Should I like Ike?

Ike Davis is batting .161, and with Jason Bay back off the disabled list, some (in the comments) are calling for Ike Davis to be sent down to the minor leagues to straighten out his hitting. This would solve the problem of the crowded outfield, they contend, as Lucas Duda could move to first base, and the outfield would have Jason Bay, Andres Torres and Kirk Nieuwenhuis left to right.

I understand their frustration, but I fear that such protestations are somewhat misguided for a couple of reasons.

1. Andres Torres?

While I can understand the desire to let Jason Bay get into the everyday lineup, so we can see if his early-season hitting was a true return to form (and return on the Mets' investment), Bay is just one piece of the outfield puzzle.

It seems to be being ignored (perhaps because of Davis' troubles) but Andres Torres is not hitting well at all, either. He also didn't hit well last year and is 34 years old. It's reasonable to say that Andres Torres on the bench with Nieuwenhuis in center and Duda remaining in right is the correct answer for the outfield alignment, now that Jason Bay's returning to left.

2. Will it help Ike?

Ike Davis' major league resume has close to 1,000 plate appearances and and adjusted OPS of 106, even with this year's hitting woes (100 is average). That's enough of a sample size to tell us that his hitting prowess from 2010-2011 was not a fluke. On the other hand, it's not a huge amount of experience.

It seems as though pitchers are currently throwing him soft stuff away and are consistently getting him out with their junk.

Davis is certainly aware of this and he doesn't believe that being sent down will help him. Speaking about whether a trip down would help him, Davis said "It’s not going to help me down there. If I hit .400 down there, what’s it going to do up here? You can’t just hit in the minor leagues. That’s not going to help." (source)

While it's clear that Davis' take on the matter is biased, it's not clear to me that it's incorrect. Naysayers will point to Steve Trachsel's renaissance in 2001 after a trip to the minors. But there's a big difference between pitching and hitting.

Pitching, by its very nature, involves an action. Steve Trachsel was not doing his required action well enough, so the Mets sent him down to a less pressurized environment where his experimentation would not hurt the big league club to work on his control. (Trachsel also - unlike Davis - felt that his trip to AAA would improve his pitching, so in that situation the demotion was not going to lead to any discord.)

Hitting, on the other hand, is based on a reaction. (I've read this, but it's also clearly true.) The pitchers at the major league level, on the whole, are significantly better than the pitchers in the minor leagues. Because of this, Ike Davis' potential positive performance at, say, AAA will not necessarily do much to help him hit at the major league level, because while he'll have improved his reactions, he'll have improved his reactions to a qualitatively lesser level of pitching. (In other words, he will not have practiced the type of reaction which he'll have to perform on the major league level.)

Additionally, it seems as though part of what's causing Davis' anemic batting results is simply bad luck. His BABIP this year is .203 - significantly below his career rate of .301.

Listen - BABIP certainly isn't the answer to all of Davis' struggles - but he thinks he can figure out the rest without a stop in Buffalo.

Do the Mets have a chance?

The sub-header of this blog indicates that this is the place to read an "optimistic view" of the Mets. By extension, I suppose, I am supposed to be the optimist.

Of course, at times, optimism has to be tempered with realism or the rosy-eyed optimistic view on the world becomes hopelessly irrelevant.

Still, incredibly, (maybe it's the thought of lush grass of summer) I once again find within me some optimism when reflecting upon the coming season for the New York Mets.

Anyway, here are some reasons to feel (moderately) optimistic about the 2012 Mets:

• Last year's Mets were better than you think - Last year, the Mets won 77 games. Don't get me wrong; that's a bad year (especially with the payroll they had). But it's not horribly bad. It's not 2003 bad. It's not 1993 bad. It's obviously miles better than the 40-win 1962 Mets. Now, bad (instead of horrible) is not good news, but...
• In baseball, you don't have to be THAT good - If there's a benchmark number of wins for a great team, it's probably 100. However, you don't have to be great. Good is (sometimes) good enough. Last year, the Cardinals won the World Series with 90 wins. The 2006 Cardinals won 83 games and won the World Series. I'm not saying that all the Mets need is 83 wins. But 88 could cut it. If there is a second wild-card team this year (an idea that has been bandied about), the top two non-division winning teams would make the playoffs. In two of the last five years, 88 wins would have meant a playoff spot.
• Lucas Duda - Last year, Lucas Duda bounced around, ultimately ending up defending the devilish Pepsi Porch region of Citi Field. With a set position and a simpler right field, Duda will field a lot better. Baseball-Reference's WAR saw Duda as worth -1.4 runs on defense. He'll improve mightily.
• Mike Pelfrey - Mike Pelfrey seems to be on a bit of a pattern. In 2008, he was excellent. In 2009 he was dreadful. In 2010 he was very good. In 2011 he was horrible. Will 2012 be another good even year?

There are reasons to be pessimistic about the Mets, too, most notably the gaping hole at shortstop that Jose Reyes and his hair will no longer fill. 

I told a pal a few weeks back that if everything goes right for the Mets they'll be really good. But not everything has to go right if they just need to be the second-best non-division winning team. Obviously, they'll need some improvements from the pitching staff and the youngsters on the playing field. But if a few dice roll the Wright way, the 2012 Mets might just be worth watching.