The Mets are 23-22 since Andy Green took over as interim manager; 17-12 since the All Star Break; and 11-3 since the Trade Deadline. It looks like they have only improved since losing their manager, the bulk of their best unit (the bullpen), not to mention their very best player.
What in the world are we to make of that?
Here are a few thoughts, reasonably well supported by the evidence.
* Their previous manager was not yet up to the job. Would they have made the playoffs last year and been more competitive without his returning this year? Probably. He didn't pull the right levers; wasn't able to stop the bleeding, oversaw a lot of listless play and watched stoically from the dugout steps while his team looked disposed to accept losing.
To be perfectly honest, Mendoza was not additive and the team performed as considerably less than the sum of its parts under his leadership.
I don't believe that the job was too big for him.
He's certainly capable.
He just wasn't ready for it.
Still, his departure, which was warranted long before it occurred does not explain their sudden success. To think otherwise is simply to commit the fallacy of 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' which roughly translates as 'after this (temporally), then because of this.'
Mendoza was manager, the Mets lost miserably; Mendoza gets relieved of his duty, they no longer suck. In fact they win and are fun to watch. So he's the problem.
Nah. He didn't help and probably hurt, but his absence is not the cause of the Mets' recent success.
* Maybe trading the entire bullpen somehow brought the team together to play genuinely inspired and inspiring baseball
That would be one hell of a case of addition by subtraction: Lose the best in order to be the best.
That's even less plausible than explaining their sudden success by the loss of Soto, which is just about as plausible as attributing it to the return of Polanco.
* Was it Andy Green's taking over the job as interim manager? Not entirely, but it would be foolish to underestimate his contribution. He's proven to be a quiet but firm leader, who is very supportive of his players in an entirely authentic way.
He doesn't call attention to himself so it is easy to lose track of the number of small but meaningful steps he's taken as a manger that have increased stability and redefined roles.
* He puts out a relatively consistent and predictable lineup every night and where he has been most amazing is his ability to handle the bullpen that has been given to him; indeed, he has handled the entire pitching staff masterfully.
No move bigger than moving Senga to a high leverage reliever role and then showing faith in him.
* He has rewarded Young and made him the regular 1B and Young has rewarded Green for his decision.
The best part is that both of them have done this without calling attention to it.
Green has taken the Mets from a soap opera to a team without drama.
* He has stuck with Ewing during an extended slump.
* He has featured Torrens as much as Alvarez if not more, and for the reason that the pitching staff performs better with Torrens behind the plate than with Alvarez.
In that way he has let Torrens' performance be Alvarez's teacher.
He's got a pretty big tool set, and he fits the tool to the need awfully well.
And
Under Green the Mets are winning in ways that they are designed to win in. They are getting excellent pitching overall, and while they don't play flawless defense, they have had their share of brilliant defensive play -- especially from Batman Benge and Robin Ewing.
And they are getting timely hitting from Bichette and Lindor as well as solid all around play from Young and Torrens. And they are feeling the spark of youth and the calm of veterans. When they take the field they look like they are looking forward to playing the game.
They are playing with joy and as a team.
I don't see how this would have happened this year, under these conditions, without Andy Green.
But
While the Amazins are great fun to experience as a fan, it is highly unlikely that they will be playing meaningful ball come September, let alone October.
This year is all about next year, the next step. If there is baseball at all, this upcoming year means everyhting to the Mets -- and their fans
It is important that this year ends on a high note, but if it does, it raises the stakes for next year, as the only success that matters at this point is success that builds more success.
The 2024 success was followed by a regression that was not only unexpected and disheartening, but also one that revealed a FO that did not understand its significance or how to respond to it; and it turned a fanbase desperate to Believe, into an ever more hardened group conditioned to expect disappointment.
Next year is not just a bridge year to the next wave of players heading to Queens shortly thereafter.
It is the year that must set the stage and the standard for all those players who will be bringing their games, dreams and aspirations to Citi Field from 2028 on.
The goal of next year is to make ascension to the tier of the very best teams in baseball both inevitable and imminent.
So what do the Mets need to do between now and OD next year to prepare for the most important year of Cohen era?
Build confidence in their ability to build on this latest period of success.
First and foremost that means following up this success with more of the same until the season ends.
It also means challenging the players at the limits of what they feel they are capable of.
No one eases into excellence.
And no one who achieves excellence does so without learning how to overcome failures: slumps, errors, poor decisions on the bases, throwing the wrong pitch at the wrong time and so on. Achieving excellence requires extending oneself and forgiving oneself when one falls short.
The manager's job is to create the environment in which this happens safely and is appropriately addressed and in which everyone moves on:
An environment in which failures are opportunities to learn
And one in which they are.
Green has brought a leadership skill to the dugout that we have to take advantage of at least through the end of the season.
He has been the paradigm of what it really means to be a player's manager: not a friend or a guy you love or would die for (all words really) but someone you trust, who shows his faith in you and your ability and puts you in the best position to succeed, and gives you a good kick in the ass when you are too hard on yourself and an even harder kick when you too easily let yourself off the hook without learning from your mistake
Like every Mets fan I have views about various aspects of the winning formula -- especially filling the talent gaps that remain.
So let me begin there.
* This is not the time to take risks on oft injured players. Injuries are inevitable, but you can't build a roster based on the expectation that the future won't resemble the past.
No Robert; and if Polanco doesn't mend and perform to expectations, you simply cannot afford to keep him.
** The pitching staff is not currently built for the playoffs. Heck, they are a pitcher or two short of being built to get to the playoffs.
I've made it clear that I believe that the anchor of every good team is the starting staff and the back of the bullpen. No experiments at this point when it comes to either.
*** The Mets have to find an ACE that can anchor the team for the next 3 or 4 years (which probably means a contract length that doubles that number of years, somewhere between 6-7 years at the least). Maybe the answer is Skubal. At the very least, he's as close to the answer as we can get our hands on now.
**** Scott and McLean have to pitch 7 innings as often as they pitch 5, maybe more often.
***** Manaea is a reliable back of the rotation starter as may be Thornton. I'd like to see another veteran righthander who is middle of the rotation as his baseline
I don't fully believe in Williams as a closer in part because I don't really believe in having one closer, unless his name is Mariano Rivera. I'd like two pitchers who are comfortable and excellent in that role and a third who can do it in a pinch.
The Mets actually had that with Williams and Weaver and either Minter, Raley or Brazoban in a pinch, but we didn't use them in that way. Sure, they used someone other than Williams when he was unavailable to close a game. But that's not what I mean by having two closers. I believe that the choice of closer does not depend primarily on the availability of the presumptive closer, but should be determined by the situation.
Whose coming up to hit, lefties, righties, fastball hitters, etc. Fit the closer to the moment.
Sensible use of a bullpen has been undermined by the way relievers are paid.
When it comes to the position players I have a few points to make.
* Take a look at how the team is winning now: speed, putting pressure on the defense; timely and consistent hitting from Bichette, Benge and Young. Until about two weeks ago, I predicted that Bichette would stick around for the second year of his contract. I had mixed feelings about that likelihood. Not anymore.
I can't speak for you, but at this point, I would genuinely miss him in the lineup and at 3B if he opted out.
I'll be damned.
Add Lindor's timely hitting of late and Soto's return and the line-up stretches in just the way the team is built for.
** But what we don't have is a legitimate power threat. You gotta be able to score a certain percentage of your runs in bunches and through HRs.
*** We also have a couple of black holes in the lineup: at 2B and in our projected DH. That is not going to cut it. We have to be ruthless in getting more out of 2B and DH.
**** Injuries happen; you have to pay for insurance in the form of back up players.
Insurance can be costly, but it is invariable less costly than failure to be ready to respond to a setback.
No roster spot should be filled by an afterthought.
Every player on the team has to be someone who you would be comfortable playing for 2 weeks straight if you had to.
In a nutshell
The goal is not to put together a roster as if we were solving a puzzle. We are building an edifice. No weak links.
Not every wall is a weight bearing wall, but every wall has to capable of bearing the weight assigned to it.
