Tom Brennan - Older, Detailed Articles on Folly of Playing Yanks in Inter-League Games

 I did an article that published at 8:00 AM today on the above subject.

After It published, I decided to dig up some articles I did over the past 7 years on this very subject, so it adds a factual underpinning to today's opinionated premise - that inter-league games annually against the Yankees is foolhardy for the Mets, even if exciting for some fans.  

Here goes:

Tom Brennan - METS INTER-LEAGUE DISADVANTAGE

(An article written in 2019.)

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 for our Mets 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.

Second Hardest - The Phillies:

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.

Easy - The Braves:

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.

Easiest - The Nats:

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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:

PLEASE FIX THEM.

THANK YOU, BRODIE.

I KNOW YOU WILL.

A 2015 Article Follows:

OWNER GREED VS. FAN INTERESTS - Tom Brennan

So the Yanks beat the Mets.

Again.

44-60, in fact, since interleague play began in 1997, if I have the facts correct. 

As a Mets fan, I do not like it.  But I am far more upset with Mets ownership GREED that, in my view, has put the almighty buck ahead of a Met fan's goal 1: winning pennants.

As an avid Mets fan since 1962, my concern, once they won the World Series in 1969, has been for them to WIN MORE OF THEM. Playoffs at least, and hopefully, win several World Series too. 

And while the Yanks have been in the playoffs and won World Series numerous times since then, it has been bleak for the Mets since 1969: a single World Series win, two Series losses and just a few more early playoff departures in the 46 years since 1969.

So it would seem to me that playing a team (the Yankees) that ever since interleague play began has been arguably baseball's dominant team has the potential of thwarting Mets' runs at multiple playoffs.

It has certainly put the Mets’ playoff hopes in jeopardy in 2015.

When the Mets first played the Yankees this year, they had just tied a franchise high of 11 straight wins and were 13-3. The Mets lost of 2 of 3 and spiraled downward from that point until late July.

The Mets just concluded another 3 game series as they attempted to bury the unexpectedly bad for 2015 Nationals, a dangerous team that had drastically underperformed expectations, while at the same time the Mets have been trying to manage pitchers’ innings limits. 

We all know this weekend’s result. The Mets lost 2 of 3 and saw their lead cut to 6, with 3 games left with that very same Nats team that, like a shark, smells blood in the water, Mets blood, and is riled up, and Mets fans are left wondering if we can make it to shore before the shark catches up to us. And the Nats get to play the weaker Orioles, a clear competitive advantage for them over the Mets.

What if those 6 games were against, say, the 64-86 Athletics? Would the Mets have instead won 4 of 6 & have the playoffs essentially wrapped up?

Why play 6 interleague games a year vs a team in the Yanks that is strong and in contention every....single....year? When all a team has to do to miss the playoffs is....miss the playoffs by one game.

Let's say the Mets do still make the 2015 playoffs. Losing 4 of 6 to a strong Yankee team could cost them playoff home field advantage. Which could be a deciding factor in whether one wins in the playoffs or not.   

I hate the Mets playing the Yanks in interleague play for two reasons:  

1)   impact on playoff contention, and

2)  sand being kicked in the Mets' faces in years when the Yanks were great and the Mets were not. 

The Yankees are an astounding 1811-1249 since interleague play started in 1997.  Why would you want to play 104 games during that time against a team that is 512 games over .500 during that period?

The answer is two-fold: Mets owners love the money from those games, and at the same time they hope and pray that it does not keep them out of the playoffs.  Fingers crossed.  Tightly. 

While it would be in the true fans’ best interests to not be playing the best team in baseball over that time span at all in interleague play, much less 104 times.  How about a little history:

·       In 1997, Major League Baseball scheduled interleague games between the AL and NL for the first time.  The Yankees won 2 of the 3 games.

·       Mike Piazza joined the Mets in 1998; they were eliminated from playoff contention in the last regular game series of the season by Atlanta. The 1998 Champ Yankees won the interleague series 2 games to 1, the first of 3 straight World Series titles for them. So had the Mets played a lousy AL team instead of the world champs, maybe the Mets sweep and make the playoffs that year.

·       1999 resulted in expanded interleague play, and the Mets and Yanks went 3 and 3 in their face-to-face.  Mets made the playoffs but lost.

·       In 2000, the Mets lost the interleague 4-2, and with that backdrop of losing to the Yanks, also lost to them in the World Series.

·       In 2001, the Mets finished 6 behind the Braves. The Yanks won 99, so they remained a formidable opponent.  While the teams split the 6 games, had the Mets faced a weak opponent instead, maybe they win the pennant – they were close enough where perhaps 2 more wins would have swung momentum.

·       In 2002, the Mets finished 26.5 games out. The Yanks won 103. In 2003, the Yanks swept the Mets 6 games to none. But the Mets were terrible, finishing 34.5 games out, so it did not matter, other than giving the Mets' fans a very huge inferiority complex.

·       In 2004, the Mets won 4 of 6, shockingly, against a Yankee team that won 30 more games than they did.  No playoff impact, but a head to head reminder for the 3^rd straight season of Mets’ marked inferiority, no matter how the 6 Yank-Met games came out.

·       In 2005, the much improved Mets finished 7 games out at 83-79. The Yanks won 95 games. The Mets split the 6 games. Perhaps, again, had they played a team that was 14 under .500 instead of 14 over, they win 5 of 6 and are close enough to the Braves to result in a different season outcome. What if, what if.

·       The Mets went into a talent tailspin after a few collapses, and in 2009, finished 23.5 games out – but were only a half game out of first place when they played the mighty Yanks in late June.  The start of free fall.

·       In 2011, when Reyes was electrifying the baseball world and one got the sense they might be able to be put on his shoulders for a run, they lost 4 of 6 to the Yanks, and Reyes got hurt in – what else – the 2^ndYankee series in June.  Jinx?  Whatever, that killed that season’s chances. 

I’ll stop there.  Except to say three things:

1)   The Mets play 4 games against the Yanks in 2016.  Let’s hope that is not 4 too many. Zero to me is a much better number.

2)  I liked the Mayor’s Trophy game better – one game a year, no effect on the standings.

3)  To put fans, and not owners’ pocketbooks, first, baseball should figure its interleague schedule by calculating in such a manner that the collective records of a team’s opponents for the upcoming year is based on those teams’ prior year combined records being as close to .500 as possible – so if the Mets did play 4 against the mighty Yanks, they get several games against teams that had finished under .500 to balance things out.

But maybe you don’t care, and if the Yanks beat them, so what, it was fun watching the games.  Not me.  My focus is on getting to the post-season. Period.  

Let’s hope we make it this year.  Or the Mets' owners will be a lot poorer.