So Now What?

[Edgy MD]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: So he was about two days early?

YGB, man. It's the weekend, and we've got an undefeated guy on the mound who is second in the league in ERA.

[Benjamin Grimm]

True. Hopefully the Mets will use their three hits wisely and score a couple of runs.

[Guest 41Forever]

Edgy MD wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: So he was about two days early? YGB, man. It's the weekend, and we've got an undefeated guy on the mound who is second in the league in ERA.

I can't believe some of you guys are talking about bailing because they've had a rough stretch. The 12-1 stretch should show what the team is capable of. Nothing but a rough stretch. Some orange barrels on the road to a vacation.

[Chad ochoseis]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: True. Hopefully the Mets will use their three hits wisely and score a couple of runs.

SIX, BABY, SIX!!!

[Centerfield]

41Forever wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: So he was about two days early? YGB, man. It's the weekend, and we've got an undefeated guy on the mound who is second in the league in ERA. I can't believe some of you guys are talking about bailing because they've had a rough stretch. The 12-1 stretch should show what the team is capable of. Nothing but a rough stretch. Some orange barrels on the road to a vacation.

There are a couple ways to look at this team.

The team opened with a 12 game period where they went 11-1.

They then followed with an 18 game period where they went 10-18.

Overall they are 21-19.

One could say they are a good team that hit a rough patch, like 41 says above. This might well be true since the story of the 2018 Mets has yet to be written. But it’s the least likely to be true. It’s hard to buy this logic when the “rough patch” is 50% longer than the stretch that “shows what the team is capable of”.

Another way to look at it is to say they are a bad team that had a 12 game lucky streak. This is also not the best answer, but at least better than the prior take. As mentioned above, the bad streak is much longer than the good streak. Also all of the stats suggest this team is more bad than good.

The best take is to look at all 40 games and say that this is a mediocre team, capable of good streaks and bad, but ultimately ending up mediocre in the long run. The slightly over .500 record is consistent with nearly all projections. The stats project to a team slightly below .500, but it’s early and you figure there is some room to shift those numbers a bit.

Now, I know that this is painting with a broad brush and a lot of preconceived notions but I just can’t help but feel that 41’s take is such a typical Republican point of view.

Come in with the notion you want to believe and stick to it. Even when logic and data suggest otherwise. Focus on numbers that support your thinking, even if those numbers are belied by better, more exhaustive information.

Mix in a hint of inaccuracy (the team was never 12-1). Remember to be judgmental (“I can’t believe you guys are talking about bailing”). And you are almost there.

Finally, before you leave the house, check if your opinion justifies the behavior of rich white men. Yes? Congratulations! You’re ready to be a Republican!

[Ceetar]

the data that suggests they're a bad team is fraught though.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Look at this....I hadn't realized that the Mets haven't won back-to-back games since their nine-game winning streak came to an end about a month ago.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I’m on vacation at the beach and using an IPad (which I find to be a pain) so I’m too lazy to actually look it up, but I don’t think the Mets have won a series since their hot streak came to an end. It’s tough to win a series when you can’t manage to win back to back games. The Mets need to start winning some series. This series with Arizona would be a great time to start.

[Chad ochoseis]

Centerfield wrote: Now, I know that this is painting with a broad brush and a lot of preconceived notions but I just can’t help but feel that 41’s take is such a typical Republican point of view. Come in with the notion you want to believe and stick to it. Even when logic and data suggest otherwise. Focus on numbers that support your thinking, even if those numbers are belied by better, more exhaustive information. Mix in a hint of inaccuracy (the team was never 12-1). Remember to be judgmental (“I can’t believe you guys are talking about bailing”). And you are almost there. Finally, before you leave the house, check if your opinion justifies the behavior of rich white men. Yes? Congratulations! You’re ready to be a Republican!

In defense of 41F's baseball views, it's true that defending the Mets justifies the behavior of rich white men. But that's also true of defenders of the behaviors of the Yankees, Royals, Indians, Diamondbacks, Red Sox, White Sox, Cubs, and Rumble Ponies, as well as more or less anyone else who has earned money from owning or being in the front office of a professional baseball team. And pessimism is fine, and really the only sane choice if you root for the Mets, but not-bailing is part of the life of being a fan. It's why I ignore football, basketball, and hockey. Rooting for 1 1/2 baseball teams is draining enough.

And what a 21-19 record tells us about the Mets is that the Mets are 21-19. The fact that they were extremely fantastic over their first 12 games and rather crappy over the following 28 doesn't provide any extra information on the surface. You could dig a little and maybe see that the competition was different. That was true last year when we started 7-3 by beating up on weak teams, but I don't think it's true this year. We won series against the Nats and Cardinals during the 11-1 stretch, and lost series to the Reds and Padres during the 10-18.

You can argue that it's a different Mets team now than it was at the beginning of the season. This is true to some degree. The slide downhill began when we lost both our catchers in two or three days. Catching is subtle. We all know it's one of the two most important non-pitching positions on the field, but I can't tell much difference between "good" and "bad" catchers by watching them. The Mets have been looking better since the Mesoraco trade. Could be the change from Plawecki/D'Arnaud to Lobaton/Nido was creating a bigger hole than we realized. So maybe things start picking up again now.

All in all, though, I think the 21-19 record is about what the Mets are right now - a .525 team. Closer to good than bad, and maybe able to go deep into the postseason with some luck, health, and good trades, but not the best team in baseball by a long shot.

As far as why the Mets are mediocre, can we tie a rock to the idea that The Yankees Are A Big Market Team That Acts Like One And The Wilpons Are Cheap and toss it into a very deep lake? First, sustained excellence in baseball is nearly impossible. The only teams that have been consistently reasonably competitive over the past fifteen years are the Yankees and Cardinals, and even that's giving the phrase "reasonably competitive" a very broad interpretation. Every other team, including the other Big Market teams (say, the Dodgers, Giants, Red Sox, and Cubs, and maybe throw in the White Sox, A's, and Angels) has had ups and downs, just like the Mets.

Second, as far as the Yankees going big and the Mets going small, I call bullshit. The Yankees' payroll is $166.1 million. The Mets' payroll is $150.6 million. Does anyone really think that the difference between the Yankees and the Mets can be explained by $15.5 million? The players signed by the Yankees to multi-year contracts for more than $10M per year are Giancarlo Stanton, Masahiro Tanaka, Jacoby Ellsbury, Brett Gardner, and Aroldis Chapman. That's one new signing, one mediocre signing, one signing that makes Jason Bay look like a smart deal, one aging centerfielder finishing out a middling career, and a very good closer.

This isn't why the Yankees win and the Mets don't. The Yankees win because they drafted Luis Severino, Aaron Judge, Dellin Betances, Gary Sanchez, and Gleyber Torres, and because they somehow figured out that Didi Gregorius was good at baseball. Or, at least, that he was good enough to hit pop-up home runs in that joke of a ballpark they play in. The key players the Mets drafted or made early-career trades for are DeGrom, Syndergaard, Flores, Lagares, Conforto, Rosario, D'Arnaud, Plawecki, and Familia. Other than DeGrom and possibly Syndergaard, those guys aren't as good as the players the Yankees drafted, at least not yet. And the Yankees have a deep pool of talented young players in the pipeline. We have two first basemen who maybe possibly might could turn out to be pretty good if we're lucky.

It sucks to have to admit it, but the Yankees win because they've been smarter. Or luckier. I'm not sure which. I've spent plenty of time wondering about whether the Mets inability to develop top quality players within the org is due to bad luck or bad skills, and I have absolutely no clue. But I am convinced that the core problem with the org is player development, not some refusal to act like a Big Market Team.

And, for what it's worth, I think the Stanton trade/contract takeover was monumentally stupid and arrogant, and may be the beginning of the end of Yankee dominance. Way too much can go wrong at $30M+ per year (for the later years), even for the MFYs. It'll be tragic to those who feel (MFY bandwagoners) and comic to those who think (that's us).

[Benjamin Grimm]

Maybe the Mets can try more Rhame and less Ramos?

Have there been any firm updates on Anthony Swarzak? Any chance that he'll be back in the next couple of weeks?

[smg58]

Swarzak's injury and Ramos' inability to pitch two good games in a row made it hard to consider moving Lugo or Gsellman back into the rotation. Every starter has pitched well this week, thankfully, which means the need to consider such a move has diminished at least for now. But Rhame and Sewald have both pitched better than Ramos to this point.

In hindsight, the Mets could have spent their resources better. The Ramos deal looks very bad right now -- it didn't seem totally awful to me at the time, but nobody was paying me to anticipate a buyers' market in the offseason. The biggest allocation of resources went to Jay Bruce, but Brandon Nimmo turned out not to be the area where the Mets needed an upgrade.

Chad, I agree with your post 100%. The one thing I would add is that the Mets have been in the habit of rushing hurt players back and making things worse, but I think the culture behind the scenes is changing. Somebody pulled the brakes on DeGrom coming back from the elbow injury without even missing a start, and the Mets didn't push him when that first inning didn't go so well, and Jake has bounced back with two super starts. They have eased up on Vargas (who could not have been less ready to pitch when he was first reactivated) and Matz (who last year pitched through pain he had no business pitching through, with dreadful results), and they are starting to respond. Cespedes, Frazier, and Plawecki are not being rushed back, either. Sometimes it's not the bad luck, but how you handle it.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

The Mets can't move Gsellman and/or Lugo into the rotation, they are the most reliable relievers the team has. Beyond the two of them, the only one I have much faith in is Sewald.

[Edgy MD]

Well, if one of them provides quality starting, they won't be as needed in the pen.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

With the way most managers, Callaway included, cautiously use starting pitchers (pitch counts & limiting third time through order) there will still be a great deal of bullpen innings. Which with Lugo and/or Gsellman in the rotation, that we likely lead for even more innings for Ramos/Blevins/Robles et al. If Vargas, Wheeler, and Matz can't give the Mets some consistent pitching, then I guess have to pick their poison.

[MFS62]

Move the franchise to Montreal and apply for an expansion team.
At least there would be an excuse for playing like they did tonight.
(My sarcasm meter didn't move very far)

I've lived through it once already and I think the pain wouldn't hurt as much the second time.

Later

[Centerfield]

Vargas and Wheeler cannot start anymore.

[Gwreck]

Wheeler was actually decent. Occasional untimely homers will happen. He’s also one of our best hitters.

Vargas has no value at all that I can discern.

[Centerfield]

Wheeler is terrible. ERA over 5. WHIP around 1.5.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Good teams make plays, limit mistakes, and find ways to win. The Mets are not a good team.

[nymr83]

Centerfield wrote: Wheeler is terrible. ERA over 5. WHIP around 1.5.

ERA lies, his FIP is not horrible

[seawolf17]

I think Wheeler still has something there, but I've been done with Vargas since day one.

[Edgy MD]

Nymr83 wrote: ERA lies

[fimg=550]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ab/1e/72/ab1e7216d311a93651362535d760ebff.png[/fimg]
I wrote 63 songs this year. They're all about ERA, and I'm going to play every single
one of them tonight.

[smg58]

Wheeler has not been good, but he's only pitched too poorly to give the team a chance twice. Relative to last year, his strikeouts are up while home runs and walks are down. I'm not giving up on him yet.

Vargas -- the Miami start was encouraging, but then he regressed again. He was brought in because he's made a long career out of being dependably decent, and I can't wait to see it. I'm not convinced he's healthy.

Maybe Matz can give us a second straight good start tonight.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

We don't have the men. We don't have anywhere near the men.

The window, it's closed. I understand the arguments for doing otherwise, but it would behoove us to sell everyone of significant worth whose prime is now to replenish... deGrom inclusive.

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: We don't have the men. We don't have anywhere near the men. The window, it's closed. I understand the arguments for doing otherwise, but it would behoove us to sell everyone of significant worth whose prime is now to replenish... deGrom inclusive.

Yeah, right. What's likelier to happen is that instead, they'll extend David "Godot" Wright.

[Guest d'Kong76]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: We don't have the men. We don't have anywhere near the men. The window, it's closed. I understand the arguments for doing otherwise, but it would behoove us to sell everyone of significant worth whose prime is now to replenish... deGrom inclusive.

You also understand considering backing up the truck consideratioins
don't start before the summer solstice. They're not gonna start shopping
stuff now and doing so in July to teams in need (if the Mets' need be)
will garner better stuff. Right? Just nod.

I know it'll drive all the spreadsheet guys bonkers, but the Mets are a
good half-dozen-game bad-luck losers so far and that's a lot in the cur-
rent standings and how we feel about this team.

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: I know it'll drive all the spreadsheet guys bonkers, but the Mets are a good half-dozen-game bad-luck losers so far and that's a lot in the cur- rent standings and how we feel about this team.

The Mets are at .500, true, but they've been outscored 220-239, so Pythagoras sez they should be a coupl'a games under .500. Which means that they've been exceedingly lucky this season, rather than a bad luck team. Me, personally, I happen to agree with what I just finished writing about ol' Pythagoras and luck. I remember scrutinizing the Mets cumulative stats when they were riding high last April, and I couldn't figure out how the hell they were winning so much. The stats didn't justify the results. So take .500 with a grain of salt. Pythagoras sez the Mets should be closer to the last place Marlins than to the top of the division.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

They'd been good-luck winners in 8-10 games last month. They're .500 now, their run differential says they should be 24-28.

I kinda felt this way last year, and coming into the season. I thought they had one last hurrah in them before the long, nasty decline. I thought they could have one year of health luck. I was wrong. (I kinda thought they should sell deGrom last year; I'm pretty sure I said so here somewhere.)

The team isn't close to good enough for the types of in-season acquisitions they can afford to make a real difference.

[nymr83]

The Mets had good reason to believe they could strongly improve on last year with just a little health. That hasn't happened. If the Mets dont put up a strong showing (85+ wins) then it is probably time to "blow it up" this off-season. Unless they want to get Machado and some pitching. That's fine too. But standing pat would be terrible.

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Pythagoras sez they should be a coupl'a games under .500.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: their run differential says they should be 24-28.

It's still May and I'm sticking with unlucky for a few more weeks. Take
away a few dinks, danks and dunks and they're a few games over .500.
The numbers are fun, and I get it all much more than I let on but if you
watch every pitch of every game those numbers lie so far in 2018.

And the BBB is off the charts in 2018 as mentioned in another thread.