Tom Brennan - METS INTER-LEAGUE DISADVANTAGE
The Mets expect to be in a dog fight to get to the playoffs.
One would hope for fairness in inter-league scheduled games.
Once again, inter-league play begins, this time against the Twins in early April.
And once again, in my opinion, laid out logically below, the Mets screw themselves with a harder-than-division-opponents' inter-league schedule, making it relatively harder to reach the playoffs.
And once again, in my opinion, laid out logically below, the Mets screw themselves with a harder-than-division-opponents' inter-league schedule, making it relatively harder to reach the playoffs.
But you be the judge. You're smarter than I am.
See if you agree with my calculations and conclusions below.
I will add my comments as to opponent quality going into the season - a "1" being a playoff-caliber opponent, a "2" being a wild card contender, a "3" being mediocre, and a 4" being bad.
So, the lower the number, the tougher the inter-league schedule - let me analyze the intra-league schedules of the four teams vying for the NL East title, going from hardest to easiest:
Hardest - The NY Mets:
4 against Minnesota: "2" X 4 = 8
3 against Cleveland: "1" X 3 = 3
3 against Detroit: "3" X 4 = 12
4 against the Yanks: "1" X 4 = 4
3 vs. the White Sox: "4" X 3 = 12
3 against the Royals: "4" X 3 = 12
Total score: 51. Divided by 20 games, average score is 2.55.
3 against Minnesota: "2" X 3 = 6
3 against Cleveland: "1" X 3 = 3
4 against Detroit: "3" X 5 = 15
3 against the Royals: "4" X 3 = 12
4 vs. the Red Sox : "1" X 4 = 4
3 against White Sox: "4" X 3 = 12
Total score: 52. Divided by 20 games, average score is 2.60.
3 against Minnesota: "2" X 3 = 6
3 against Cleveland: "1" X 3 = 3
3 against Detroit: "3" X 3 = 9
4 against the Royals: "4" X 4 = 16
4 vs. Toronto : "4" X 4 = 16
3 against the White Sox: "4" X 3 = 12
Total score: 62. Divided by 20 games, average score is 3.10.
3 against Minnesota: "2" X 3 = 6
3 against Cleveland: "1" X 3 = 3
3 against Detroit: "3" X 4 = 12
4 against the O's: "4" X 4 = 16
4 vs. the White Sox: "4" X 4 = 16
3 against the Royals: "4" X 3 = 12
Total score: 65. Divided by 20 games, average score is 3.25.
Perhaps my tortured calculation method is unclear: let me give a simple example.
If you as a team play 4 games, 1 against a "1" rated team, one against a "2", one against a "3", and one against a "4", the average score for those 4 games is 2.50.
That is essentially an average score, 2.50.
So the Mets' 20 inter-league games, at a calculated difficulty score of 2.55, are essentially against a collectively average group of opponents.
I'll guess that one could expect the Mets ought to go 11-9 against those.
The same goes for the Phillies, who have (at 2.60) almost the same exact calculated average score as the Mets...let's say they go 11-9 in their inter-league games too.
I'll guess that one could expect the Mets ought to go 11-9 against those.
The same goes for the Phillies, who have (at 2.60) almost the same exact calculated average score as the Mets...let's say they go 11-9 in their inter-league games too.
But the Nationals and Braves have relatively favorable inter-league schedules. Putting the Mets, as i see it, at a competitive disavantage.
For the Braves, I have calculated a 3.10 factor, which means they are playing a collectively below average group in their 20 intra-league games. So let's say they go 13-7.
The Nationals, with a 3.25 score, are playing a collectively significantly worse than average inter-league contingent.
As a "4" rating is a 100 loss team, essentially; and a "3" rating essentially applies to an opponent who will win 75 games, I see no reason to think the Nats won't go at least 14-6 against its intra-league opponents.
As a "4" rating is a 100 loss team, essentially; and a "3" rating essentially applies to an opponent who will win 75 games, I see no reason to think the Nats won't go at least 14-6 against its intra-league opponents.
Every year, it is the same nonsense:
The Mets draw a tougher overall inter-league schedule than division rivals.
Let's say my calculations are correct - major league baseball is essentially giving the Nats a 3 game lead in the foot race that spans the other 142 games against NL opponents.
I'd imagine if you asked Vegas bookies, and I'm not a betting person, so I'm guessing a bit here: if you gave one of two equally matched baseball teams over the other before playing 142 games against NL teams, what would be the odds that the team favored by 3 games would win the division, Vegas bookies would probably say 60% odds for the favored team, 40% for the team not favored.
That is where the Mets find themselves this year and, really, almost every year: with an unfavorable inter-league schedule as opposed to their peers.
Which, frankly, is insanity for a team that wants to win.
Which, frankly, is insanity for a team that wants to win.
The Mets should insist that it get easier than average inter-league schedules for a change for a few years - if that means the Mets play NO intra-league games against the big box office Yankees, so be it.
Why? I want to get to the post-season, not get to see the Mets play the Yankees in mid-season.
Put another way, look at the Nats' inter-league schedule and the Mets' schedule - and forget about current things like the Yankees' recent injuries - think what each major league team's outlook for 2019 was when the powers that be made up the 2019 MLB schedules.
Which schedule would you and I want the Mets to have? I'd take the Nats' inter-league schedule and give them the one the Mets got. Because in my view it would give the Mets a clear edge in winning the division title.
Brodie, I hope you see this - and do something about it for 2020.
I will repeat: the Mets always seem to have a very tough inter-league schedule, and historically lose a lot of those games, making it HARD to get into the post-season.
You don't believe me?
Audit the past inter-league win-loss results yourself, fellas.
Don't make me do all the work here.
Between this issue, and my other gnawing issue - the poor Citifield hitting environment that results in poor Mets' win-loss results over time at home (the subject of other earlier articles I've written), it is frankly a wonder that the Mets EVER get to the post-season.
In the most recent article I did on the lack of a Mets home field advantage, I noted that the Mets over the past 7 seasons won just ONE more game at home than on the road, while (for comparison purposes) the Orioles won 65 more at home than on the road. Just a fluke, I know.
In the most recent article I did on the lack of a Mets home field advantage, I noted that the Mets over the past 7 seasons won just ONE more game at home than on the road, while (for comparison purposes) the Orioles won 65 more at home than on the road. Just a fluke, I know.
As a fan, though, seriously, these two issues really tick me off.
Both factors (inter-league schedule and Citifield hitting environment) lead to a Mets' competitive disadvantage. So:
Both factors (inter-league schedule and Citifield hitting environment) lead to a Mets' competitive disadvantage. So:
PLEASE FIX THEM.
THANK YOU, BRODIE.
I KNOW YOU WILL.
9 comments:
Not to contradict the valid points in my article, the way the Mets are hitting this year, their opponents are the ones at a disadvantage. All of their opponents. Good to see Zach on track, too.
Tom -
See, I was never afraid of the quality of my competition.
I know the road to the playoffs is through the what seems like 1000 of games we have to play the Nats, the Braves, and the Phillies.
The good news is the fact that they have to the same thing.
You won't see a "balanced" (i.e. same competition for all within division) until there is expansion to 32 teams.
Mathematically impossible with odd-team leagues.
As long as there is inter league play, there can be no fairness. Each team has a presumed natural rival. Unfortunately, for the Mets, theirs is the ever relevant Yankees while the Nats get the OS.
Beyond this is the manner in which th wild card is determined. This year we get the advantage of playing against the chronically weak AL Central teams and the NL Central teams have the misfortune of
Being scheduled against the unusually strong AL West
Fixing this imbalance of opportunity is way above Brodie's pay scale and can only be rectified with the long overdue elimination of regular season inter l league play.
As long as there is inter league play, there can be no fairness. Each team has a presumed natural rival. Unfortunately, for the Mets, theirs is the ever relevant Yankees while the Nats get the OS.
Beyond this is the manner in which th wild card is determined. This year we get the advantage of playing against the chronically weak AL Central teams and the NL Central teams have the misfortune of
Being scheduled against the unusually strong AL West
Fixing this imbalance of opportunity is way above Brodie's pay scale and can only be rectified with the long overdue elimination of regular season inter l league play.
Hobie
Explain
Charlie
You are spot on
Charlie - thanks for your thoughts.
I hear what you are saying, but I would just like MLB to keep tabs of final season records of MLB teams - if the Mets end up with a 100 wins Yank team from prior year in their mix, they get other teams that collectively average as close to .500 as possible. There has to be some way to do that.
Nats get lousy Orioles instead of Yanks for 4 games, they also get 16 other games with teams that bring the aggregate weighted record of those opponents from 2018 at around .500.
It can happen to be skewed some years - for the Mets, it is skewed in their disfavor every year (maybe not in 2019, though, if Yanks stay very banged up)
Hobie, all I want is "Fair and Balanced."
Now, let's kick some Braves butt tonight.
Post a Comment