Sustained Success

[Vic Sage]

I disagree that it's been a weakness for a long time. There have certainly been periods of success and periods of failure, with more success coming on the pitching side. I don't think we should look at 25 years as a monolith

.

But that's the point. Our "periods of success" have been less frequent and shorter in duration than more than 2/3 of all teams, putting us in the bottom tier of the league despite having top tier revenues. And that's not even including the franchises' first 6 years of comic ineptitude. Since Fred bought total control from Doubleday in 2002, they have only won 90+ games in 2 seasons (2006, 20015) over the last 16 years, with only 3 post-season appearances (2006, 2015-16) and no WS titles. Prior to that our last period of "success" was the 1999-2000 years, spearheaded by Piazza, who was brought to NY at the insistence of then-owner Doubleday over co-owner Wilpon's objections, who was eventually talked into the move.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: I disagree that it's been a weakness for a long time. There have certainly been periods of success and periods of failure, with more success coming on the pitching side. I don't think we should look at 25 years as a monolith . But that's the point. Our "periods of success" have been less frequent and shorter in duration than more than 2/3 of all teams, putting us in the bottom tier of the league despite having top tier revenues.

If we're still talking about success in scouting and development (and it suddenly doesn't seem like we are), I'm going to ask you to show your work.

[Vic Sage]

Edgy MD wrote: Vic Sage wrote: I disagree that it's been a weakness for a long time. There have certainly been periods of success and periods of failure, with more success coming on the pitching side. I don't think we should look at 25 years as a monolith . But that's the point. Our "periods of success" have been less frequent and shorter in duration than more than 2/3 of all teams, putting us in the bottom tier of the league despite having top tier revenues. If we're still talking about success in scouting and development (and it suddenly doesn't seem like we are), I'm going to ask you to show your work.

i'm sorry, i'm just talking about success of the franchise, not specifically about scouting. I guess the best way to assess our scouting in the Wilpon years is to look at all drafts/FA signings since 02 (Wilpon year zero), assign a value to each transaction based on the careers of those players, and compare that with every other franchise's performance over the same period. Even that wouldn't take into account the lost opportunity costs of picking a lesser player over a better player signed by another team after us.

And this is all work i'm unprepared to do. So please continue.

[batmagadanleadoff]

First off, eff Wilpon's on the hook going back to the early 90's, when Doubleday relinquished many of his duties out of disgust and eff became the de facto majority owner, essentially running the team. So, having gotten that out of the way --- in this era, a team needs to click on all cylinders to generate sustained success. Usually, it won't be enough for a team to simply draft and develop its own players. The team's gonna hafta plug in its holes by bringing in outside talent, either through savvy trading or through the free agent market. Savvy trading was a hallmark of the Doubleday era, as GM Cashen brought in top tier talent like Keith, Carter, Cone, Ojeda and Mcreynolds to round out the team. Unfortunately, the Wilpon era Mets don't do anything particularly well, at least not over a sustained period of time. They haven't drafted well over 30 years, and pointing out to a Wright or a Reyes or a deGrom isn't much of a defense. They've made few blockbuster or key trades in the past 30 or so years. There's a domino effect here, too, because the Mets haven't drafted well and so haven't had the stock to acquire top tier talent via trades. And to the extent that the Wilpon Mets did have young talent, the team was usually so thin that it either couldn't have afforded to make those trades or it would have been pointless because the Wilpon Mets were usually more than one or two players away. Free agency is the other way to bring in outside talent. The Yankees are the extreme example of success here, as they haven't had a losing record since 1992 and not coincidentally, delve in free agency heavily. The Mets free agency approach is obviously infuriating as they almost always go for Joe Palookas and hope for a Hail Mary, this while playing in the same exact market as the Yankees, which happens to be the largest market in the country. The Wilpon Mets, for the most part, don't do anything right, at least not to the degree to generate sustained success. I'm not even gonna get into how fucking stupid ownership is and how it doesn't make a difference whether Sandy Alderson, one of MLB's most astute execs is the GM here, if Sandy needs Jeff's permission just to tie his own shoelaces.

I think the best era under Wilpon was the end of the Shea era, when they had top home grown talent like Wright and Reyes, and brought in tremendous outside free agent talent like Pedro, Delgado and Beltran and even made a blockbuster trade for Johan. And then Madoff happened.

[Vic Sage]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: First off, eff Wilpon's on the hook going back to the early 90's, when Doubleday relinquished many of his duties out of disgust and eff became the de facto majority owner, essentially running the team. So, having gotten that out of the way --- in this era, a team needs to click on all cylinders to generate sustained success. Usually, it won't be enough for a team to simply draft and develop its own players. The team's gonna hafta plug in its holes by bringing in outside talent, either through savvy trading or through the free agent market. Savvy trading was a hallmark of the Doubleday era, as GM Cashen brought in top tier talent like Keith, Carter, Cone, Ojeda and Mcreynolds to round out the team. Unfortunately, the Wilpon era Mets don't do anything particularly well, at least not over a sustained period of time. They haven't drafted well over 30 years, and pointing out to a Wright or a Reyes or a deGrom isn't much of a defense. They've made few blockbuster or key trades in the past 30 or so years. There's a domino effect here, too, because the Mets haven't drafted well and so haven't had the stock to acquire top tier talent via trades. And to the extent that the Wilpon Mets did have young talent, the team was usually so thin that it either couldn't have afforded to make those trades or it would have been pointless because the Wilpon Mets were usually more than one or two players away. Free agency is the other way to bring in outside talent. The Yankees are the extreme example of success here, as they haven't had a losing record since 1992 and not coincidentally, delve in free agency heavily. The Mets free agency approach is obviously infuriating as they almost always go for Joe Palookas and hope for a Hail Mary, this while playing in the same exact market as the Yankees, which happens to be the largest market in the country. The Wilpon Mets, for the most part, don't do anything right, at least not to the degree to generate sustained success. I'm not even gonna get into how fucking stupid ownership is and how it doesn't make a difference whether Sandy Alderson, one of MLB's most astute execs is the GM here, if Sandy needs Jeff's permission just to tie his own shoelaces. I think the best era under Wilpon was the end of the Shea era, when they had top home grown talent like Wright and Reyes, and brought in tremendous outside free agent talent like Pedro, Delgado and Beltran and even made a blockbuster trade for Johan. And then Madoff happened.

Doubleday was still there in the 90s, and his role in the Piazza deal was widely reported. So while DD had relinquished day-to-day control, he still had some authority and exercised it to improve the team over Wilpon's initial objections. So i don't give Fred that much credit for the 99-00 teams. Yes, the Wright/Reyes/Beltran teams of 05/06 were his, as were the 15/16 teams. And he also gets the credit for their post-season failures, too.

[Frayed Knot]

It's always tough to know how to rate scouting/development.
First of all, are they even the same thing? When a high draft pick fails was it a bad pick or did he fail due to poor development afterward?
Was Heilman the wrong choice at #18 overall (he had been drafted 31st the previous year then went undefeated as a Senior at ND) or not handled correctly? Or was he a good pick that only briefly panned out?
And then 18 picks later they chose David Wright who was apparently the right choice AND handled impeccably.
But Wright being the better player clearly wasn't known at the time or they would have drafted those two the other way around and not given an additional 17 teams a shot at him.


Getting off the Mets for a second, consider these groups:
Group A) Joe Vitello, Michael Tucker, Jeff Granger, Dan Reichert, Jeff Austin, Kyle Snyder, Mike Stodolka, Colt Griffin
Group Zack Greinke, Chris Lubanski, Alex Gordon, Luke Hochevar, Mike Moustakas, Eric Hosmer
Group C) Christian Colon, Bubba Starling, Kyle Zimmer, Hunter Dozier, Foster Griffin, Nolan Watson

If you're a normal baseball fan you probably recognize almost no one from Group A or Group C, yet almost all from Group B
And just in case you haven't figured out where this is going already, those are consecutive top draft picks (from 1991 - 2015) for the Kansas City Royals
And remember that the team's lengthy lack of success for much of that time made EVERY ONE of those picks (until 2014 anyway) a Top-10 choice in the whole draft, and 11 of them were Top-5s *

Did they get smarter and then make better draft picks? Or did the picks themselves make them look smarter in retrospect?
And if they were smart and developed the players well, then why were they not so smart both before and after?
- cuz following nearly eight straight misses [Michael Tucker had himself a career, just not much of it w/KC although he did help them land Jermaine Dye in a trade]
- they then hit on five in six years and hit YUGE on four of them resulting in two WS including one title (you may remember that one). Gordon, Moustakas, Hosmer and, to a lesser extent, Hochevar were
MAJOR pieces in that crew and trading Greinke directly landed them Lorenzo Cain & Alcides Escobar, and, indirectly, Wade Davis & James Shields.
- and then I guess they got stupid again because, for some reason, they stopped drafting future stars (although the door hasn't yet closed on some of the more recent ones)


What is probably the most likely explanation for the above is that their hits and misses are par for the course over time (although with so many Top-5/10 picks you'd think you'd see better) but that
the unlikely distribution of the successes -- bunched together as they were -- made them look like geniuses for a several year period and resulted in their championship run of seasons which in turn got tons
of praise rightfully heaped upon their heads for expert player procurement and development; a condition which was absolutely true except for when it wasn't.





* just for comparison purposes, while KCR was on that run of 18 consecutive Top-10 picks w/11 in the Top 5, the Mets had 8 & 2 over that same span
Preston Wilson (1992 / 9th pick), Kirk Presley ('93 / 8), Paul Wilson ('94 / 1), Geoff Goetz ('97 / 7), Philip Humber ('04 / 3), Mike Pelfrey ('05 / 9), Matt Harvey ('10 / 7), Michael Conforto ('15 / 10)

Edited September 18, 2018 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

Worth noting that they Greinke very nearly crapped out a half a dozen times due to an overall disengagement from his calling. Sometimes he wanted to quit to become a hitter. Sometimes he wanted to quit outright. Sometimes he loved the game so much he couldn't contain himself from doing fun-but-not-necessarily-productive things: throwing ephus pitches in crucial game situations, outwardly demanding he be included in the lineup instead of a DH, etc.

His career hung for a while on the edge of a razor. Did the Royals miss a half dozen red flags in the "makeup" department? Or did they see them, boldly draft him anyway, and masterfully massage him through those periods, ultimately diagnosed as social anxiety disorder by his third big-league season?

[Gwreck]

Moving this back to the original question:

I posit that there are four main possible reasons why the Mets have not excelled:

1. Player development/scouting
a. Selection of players in amateur draft
b. Identifying/signing international free agents
c. Developing players’ skills in minor leagues

2. Player acquisition/Roster construction
a. Making good trades
b. Signing valuable players as free agents
c. Selecting proper mix of players for roster/having depth

3. Field management/strategy
a. Selection of field manager/coaching staff
b. In-game strategy

4. Other
a. Culture
b. Luck

I think 1a and 1b are the biggest problems — as stated above —likely followed by 2b (signing free agents).

I also think that it’s clear that the Mets have not done enough of these things consistently well to have the team succeed. Drafting some good players is clearly not sufficent.

[Centerfield]

So everyone knows it's Boston's 4th title in 15 years. But that's not all. In those 15 years, the Red Sox have:

*12 winning seasons
*10 seasons of 90 wins or more
*5 Division Titles
*9 Playoff appearances
*the aforementioned 4 World Series Championships

The Dodgers are not bad either.

*13 winning seasons
*8 seasons of 90 wins or more
*9 Division Titles
*10 Playoff appearances
*2 National League Championships

Sustained success.

[stevejrogers]

Centerfield wrote: The Dodgers are not bad either. *13 winning seasons *8 seasons of 90 wins or more *9 Division Titles *10 Playoff appearances *2 National League Championships Sustained success.

Talk about "Wait 'till Next Year" type of agita! (sorry MFS62)

Lack of rings and MFY fan douchbaggery statements (Anything less than WS championship is an unsuccessful season, 27 rings, etc) aside, it is hard to see how the Dodger fan experience in the last 15 years has been on the same level, or worse, than it has been for Met fans in the same time frame.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Two first place finishes in 30 seasons.

[Vic Sage]

Lack of rings and MFY fan douchbaggery statements (Anything less than WS championship is an unsuccessful season, 27 rings, etc) aside, it is hard to see how the Dodger fan experience in the last 15 years has been on the same level, or worse, than it has been for Met fans in the same time frame.

this is how:

Under this scenario, the Brewers have risen to a full 100% misery factor. The Mets are at #6, with a bullet. 75%-100% miserable: Milwaukee Brewers 100.00% San Diego Padres 96.51% Colorado Rockies 95.86% Seattle Mariners 94.48% Chicago White Sox 90.66% New York Mets 87.16% Miami Marlins 81.19% Los Angeles Angels (Anaheim) 80.16% Texas Rangers 78.87% Detroit Tigers 78.63% Washington Nationals 77.46% Tampa Bay Rays 77.28% Cleveland Indians 75.14% 50%-75% miserable: Chicago Cubs 73.07% Kansas City Royals 72.39% Toronto Blue Jays 71.88% Houston Astros 65.94% Philadelphia Phillies 59.44% Minnesota Twins 59.22% Baltimore Orioles 57.72% San Francisco Giants 56.21% Arizona Diamondbacks 54.48% Cincinnati Reds 53.19% Pittsburgh Pirates 51.27% less than 50% miserable: Atlanta Braves 49.52% Boston Red Sox 48.67% St. Louis Cardinals 38.91% Los Angeles Dodgers 38.28% Oakland Athletics 20.79% New York Yankees 9.12%

[ashie62]

But they are the Amazin Mets

The Wilpons leaving might tilt that index