In Part 1, we argued that the Mets do not have an ambition problem. They have an execution problem.
In Part 2, we examined how slow starts create a pressure-amplification cycle that makes every season feel harder than it needs to be.
In Part 3, we explored how the Yankees learned to carry pressure through decades of accumulated trust, stability, and organizational consistency.
That naturally raises another question:
Where does that stability come from?
Because stability isn't a slogan.
It's not culture.
It's not a mission statement hanging on a wall.
Real stability comes from an organization's ability to keep producing results even when things go wrong.
No organization has demonstrated that better over the last thirty years than the Atlanta Braves.
The Braves Are Not Really Selling Talent
When people discuss the Braves, they usually start with the stars.
Greg Maddux.
Tom Glavine.
John Smoltz.
Then Chipper Jones.
Then Freddie Freeman.
Then Ronald Acuña Jr.
Then Spencer Strider.
Then the next wave.
And the next.
And the next.
The stars change.
The organization doesn't.
That's the story.
The Braves aren't really selling talent.
They're selling predictability.
Year after year, decade after decade, they continue finding ways to remain relevant.
Not because they never lose players.
Because they consistently replace them.
The Real Product Is Replacement
Every organization develops players.
Every organization scouts players.
Every organization talks about player development.
The Braves built something different.
They built replacement power.
Players leave.
Players age.
Players get hurt.
Prospects fail.
The Braves keep moving.
The organization rarely behaves as though one player determines its future.
Because the system is designed to continuously produce the next solution.
That changes everything.
It changes how you negotiate contracts.
It changes how you make trades.
It changes how you approach free agency.
Most importantly, it changes how you respond to adversity.
The Braves Reduced Randomness
Baseball is inherently unpredictable.
Even great organizations cannot control:
injuries
aging
prospect failures
unexpected breakouts
playoff outcomes
The Braves cannot eliminate randomness.
What they have done is reduce its impact.
When one path closes, another often appears.
When one player leaves, another emerges.
When one plan fails, there is usually another available.
That's not luck.
That's organizational design.
Over time, reducing randomness creates something incredibly valuable:
Confidence.
Not confidence that everything will work.
Confidence that enough things will work.
Continuity Is An Advantage
One of the most underrated strengths of the Braves has been continuity.
Over three decades, there has been remarkable consistency in:
player evaluation
development philosophy
baseball operations
organizational priorities
The names have changed.
The principles largely haven't.
Every year, knowledge accumulates.
Relationships deepen.
Processes improve.
Mistakes get corrected.
Lessons compound.
The organization becomes stronger than any single executive, manager, coach, or player.
That is when stability becomes self-reinforcing.
The Mets Are Trying To Build This
To be fair, the Mets understand this.
Much of the investment made during the Cohen era has been directed toward exactly these areas.
Player development.
Scouting.
Analytics.
Sports science.
Infrastructure.
Baseball operations.
The organization clearly recognizes that sustainable winning requires more than payroll.
The challenge is that the machine has not fully arrived at the major-league level.
Not yet.
And 2026 has raised difficult questions.
The major-league club has struggled to establish consistency.
Several highly regarded prospects have stalled.
The farm system has experienced noticeable regression.
The pipeline that was expected to become a source of organizational strength remains more promise than proof.
That doesn't mean the strategy is wrong.
It does mean the burden of proof remains.
Why The Braves Have Earned Trust
This brings us back to a concept from Part 3.
Trust.
When the Braves have a disappointing season, most observers assume the organization will figure it out.
When the Mets have a disappointing season, many observers wonder whether the plan itself is flawed.
That's not fair.
But it is reality.
The Braves have spent thirty years earning the benefit of the doubt.
The Mets are still trying to earn it.
And the only way to earn it is through repeated success.
Not rankings.
Not projections.
Not promises.
Results.
What The Mets Should Learn
The lesson is not that the Mets should become Atlanta.
The Mets operate in a different market.
With different resources.
Different expectations.
Different pressures.
But the Braves demonstrate something important:
The strongest organizations don't rely on stars.
They rely on systems that continuously produce contributors, replacements, and solutions.
Over time, that creates resilience.
Over time, that creates stability.
Over time, that creates trust.
And trust may be the most valuable asset any championship organization can possess.
Because when the next injury arrives...
When the next prospect disappoints...
When the next star leaves...
The question is no longer:
"What do we do now?"
The question becomes:
"Who's next?"
That's the mindset of a championship organization.
The Braves built it.
The Mets are still trying to get there.
Part 4 Thesis
The Braves win because they reduce randomness better than almost anyone else.
Through continuity, development, and replacement power, they built an organization capable of absorbing losses and continuously producing solutions.
Their greatest advantage is not talent.
It's resilience.
What We've Learned So Far
Part 1: The Mets do not have an ambition problem. They have an execution problem.
Part 2: The Mets' slow-start problem is not a standings problem. It is a pressure-amplification problem.
Part 3: The Yankees did not eliminate pressure. They learned how to carry it.
Part 4: The Braves win because they reduce randomness better than almost anyone else.
Next: Part 5 – The Dodgers Don't Just Spend. They Control the Board
If the Yankees teach stability and the Braves teach resilience, the Dodgers teach something equally important: how to turn resources into flexibility. Their greatest advantage isn't money itself. It's the ability to create more options than everyone else.
21 comments:
Good points. Resilience is strengthened when old guys are not signed for eternity, too.
Cohen has dipped his toes too much in the High Risk Pool, which is contractual years owed to guys over 31 years of age. He has been burned.
San Diego stupidly has Machado signed at huge dollars through 2033. Here in 2026, he is hitting .175 at age 33 in 250 plate appearances. OH MY GOODNESS.
The biggest problem for the Mets has always been that they don't have a plan of direction. Take this year for example. A perfect opportunity to play the kids, get under the payroll limit and therefore get better picks. Instead, the Mets sign or trade for the likes of Semien, Bichette, the Great Robert Jr. and Polanco which put them right back over the payroll limit.
Now Polanco and Robert Jr. are on the IL. Aside from our resident Genius GM, is anyone surprised by this?. Was that not their history?. Semien is not hitting and again, was that not his performance of late?. Bichette? I think he will hit eventually but he was not what this team needed at this time.
Somehow the Mets have never understood that sometimes you need to take a year or two in order to form a new core to move forward with.
Had it not been due to injuries, the Mets would have no idea what they had in Benge, AJ Ewing, Scott, McLean, etc.
Wouldn't it be nice had the Mets been able to have Benge, AJ Ewing and Jett Williams in the same lineup stealing bases all over the place?. AJ stole second and third in last night game and then scored. Speed is also a winning formula, not just power.
Very well stated, RVH. The Braves do a remarkable job of developing and advancing talent. When you see them active in the Free Agent market, they are tweaking their bullpen, not replacing their outfield. They have occasionally picked up a big name like a Chris Sale or a Matt Olsen from FA, but only when there was a very specific reason, like Freddie Freeman leaving. Otherwise, you expect that they will compete every year, and when injuries impact the club, they use it as an opportunity to test some of the developing talent rather than restructure the team.
And lets not forget they let the first base coach Richardson leave. He had the team running like I've never seen before (I know new rules help) and of course he goes to the Braves another good job DS. I can't wait till the trading deadline as we all pray.
Also can we just leave Young at first and can the MV experiment please
I miss him. Imagine what he could have done with our young speedsters!
I second the motion.
I am a Vientos fan but Young is outplaying him and should be given the opportunity to keep the position.
I don't happen to think the Braves draft better than the Mets
I do happen to think they trade away less of their top tier draft talent and develop their youngins better than the Mets
I third that motion.
The key point is that they consistently draft, develop & successfully integrate young talent very well.
I’m not so sure about Houck & Voit were the best picks the Mets could have made recently.
Ya think?
Who would you have taken instead?
Players that can hit above .250.
I am going to express a mnority opinion here. I doubt the Braves draft better than the Mets are doing now. The Mets have seven players on the major league roster now who have been through their minor league system. Four are very likely keepers: Benge, Ewing, Scott and Mclean. Add Tong. Then there are two who are falling short of sustained, consistent success: Baty and Vientos. One who is a massive disappointment in Alvarez. That's as good an output as one could hope for. It is natural to draw the inference that the Mets are failing in the development stage because recency bias indicates that we are over emphasiszing the current problems.
True, the Braves have been doing this for decades now and the Mets have only just begun to get their heads around how to do it well. But it's not as if their system hasn't produced at all. Quite the contrary; and even more by next season.
We don't have faith because the success has not been consistent over time. If anything, the problem with the current Mets is that the core to which the youngins have been added has been questionable; the trades have been poor, and the recent free agent signings, disappointing.
The main underperformers have been Senga, Manaea, Bichette, Polanco, Robert, all of whom have been high visibility FA signings.
6 out of 9 of the players who have come through the minors are at the least, good major leaguers: Baty, Vientos and Mauricio have fallen short. Those percentages are still quite good.
I agree there is uncertainty about whether they can keep it up. Their trades have had mixed results. The Peralta trade has been fine. The Semien trade has been disappointing for both teams. Torrens trad was a steal. The Robert trade has been a waste.
Holmes, Weaver, Minter, Brazoban, Warren,Williams signings have all been very good for the pitching staff.
If I had to put it succinctly I would say that the best explanation is that the Mets are an incomplete team in the early stages of a complete reboot. There has been too much churn in the past two years in the coaching staff and not even a short period of the kind of success that would make one confident that the team is on the right track. I get that completely. And as much as anyone, I have concerns about the developmental team and strategy. In the other hand, i am high on our international signing program and I believe in the draft strategy of great athletes and pitchers. I think the big area where there has been worrisome failure has been in recent FA signings and trades. And there is the uncertainty of the developmental program.
The big issue now is making the hard decisions on the players who have been brought in via trade, free agency and through the minors who are not going to be part of this team's future, and moving on from them while getting the best we can for them. Don't throw good money after bad. Fill out the roster for the impending time period by shopping for talent at the high end, and layer in all those fine home grown players into a stable, top tier major league roster. Not everyone has to be a star, but everyone has to mesh.
After watching last night’s game, the biggest difference between Atlanta, Yankees, and Mets has been the dugout. Snitker did a great job and Boone is a scoundrel. I wanted a manager like Tony Pena or Lee Mazzilli because I’ve learned how sharp they are. Instead they kept a spineless, not good enough manager because that’s what a spineless GM wants. The Mets lose games when Mendoza is involved.
Take last night’s game. A true battle of pitching, his pitcher takes a tumble covering first base. No one comes out to check on him and let him catch his breath. Nah, he’s fine…. Next pitch was a nothing sweeping spinning into the heart of the plate for a two run homerun they never recovered from. Warren pitxher another good inning afterwards, but the damage was done because the manager didn’t see the need to come let his pitxher catch his breath when all of us watching saw him looking at his hand and knew the pitch clock was running.
Late response: the Mets do product players to make it to the majors. That said, even Benge, Ewing & McLean are not yet established major league players. They may get there (I sure hope so) but they are not Acuna, Judge, Pages, will smith, Strider, etc). Players that are conssistently league leaders. (Nimmo & Alonso were close but not that tier of player).
The Mets desperately need some consistency & u fortunately, that requires some time.
Trust is earned over time & destroyed in an instant. They have trust in intention, which is necessary but not sufficient. They need trust in ability to execute & increase their say/do ratio to get it closer to 1:1
I agree that Mendoza is in over his head at this point in his career. I have written before that we need a metric to assess how many games the manager of a team contributes to winning and losing. Hard to develop, but surely doable and much needed. It's hard to find examples of Mendoza decisions create wins above expectations; and easy to find examples of the other sort. There are different types of managers. If you are looking for someone on the calm and supportive side who still brings wins to the table, you have to look no further than Francona. If you are looking for someone like Mendoza in temperament but who is far better at controlling the clubhouse and instilling quiet confidence, there is probably no one better than Roberts. Most teams don't know what they are looking for from a manager, and that clearly includes the Mets. Mendoza is a Bob Melvin light, and just not what this team needs. I don't know how many of these young managers will pan out, but the truth is that the Mets cannot afford to experiment anyway.
And just as a team has to be put together to mesh, so too does the entire organization coaching and development team as well as the major league team. Who on the Mets current coaching staff is going to stand up to Mendoza or correct him. They are too vulnerable as they are all new. Who is overseeing how they work together.
My problem with someone like Stearns is that he himself never played a team sport at a competitive level. He has no feel for the rhythm of the sport. He has put together a team piecemeal and not from working holistically. That's one of the great weaknesses of analytics. In their current state of development, they give lots of data of a comparative performance sort, but not of an interactive sort. That is going to be one of my big points when I return to a post on analytics.
I don't disagree. The players the Mets have developed so far are not at the top of the league. At most you can count on one or two every five years if you are lucky. But the first thing is to find the high baseline, and the Mets I mentioned are reasonably likely to meet that standard. The top of the line is the unicorn. Harper, Soto, Judge, Bonds, Acuna, Krenshaw, maybe Miserowski, Guerrero Jr., Smith, Trout, Skubal., DeGrom, Stanton, Witt. Pages has had one excellent year, beyond what we are already getting from Ewing. Look at the next group down on the teams we admire: Austin Riley, for Atlanta, I would put Pages in that group for LA. Julio Rodriguez, Ramirez
There aren't tons of them. We are likely to end up quite well in that group. Get and keep what you are calling the just below top tier.
Notice how many of the great players developed in one org become FA and star in another org. A surprisingly high percentage. And that's where a great eye and a pocketbook come in. We have Soto from that group; Lindor as well through trade. If the team produced one or two players a year in the Benge, Ewing, McLean category and supplemented that, which is exactly what the Dodgers have done with shopping and trading at the highest end for key position and pitchers, that's how you get sustainability. But you can't get sustainability if you only offer short term contracts to those you trade for or those you sign as free agents. You have to risk the down years to a point.
The alternative is precisely what the small market teams are forced into doing, e.g. the Rays and Brewers.
The formula which is admittedly crude is a portfolio approach. Why do you need a really good farm system and what do you want of it: Because you need to provide A/A- players for your major league roster and you can hope to develop an A+ player every few years, but also because you need to develop A- and B+ players for trades and others who project as A'A- for trades while they are still years off from the majors.
And you need ex major leaguers in your farm system to replicate the high quality of play that you need your prospects to be part of for their development and your projection of their talent.
Then the rest of what you do is use your money to fill out at the top in the key areas, which will change over time depending on what you can receive in trades or sign in free agency. And you have to remain agile. Draft where the talent lies, both via location, and position. Be flexible on length of contract depending on position and what we know about which skills decay most rapidly and at what age. And PLEASE stay away from injury histories. And also have no fear of trading away or giving up a year early rather than a year late.
Can you fathom where this Mets team would be if they had a teacher like Showalter at the helm with all these kids?
Also, as far as over his head goes, it’s worse than that. I see a defeated man. One waiting for the guillotine that has no life and shows no energy, and that’s how the team plays and Stearns permits it. Get it over with already!!!!
Post a Comment