WEBVTT - Ranking Every Player on the 2026 Mets | 623 0:00:00.030 --> 0:00:02.210 The moment you've all been waiting for today, me and 0:00:02.250 --> 0:00:05.819 James are ranking every single player that appeared for the 0:00:05.820 --> 0:00:09.020 2026 New York Mets on a tier list. We're starting 0:00:09.119 --> 0:00:10.959 all the way at the top with elite. Then we 0:00:10.980 --> 0:00:14.150 have great season, not bad, not good. And then the 0:00:14.290 --> 0:00:17.270 asked here, literally, if you made any sort of appearance 0:00:17.310 --> 0:00:19.610 this year, You will be ranked. This is going to 0:00:19.630 --> 0:00:21.349 be the best video that you guys get all year long. 0:00:21.390 --> 0:00:23.329 Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. Subscribe to 0:00:23.370 --> 0:00:25.250 us over on YouTube if you have not yet done so. 0:00:25.530 --> 0:00:27.330 Big shout out to all our members who continue to 0:00:27.390 --> 0:00:30.270 support us and get early access to these episodes before 0:00:30.310 --> 0:00:33.659 they come out. And if you're listening to us, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google, 0:00:33.700 --> 0:00:36.050 drop us a rating, drop us a review, download, and subscribe. 0:00:36.820 --> 0:00:38.940 I mean, there's some guys on here, James, that I genuinely, 0:00:39.520 --> 0:00:42.300 I'm going to be taking hard guesses on. It's like 0:00:42.300 --> 0:00:43.940 10 guys in the first two rows I see on 0:00:43.960 --> 0:00:46.139 here that I'm going to really struggle to figure out. But, 0:00:46.610 --> 0:00:48.729 I'm happy we're starting out with a bit of a banger. A.J. 0:00:48.810 --> 0:00:50.729 Ewing right off the top with the A and then 0:00:50.770 --> 0:00:52.310 the period to get him right to the top of 0:00:52.350 --> 0:00:55.830 alphabetical order. This is a fun one because it was 0:00:55.910 --> 0:00:58.400 one shocking that he even came up, played great, hit 0:00:58.420 --> 0:01:01.180 a crazy slump, ended the season red hot to wind 0:01:01.260 --> 0:01:04.640 up having a league average line offensively, played great defense 0:01:04.680 --> 0:01:07.280 in center field. When you get A.J. Ewing for 162 0:01:07.280 --> 0:01:10.980 next year, hopefully you're looking at hopefully a four-ish win player, 0:01:11.100 --> 0:01:13.640 three at the floor. I don't want to put him 0:01:13.670 --> 0:01:16.760 in elite because he didn't play elite. I would call 0:01:16.780 --> 0:01:18.899 that a great season. I was going great season the 0:01:18.940 --> 0:01:21.240 entire way. And again, what's great about this tier list 0:01:21.300 --> 0:01:23.539 is that me and you get to decide what curve 0:01:23.580 --> 0:01:26.980 we rank every single player on. So AJ Ewing's great 0:01:27.020 --> 0:01:29.780 season might not be as good as somebody else's, but 0:01:30.300 --> 0:01:34.050 for AJ Ewing in 2026, it would be difficult for 0:01:34.090 --> 0:01:37.770 him to realistically have had a better season. Honestly, especially 0:01:37.810 --> 0:01:40.670 given the expectations of wasn't single a last year, even 0:01:40.690 --> 0:01:42.550 like the scene, the way he improved on things, like 0:01:42.569 --> 0:01:43.970 seeing the way he closed the hole in his swing, 0:01:44.550 --> 0:01:45.890 towards the end of the season. Seeing the way he 0:01:45.930 --> 0:01:48.230 improved his– well, partially closed the hole. Seeing the way 0:01:48.250 --> 0:01:51.850 he improved his stolen base efficiency, going 9 for 15 0:01:51.850 --> 0:01:54.250 or 9 for 14 to start, and then 19 and 0:01:54.250 --> 0:01:56.450 2 to end the season after that. It's nice to 0:01:56.470 --> 0:01:58.210 see the improvements from the Rook. I think we saw 0:01:58.230 --> 0:02:00.570 a higher war than Sal Stewart over the year. Good 0:02:00.590 --> 0:02:03.390 to mention that again. Yeah, just in case. Yeah, I 0:02:03.430 --> 0:02:05.450 think they've had to have voted by now, but just 0:02:05.490 --> 0:02:07.650 in case some way, somehow, we can get some collusion 0:02:07.690 --> 0:02:10.369 going for this. He wasn't even– Sal Stewart would have been, what, 0:02:10.389 --> 0:02:13.850 the fourth or third highest rookie? fourth highest and wins 0:02:13.880 --> 0:02:16.360 above replacement on the Mets this season there we go 0:02:16.660 --> 0:02:19.200 AJ you in great season AJ Minter shout out the 0:02:19.300 --> 0:02:22.019 AJs I forgot that we had multiple AJs this year 0:02:22.639 --> 0:02:25.880 I gotta say this AJ Minter was phenomenal when he 0:02:25.919 --> 0:02:28.000 was on the Mets this year he was great and 0:02:28.020 --> 0:02:30.620 he still pitched fine with the twins their season eroded 0:02:30.680 --> 0:02:32.459 I think he had one or two bad blow-ups towards 0:02:32.500 --> 0:02:34.000 the end of the year but nothing that was really 0:02:34.560 --> 0:02:36.430 crazy or bad again when he was met he was 0:02:36.470 --> 0:02:38.609 very good When he was not a Met, he got 0:02:38.650 --> 0:02:40.990 his pieces back. It wasn't like the best trade the 0:02:41.010 --> 0:02:42.510 Mets made, but at least he got something for him. 0:02:42.570 --> 0:02:45.350 I think A.J. Minter would be a great season. Yeah, 0:02:45.370 --> 0:02:48.250 it would be a great season. No argument for a 0:02:48.290 --> 0:02:51.049 lead there? I don't think I'd argue a lead. I mean, 0:02:51.070 --> 0:02:53.889 he was a fine lefty. I feel like if he 0:02:53.910 --> 0:02:55.590 would have kept pitching for the Mets, that you could 0:02:55.630 --> 0:02:57.930 have had the lack of swing and miss that developed 0:02:57.950 --> 0:02:59.310 with A.J. Minter over the last two years, kind of 0:02:59.330 --> 0:03:01.910 pushed the ERA up. We love a low ERA reliever, 0:03:01.950 --> 0:03:03.350 but he did that just to check right now. It 0:03:03.370 --> 0:03:06.639 was 23 innings. If he finished out, I would call 0:03:06.680 --> 0:03:08.500 it great rather than elite. All right, I'm cool with that. 0:03:08.540 --> 0:03:10.320 I'm fine. I guess we'll save the elite for the 0:03:10.900 --> 0:03:13.440 elite elite players. Of course, the awesome Warrens of the world. 0:03:13.460 --> 0:03:18.739 Like Andy Abanez, right? He goes in elite. That's got 0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:20.820 to be ass, right? Yeah, I mean, this is definitely 0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:24.050 the first ass. He made some of the worst plays 0:03:24.169 --> 0:03:26.230 in such a short period of time for this New 0:03:26.270 --> 0:03:29.310 York Mets team. Not his fault, necessarily. He's not the 0:03:29.350 --> 0:03:31.190 most talented player, but also wasn't really put in a 0:03:31.210 --> 0:03:33.970 situation to be successful with the Mets either. I think 0:03:33.990 --> 0:03:36.440 something that's beautiful is that Andy Ibanez and the next 0:03:36.480 --> 0:03:38.820 pitch player on this list, Austin Slather, get to be 0:03:38.920 --> 0:03:40.820 right next to each other. Imagine our luck that we 0:03:40.840 --> 0:03:43.320 get to talk about these players together for two minutes 0:03:43.600 --> 0:03:44.880 and then never have to think about them for the 0:03:44.920 --> 0:03:46.380 rest of our lives. And we're going to throw him 0:03:46.430 --> 0:03:48.540 in ass as well too, right? And again, not much 0:03:48.580 --> 0:03:50.370 of his fault. He just shouldn't have been hitting third 0:03:50.430 --> 0:03:52.210 for a team that at the time was still trying 0:03:52.230 --> 0:03:54.550 to get their season back on track. Honestly, seeing all 0:03:54.590 --> 0:03:56.630 the other players that the Mets had in this organization, 0:03:56.750 --> 0:03:58.550 shouldn't have ever gotten an opportunity to play with the 0:03:58.590 --> 0:04:02.110 New York Mets. I saw the vision, at least, where 0:04:02.490 --> 0:04:04.660 in a world where Carson Bench was struggling and we 0:04:04.680 --> 0:04:06.500 had a bunch of lefties trying to help and get 0:04:06.520 --> 0:04:09.500 a lefty masher, but he had been cut by basically 0:04:09.560 --> 0:04:11.540 every single team in Major League Baseball, it feels like, 0:04:11.600 --> 0:04:13.779 over the last few years. I don't know how many 0:04:13.820 --> 0:04:15.680 good swings there are left in Austin Slater, at least 0:04:15.720 --> 0:04:19.240 not in 2026. No, and again, sometimes the game comes 0:04:19.300 --> 0:04:21.940 up on you. Austin Slater, 33-year-old, he closed the season 0:04:21.950 --> 0:04:23.920 playing AAA ball at the Rays. They still saw him 0:04:23.960 --> 0:04:28.180 as possibly meaningful roster depth, but it'd been years since 0:04:28.200 --> 0:04:31.780 you actually could have realistically called him a lefty masher. Yeah, 0:04:31.960 --> 0:04:34.600 and similarly with Andy Ibanez, he was supposed to be, 0:04:35.180 --> 0:04:38.599 I guess, like that theoretical lefty masher, but he didn't 0:04:38.620 --> 0:04:40.960 do much of that either. At the end of the day, 0:04:41.020 --> 0:04:43.440 Ibanez was meant to be at least fundamentally sound, and 0:04:43.480 --> 0:04:47.350 he wasn't even close to that. No, these guys were... Honestly, nothing. 0:04:47.450 --> 0:04:49.970 They had nothing going on there whatsoever this entire year 0:04:49.990 --> 0:04:52.210 for the Mets, which was, I don't know what they played, 0:04:52.230 --> 0:04:55.130 probably 15 games total combined? Probably about that. I mean, 0:04:55.150 --> 0:04:56.830 they made Austin Slater appear in a lot over a 0:04:56.870 --> 0:04:58.830 two-week stretch. I mean, I would even say they were 0:04:58.890 --> 0:05:00.550 less than nothing, which is what the ass tier is 0:05:00.750 --> 0:05:03.740 set aside for. Players who worked actively against the team 0:05:03.779 --> 0:05:05.660 winning games. It's going to be really disappointing when we 0:05:05.680 --> 0:05:07.400 see some guys who played a lot of games in 0:05:07.440 --> 0:05:09.380 this ass tier. Yeah, there's going to be a few 0:05:09.420 --> 0:05:12.190 of them. I'll tell you what, Austin Warren, though, not 0:05:12.230 --> 0:05:13.910 in the ass tier. Last year, he was one of 0:05:13.970 --> 0:05:16.350 our S-tier guys, which would be elite. I'm not going 0:05:16.370 --> 0:05:17.839 to put him in elite this year. Can't do it. 0:05:17.870 --> 0:05:21.060 He was definitely more human this season. I think he'd 0:05:21.100 --> 0:05:23.780 probably go in the not bad tier, though, right? I 0:05:23.800 --> 0:05:25.400 would definitely put him in the not bad tier. Big 0:05:25.420 --> 0:05:27.980 thing that ruined Austin Warren's final season stats is that 0:05:28.000 --> 0:05:30.580 there was a three-appearance stretch. I want to get the 0:05:30.620 --> 0:05:33.750 exact stats on it now. He gave up, like, nine 0:05:33.810 --> 0:05:35.870 runs across, like, an inning and two-thirds. And then he 0:05:35.910 --> 0:05:37.570 went in the injured list, and then he came back 0:05:37.610 --> 0:05:41.550 and was once again At worst-case scenario, Austin Warren is 0:05:41.640 --> 0:05:44.770 solid organizational depth as just a relief pitcher. All right, 0:05:44.790 --> 0:05:46.289 here it is. Before he went on the injured list, 0:05:46.630 --> 0:05:48.990 there was a three-appearance stretch where he gave up. It 0:05:49.010 --> 0:05:51.430 was five runs in five innings. Then there was another 0:05:51.950 --> 0:05:54.290 two runs over here in an inning a week and 0:05:54.310 --> 0:05:56.150 a half before that. So it felt like he probably 0:05:56.190 --> 0:05:59.510 was pitching injured. Definitely shot his ERA way up. Oh, nope, 0:05:59.630 --> 0:06:03.070 I was incorrect. Here it is. The nine ERA stretch 0:06:03.120 --> 0:06:06.300 over two innings on July 4th and July 7th. There 0:06:06.320 --> 0:06:08.669 it is right there, yeah. And then otherwise, the rest 0:06:08.690 --> 0:06:12.570 of the season, he only gave up 14 earned runs. 0:06:12.570 --> 0:06:14.750 14 earned runs in how many innings? Do you have that? 0:06:15.070 --> 0:06:17.570 In 48. I mean, that's pretty good. Maybe he should 0:06:17.589 --> 0:06:20.350 go into midseason. It's a mid-threes. If we take away 0:06:20.370 --> 0:06:22.289 when he was clearly injured, that's probably a great season. 0:06:23.550 --> 0:06:24.810 You know what? It's our list. I want to put 0:06:24.850 --> 0:06:27.030 Austin Warren in great. He's the tier list king for 0:06:27.089 --> 0:06:30.380 us every single year. Underrated. Underappreciated. As long as Austin 0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:32.599 Warren remains in this organization, he's always getting a one-tier 0:06:32.640 --> 0:06:36.310 bump from us. Beau Bichette. Now, this is a fun 0:06:36.450 --> 0:06:39.770 one for context because the first half was atrocious. The 0:06:39.810 --> 0:06:41.900 second half was great. The second half was the Bo 0:06:41.920 --> 0:06:44.400 Bichette we expected. He played pretty decent defense at third 0:06:44.440 --> 0:06:48.580 base throughout the entire year, about league average. Expectation-wise, though, 0:06:48.860 --> 0:06:51.140 I definitely can't put him any higher than not bad. 0:06:52.240 --> 0:06:54.880 I was going to argue for not good. Oh, cool. 0:06:55.080 --> 0:06:57.900 All right. I'd honestly be down to say not good. 0:06:58.380 --> 0:07:00.190 I think not good's almost the easiest pick on the 0:07:00.230 --> 0:07:02.770 whole board because simply put, Bo Bichette was not good. 0:07:02.870 --> 0:07:04.670 Even when he was actually better at the end of 0:07:04.690 --> 0:07:06.750 the season— He was still worse than the Bo Bichette 0:07:06.790 --> 0:07:09.370 we expected. Even if you split WRC Plus by half, 0:07:09.430 --> 0:07:11.710 it was an 88 and a 107. Oh man, it 0:07:11.750 --> 0:07:14.440 was that low. He ended the season pretty cold. There 0:07:14.480 --> 0:07:16.960 was no sustained run where Bo Bichette this season was 0:07:17.220 --> 0:07:18.720 an elite hitter, and that was what you signed him 0:07:18.760 --> 0:07:21.040 to be. He was the Pete Alonzo replacement for everybody 0:07:21.080 --> 0:07:23.520 out there, and he was fine on defense. He was 0:07:23.560 --> 0:07:27.250 good enough on defense, but You figured Bo Bichette's floor 0:07:27.330 --> 0:07:29.870 outcome was being a two-ish win player, and he was 0:07:29.910 --> 0:07:32.470 about that. You got the worst version of Bo Bichette 0:07:32.490 --> 0:07:34.830 you possibly could have expected. Yeah, which is a not 0:07:34.870 --> 0:07:36.690 good player, and that was always the worry with a 0:07:36.710 --> 0:07:38.840 guy like Bo Bichette, was that if the contact was 0:07:38.900 --> 0:07:41.760 ever not at the elite rates, kind of doesn't bring 0:07:41.820 --> 0:07:44.780 much to the table because he's a horrible, horrible eye 0:07:44.820 --> 0:07:48.140 at the plate. No plate discipline, zero power. The one 0:07:48.160 --> 0:07:50.040 thing I will give Bo Bichette is that he was 0:07:50.120 --> 0:07:52.550 valuable in the sense that he got to play shortstop 0:07:52.560 --> 0:07:54.850 when Francisco Lundberg was out for an extended period of time. 0:07:55.230 --> 0:07:57.150 And he played it totally fine. He didn't play it 0:07:57.230 --> 0:07:59.630 up to even Lindor's lesson standards now in his old age. 0:07:59.750 --> 0:08:02.600 That was good enough. But the fact that he was 0:08:02.620 --> 0:08:04.340 just never able to hit like Bo Bichette's hit his 0:08:04.380 --> 0:08:06.440 entire career was not a good season. No, not a 0:08:06.440 --> 0:08:08.820 good season at all. I think Brett Beatty's also got 0:08:08.840 --> 0:08:10.200 to go in the not good, right? I don't think 0:08:10.220 --> 0:08:12.100 we can put it in ass because he still did 0:08:12.120 --> 0:08:14.040 the Brett Beatty thing where in the second half he's like, 0:08:14.040 --> 0:08:17.480 800 OPS, I'm back, do you believe again? But I'm 0:08:17.520 --> 0:08:19.020 not going to... It was like 850 actually. Yeah, I'm 0:08:19.040 --> 0:08:20.880 not going to do the thing that we've done the 0:08:20.920 --> 0:08:25.120 last forever, which is be like... Brett Beatty redemption season. 0:08:25.160 --> 0:08:26.660 I think this is probably just the player he is, 0:08:26.720 --> 0:08:29.660 which is, like, league average-ish. Yeah, Brett Beatty's probably, you 0:08:29.700 --> 0:08:31.360 hope to be about a league average hitter. He will 0:08:31.400 --> 0:08:33.300 never have a high on-base percentage. You hope to get 0:08:33.480 --> 0:08:35.000 to the power. But the thing that Brett Beatty can 0:08:35.020 --> 0:08:36.940 do well now, we know it officially, is he can 0:08:36.980 --> 0:08:38.900 just play decent defense all over the diamond. I think 0:08:38.920 --> 0:08:40.900 that's a big deal. Besides first base at the beginning 0:08:40.920 --> 0:08:43.160 of the year, he luckily ironed himself out there because 0:08:43.179 --> 0:08:45.439 those first, like, those first, like, 20 games he played 0:08:45.480 --> 0:08:48.290 at first base was a fucking catastrophe. But... Brett Beatty 0:08:48.340 --> 0:08:50.920 being a power lefty bat without the best play of 0:08:50.940 --> 0:08:54.020 the approach who can be a utility player, that's a 0:08:54.040 --> 0:08:57.040 valuable bench player going forward. Yeah, totally. Someone that's going 0:08:57.059 --> 0:08:58.730 to be on this roster, guys, so get used to it. 0:08:58.780 --> 0:09:02.700 He is not going anywhere. Nope. Brooks Raley, can we 0:09:02.720 --> 0:09:04.680 put him in a leap for how he's tanked the 0:09:04.700 --> 0:09:07.480 Phillies season? I was actually going to recommend that person 0:09:07.500 --> 0:09:09.140 because he pitched well for the Mets, even though there 0:09:09.160 --> 0:09:11.340 was troubling signs on the wall. The swing and miss 0:09:11.360 --> 0:09:12.920 stuff was going in the wrong direction for a few 0:09:12.940 --> 0:09:15.700 years now. Then he went to the Phillies. Terrible. And 0:09:15.740 --> 0:09:17.559 the pitcher we got for him that we highlighted at 0:09:17.580 --> 0:09:20.240 the trade deadline, Luke Gabrish, he actually had decent stuff. 0:09:20.540 --> 0:09:22.739 He had a bad minor league ERA, and people cited that. 0:09:23.160 --> 0:09:25.160 He pitched way better with the Mets, missed tons of bats. 0:09:25.179 --> 0:09:26.760 Looks like he has stuff that is trending up as 0:09:26.800 --> 0:09:31.280 a potential, hopeful, you know, roster depth, back-end kind of 0:09:31.300 --> 0:09:33.900 guy as a late bloomer. No, it is legitimately hilarious 0:09:33.940 --> 0:09:37.140 how good Brooks Raley has been. He was so disappointed 0:09:37.160 --> 0:09:38.679 to get traded to the Phillies. It looks like he 0:09:38.700 --> 0:09:40.260 did not want to be there, did not want to 0:09:40.300 --> 0:09:42.180 be in that city, on that team, whatever it was. 0:09:42.440 --> 0:09:44.640 And I respect that. I love that he hated that 0:09:44.679 --> 0:09:47.110 team so much that he continued to pitch like shit 0:09:47.140 --> 0:09:49.050 for them. So for that, I'm putting him in elite. 0:09:49.110 --> 0:09:51.390 Fun fact about Brooks Raley, by the way. I told 0:09:51.410 --> 0:09:52.950 you about that app that I use that can track 0:09:52.970 --> 0:09:55.670 stats for games I've been to. I've seen Brooks really 0:09:55.690 --> 0:09:59.209 makes 26 appearances at games I've been to. He has 0:09:59.250 --> 0:10:03.010 nearly six ERA. That's unbelievable for a guy who's almost 0:10:03.200 --> 0:10:05.360 only pitched well for the New York Mets. Is that 0:10:05.460 --> 0:10:08.120 only Mets games or is that all other teams too? 0:10:08.300 --> 0:10:10.280 I think I've only ever seen him pitch for the Mets. 0:10:10.300 --> 0:10:11.939 I don't think I've seen him pitch for the Phillies 0:10:11.980 --> 0:10:14.900 against the Mets or any other team. It's also just 0:10:14.940 --> 0:10:17.820 crazy how few options the Phillies have in their bullpen 0:10:17.840 --> 0:10:21.120 and the fact that they still Like, they still just 0:10:21.160 --> 0:10:23.140 were not even taking you on the playoff roster. But 0:10:23.160 --> 0:10:25.699 he was so good for the Mets. So good for 0:10:25.720 --> 0:10:27.260 the Mets for years. He was great for the Rays, too, 0:10:27.280 --> 0:10:30.540 right after that. Like, it's just, I mean, he's 38. 0:10:30.540 --> 0:10:34.550 He's old. But, yeah, he's elite just for the whole 0:10:34.590 --> 0:10:37.030 thing that he did for us. How about our guy, 0:10:37.350 --> 0:10:41.950 Carl Edwards Jr.? His numbers in the extremely small sample 0:10:41.990 --> 0:10:45.600 he had with the Mets. Six innings, a 1-5 ERA, 0:10:45.620 --> 0:10:48.520 and he struck out 11. Who did he catch on with? 0:10:48.540 --> 0:10:50.760 Because we DFA'd him. What team is he with? He 0:10:50.900 --> 0:10:53.020 is currently with, or I guess the team that he 0:10:53.040 --> 0:10:55.199 ended the season with, was the Detroit Tigers in their 0:10:55.220 --> 0:10:57.920 minor league system. I mean, again, we have to say, 0:10:57.980 --> 0:11:01.179 based on how he contributed to the Mets, that was elite. 0:11:01.450 --> 0:11:04.829 That was elite. That was elite production from Carl Edwards Jr. Honestly, 0:11:04.850 --> 0:11:06.770 looking back on it, I don't remember him, one, pitching 0:11:06.790 --> 0:11:09.640 that well, two. why did we not give him more chances? No, 0:11:09.660 --> 0:11:11.480 do you remember pitching that well? It was during the 0:11:11.500 --> 0:11:14.140 horrible times, I think in early May, came in twice. 0:11:14.460 --> 0:11:16.400 I think I tried to black that out of my memory. 0:11:16.740 --> 0:11:18.320 Remember we were talking with Matt Eddy about, like, why 0:11:18.340 --> 0:11:20.410 would they cut this guy? It's actually true, yes, yes. 0:11:20.470 --> 0:11:22.390 Give him a few more innings. There's at least, like, 0:11:22.429 --> 0:11:26.069 a funky fastball shape here, and, like, a hopefully decent 0:11:26.090 --> 0:11:28.530 12-6 curveball. There's probably something in Carl Edwards. Maybe not, 0:11:28.570 --> 0:11:30.620 because he didn't get back in the major leagues this year, 0:11:30.679 --> 0:11:33.910 but For 11, for how many? Six innings with the Mets, 0:11:34.030 --> 0:11:35.510 he pitched a lead. That's a lead. He hit a 0:11:35.550 --> 0:11:37.670 nearly 17K per nine. I don't know if he's ever 0:11:37.730 --> 0:11:39.410 had it that high at any point in his career. 0:11:39.910 --> 0:11:42.579 A 44% strikeout rate, a 50% whiff rate. That's funny. 0:11:42.770 --> 0:11:46.120 That's disgusting. All right, Carson Bench, quick, easy, elite, 100%. 0:11:46.120 --> 0:11:47.860 I'm going to throw him ahead of the guys that 0:11:48.040 --> 0:11:49.780 didn't end the year on the team, just so for 0:11:49.800 --> 0:11:51.880 the final graphic, those are the ones that you see 0:11:51.900 --> 0:11:55.290 towards the end. Definitely. Could we have actually had a 0:11:55.309 --> 0:11:59.010 better rookie season from Carson Bench? I'm going to say this. No. 0:11:59.170 --> 0:12:01.250 If you ask for a better rookie season, you're a 0:12:01.250 --> 0:12:04.150 spoiled little brat. He had the best rookie season in 0:12:04.170 --> 0:12:06.510 the National League. He did. I mean, him or Nolan McClain. 0:12:06.530 --> 0:12:08.170 It's a toss-up between which of those guys had the 0:12:08.210 --> 0:12:10.240 best rookie season in the National League. But all facets 0:12:10.270 --> 0:12:12.240 of the game, too. The way he wound up hitting, 0:12:12.280 --> 0:12:15.740 especially after the first bad month, he became the second 0:12:15.780 --> 0:12:18.040 most consistent player. He became the most consistent player in 0:12:18.059 --> 0:12:20.020 this lineup who didn't miss a shit-ton of time with injury. 0:12:20.580 --> 0:12:22.349 His defense was... I mean, it was kind of an 0:12:22.370 --> 0:12:25.030 adventure sometimes in right field, but the arm, it became 0:12:25.070 --> 0:12:27.189 kind of league known how good Carson Bench's arm was 0:12:27.230 --> 0:12:28.689 and the fear of running on him. He was a 0:12:28.710 --> 0:12:30.550 good base runner. He was a good base stealer. Like, 0:12:30.600 --> 0:12:33.859 he was bouncy, good personality. He was the most fun 0:12:33.880 --> 0:12:36.100 player to watch in the Mets this season. Juan Soto 0:12:36.140 --> 0:12:37.920 himself said that the reason the Mets are going to 0:12:37.940 --> 0:12:39.880 be good for the future is because of Carson Bench. 0:12:40.960 --> 0:12:43.560 It's about to lie. Elite baseball player right there. Before 0:12:43.580 --> 0:12:44.900 we get going on to the next player, I want 0:12:44.940 --> 0:12:47.420 to give a quick shout out to today's sponsor, Fox One. 0:12:51.230 --> 0:12:53.949 MLB on Fox is streaming on Fox 1. The postseason 0:12:54.010 --> 0:12:55.670 is here, and we have your front row seat to 0:12:55.710 --> 0:12:58.550 the wildest walk-offs, lights out pitching, and clutch plays all 0:12:58.590 --> 0:13:02.370 playoffs long. Stream each NLDS and NLCS game, then the 0:13:02.370 --> 0:13:05.610 2026 World Series live on Fox 1. At home or 0:13:05.690 --> 0:13:08.510 on the go, live or on demand. Never miss a moment. 0:13:08.570 --> 0:13:12.170 Stream now. Start your Fox 1 three-day free trial today 0:13:12.500 --> 0:13:16.640 at fox1. com. I mean, the NLDS is going to be sick, James. 0:13:16.679 --> 0:13:21.190 I know we've got that Brewers Padres series circled. Big circle, 0:13:21.350 --> 0:13:24.010 prime time, 830 on Saturday night. Kind of stealing the 0:13:24.050 --> 0:13:26.170 prime time spot from the Dodgers, which I think is 0:13:26.210 --> 0:13:28.380 kind of a fun caveat here. I think all eyes 0:13:28.390 --> 0:13:29.559 are on the series. I think these are the two 0:13:29.600 --> 0:13:32.040 teams that everyone kind of wants to go to the 0:13:32.080 --> 0:13:34.360 World Series at the same time. Yeah, nobody wants to 0:13:34.400 --> 0:13:36.600 see the Dodgers, unfortunately. I just don't think the Braves 0:13:36.640 --> 0:13:38.660 are going to do that. So my time's going to 0:13:38.679 --> 0:13:41.300 be really focused on that West Coast between the Padres 0:13:41.340 --> 0:13:44.610 and Brewers. We can't wait to watch on Fox 1. 0:13:44.610 --> 0:13:47.370 Thank you to Fox 1 for sponsoring today's episode. All right, James. 0:13:47.890 --> 0:13:49.469 Now we're going to have you guessing some guys because 0:13:49.510 --> 0:13:51.650 I know the names. I'm going to be honest. I 0:13:51.850 --> 0:13:54.209 don't know who this is. All right. Use the context 0:13:54.250 --> 0:13:56.390 of alphabetical order. You know this name is going to 0:13:56.429 --> 0:13:59.250 have to be somewhere in the C's. Think about the C's. Yeah. 0:13:59.860 --> 0:14:03.760 Think about who this guy is. I'm hovering over Christian Scott. Well, 0:14:03.800 --> 0:14:05.260 I know the next guy is Chris Davinsky, so I 0:14:05.280 --> 0:14:09.380 know this guy has to be another Chris. Close. No. Christopher? 0:14:09.800 --> 0:14:12.400 How would you get in front of Chris alphabetically? There's 0:14:12.440 --> 0:14:16.079 got to be an earlier in the alphabet letter. C-H-A? 0:14:16.100 --> 0:14:21.650 Is it Chad? Chad? Chase McDermott is who we're looking for. Oh, 0:14:21.690 --> 0:14:24.600 Chase McDermott. Chase with a Y, I forgot. How could 0:14:24.620 --> 0:14:28.620 you forget Chase McDermott, James? I mean, there was bat-missing stuff. 0:14:28.680 --> 0:14:31.820 I think he also ended the season with another possible 0:14:31.980 --> 0:14:34.120 option in our system. Yeah, I think he's going to 0:14:34.140 --> 0:14:37.500 stick around, but he also wasn't particularly great in the 0:14:37.520 --> 0:14:39.620 small sample. He did get into games. But also, as 0:14:39.680 --> 0:14:42.510 a reliever, you could have three great outings, one bad one, 0:14:42.530 --> 0:14:44.790 and it takes your numbers. And that is mostly what happened. 0:14:44.810 --> 0:14:46.390 It did feel that way. I think his stuff was 0:14:46.460 --> 0:14:48.000 a bit disappointing. I think he will be out of 0:14:48.100 --> 0:14:50.100 options now at the end of this season once everything 0:14:50.140 --> 0:14:52.860 on roster resource resets because we learned that happened after 0:14:53.200 --> 0:14:56.080 like 10 videos ago, and you guys told us that. Yeah, 0:14:56.220 --> 0:14:58.850 I mean, I was going to say not good. Yeah, 0:14:58.870 --> 0:15:00.270 I was going to go not good. I wasn't going 0:15:00.310 --> 0:15:01.810 not bad. I love how we have nobody in the 0:15:01.850 --> 0:15:05.210 not bad category yet. It seems pretty bad. In case 0:15:05.230 --> 0:15:06.830 you guys are wondering and being like, how does this 0:15:06.850 --> 0:15:09.110 make any sense? How is not bad better than not good? 0:15:09.710 --> 0:15:12.340 Not bad is essentially good, and not good was essentially meh. 0:15:12.870 --> 0:15:14.730 And we'll get to this eventually because not bad is like, 0:15:14.750 --> 0:15:17.410 you know what? That guy wasn't bad. He didn't completely 0:15:17.450 --> 0:15:19.910 create it based on expectations, which most of his team did. 0:15:20.270 --> 0:15:22.530 I will say this. I don't have the numbers on 0:15:22.570 --> 0:15:25.190 Chris Davinsky, but he has to go in ass tier 0:15:25.250 --> 0:15:29.210 because anecdotally speaking, he, I feel like, didn't get many 0:15:29.310 --> 0:15:31.410 outs when he came into the games. Oh, he got 0:15:31.500 --> 0:15:33.840 completely lit on fire. Sadly for Chris Davinsky, he's in 0:15:33.860 --> 0:15:35.780 the ass tier. Yeah, and that's all we got to 0:15:35.800 --> 0:15:40.100 say about him. Yeah. Christian Scott, fun one next. Great season. 0:15:40.400 --> 0:15:43.620 I think this is an easy great season. He was healthy. 0:15:43.880 --> 0:15:46.280 He had a pretty good ERA. We saw the flashes 0:15:46.300 --> 0:15:48.400 that we got excited about for a guy coming off 0:15:48.460 --> 0:15:52.080 of major, major surgery and injury stuff. I don't really 0:15:52.120 --> 0:15:54.240 know if Christian Scott could have had a better season. 0:15:55.460 --> 0:15:58.660 He definitely could have. A 1-3 whip is still you 0:15:58.700 --> 0:16:00.250 hope you could be more efficient, and a lot of 0:16:00.260 --> 0:16:03.160 that inefficiency did come, especially in those first few outings. 0:16:03.180 --> 0:16:04.790 Remember how he would do the thing where he would 0:16:04.830 --> 0:16:07.390 just load the bases against a team and then get 0:16:07.450 --> 0:16:09.330 out of it with one run on the board? The 0:16:09.350 --> 0:16:11.510 thing about Christian Scott we wanted to see this year 0:16:11.650 --> 0:16:14.030 is the widening of a repertoire against the left-handed batters. 0:16:14.050 --> 0:16:17.370 And we at least saw relative color consistency. I can't 0:16:17.410 --> 0:16:18.690 tell you he's the best pitcher in the world, but 0:16:18.710 --> 0:16:21.620 then a smattering of those curveballs and those splitters, one 0:16:21.650 --> 0:16:23.220 early and then one late towards the end of the year. 0:16:23.240 --> 0:16:25.640 With Christian Scott, we can go into next season being like, yeah, 0:16:26.020 --> 0:16:28.060 he should definitely be a starter in this rotation. That's 0:16:28.080 --> 0:16:30.240 a great season from where we were. Yeah, especially coming 0:16:30.260 --> 0:16:32.119 off a major injury like that. I love what we 0:16:32.160 --> 0:16:34.480 saw from Christian Scott. The highs are really high, and 0:16:34.540 --> 0:16:37.729 even the lows, while they are Probably frustrating with the 0:16:37.810 --> 0:16:40.560 context of what has happened for him the last couple seasons. 0:16:40.900 --> 0:16:44.620 It's totally understandable in my eyes. Definitely. Great season, Christian Scott. 0:16:45.240 --> 0:16:47.040 Next up, James. I mean, you told me this one 0:16:47.060 --> 0:16:48.720 before because I was like, who? No, no, never mind. 0:16:48.740 --> 0:16:50.300 You didn't tell me that one before. I didn't tell 0:16:50.320 --> 0:16:57.530 you this one. Who is that? Christopher Burrell. Christopher Burrell. Wow. 0:16:58.190 --> 0:17:00.280 That's a bad picture of Christopher Burrell. There's a bad 0:17:00.340 --> 0:17:01.940 picture of him. They're making him look a little chunky. 0:17:02.260 --> 0:17:03.760 That's what I'm saying, in real life. I need to 0:17:03.800 --> 0:17:05.120 see the nose ring. I could have got Christopher Murrell 0:17:05.140 --> 0:17:07.540 if I got the nose ring. Unfortunately, as much as 0:17:07.619 --> 0:17:09.159 I believe in this guy that he will have one 0:17:09.200 --> 0:17:12.609