I've been reading this thread with amusement, not surprised in the slightest by all the replies.

I am struck by how few people have bothered to make a real argument, and have simply asserted their opinion as obvious fact.

Look, the Mets offense isn't great, but it isn't awful, as some people here have expressed.

I think the Mets offense is in a good place, in that there's quite a few places where they have a good shot a being better next year. First base, catcher and the outfield are all places where the Mets are likely to perform better next year, even if Sandy sucks and doesn't make promised moves. Players such as Kirk, Duda, Thole and Ike are likely to hit better just by regression to the mean.

Not trying to start a big argument but you totally ignored the fact they are 18th in wRC+ which adjusts for parks and league which = below average and you ignored the fact that you included Hairston/Cedeno (2 bench players) as examples of the lineup strength.

The Mets are 17th in WAR, behind teams such as the Twins and Padres

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?p ... &sort=19,d

19th in wRC+ Teams like the Twins, Royals and Indians are ahead of the Mets in wRC+ which again is adjusted for ballpark and league

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?p ... &players=0

Judging the lineup on runs scored, or runs scored on the road, sounds like judging a pitching staff on ERA, or ERA on the road.

I think, if this is really a debate, we have to look a bit deeper than that to the process for what we can expect moving forward. For example:

-I know its dried up lately, but are we still first in the majors in 2 out runs? Lets regress that to an average number unless we're talking about quantifying "clutchness".

I think you can argue that the Mets offense actually hasn't been the biggest issue this year. But if the argument is moving forward where they stand, more interested in the process than the results.

Do we really believe teams viewed as having "good" lineups like the Rangers, Cardinals, Red Sox, Yankees etc would struggle to score runs because of CitiField?

The lineup isn't awful. If you add one impact bat its a good enough to win type of group. But if you think it's good enough to win now or with minor moves is where I disagree.

Huge gap between awful and good.

Metro, I had a whole long post written discussing the nuances of wRC+ and exactly how good the Mets offense is, but my computer just ate it.

Let's just forget it and say you are right: the Mets have the 17th or 18th best offense in the league. That's average. That's not 'awful', as you have claimed.

Look, the main point I was getting at is that park effects really matter.

We all scream about the offense, and yes the Mets really need a good outfielder or two, but the fact is that run prevention is a much bigger flaw for this team than run scoring. We know the bullpen is terrible; we know the defense is shady, but we forget, partially due to park effects, that the starters aren't that good either. Dickey's the only above average member of the rotation. Niese and Gee (while he was here) have been average, and everyone else has been poor. Harvey, Wheeler, McHugh or whomever they Mets bring in really need to pitch well if the Mets are going to take a big step forward in 2013 (and of course the pen needs to be dramatically improved). Improving the offense alone won't make the Mets serious contenders.

Btw, Metro, I credit you with being one of the only people here willing make an actual argument

dang computer.

Said another way, I made this post to say that we are viewing the Mets through the old Bill James devil's advocate theory of park effects, which said that teams in pitcher's parks develop better offenses than pitching, and team's in hitter's parks develop better pitching than hitting.

This is because the optics cause zero tolerance on those kinds of players whom the park is hurting, since their stats look terrible, while (in the Mets case) pitchers who are really bad stick around for quite a while because the park does a lot of work disguising their awfulness (Mike Pelfrey is the poster boy here. If he pitched in a hitter's park, he'd have been out of the majors ages ago.)

I think the gap in our opinions is this... a "good lineup" is adding 2 "ok" OF away from being really good. I don't think the Mets offense is suddenly "really good" with 2 small OF upgrades. I think they need a legitimate infusion of offensive talent. Ike Davis bouncing back isn't going to be enough.