No, it's NOT just your imagination

[Frayed Knot]

The 2014 Mets have not just the most losses via a one-run margin (17 - no one else higher than 14) but also ...
- the the largest percentage of their losses coming via one run (50% -- next highest = 43%)
- the largest percentage of all games being one-run games (25 of 62 - 40%)
- and the worst winning pct in one run games -- 8-17 (.320)

One school of thought says that this means we're really not as bad as we look right now, that just a handful of extra runs--say by just being merely competent in bases-loaded/RiSP situations--would result in a markedly better W/L record because of all the close games going against us ... but it sure doesn't feel like that right now.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Guest

[Guest d'Kong76]

Fuckin' Madoff!

[smg58]

It's a good reason not to smash the panic button as hard as you can. A good second half from even one of our guys currently not doing much would go a long way too.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I agree, but the history doesn't favor the fans.

[Lefty Specialist]

Frayed Knot wrote: The 2014 Mets have not just the most losses via a one-run margin (17 - no one else higher than 14) but also ... - the the largest percentage of their losses coming via one run (50% -- next highest = 43%) - the largest percentage of all games being one-run games (25 of 62 - 40%) - and the worst winning pct in one run games -- 8-17 (.320) One school of thought says that this means we're really not as bad as we look right now, that just a handful of extra runs--say by just being merely competent in bases-loaded/RiSP situations--would result in a markedly better W/L record because of all the close games going against us ... but it sure doesn't feel like that right now.

Or they could just suck. I'm going with that.

[Frayed Knot]

But y'see that's the frustrating part, that they're sucking despite being almost exactly league average in both RS & RA (and only -3 in differential) meaning that it's not like they're 40 or 50 runs in arrears but rather a tantalizing dozen or so over a 60+ game span from NOT sucking. And when you consider the collective bases-laoded and RiSP numbers, one could make the argument that a dozen or so well timed HITS could get them on the right side of the suck/not-suck line.

[A Boy Named Seo]

At least it wasn't another 1-run game!

[Frayed Knot]

Right, because 2-run losses where you
a) leave the tying on run on 3rd in the top of the 8th
and then
allow them to pad their lead with TWO hits off TWO pitchers after TWO are out and none on to make it back into a TWO-run game in the bottom half of the inning are sooooooo much less frustrating.

[MFS62]

There have been many discussions over the years, here and elsewhere, about the concept of clutch, whether or not it exists, and if so, how to quantify it.
But I think watching the Mets this year may be bringing us ever so much closer to defining the concept of choke. Its been the elephant in the room, the Emperor's bare butt. I said it. And I'm glad.
This is getting frustrating.

Later

[Guest d'Kong76]

Screw clutch and choke.
They suck, and it's frustrating if you care.

[MFS62]

d'Kong76 wrote: Screw clutch and choke. They suck, and it's frustrating if you care.

I care.
It hurts.
Later

[Guest d'Kong76]

I know, MFS. We all do.
Sooner

[Frayed Knot]

MFS62 wrote: There have been many discussions over the years, here and elsewhere, about the concept of clutch, whether or not it exists, and if so, how to quantify it. But I think watching the Mets this year may be bringing us ever so much closer to defining the concept of choke.

To clarify, the discussion has never been whether or not the concepts of clutch and choke (two sides of the same coin) exist or not, of course they do. There are 15 games/day in MLB that produce clutch/choke ABs, innings, pitching performances, etc. Players have clutch days, clutch months, even clutch seasons.
What the argument has always been about is whether certain players can be said to "own" these traits to the point where they can be counted on to perform markedly better/worse than their normal selves in defined clutch/choke situations*.

That this year's NY Mets have been lousier than even their usual sub-par offense in situations like bases-loaded, and RiSP isn't in debate, it's fact - "you could look it up" Casey might say**. Where the 'stats guys' would disagree with the stereotyped old-timers who knew clutch when they saw it is in saying that simply because they have done so for this 60+ game stretch isn't a sign that it's destined to continue. And, really, even if one does buy the whole notion of clutch/not being in one's DNA in the first place, the odds that it'll affect an entire group of 25 at once based on nothing more than the fact that they're all wearing the same pajamas would be pretty freakin' odd.

So anyway, where all these bad situational stats and one-run losses leaves Your 2014 New York Mets right now is that at the RS/RA numbers (currently -5 for the whole year) indicates that they are closer to a .500-ish team than their current sub-.450. And if some of those crucial other stats even get up to the point where they're merely at 'BLAH' level as opposed to the current putrid then the RS/RA ratio might even tip somewhat to the positive side.





* and good luck settling on an agreed upon definition of that


** overall hitting (prior to Sunday) = .234/.314/.349 vs bases loaded = .159/.203/.270

[Fman99]

So we suck? Darn.

[Frayed Knot]

Fman99 wrote: So we suck?

Well, yeah.
But the sucking is being magnified by bad luck and such* so we may not be sucking quite as badly as it looks right now is all. Or at least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.




* Losing six straight while being outscored by a total of ten runs over that time is, for instance, almost impossible to do even on purpose - which, despite appearances, I don't actually think they're doing.

[Benjamin Grimm]

As they say, you're never as bad as you look when you're losing. (And you're never as good as you look when you're winning.)

Getting swept by the Giants in San Francisco is not good, but not totally unexpected either. The previous series, in Chicago, is another story entirely.

[Fman99]

Frayed Knot wrote: Fman99 wrote: So we suck? Well, yeah. But the sucking is being magnified by bad luck and such* so we may not be sucking quite as badly as it looks right now is all. Or at least that's my story and I'm sticking to it. * Losing six straight while being outscored by a total of ten runs over that time is, for instance, almost impossible to do even on purpose - which, despite appearances, I don't actually think they're doing.

Sucking is sucky.

[Vic Sage]

I agree, better luck would probably have us closer to .500, but i don't think we'd be a good, winning team if our luck was better.

All these numbers really suggests to me is that we have really good pitching that is keeping us close in most games, but that our impotent offense is not doing enough for us to actually win. I don't see why a change of luck (i.e., random occurrences working in our favor a bit more frequently) would have a big impact on that fact (some, of course, but not a lot). Power is power, and we have the least in all of baseball, so even when we get our occasional hits, we need to string together too many to score runs. Which is why we don't score enough of them to win. I don't really see that changing much with our current lineup.

And its not like its just been bad luck causing us to suffer from... well, bad luck. When runs are scarce (i.e., you've got good pitching and punchless hitting), then small mistakes and the random bounce of the ball have a much bigger impact. (e.g., if you're scoring bunches of runs, then bad luck that results in gives up a few more runs or scoring a few less will have lesser impact; each run is worth less when they are more plentiful). We constructed a team with good pitching and shitty hitting; the lineup is a consequence of our team's actions and intent. And so this is what happens. We are more vulnerable to random chance.

[Frayed Knot]

But again, for all our "good pitching and shitty hitting", we're essentially league average in both runs allowed [4.08 vs NL Avg of 4.02] and runs scored [NYM = 4.00 vs 4.02]

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: But again, for all our "good pitching and shitty hitting", we're essentially league average in both runs allowed [4.08 vs NL Avg of 4.02] and runs scored [NYM = 4.00 vs 4.02]

One can't help but wonder how we'd be doing with a couple of line drives falling into gaps instead of at fielders.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure what difference that'd make, but that's why I'm calling for a steady diet of bunting against the shift until teams start playing at least a little bit more honestly on defense.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure what difference that'd make, but that's why I'm calling for a steady diet of bunting against the shift until teams start playing at least a little bit more honestly on defense.

yeah, like our guys can get down a bunt that consistently.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: But again, for all our "good pitching and shitty hitting", we're essentially league average in both runs allowed [4.08 vs NL Avg of 4.02] and runs scored [NYM = 4.00 vs 4.02] One can't help but wonder how we'd be doing with a couple of line drives falling into gaps instead of at fielders.

Sure, but every team can say that and the only "evidence" we have that this is happening more often than usual to the Mets is that we watch all the games while only occasionally seeing other games.

[Ceetar]

But again, for all our "good pitching and shitty hitting", we're essentially league average in both runs allowed [4.08 vs NL Avg of 4.02] and runs scored [NYM = 4.00 vs 4.02] One can't help but wonder how we'd be doing with a couple of line drives falling into gaps instead of at fielders. Sure, but every team can say that and the only "evidence" we have that this is happening more often than usual to the Mets is that we watch all the games while only occasionally seeing other games.

Oh, there's evidence, but it's mostly evaporated over the last week or two. prior to that though, their Hard Hit to BAbip ratio was very suggestive of some bad luck.

Duda in particular:

[Edgy MD]

I submit that this is, to an extent, measurable. Compare line drive rates to batting average. The teams with lower ratios are (in theory, anyhow) enjoying more luck. Teams with higher ratios, one might conclude, are hitting the ball hard and nonetheless making outs.

(The Mets do have two of the top ten batters in MLB in terms of line drive percentage.)

#	Team	LD%	BA	LD%/BA
1	Blue Jays	.175	.261	.670
2	Rockies	.198	.284	.697
3	Royals	.182	.252	.722
4	Orioles	.193	.267	.723
5	Marlins	.195	.261	.747
6	Angels	.195	.256	.762
7	Nationals	.194	.251	.773
8	Rangers	.206	.266	.774
9	Athletics	.196	.252	.778
10	Giants	.194	.248	.782
11	Diamondbacks	.204	.259	.788
12	Padres	.173	.218	.794
13	Pirates	.201	.252	.798
14	Rays	.195	.243	.802
15	Astros	.193	.238	.811
16	Mariners	.196	.239	.820
17	Dodgers	.208	.253	.822
18	White Sox	.210	.255	.824
19	Indians	.212	.257	.825
20	Brewers	.214	.257	.833
21	Yankees	.211	.253	.834
22	Red Sox	.206	.247	.834
23	Tigers	.228	.271	.841
24	Braves	.204	.241	.846
25	Cardinals	.215	.252	.853
26	Twins	.212	.245	.865
27	Reds	.206	.237	.869
28	Mets	.212	.235	.902
29	Phillies	.218	.241	.905
30	Cubs	.212	.233	.910

I didn't know what I'd find when I went into the data. I'd hesitate to make too much of this outcome or call it conclusive. (What of strikeouts? What of walks? What of weak-assed line drives?) But it sure supports the luck-hasn't been-on-our-side notion.

[Edgy MD]

I thought thems was some pretty interesting findings. The Mets are getting fewer hits/line drive than all but two teams.