the idea of writing about Mets championship belts.

Sadly, over the last month, Conforto has struggled badly.  He's hit .177 in May and his average has dropped to .268.  Worse yet , he's only managed to get 4 hits ( all singles ) in 33 at-bats against lefties this year.  I still think Conforto is going to hit close to .300 with 20+ homers this year and will someday win a batting title, but I'm not convinced he's ready to take the belt this year ( thought he might be given the 2016 belt retroactively in 2020 or so if he turns into the the great player I hope he'll be ).

Right now, the Mets best player is Yoenis Cespedes, but it's hard to give him the belt knowing that he'll probably opt out of his contract and leave as a free agent after this season.  However, if he winds up hitting 45+ homers and 135+ RBI and leads the Mets to a World Series title, I'm giving the 2016 belt to Cespedes even if he leaves.

In any case, only time will tell, and it will be fun spending my time watching the Mets in the years to come.

Rich

I'm on a Boat

It's been more than a year, since I've done a long photo essay about a family vacation, but some vacations are more exciting than others.

The boat in question was the Norwegian Breakaway.  I'd been on a cruise ship once before, but that was back in 2000 before the kids were born.  Back in 2000, I specifically decided to go on the largest cruise ship in the world, which at the time was Royal Caribbean Voyager of the Seas.  This time, my requirements were a lot more simple; I just wanted to go a cruise I could take without having to fly to the boat's port of departure.  Back in 2000, flying to Florida was both cheap and hassle-free.  Today, not so much, so we decided to take the Norwegian Breakaway out of the port of New York.  While the Breakaway is nowhere near the biggest cruise ship in the world, it is bigger than the Voyager of the Sea, so I was still excited to be on the biggest ship I'd ever been on.  The ship's stats are listed in the photo below.

I took the picture of the Breakaway below when we were docked in the Bahamas.

We started our journey on March 27th.  Here are the boys before we entered the boarding terminal.

Our room wasn't ready as soon as we got on the boat, so we had some lunch and then joined a guided tour of the boat.  After that, we checked out our room.

I was a bit worried about how much space we were going to have in our cabin.  Unless you are prepared to spend a shitload of money, a cabin on a ship isn't going to be anywhere near as big as a regular hotel room.  Back in 2000, Ruth and I got what was considered to be a relatively upscale room for two ( it was a nice balcony room ) and it still felt pretty cramped.  There wasn't much walking space in our Voyager of the Seas room and the bathroom was tiny.  Our room in the Breakaway was only 218 square feet which doesn't seem like a lot ( The free throw lane college/high_school basketball court is 228  square feet - that doesn't include the extra 2 feet on each side of the lane on an NBA court ), but I was pleasantly surprised by how much space we had.

I was also thrilled to see that the bathroom was relatively HUGE ( I don't think out bathroom in our Manhattan apartment was much bigger than this ).

I couldn't believe we had a full-sized shower.   Back in 2000 our room had a tiny cylindrical stand-up shower that was only abut 30 inches in diameter.

After checking out the room we headed to the top deck to join a party celebrating the ship's departure.  It was there that Peter started to boogie.



After a little while the kids got bored with the party and wanted to head back to the room.  While Ruth and the boys headed back to the room, I stayed on the top deck to watch the ship pass under the Verrazano Bridge.



At some point in the evening, we took a picture with the captain.

He clearly doesn't have time to take photos with everybody, so if you blink, you miss your chance to get a picture.  However, Ruth was all over this.

She also found an opportunity later in the week to get a picture of the boys with the Cruise Director Dan Dan.

BTW, Cruise Director Dan Dan turned out to be a talented singer.  Here's a sample of what he can do.



The first entertainment we enjoyed on-baord the ship was a dueling pianos act called "Howl at the Moon".   Ruth took the picture below, soon after we arrived in the piano venue ( It's empty because we were the first people there. ).

The ship had all kinds of entertainment, but "Howl at the Moon" was probably my favorite entertainment on the boat.  After the Ruth and the boys got tired and headed back to the room, I sat and enjoyed the music for any hour or so more.  As I sat there in the dark listening  to great songs played by skilled performers, I felt more relaxed than I'd felt in a very long time.  All the pressures of life and work melted away and I just say back and enjoyed myself.  There were 4 or 5 "Howl at the Moon" shows during the cruise ( from about 10 PM to 2 AM, except on the fist night when they started at 8 PM ), and I spent at least hour at 4 of the shows.  I love my family and enjoyed all our time together on the cruise, but the "Howl at the Moon" show really gave me the "me" time I needed.

Now, that I'm a veteran of 2 cruises, I'd like to quickly compare my Norwegian Cruise Line experience with my Royal Caribbean experience ( with the understanding that the Royal Caribbean cruise was 16 years ago, and Royal Caribbean has certainly upped their game since then ).  The Norwegian Breakaway ( NB ) and Royal Caribbean Voyager of the Seas ( VOS ) are roughly the same size, so I think it's fair to compare them.

The biggest difference between the NB and the VOS was the dining experience.   The food was quite good on both ships, but I enjoyed the NB experience more.   On the VOS, you had an assigned dining time and needed to eat with the same people each night ( So each night, Ruth and I ate with 6 strangers on the VOS. )  The NB has a "freestyle dining" policy which gives you the option to eat whenever you want, wherever you want.  The NB had all sorts of restaurants you could go to.  It had a wonderful buffet ( far bigger than the VOS buffet ) and great sit-down restaurants with plenty of choices of the menu ( Each night  the complimentary sit-down restaurants would have a new menu with 6 different appetizers, 9 different entrees and 6 different desserts.  I'm pretty sure the VOS main dining room only gave you 2 entree options each night. ).

The one thing I will say about in the VOS's favor is that the main dining rooms on the VOS looked spectacular.   They were like the dining rooms Cal and Rose enjoyed in Titanic.   While I'm sure the dining rooms in the newer Royal Caribbean are even more spectacular, I much prefer Norwegian Cruise Line's "freesytle" dining experience.

The other big difference between the boats is that the VOS was far more impressive architecturally than the NB.  Despite being slightly smaller than the NB, the VOS felt much bigger.  The theater in the VOS felt bigger, the gym was bigger, the public spaces in the VOS were bigger, and the VOS had spectacular things like a large ice rink on the ship.  I can't prove this, but considering how big our NB cabin was, I think the designers of the NB may have sacrificed public space for cabin space.  That's actually not a bad thing if you are traveling with a family of 4, but people traveling as couples might enjoy the extra public space rather than the extra cabin space.

The public spaces on the VOS were so spacious, that sometimes you didn't feel like you were on a ship.  I can't deny that I was impressed by VOS public spaces like the "Royal Promenade" ( a large public space hundreds of feet long that feels like a fancy indoor mall ), but there is something to be said about feeling like you are on a boat.  The NB has all sorts of places that let you get a good view of the sea.

After we noticed the shuffleboard area, we had to give it a try.

It was too cold to take advantage of the pool when we left New York, but once we got a little more south we took advantage of the pools ...

... and the waterslides!

Too hot in the hot tub!!!!

Also, this ...

Not exactly Esther Williams, but I work for scale.

My favorite moment of the entire cruise happened during the "Rock of Ages" show.  Ruth and I weren't sure if the boys were going to like the show, but early in the show one of the characters made an extremely juvenile penis joke.  As I turned my head and watched the boys crack up, I knew they were going to have a fun night.

On the night we went to Rock of Ages, there was was a 7 PM show and a 9 PM show.  Because the performers had to get ready for the next show, they didn't come out for pictures after the 7 PM show we went to.  Ruth and I wanted to get some pictures with the performers, so we came back later ( when the boys were hanging out in the room ) to get some pictures after the 9 PM show.  Here's one of them ...

Needless the say, the scenery in some the Caribbean locations was spectacular.  Here are some example of the great views we had while docked in the Bahamas.

As you can see from the photo above, the views from the dining areas were great.  The photo above is from the buffet area, which was the boy's favorite place to eat.  They had soft serve ice-cream machines in the buffet and the boys must have had at least 20 cones each during the 7-day cruise ( Peter must have had at least 30 ).

However, as much as the boys loved the buffets, we also had had lots of nice meals in the fancier restaurants.  On most evenings, the whole family went to both the buffet and a fancy restaurant.  Peter would eat a lot in the buffet and a little in the fancy restaurant ( except for the two nights the fancy restaurant had PB&J's on the menu ) and Ruth and I would eat a little in the buffet and a lot more in fancy restaurant.  Michael, who's in the midst of his big growth spurt ate a lot in both the buffet and the fancy restaurants.  On two nights, the boys felt like hanging out in room after having an early buffet dinner, so Ruth and I had a couple of date nights.

The trip was also a good time to have a couple of family pictures taken.

If you look close, you'll notice that Michael is flipping the bird in at least two of the three photos above ( for all I know he's also doing it in the family photo where you can't see his hands ).  I don't really have a problem with it, because I love that nice natural smile he's flashing in those photos.  Michael's at that age where some kids forget how to smile naturally in photo.  However, he's got no trouble flashing a mischievous smile when he knows he is flipping the bird.

The Breakaway also had an automatic camera that emailed photos back to you.  This was the result.

The biggest highlight of the cruise may have been "walking the plank".  The Breakaway has a large ropes/obstacle course on the top deck.  The highlight of the course is the opportunity to "walk the plank" 18 decks up.  Michael, Peter, and I all tried it when we were docked in the Bahamas.  I tried it again on the way back New York because I forget to pull the string to take a photo of myself the first time I walked the plank ( That's why my photo has a different background ).

While all three of us walked the plank, Michael put us all to shame by doing what he did up there:



After watching this a few times I noticed that the kid in green behind Michael reacted by saying "Oh my God!" and putting his hand over his mouth.

The ropes course also had a zip-line type thing.  I've decided to just show a photo ( of Peter ) instead of Ruth's video of the "zip-lining", because none of us were moving particular fast in the video.

And thus ends the part of this blog post that has any narrative continuity.  For the rest of this post will just consists of random photos with random comment under them.

Every cruise ship needs to have lifeboats as well as lifeboat drills.  Both time I've been a on cruise ship they've made go to safety training with the other people assigned to same lifeboat as me, and both times I found myself thinking "Jeez, these are the people I might have to eat!"

At some point, when we were docked in the Bahamas, they lowered this lifeboat outside our window to do some safety tests.  Actually, I think ( hope ) they did these tests with all the lifeboats.

Speaking of lifeboats, considering that we were at sea on April 1st, I think the captain missed a great opportunity to pull one of the greatest April Fool's Day jokes of all time.

"May I have you attention please.  This is your captain speaking.  I regret to inform you that the ship is sinking, but don't worry, we have almost enough lifeboats for everyone.   .......   April Fools!!!!!"

Yeah, he'd get fired, but it would almost be worth it.  BTW, the quote above works better if you imagine the captain saying it in a Scandinavian accent.

It was fun watching the chandelier change colors.  ( Thanks you,  LEDs )

Michael showed the magician on board( Chip Romero ) his "pull my finger off" tricck.  The pro showed Michael the right way to do it.

The deep blue sea.
I already miss seeing this every day.

Rich

Bernie Fans for Hillary

Those of you who read my posts on social media know that I'm a big fan of Bernie Sanders and I'd love for him to be president.  However, as I'll make clear below, he has no realistic chance to win the Democratic nomination, and the time has come for all of Bernie Sanders supporters to start focusing on keeping the GOP out of the White House in November.  If you believe passionately in Bernie's vision for America, you've got to come to grips with the fact that President Hillary Clinton would keep the USA far closer to that vision than President Trump, President Cruz, or any Republican president.  Keep in mind that I'm not claiming Hillary would definitely bring us closer to Bernie's vision.  It's certainly possible that she might bring us a tiny bit closer to that vision, but if she follows the Clinton family playbook of changing positions based on the polls ( All liberals still wince when they think of Bill's "The era of big government is over" moment ) it's possible that she'll move the country a little bit to the right.  However, President Hillary Clinton moving the country a little bit to the right would be a lot better than a Republican president moving the country thousands of miles to the right.  Hillary may be a "lesser evil" in a presidential race against a Republican nominee, but she's a MUCH  MUCH lesser evil than a Republican president.

Now, I'm sure some of you Bernie fans are about to stop reading this and dismiss what I'm saying based on the belief that I'm a secret Hillary supporter.  Well, if you are somebody who feels this way, the first thing I'd like to emphasize is that if a message is true, the messenger shouldn't matter.  However, if you require proof that I'm not a Hillary supporter, I can provide plenty of proof.

Just last month, I wrote a blog post expressing my belief that Hillary is not an ideal candidate.  A year ago, I wrote a blog post blasting Hillary for her email scandal.  I'm also not a new passenger on the anti-Hillary train.  I made the anti-Hillary video below back on January 31, 2008.



I'll also note that I've been writing blog posts about income inequality long before some of you folks jumped on the Bernie bandwagon.

Some of you Bernie fans also might dismiss this post because you believe Bernie still has a chance to win the Democratic nomination.  While I wish I could believe that, I live in the world of reality, logic, and math.

Bernie fans on social media keep posting charts indicating that Hillary has only 1139 delegates and needs 2383 to win the nomination.  However, that's deceptive because that "2383" includes superdelegates while 1139 is the number of pledged ( non-super ) delegates that Hillary has won so far.  Hillary's real target is 2026 pledged delegates.  There are 4051 pledged delegates at stake in the Democratic presidential nomination race.  If Hillary wins the majority of those pledged delegates ( 2026 or more ), she's going to win the nomination.  Baring some unforeseen shocking Hillary scandal ( something more shocking than the email stuff ), there is no scenario in which the majority of superdelegates support Bernie if Hillary has won the majority of pledged delegates.  Bernie can't win the nomination unless he wins at least 2026 pledged delegates.  So, how likely is that?  Well, Bernie currently has won 825 pledged delegates, and needs to win 1201 of the remaining 2087 pledged delegates to get to 2026.  1201/2087 is 57.5%.  So, because the rest of the pledged delegates are allocated proportionally, Bernie is going to need to win roughly 57.5% of primary votes the rest of the way.  This is something to keep in mind when watching primary results going forward.  If Bernie wins the next 6 states in a row by margins of 55%, he'll actually be getting further from the nomination rather than closer to it.  With, that in mind, Bernie chances are pretty much nil.  Considering how Bernie has done so far, it's hard to believe he's going to start winning  states by 57.5% or more.  He might win a few states by more than 57.5%, and he might win the the majority of delegates the rest of the way, but nothing that's happened so far in this nomination contest suggests he can win anywhere close to 57.5% of the delegates the rest of the way.  Remember, that he only won 52.8% of the delegates in his big win in Michigan ( 67/127 ) and that's a state full of union members who are still angry at the Clintons for NAFTA.  Bernie also lost liberal Massachusetts, which should have been an ideal state for the more liberal candidate in the race.  It would be nice if Bernie could catch Hillary, but the delegate math tells us that it isn't going to happen. *

* BTW, I wrote this on March 19, 2016.  If you are reading  this on the morning of March 23rd or later, the delegate math will be a little bit difference.  Assuming you reading this at any time between now and the Democratic convention, you can calculate the percentage of remaining pledged delegates Bernie needs to win with the following formula.
B = pledged delegates won by Bernie.
H = pledged delegates won by Hillary.
P = percentage of remaining pledged delegates Bernie needs to win the win the nomination.

P = 100 x ( 2026 - B ) / ( 4051 - ( B + H ) )

I also want to make it clear that I'm not asking any Bernie fans to abandon their principals or stop supporting Bernie.  If Bernie decides to keep running all the way until the convention, I think Bernie fans should keep supporting him the entire way.  I certainly intend to vote for Bernie when the primary happens in my state.  Bernie's running a positive campaign, and his presence in the campaign has been good for the Democratic party.  He's pushed Hillary to the left on the issues and each competitive Democratic primary leads to more registered Democratic voters.

However, what I am asking Bernie supporters to do is vote for Hillary in November in the extremely likely event that Hillary wins the Democratic nomination.  I understand that Bernie fans might find this distasteful ( I plan to hold by nose while casting my vote for Hillary in November ), but the future of our country depends on this.  Once again, the "Bernie or Bust" people may not like the idea of voting for "a lesser evil" in November, but Hillary is a much lesser evil than the GOP.

I understand that Hillary is a lying sleazy politician.  I understand that her positions are all over the map depending on which way the political winds are blowing.  I understand that she cares more about being president than actually helping people.

However, even though she is all over the map, it's a on a part of the map which is far more palatable than the part the Republicans occupy.  If you think of the American political landscape like a map of the USA, the Democrats are all within 200 miles on of the west coast while the Republicans are all within 200 miles of the east coast.  In this analogy, there's nobody at all in the vast expanse between the two coasts.  A "moderate" is as extinct these days a dinosaur.  I know Bernie fans would greatly prefer a true liberal like Bernie with his toes dipped in the Pacific, but if Hillary is 200 miles from the west coast that's still more than 2000 miles away any Republican.

My point is that while Hillary may not be a reliably liberal Democrat, she's still a Democrat, and a liberal can be confident that President Hillary Clinton's policies will fall within the part of the political spectrum occupied by Democrats - a part of the spectrum that has no overlap with Republicans

If you' d like to see this concept expressed with a graphic, here's a video I made about this concept back in 2008.  Everything I said in the video below is still true today, except that the Democrats and the Republicans are even further apart today than they were 8 years ago.



It's not hyperbole to say that the November presidential election could affect the lives of both our kids and grandkids.  The next president might nominate Supreme Court justices who will serve for 30 or more years.  This is not the year to throw your vote away, or not vote all all.

If the "Bernie of Bust" people can't appreciate the huge different between Hillary Clinton or any Republican, I'm not sure if anything I've said is going to make any difference.  However, I'm going to close this post by making one final plea to Bernie supporters:

Bernie Sanders is a good and smart man who understands what a Republican presidency would mean for America.  After Hillary wins the nomination, Bernie is going throw his support behind Hillary and ask his supporters to vote for her.

Please listen to him.

Rich

P.S. If you care about keeping the GOP out of the White House, please share this post with any Bernie Sanders supporters you know.