1650022959 Pete Alonso offers Mets best chance to break MVP drought

Pete Alonso offers Mets best chance to break MVP drought

Mike Vaccaro

Here are two sentences. One of them is ridiculous. One of them is absurd. Which is which?

Number 1: Pete Alonso is on track to hit 46 home runs, hit 231 runs and have a 153 OPS+ this year.

Number 2: The Mets have been in business since 1962 and have never had an MVP winner; In fact, they’ve only had 11 players ever ranked in the top five of MVP picks (three made it twice), and three of those were pitchers.

Actually, they’re both kind of ridiculous and absurd. But only one of them is the rock-solid truth: The Mets are one of only three major league teams that have never had an MVP; The other two, Tampa Bay and Arizona, gave the Mets a 36-year lead.

Can Alonso be the one to end the Mets’ MVP drought? Well, we should probably start by gently breaking the news that he’s unlikely to break the record that Hack Wilson has held since 1930 alone by 40 RBIs (although it’s perfectly reasonable to think he hit 46 bombs and could keep his data -score high year-round).

“I can’t wait to get back to Citi,” Alonso said Wednesday afternoon after the Mets finished sacking the Phillies 9-6 at Citizens Bank Park, winning the rubber game of a three-game series and their season opener to wrap up Roadtrip 5-2 and set up one of the most anticipated home openings in years on Friday. “Count me in.”

Peter AlonsoPete Alonso swings in the Mets’ win over the Phillies on Wednesday. Getty Images

It’s true that Friday at Citi Field will begin with the long-awaited unveiling of the Tom Seaver statue, because it was Seaver who brought the Mets their first gram of legitimacy. He finished second to Willie McCovey in the 1969 MVP vote, losing 22 votes, the closest thing to winning an MVP plaque.

The Mets’ trophy case is indeed liberally sprinkled with other notable pieces of hardware. Seaver, Dwight Gooden, RA Dickey and Jacob deGrom have won seven Cy Young Awards together. Five Mets earned Rookie of the Year awards: Seaver (1967), Jon Matlack (’72), Darryl Strawberry (’83), Dwight Gooden (’84), and deGrom (’14).

But the truth is that over the years there has been a dearth of everyday players at the MVP level – the kind that usually, if not always, win the MVP. Along with Seaver, Strawberry was probably the team’s other legitimate candidate who possessed the kind of skills that wins the MVP award, and by rights he should have won in 1988, but he shared the Mets vote with Kevin McReynolds and kind of Kirk Gibson and his 76 RBIs crept in.

Sometimes you need good timing: Mike Piazza in 2000, Carlos Beltran in 2006, and David Wright in 2007 all had years that in other years might have carried the win and brought in the honors. But not in these years. And here are the Mets, 60 years in the books, no MVPs.

Can Alonso be the first? If not this year, sometime?

Well, he has the tools. MVP voters still love gaudy slugger numbers and Alonso is capable of it. And in his fourth full year, he seems more comfortable at the plate than ever before.

“I think I learned so much in the first few years,” he said late in spring training. “I feel like my knowledge base is larger and my comfort level is at the plate. And I think I’ve learned that you can have a productive day without having to hit the ball over the wall.”

Peter AlonsoPete Alonso celebrates after hitting a grand slam in a win over the Nationals on April 9. USA TODAY Sports

Although, as his latest catchphrase has become…

“All the Homers,” he said Wednesday, “are ill.”

At some point, one would think, probability would take over. Eventually, one would think the Mets will have a player posting a 162-game campaign for the ages. They’ve had many seasons like this with their biggest pitchers; At some point you have to believe that one of their hitters will channel ’69 Seaver or ’85 Gooden or ’18 deGrom.

Can that be Alonso? Francisco Lindor? Can it be Francisco Alvarez tearing it down on the farm in a few years, a 1,569 OPS already at Binghamton? Sixty years and counting. That’s ridiculous. And absurd. You could look it up… but then there’s nothing to look up.