Yesterday, I discussed Mets’ softness, which is what Tommy Pham basically accused them of. See Pham Criticizes Mets if you'd care to.
The factual results bear that out. The softness is real and shows up in high loss rates.
Let’s start in the Met’ “modern era”, which started for me in Gooden’s rookie season 1984, after roughly 10 seasons of Mets impotence starting in the mid-1970s.
So, we’re looking here at a 40 year period.
The Mets always win on opening day…they are tough on day 1, and expect to win. They almost always do.
They still generally do not feel defeated in April.
So, in April over the past 40 years, they’ve won fewer than 40% of their games just twice, and in those years, they averaged .392 ball, barely below .500. Still, based on results, they are very feisty and optimistic. Not soft…yet.
May, the frayed edges start to show a bit more. 5 seasons below .400. Still feisty, but results-wise, perhaps some fading optimism.
June, though? Gravity takes over.
The reality that they are going to have to get really tough to overcome adversity rises…and so does their failure arise as well. ELEVEN seasons under .400 in June, including two of those Junes below a stenchy .270.
July? Hearing the boos and criticism, due to June collapses, and hearing fans yell “same old collapsing Mets”, they push back and have only four July seasons below .400.
With July being a bit like a sinking swimmer summoning his energy and bursting up through the water for another fatigued gasp of breath, August then follows with the struggling Met sinking underwater again. Eleven times just in the past 31 seasons, they have played below.400. “Fight” in August is something they watch on pay-per-view.
September most years, the Mets are largely out of contention and can takea deep breath and relax. The heat if off. The pressure of the pennant and wild card races has escaped them. Thus, they’ve only had 5 Septembers below .400, the last time occurring 14 seasons back in 2009.
Soft teams fold up tents a lot when the going gets tough.
The Mets sadly are one of those soft teams.
Solution?
Need tougher players.
Ones that won’t let one or two losses cascade into an avalanche of losses.
7 comments:
Interesting analysis. Although Pham's criticisms were levied only at a single team (2023 version), you have taken a franchise view and demonstrated its' "collapsibility". Since players come and go every year, this is more of an indictment on the team's leadership than on the players themselves.
But sometimes it takes a player to break the mold. The 1968 and 1969 Mets were driven into a more competitive environment when Tom Seaver stepped into the clubhouse. He brought an attitude where failure was not accepted, and the team latched onto that for a couple years. in 1985/86 a similar effect occurred with the addition of Keith Hernandez and Gary Carter to the clubhouse.
I had hopes that Lindor and Alonso could be the catalyst for the rise of the next wave, but Pham's words said that (some of) the team did not follow their work ethic.
So maybe we need more like those two (certainly not less Petes - hint, hint).
Max should have broken this mold. He didn't. Why? Was he ordered not to lead the charge to the mound
Signing Justin Turner to a backup role could help here.
Paul, I was surprised, but not that much, by what I found when I looked at monthly winning %’s. I knew the Mets had folded up their tents in more than a few Junes and Augusts. Seeing the data confirmed that.
Even in 2015, they were ready to fold when the adrenaline of Cespedes, Johnson, Uribe and Reed bailed them out.
Mack, we need Braveheart on the team to lead the charge.
Talent wins games. Lack of talent whether due to injuries, down years or aging loses games.
Mack,
Carlos Mendoaza has been named manager by the Mets. Thoughts?
He’s taking a nap.
Post a Comment