RVH - Part 1: How Bad are the Mets

 

The Mets are 18–25.

That is the only record that counts. No one gets standings credit for context. No one gets a playoff spot because the roster was banged up, the rotation was unsettled, or the expected record looked better than the actual record.

But if the goal is to understand what this team really is, not just react emotionally to what it has looked like, context matters.

And the context says something important.

The Mets have not simply been bad. They have also leaked wins.

Through 43 games, the Mets are 18–25. Based on runs scored and runs allowed, using the standard MLB Pythagorean formula, their expected record is closer to 20–23. More precisely, the weekly model puts them around 20.4–22.6.

That does not make them good. But it does suggest they have left roughly two wins on the table through sequencing failures, close-game losses, bullpen leakage, and inconsistent execution.

That distinction matters more than it may seem.

At 18–25, the Mets look buried. In the current National League Wild Card picture, they sit seven games back. That sounds like a team fading toward irrelevance before Memorial Day.

But at roughly 20–23, the Mets would look very different. They still would not look good. But they would be much closer to the crowded middle of the Wild Card race, near the cluster of National League teams hovering around 20 or 21 wins.

That is not contention in the strong sense.

It is survival.

It is relevance.

It is staying close enough for health, regression, and reinforcements to matter.

That is the real cost of the leaked wins. The difference between 18–25 and 20–23 is not cosmetic. It is the difference between feeling buried and still feeling within striking distance.

The weekly breakdown helps tell the story:

Week	W-L	RS	RA	RDiff	RS/G	RA/G	Weekly Expected	Cumulative Expected
Wk 1	2–1	22	15	+7	7.33	5.00	2.0–1.0	2.0–1.0
Wk 2	4–3	38	24	+14	5.43	3.43	4.9–2.1	6.9–3.1
Wk 3	1–5	14	28	-14	2.33	4.67	1.3–4.7	8.8–7.2
Wk 4	0–6	11	35	-24	1.83	5.83	0.6–5.4	9.2–12.8
Wk 5	2–4	18	22	-4	3.00	3.67	2.4–3.6	11.6–16.4
Wk 6	3–3	25	24	+1	4.17	4.00	3.1–2.9	14.7–19.3
Wk 7	3–3	22	26	-4	3.67	4.33	2.6–3.4	17.2–22.8
Wk 8	3–0	22	8	+14	7.33	2.67	2.6–0.4	20.4–22.6
Total	18–25	172	182	-10	4.00	4.23	—	20.4–22.6

The obvious disaster came during Weeks 3 and 4. That was the April collapse. Across those two weeks, the Mets scored 25 runs and allowed 63.

That was not bad luck. That was poor baseball.

The expected record during those two weeks was almost identical to the actual collapse.

But outside that stretch, the picture becomes more layered.

Week 2 was probably the first major missed opportunity. The Mets went 4–3, but their run differential suggested something closer to a dominant 5–2 week. They scored 38 runs and allowed only 24. That was one of the strongest underlying stretches of the season.

The inability to fully convert that into wins may have quietly set the tone for the weeks that followed.

Then came the recent stabilization.

Weeks 6 and 7 were important because the Mets played almost exactly to their underlying numbers. They went 6–6 while their expected record over that period was roughly 5.7–6.3. That suggested the chaotic variance of April might finally be fading.

Week 8 took that one step further.

The Detroit sweep was not just three wins. It was three wins backed by the scoreboard underneath the scoreboard. The Mets scored 22 runs and allowed only 8. They averaged 7.33 runs per game, matching their Week 1 offensive peak, but this time paired it with elite run prevention at 2.67 runs allowed per game.

That is the first truly balanced week of the season.

Before the sweep, the Mets looked like a team trying to stop the bleeding. After the sweep, they look at least temporarily like a team that may have found a foothold.

The last three weeks now matter. Across Weeks 6, 7, and 8, the Mets are 9–6 with a +11 run differential. That does not erase the April collapse. It does not make the full-season record acceptable. But it does begin to shrink the distortion created by the winless Week 4 road trip.

That can be interpreted two ways.

The optimistic interpretation is that the Mets stopped the bleeding and are beginning to stabilize.

The harsher interpretation is that they merely beat up on Detroit at the right time and still remain well below where they need to be.

Both can be true.

The Mets are still in trouble. An 18–25 record is not a rounding error. They dug a real hole. They do not get to explain away April.

But the Pythagorean view helps clarify the hole. This is not a team with no pulse. It is a team that played terribly for two weeks, leaked several winnable games around that collapse, and has recently started to perform more like a competitive baseball team.

That is why the next few weeks matter so much.

The standings say the Mets are in trouble.

The Pythagorean record says they have underperformed.

The Wild Card picture says the gap between buried and relevant is only a few wins.

And the Detroit sweep says there may finally be some stabilization.

That does not guarantee recovery.

But it does suggest the story of the 2026 Mets may not yet be fully written.

The Mets may still be bad.

But after Week 8, we may finally be getting closer to learning whether they are broken, or whether they have simply been late to stabilize.