I think they're all big games.

"If you needed to win one high-stakes game, whom would you rather have pitching, Pettitte or Santana?

...

Yes, the Mets could have scored more runs for him, but these are the types of games the No.1 starter is supposed to win. For the moment, Pettitte still seems to know how to do that a little better than Santana."

Most of this article is nonsense. Santana is overrated overall and disappointing in 2008, but the only reason Santana doesn't have a better record is because his team doesn't score enough runs when he pitches. When Santana points this out, he is not refreshingly honest, he's a crybaby.

Whatever.


What I really don't understand is the idea that Saturday's game was "big."

If you're going to bother distinguishing between high stakes and low stakes game, then why is the game against the Yankees categorized as high stakes?

The Mets are not battling the Yankees for a playoff spot. The Mets are not even in the same league as the Yankees.

If the Mets are battling the Yankees for a playoff spot, then congratulations to the Mets. They won 4 out of 6 vs. the Yankees this year.

The Mets won the Battle of New York: When is the parade?


If either of these teams are going to make the playoffs, they're going to have to win a lot of games. All kinds of games. Big games, small games, high stakes games, low stakes games, home games, away games, night games, day games.

Beating the Mets is no more important than beating the Royals, even if John Harper can't be bothered to pay attention to June games vs. KC.

They're all big games and the stakes are always high.

The Mets need a pitcher like Santana, whose ERA is 3.01.

The Mets don't need a pitcher like Oliver Perez, who can seemingly transform himself into a "big game" pitcher whenever he faces the Yankees or the Braves, and then tanks against the Mariners.