August 02, 2007
Wrong Things 'bout the Mets
Conventional Wisdom about the Mets sure has been wrong this season. I picked them to win the division based on what looked like a superior offense. I was criticized for that pick. People told me the pitching wasn't going to be good enough. However, the pitching has been much better than people (or I) thought and the offense not quite up to snuff.
The other day, someone left this comment:
The offense, to put it mildly, is nothing special. Wright's the team's best hitter, and he's putting up a .888 OPS, nice but not brilliant. Beltran is having one of his allright-but-not-fantastic years, which are far more common than his great years (career OPS .845). Delgado is aging and showing it at .760, and Reyes is overrrated at .831. The rest of the team isn't hitting much. Their new addition, Castillo, brings a nifty .704 OPS.
Of course, the Mets won the last two game 8-5 and 12-4. That seems like a pretty good offense to me. Yes, it's two games in Milwaukee, but to think this team isn't capable of scoring is mistaken. It could be they're just coming out of a season long slump. They banged out eighteen hits today, nine for extra bases. I'll make no more predictions about the team from Queens for the rest of the season.
Yeah, maybe I missed it, but folks like Interested Observer have been pretty quiet on that front. It's doubly amusing because so many thought the Phils had put together such a great staff. Hmmm, how's that working out for them?
It's not exactly the way any body thought the NL East would shake out, is it? I often wonder what the Phillies record would be if Garcia wasn't hurt, Myers wasn't hurt, Gordon wasn't hurt, Utley wasn't hurt, Howard wasn't hurt, Victorino, Bourn... All of these players went to or are on the DL. Who knows, maybe it wouldn't be a better record, but you have to think it would be.
They have had their share of injuries, but it's not like the Mets have been 100% healthy. Also, the Phils got off to a terrible start, and that was before all the injury woes started to develop.
I'm "someone", and you can use my name. Just spell it right (wink).
Any team can look great for a couple games. But the Mets remain seventh in the league in runs scored per game, which is okay considering their ballpark but hardly overwhelming. If we're going to judge by the last few games, Atlanta has the greatest offense since the '27 Yankees. (Which they don't, though their offense is significantly better then the Mets', especially with Teixeira. The Braves are second in the league in runs scored per game, behind only the park-aided Phils.)
New York's +47 run diff remains less than imposing. It's about the same as the run diffs for the Phils and Braves. Can the Mets win the division? Sure. They've lucked into a slim lead, after all. (The three top teams in the NL East "should" be virtually tied, based on run diff.)
Are the Mets any kind of overwhelming favorite for the division? No way. But in a league with no great or even very good teams - the Cubs lead the NL with a not-awesome +59 run diff - a lot of clubs can get to the postseason.
Just noticed the Mets' record in one-run games: 14-6. Talk about Lady Luck smiling on you! Okay, I'll admit some of that luck has been Wagner, who's been brilliant. But the Mets have also enjoyed the good fortune of their rivals' poor records in one-run games: a horrendously unlucky 6-17 for the Phils, and a less than fortunate 12-16 for the Braves.
A few runs here and there...
1. Shea has been brutal on hitters this season. The Mets offense is much stronger than it appears.
2. The Mets' defense has been tremendous (look at their DER). That plus Shea means the pitching has been much weaker than it appears.
Okay, Shea has been brutal on hitters. That goes for both teams. Which means a truly superior team should have racked up a big run diff because of their better pitching staff. David Pinto says the Mets' pitching has been much better than people (including himself) thought.
But somehow, the truly superior Mets with that much better pitching staff have a run diff no better than their pursuers, and not one to write home about under any circumstances.
Come on. What the Mets really do have is spectacular luck in one-run games compared to the Phils and Braves. In the parity league, that may be all you need to get to the postseason.
By the way, the two indexes on baseball-reference.com do rate Shea as a pitcher's park this year, but not "brutally" so. The indexes are 95 and 96 (100 is neutral - the further below 100, the more the park favors the pitchers).
By contrast, PETCO is 93 and 94. Now that's getting into the brutal range, though it's actually a little more hitter-friendly than, say, 2005 when the park rated at 90 and 91. That's downright savage to the batsmen.
Winning one run games is 100% luck?
No, but winning 70% of one-run games while your closest pursuer is winning 24% is really good luck. If the Mets play the lottery, I want part of the action.
Halway seriously, luck affects one-run games much more severely because a single break can change the outcome. The Mets really have been fortunate.
I was a little unfair to the Phils. They've actually won 26% of their one-run games. Incidentally, the Mets' backup catcher just put the team ahead 1-0 in the sixth.
Castro is having an outlandish year, by the way. His 2007 OPS is about 200 points higher than his career number.
And now Zambrano is leaving the game with an injury. I want the Mets' lottery pick!
Yeah, it's nothing but luck for this franchise.