Nothing Has Changed for the Mets

Before the 2017 season started, I noted that the Mets had the widest array of possible outcomes in 2017 of any team in baseball. 

I mean, no one was projecting the Padres to win their division, or the Indians to finish last. We knew more or less what the Reds were, and the Twins too. And while we missed by a mile on the Twins, they still won only 85 games, not 95. That would have shocked us more than passage of a coherent tax code.

But the Mets, they were such a wild card. They had the most intriguing starting staff in baseball, six deep, but their health was a major question. They had some real assets at the plate, to the point where all the talk in Spring Training was which valuable outfielder was going to sit on the bench.

But they also had a suspect bullpen, a dearth of team speed and a pile of iron gloves. And then, the arms all fell off, Matt Harvey's psyche imploded, Cespedes got hurt again and the Mets were mathematically eliminated by the trade deadline (if you use that new math.)

So now what for 2018? With the late season sell-off, the roster is holier than the Pope and the rotation is a big guess. The young players mostly haven't panned out -- but still could. There's even uncertainty at the skipper's post. The one constant -- David Wright -- doesn't move the needle on the field in either direction.

There are plenty of bad teams in baseball, but few worse owners than the Wilpons or worse training staffs than the Mets, evidently. Sandy Alderson will be severely tested this off-season.

The bottom line, at least this early in the process, is that the Mets are right back where they were -- a total wild card. If the starting rotation gets healthy, Conforto and Cespedes can play, a couple of useful free agents join the team and hell doesn't break loose in Queens, they could challenge the Nats for the division. 

If none of that comes to pass, well, the Phillies are getting better and may not be there to cushion the fall.

World Series: It's a Tossup

"Predicting the future is easy. Getting it right is the hard part."

Just as you predicted, the Mets and Royals meet for the World Series title. At season's start, projection systems rated the Mets above average. Indeed, Baseball Prospectus's PECOTA system had NY winning the first Wild Card. Alas, it also pegged KC 20 games under .500.

Since those projections were made, each team added some pieces. The Royals nabbed Johnny Cueto and Ben Zobrist, and over to Flushing went Kelly Johnson, Juan Uribe and most notably Yoenis Cespedes. But they are basically the teams that started the season. Particularly in Kansas City's case, it's hard to argue that their trade deadline pitching acquisition (4-7, 4.76) is responsible for their success.

So if you had this quinella in March, please email me immediately with this week's winning Powerball numbers. One hundred dollars on these two teams to meet in the World Series would have yielded you $78,400. Place your bets!

Which leads to the question, who has the edge? Will this be the first championship for a team since 1985 (Royals over Cards) or 1986 (Mets over Red Sox)?

Who Will Win
The answer, as usual, is, "who knows?" It's a seven-game series. The Phillies took five of seven from the Cubs this year. Whatever else you read here is simply subtext.

That said, the Mets and Royals are both acceptable representatives of their leagues, the Royals because they were the best team wire to wire and the Mets because they took off once Cespedes joined the squad and Matz returned from injury. And Wilmer Flores cried.

The dominant narrative is the Mets' power arms against the Royals' broad skill set and experience. That's a simplification, of course, but it is true that New York is much less balanced then Kansas City. Should any two of the Mets' hurlers stumble, it would likely spell disaster for them. You can't fall behind early against the Royals, especially if Ned Yost has "accidentally" given Ryan Madson the wrong directions to the ballpark.

The Edge Goes To...
Starting rotation is the big edge the Mets have, and much is being made of that. But that would be true of any team against KC because they are purposely constructed backwards on the mound. No team is more lethal than KC if their starters can muddle through two-thirds of the game with a lead. This strategy has worked for two seasons and is particularly effective in the playoffs, given the short leashes starters generally have now. Ignore that at your peril.

One more thing about the Mets' rotation. It is over-rated right now. It is over-rated because its youth and promise account for some of its allure, but the World Series is being played this week. We're all projecting out what deGrom, Harvey, Syndergaard and Matz could be, and the possibilities make us drool (particularly when we recall that Zack Wheeler will join them next year.)  But the Thor who will face Lorenzo Cain had a 3.25 ERA and a susceptibility to gopher balls.

I've debunked much of the home advantage in the playoffs in this post. (Spoiler alert: it comes into play in a seven-game series only if it goes the distance.) But in this particular case, there is a slight edge to Kansas City. No team is woven more snuggly to its home ballpark than the Royals, who value speed and athleticism over pure power in their wide-gapped stadium. Of course, Citi Field is no homer dome either, so some of that small advantage is offset.

There's always talk about it, but there's no evidence that experience is of any value, particularly now that both teams have run the playoff gauntlet. It is worth observing that no deficit appears insurmountable to the Royals, and whether that's a function of team psychology or skill set, it's a good quality to have. 

Rust, on the other hand, is measurably detrimental to playoff teams. The Mets will have spent nearly a week waiting for the Series to begin by the time they get underway Tuesday. Long rest can help an older team with a key player hobbled by injury and a clear ace they would like to line up for three starts. But none of those advantages accrue to the Mets.

Both teams are managed by men who appear to do a great job molding coherent units out of disparate parts. Terry Collins's in-game strategy gets the edge over Ned Yost's because everyone's in-game strategy gets the edge over Ned Yost's. 

Again, absolutely anything can happen on the road to four wins. Noise is just so loud at that level that a few missed notes here or there might not matter. That said, the Royals have some small advantages and I would rate them slightly more likely to win their first World Series in 30 years. Then again, Al Weiss...

Another One Bites the Dust

Ted Kennedy died? Wasn't he batting third for the Mets?
b

Wanted: Lost Testicles. Contact: Fox Sports

Did someone do a gonadectomy on Fox Sports since last week?

Don't ask why, but I was watching the last few minutes of This Week In Baseball when they took a retrospective gander at the 1970 All-Star game and the incomparable Pete Rose. Endlessly replaying the famous crash at the plate with Ray Fosse that won the game, they ran countless teammates and opponents paying homage to his competitiveness and all-out play.

They never once mentioned that the play effectively ended Fosse's career. Or even hurt him. The show was a total whitewash of what was a fairly controversial play.

Then the Mets-Giants game, with Kenny Albert and Eric Karros at the mics. At least there'd be truth to power on this broadcast, I mentioned to a wife who, were she a ceramic dish, would have evinced equal interest.

It took just two batters for Karros to demonstrate that he would apply the same apologist philosophy to his broadcast as I'd seen on the MLB-produced propaganda piece that preceded it.

The Mets led off the game against Randy Johnson with a pair of singles and in each case, the runner stole second on Giant backstop Bengie Molina. On the second play, a decent throw would have nailed Alex Cora, but it faded high and right for 13th consecutive victimization of Molina in two games and one inning. Clearly, the Mets have determined that Molina's gun is shooting blanks -- for whatever reason -- and are exploiting it.

Karros, however, would have none of that. He twisted himself into an double-jointed pretzel to defend Molina, opining instead that the Mets were stealing off the pitcher. Albert didn't add or subtract from this monologue, I assume because the illogic was so stunning that he decided simply to disassociate himself from it.

Next, Carlos Beltran stroked a fly ball to center that Fred Lewis's glove successfully eluded for a double. Instead of first and second with one out, the Mets had a man on second with none out and two runs in thanks to beneficent defense on the San Francisco side. Nary a word from the broadcast team, lest it ruffle feathers.

But Karros wasn't done. Later he mentioned that the Giants were floating above the .500 mark purely on their pitching and needed to "be more consistent at the plate."

The Giants are plenty consistent at the plate. They have no hitting. The problem isn't that their big boppers have yet to get untracked; their problem is that they're genetically bopless. Their best hitter is...nobody. Maybe Pablo Sandoval, a rookie third baseman inhabiting Cecil Fielder's body, will finish the season as their most potent bat. He has all of three dingers to this point. Cleanup hitter Bengie Molina has yet to walk this year. Prize free agent signing Aaron Rowand is an average-hitting second baseman, which would be fine were he not a center fielder.

This isn't the players' fault. GM Brian Sabean has assembled a roster that has no chance of supporting Lincecum, Cain, Johnson, et. al. But Eric Karros, whom I'd never previously noted to be an apologist, wasn't prepared to tell you any of that. He seems to have lost at least one and possibly both of his testicles.

Isn't Fox Sports supposed to be the edgy network? The no-hold-barred sports channel? The folks who reflect the "he sucks" approach of the average fan? Someone had better tell those responsible for their baseball coverage, because it's more white bread than June Cleaver.

p