There is no reason to panic over Mets' uneven start to season

After starting the season 3-1, the Mets were swept during a three-game series in Milwaukee where they were non-competitive for the first two games and lost in walk-off fashion in the finale. It was a very bad three days, for reasons we'll dig into below. But the panic it has set off among a certain section of the fan base has been wild.

Was it worrisome to see the Mets' offense stagnate power-wise during their first six games before waking up in their seventh? Yes.

Was it tough to watch Max Scherzer give up back-to-back-to-back home runs in his start against the Brewers on Tuesday night? You bet.

Was it bothersome to witness Carlos Carrasco's velocity dip and David Peterson's control trouble? Absolutely.

Is all of this being magnified even more because of the (likely brief) absence of Justin Verlander, the Mets' failure to add thump to their offense during the offseason, and the fact that their four top hitting prospects were all sent to Triple-A to start the season? Totally.

However, the Mets will be fine. The roster is too good for them not to be. Before we get into why I believe that, let's take some time to look in an anecdotal way just how much the first week or so of a 162-game season portends what's to come.

After that, we'll take a dive into the Twitter reactions, which have been ... something.

For those in full meltdown mode over the Mets' 3-4 start (it should be noted that many fans have stayed measured), here's a little perspective...

The 1986 Mets started the season 2-3. They won 108 games and the World Series.

The 1998 Yankees started 1-4. They won 114 games and the World Series.

Want a recent one?

The 2022 Braves started 3-4, and were 24-27 on June 1 before turning it on. In case you forgot, they won 101 games and the NL East over a Mets team that started scorching hot and cooled off in September.

All of this is to say that the Mets starting 3-4 almost certainly means nothing. And while it's understandable for fans to be upset or even angry over how the team looked in Milwaukee, there is really no reason to be sounding the alarms. But the hysteria for some has set in anyway. Here's a sampling of what has been said on Twitter over the last day:

"Pirates are a better team than the Mets"

"What if I think Scherzer has been showing signs of [being] washed last year and now is (he is), Verlander is super old and injured (he is), and the offense way overperformed last year and will be bad (it will)"

"I expect half the roster not to be filled with bums. It’s the largest payroll in North American Sports history and half the roster sucks or can be DFA’d and not missed. You don’t see that as an issue? They have no power, no bullpen, and a senior citizen home of a rotation."

"Scherzer's been washed since he couldn't take the ball against the Braves for the Dodgers in the playoffs two years ago. Neither he nor Verlander will reach 15 starts this year."

"Scherzer is done. Verlander is here for the money, the Offense is trash unless you bring the kids ... what am I missing here?"

The "Pirates are a better team than the Mets" one is brought to you by Frank the Tank, but it was too good -- and hilarious -- to not be included here.

As far as the remainder of the sampling, it mainly revolves around concern about Scherzer, Verlander, the offense, and the bullpen. You know, basically the entire team.

Here's the thing with Scherzer...

He is coming off a season where he had the lowest ERA of his career, and a spring training where his stuff looked incredibly sharp. His early-season downfall has also been just one inning (the sixth inning) in his first start and one inning (the awful three-consecutive-home-run-inning) in his second start.

Those losing their minds because Scherzer looked bad at the end of last season are not wrong to cite those stats. But he was very clearly pitching hurt.

To say that Scherzer is "washed" is to ignore what he did for the majority of last season and every season before that, how he looked in spring training, and how he looked in the first five innings of his first start -- utterly dominant.

Scherzer will be fine. And so will Verlander, who is coming off a Cy Young Award and has continued to throw while dealing with a minor teres major strain.

Sure, it's a bit risky to have a 38-year-old and 40-year-old at the top of the rotation. But it's way too soon to have any concern that either one of them will fall off a cliff performance-wise.

Meanwhile, if some are going to trash the bullpen, they should remember that the same relievers they're flipping out over were nearly flawless as the Mets started the season 3-1. There will be ebbs and flows in a season, but the Mets -- even without Edwin Diaz -- have a strong group of relief arms.

Then there's the offense.

Yes, the Mets should've added more punch during the offseason, but the deal for Carlos Correa falling through put a wrench in things.

Even without Correa, though, an offense revolving around Francisco Lindor, Pete Alonso, Brandon Nimmo, Jeff McNeil, and Starling Marte will be plenty good enough.

And although the injury to Omar Narvaez is unfortunate, it will mean the official beginning of the Francisco Alvarez Era in Queens. And Alvarez has light-tower power that can bring this offense to another level.

There's also Brett Baty, who is excelling in Triple-A Syracuse and should take over as the starting third baseman sooner rather than later.

All of this is to say that while it's fine to be upset over a 3-4 start that included two blowouts and some shoddy starting pitching, nothing has changed over the last week to alter what this Mets team is -- a World Series contender with one of the best rosters in baseball.