I thought about the basic concept for this article last night while I was watching the Eagles and the Patriots battle it out for the Super Bowl. The game itself was extremely competitive and I experienced a odd mix of entertainment and excitement while watching the “underdog” Eagles vanquish the “favored” Patriots. I am not a fan of either organization, but I found myself cheering for the Eagles out of a desire to see someone (anyone) finally knock the Patriots from their throne since my favorite team is incapable of doing so.
***A small disclaimer, I am actually a Bills fan which means that I enjoy "torturous fandom" at the highest levels. That would have been an easy guess when coupled with my choice of teams in baseball (Mets), who are equally frustrating to follow most of the time. I am sort of like the folks on that series of TV commercials who “enjoy” odd things, like walking into a glass door or getting an arm trapped in a vending machine, but I digress.
Getting back to the point of the article, what is fascinating is how each of the teams in the Super Bowl last night were perceived before and after the final whistle. Prior to the kick off, the Eagles were viewed as the upstart franchise who needed a miracle to win, due to the loss of their record setting quarterback earlier in the regular season. On the other hand, the Patriots were identified as the reigning dynasty who simply needed to show up on time to win their sixth Lombardi Trophy. Once the Patriots’ final “Hail Mary” pass fell harmlessly to the turf, everything changed! Now, there is “discord” within the Patriots’ locker room, the coach (Bill Belichick) may not return and the “dynasty” may be over! Oh and the Eagles coach (Doug Pederson) is now viewed as one of the brightest new minds in the game and his methods may revolutionize the sport!
To quote the late Harry Caray…..HOLY COW! All of that change took place in approximately four hours, give or take a commercial.
Truthfully, I think this is a microcosm of our current society and how social media has changed things for the better and for the worse. So much information at your fingertips, yet you can go from being the hero to being the goat in a matter of seconds. But hold on, because you can bounce right back to being the hero again in just a few more seconds. It is all very temporary and very confusing, depending upon your perspective and what point in the “curve” you are viewing things.
So, how does this relate to baseball and specifically the Mets?
A long time ago, I read (somewhere) that over the course of the 162 game schedule, each team in the league would win at least 54 games and lose at least 54 games (which comprises two thirds of the overall schedule). However, it is what occurs in the "other" 54 games that separates a bad team from a good one. For example, a regular season record of 90-72 is a pretty decent year and it would put your team in playoff contention more often then not. In order to get to that level, your team would need to go 36-18 in the “other 54 games”, which amounts to winning two our of every three games in the listed set.
I think that this is where the influence of the manager really comes into play. If your manager consistently “pushes the right buttons”, then you should have a better chance at being successful. Conversely, consistently poor baseball decisions would suppress your team’s chances at success. Remember, everyone wins at least 54 games and loses 54 games, but the manager’s influence throughout the year will help to push the remaining 54 games one way or the other.
Take the Houston Astros, for example. They are the defending champions and they earned that title primarily due to the success of the players on the field. They had a regular season record of 101-61, which means that they went a remarkable 47-7 in the “swing games”. Our beloved Mets on the other hand "limped home" with a 70-92 record for the previous season. Their record in the “swing games” was a bit less successful, coming in at an awful 16-38 which is one of the reasons there is a new manager in the dugout.
Well, if AJ Hinch and Terry Collins switched places prior the start of the 2017 season, I don’t think that the teams would have swapped exact results (it still comes down to the talent on the field and their availability). However, do you think Houston wins the World Series in 2017 with TC at the controls? OK, everyone else besides Reese, because I know where his vote will be cast. Or, do you think AJ would have been more successful with the Mets’ lineup then TC was?
Better still, how would you have answered the listed questions if the Mets were coming off their relatively successful 2015 and 2016 campaigns? Did you know that AJ Hinch had a record of 89-123 (.420 winning percentage) with the Arizona Diamondbacks several years before getting a second chance with Houston? Would your feelings be different if that version of AJ Hinch was the basis for our comparison? The listed questions present various points on our “curve” and it illustrates the “what have you done for me lately” concept that was mentioned earlier in this piece.
***Can you tell that I question people for a living?
With all of that said, our interest isn’t so much with the Astros as it is with the Mets. Yes, they were not much fun to watch last year, but they were pretty entertaining the two years before that, right? The team on the field is pretty close to the teams that had some success in previous years (health permitting), so is it really that outlandish to think that they could bounce back and compete for a playoff berth in 2018?
Will Mickey Callaway’s alternate approach be more successful then TC’s methodology? Will MC’s decision making and history of success (with pitchers, at least) translate to a better result in the all important “swing games”?
Clearly, I think that will be the case, or I wouldn’t spend the time to illustrate my views in this particular piece.
The players on the field (talent, execution and availability) will be the biggest factor in 2018, but a manager that consistently make wise decisions and maximizes his roster gives the Mets a better chance to turn things around.
Now all MC has to do is win 36 out of 54 "swing" games, consistently.
5 comments:
Mike -
I think:
1. I have no perceived perception on our new manager since he has never managed before.
2. The reality of our new manager begins in the first week of April.
3. I think Sandy is doing the best he is capable of in supplying our new manager some additional creativity in future lineups,
4. I think, on paper, our pop has returned to last year's levels and defense will be better.
5. And lastly, nothing changes if injuries rear their ugly head again.
My gut? Terry would have won several less Astros games and blown out another arm or two in the process.
I am very hopeful Mickey C will add some (maybe many) more games just by keeping his players healthier.
I have made the point before: Collins used short reliever Paul Sewald for 84 pitches spanning 2 early May games in less than 18 hours...remarkable he did not get hurt. Mickey won't be so cavalier.
Since I am excluded by Mike for this vote, I will merely grant Tom two big thumbs up.
On Dominic Smith or Peter Alonso at first base:
I like Tom Brennan's response he most, both. It really is way too early to tell what they can or will become in MLB. Hanging onto both (at least until mid-2018) does make some sense value wise. I concur.
Which one do I slightly favor? Alonso actually, its that power rip he takes batting. I have seen it before over the years. Getting Keith to work on Peters' fielding and footwork around the bag might work wonders.
But it is too early to tell with Smith and Alonso. Both should be excellent and both should blossom once they reach the majors. Right call Tom!
Pitching Depth:
After some study and scouting report reading, I would not necessarily advocate going outside the organization for another mid-level starter, as I have been reading online.
Firstly, the Mets already have Syndergaard, deGrom, Matz, Harvey, Wheeler, and Lutz to consider. These six and hopefully a six-man rotation now. Maybe this will help to keep all six healthier. Should.
Figure possibly here, two starters out by June 1st (to some extent) makes reasonable sense. Simple math (not Einstein) tells us that the Mets may need three more decent starters to get through the 2018 season in good shape and potentially playoff bound.
For this, I would possibly consider bringing to NYM ST these 4 Mets organizational starters: Left-handed Kyle Regnault (2017/ combined stats with 67 strikeouts in 64 innings/2.78 ERA/1.30 WHIP), right-handed Corey Oswalt (2017/12-5/2.28 ERA/1.18 WHIP), Robert Gsellman, and Rafael Montero. Of these four, I actually like the first two the best for this role in the event of injury to the top six.
We have seen Montero and Gsellman. To me Montero is probably best suited for middle relief, where as Gsellman may have just been off 2017 and needs now only another chance to regain his composure.
But from these above choices, I do think that probably two or maybe even three will see work in 2018. And let them compete for their opportunities, why not.
In addition, I might also bring to ST these two longer-shot left-handers: Left-handed Kelly Seacrest and left-handed Daniel Zamora. Zamora's MiLB stats are kind of incredible looking I felt. I'd like to see how these two adjust to this invite, how they handle things, and then too how they look on the mound facing decent MLB hitting.
If I had a magic wand, what would I wish for regarding these 2018 NY Mets in ST. Firstly, come together as a real tight team under Mickey Callaway. This could be a great and fun year. Secondly, the Mets give every player in camp a fair look in competition for a roster job. It allows for a sort of "unexpected player" to have his chance to be a jump up one, and announce to the world..."Hey, I am here and I am now ready for this challenge. Put me in coach, I am ready to play, today."
I have seen some amazing chances like this realized with these NY Mets over the seasons. This can be a very worthwhile avenue for many to make it big.
What one personnel move caught me the most off guard this off season?
I don't know why, but it has to be the signing of A. Cabrera actually. I kind of thought he made too much of a reaction to having to change positions in 2017. Plus, the Mets are kind of old now starting player wise.
It's interesting here because Wilmer Flores offensive stats (in some categories) are actually better than Cabrera's.
Plus, the team has Cabrera, Flores, Reyes, Guillorme, Reynolds, Cecchini, Mazzilli, Doug Flynn, and Mack Ade, all of which could play second base.
But who knows, Cabrera could have a career year in 2018, and the Mets use the other younger second basemen in trades for other positional players they need.
But it did catch me off guard.
Adrienne Gonzales, not as much as this Cabrera signing. It was the financial aspect of the Gonzales acquisition that made very good sense for here, for what the team needed especially as insurance and PH wise as well.
Post a Comment