 |
| The Mayhem Guy loves the MLB playoffs |
All I kept hearing and reading, over and over again, was that the Mets were too timid at the trading deadline. They were a win-now team who should have gone all-in, even if it required parting with one or more of their top prospects to secure the players they needed to push them over the top. This was only amplified louder when the Mets played so poorly in Atlanta and lost the division, then fell rather meekly in their wildcard series against the Padres.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it's hard to imagine any level of aggression that could have netted the Mets a stronger roster than the Braves or Dodgers, yet we watched both of those clubs get swept out of the playoffs. Both fell to division opponents who they had handled fairly easily in the regular season. Both were heavily favored heading into their NLDS series, yet managed only a single win. Meanwhile, in the AL, while the Astros swept their series against the Mariners, the Yankees will have to stave off elimination for the second time tonight, if they hope to beat the lowly Guardians.
I've been watching baseball for over five decades. While it's unusual to see so many underdogs prevail, it's not shocking at all to see better teams go home while markedly inferior teams move on. It happens year in and year out. It's why the Yankees are in the playoffs every year, but haven't been in the World Series since 2009. It's why the Dodgers have only one World Series win despite dominating the NL for the last half-dozen years.
The truth of the matter is that a playoff tournament is a ridiculously unfair way of deciding the champion of a sport where teams play almost every day for 6 months just to get there. Yet we happily accept this blatant inequity for the compelling drama it produces. As a fan, you will curse the format when your team succumbs to it. But let them win the damn thing just once, and you'll have memories that you can cherish for the rest of your life.
I always smile to myself when sportswriters are compelled to write long pieces that see some sort of inevitability after the fact when one team eliminates another. Tom Verducci had an excellent example of the genre on SI.com today: "Padres Expose Dodgers' Flaws, Bullpen Mismanagement in Stunning Series Upset." Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent piece by one of the finest baseball writers in existence. But this piece would have never been written if the Dodgers had been gifted with a few more breaks and the Padres were the team going home for the winter. After all, LA managed to overcome said flaws a mere 111 times during the season.
As teams continue to be eliminated and the 2022 playoffs wind down to a conclusion, I could pretty much guarantee you that some more fine writers will be more than willing, after the fact, to share with you why the winner's push to a championship was the inevitable result of whatever precursor the writer chooses. I've read some version of this hundreds, if not thousands of times, in my decades of MLB fandom. I'm not criticizing, however. These guys don't get paid to not draw conclusions. I've just learned to take it all with a grain of salt and the realization that the truth is inevitably more nuanced and complicated than whatever becomes the post-mortem narrative after the fact.
I've come to believe that the greatest truth about winning a World Series championship is the simplest: a team has to be both very good and very lucky. Those 1986 Mets always seemed to be on the brink of elimination against both the Astros and Red Sox, but a combination of grit and luck got them to the Promised Land. The 1988 Mets were possibly the most complete top-to-bottom Mets club that I ever rooted for, yet they couldn't make it past an inferior Dodgers team to get to another World Series.
The failures of the Dodgers in the playoffs during their great run of dominance has become a topic of endless discussion in the baseball media. Some of it is interesting and compelling, like Verducci's article. Sometimes it is hopelessly simplistic and even way off base. But I just keep coming back to the "good and lucky" principle.
To finish reading this article on Mike's Mets, please click here.
8 comments:
Mike, records in the regular season don't mean as much as health when the playoffs start. Bryce Harper is healthy and 10 for 23 with 3 doubles, 3 HRs, and 2 walks, after his missing much of the year suppressed the Phillies' win total.
Meanwhile, the Mets may have won 101 games, but Max physically faltered late, and Marte finally returned but was at what, 50%?
Comparing those 2 teams, taking into consideration health, the Phillies were probably the better team when the REAL season started for the reasons stated.
Mike,
As always an excellent article.I would like to see the Mets bring in as many young prospects as we trade away. As you noted, we traded young prospects each time we traded for a veteran player. In none of those mentioned trades did we get any prospects back.
I've always been an advocate of developing talent within and selectively trading to build a winning franchise.
Let's see...Alonso is homegrown. McNeil is homegrown. deGrom is homegrown. Nimmo is homegrown. Lugo is homegrown. That's less than 20% of the roster. There are others in minor roles like Nido and Guillorme, but I'm talking about the key players. The Mets really do need to improve their minor league construction, development and promotion activities. Along with that, they need to do a much better job of keeping people healthy as they advance.
I agree with Tom that health was a factor for the Mets in the playoffs. But I still believe that short series have provided plenty of upsets. IMO, it's a better strategy to reach the playoffs multiple times than to go all in on one trip.
DJ, they're probably not going to be in position to trade for prospects unless a season goes very wrong. That's why I believe dramatically improving development and being more creative in finding players will be the key to any sustainability.
Rds900 Agree. I never favor hoarding prospects, just developing enough for all needs.
Reese, I think they've actually been doing a much better job in recent years in keeping players healthier - especially compared to the constant fiascos from several years ago. Still, as with pretty much everything, there's definitely room for improvement
Mike, as long as Atlanta is in our division, I kind of agree. If the Mets don't lead by much, or trail by much, it is hard to not avoid the chase for the division, but that push failed and we went to the Wild Card anyway, but warn out instead of well-rested.
Mike, I completely agree with your view of the format. People only get upset when their team loses. Then it becomes the format's fault. I don't think the format is flawless, but blaming it for your team losing is merely an excuse. There are too many teams in the playoffs to begin with. Reverting to the 10 team playoff seems more fair to me. One other improvement I would like to see is somehow limiting the layoff for the teams that get the bye. 5-7 days off after playing for 6 months straight is bound to mess with the rhythm of a team. Another minor tweak would be making the DS 7 games instead of 5. Putting teams into a best of 5 after playing 162 to get there is insanity. Any team can win a best of 5 against any other team regardless of playoff status. The Mets were swept by the Cubs! The Dodgers were swept by Pirates! A best of 7 series would make it more fair for everyone. Both a test of star power and depth. Don't even get me started on the travel days/off days schedule between playoff games. Manfred blamed the lockout. Is he really telling us it was impossible to add an extra double header or two on everyones schedule? Playoffs should not be sacrificed for regular season games. Finally, I think it is time to go back to a 154 game season. It adds meaning to each regular season game and 162 is just unnecessary to determine who the best teams are.
Great post, Mike! There are many good points, but the most pertinent is that you need skill AND luck. It is humbling to be so good and lose so fast, but that is playoff baseball. I never felt like the Mets could get on a September roll and knew they needed it. Interesting that the Phillies' roll started very late - they did not have much of a September.
The moral of your story is just perfect. Make the team good all the time by having strong player development and a solid pipeline. Then when it's "your time", the team will bring home the gold. I think that is the vision of the Mets, and I hope that they can execute. As you saw in the Ruf deal, even the front office needs to be lucky sometimes.
Post a Comment