Tom Brennan - METS HOME FIELD DISADVANTAGE
I often wonder if the Met have a home field disadvantage.
And if so, what the reasons for it are.
The old adage is to win a pennant, you should win 2/3 of your games at home, half on the road. Based on that, you'd go 54-27 at home, 41-40 on the road, and end up at 95-67. Good enough to win the pennant most of the time.
Well, in the 2011-17 stretch of nearly 7 full seasons, the Mets are in fact playing .500 ball on the road - 272 wins and 273 losses through Sunday, August 20.
Mission accomplished on the road.
So are they winning 2/3 of their home games? Hardly.
In fact, from 2011-17, they are a starling 23 games under .500 at home, at 263-286.
Winning two thirds of 489 home games would result in 326 wins, or 63 more wins than the Mets have accomplished, or roughly 10 wins short at home every season and 10 extra losses.
That, for those not mathematically inclined, is the difference between an 80-82 team and a 90-72 team. Big difference.
How about the Yanks over the same period?
If you asked yourself, "Do the Yanks have a home field advantage?", you would immediately answer "Absolutely" - and you would be absolutely right.
The Mets over the past 7 years on the road are 272-273; the Yanks a nearly identical 278-274.
At home, the Mets are 263-286 (.479), while the Yanks are a vastly superior 320-223 (.589).
I am not a statistician, but the comparative home vs. road differences of the two teams are EXTREMELY statistically significant. Not just a series of events that cumulatively one can explain away. Playing at Citifield is a Mets disadvantage.
It's, I postulate, why the Mets infrequently make the playoffs.
My guess is that the Mets home vs. away differential over those 7 years is the worst in all of baseball.
Disadvantage indeed.
So this is your chance.
I am asking you, the avid and highly concerned Mets reader, to think about this, and offer thoughts as why the Mets have a severe home field disadvantage over such a length of time and share it in response to this article.
4 comments:
They moved in the fences while their pitching staff went the way of a trailer park in a tornado?
Maybe too many of the Mets follow the after hours lifestyle of the Dark Knight of Gotham...after all, aside from Las Vegas and New Orleans (ironically the two last AAA franchises of the Mets) what other city offers so many forms of debauchery?
I think Yankee stadium has its great historical lore, which leads their players AND fans feeling invincible at home. There is thus less pressure on their players. John Sterling exudes the swagger when good things happen, which makes the fans feel theirs is America's team and THE team to root for. Also, some offensive players may lack the inner confidence to succeed hugely. Yanks players seem to have more professional swagger. Bad judgment on some player moves like Murphy did not help.
Yanks believe they'll win and dominate at home, while Mets enjoy being out of the spotlight on the road.
Just some ideas.
Hobie, I have an eye opening follow up tomorrow including homers.
Post a Comment