How the 2013 Mets make the playoffs

[Marty Mcfly]

Surely you can agree that there are better ways to assess a team than wins and losses, considering how important luck is in baseball.

No, not in the slightest, if you've won 74 games out of 162 games then you're a 74 win team.

Luck is just another excuse for failure.

You can make baseball stats say anything you want, there's so many of them, so many interpretations and approaches, I think fans fall back on stats when reality is too painful, "let's ignore the only stat that matters which is the standings and pretend we're a 90 win WAR team".

The Orioles are not a great team but they found ways to win, over and over again, and that's all that matters, so did the A's. Not quite sure how Mets fans can talk about outlier seasons when we have won nothing since 2006, and been in the post season one since 2000 - how's that for an outlier?

Too many baseball fans think the sport is played out on spreadsheets, it's not.

[Claymation]

Davis was nothing special at all for a first baseman playing at Camden Yards (can't buy a walk and strikes out a ton), and Markakis/Machado combined to play only 155 games. Going forward, they're definitely more talented, but in 2012 they weren't much better than us, if at all. Especially considering the fact that David Wright played out of his mind.

Baltimore had 7 regulars with a positive ops+, The Mets had 4 including Hairston. Manny Machado replaces one of them.

Is Tejada as good as Machado? Manny played at 19 last year.
Let's be fair here.

Is anyone in our outfield as good as Nick Markakis?

or Nolan Reimold for that matter?

[Marty Mcfly]

Is anyone in our OF as good as Dr. Nick?

[Jersey Mets]

No chance in hell do the mets make the palyoffs this year. Our only hope is the Wilpons sell the team. If not we will not make the playoffs for some years to come. 2014 will be the year to see if the Wipons are broke or have money to spend. I vote for they are broke

[acerimusdux]

I like this excercise.

Replacement level is 52 or 53 wins, since we're using Baseball-Reference here, not fangraphs. Instead of adding up the entire roster, lets just say you need to find a way to build a respectable enough pen and bench, so that there are enough positives there to offset the negatives. So I'm going to say get 38 WAR from your top 15 players (8 regulars, 5 SP, 2 top pen arms) and you're over 90 wins. The St Louis Cardinals last season for instance, snuck into the playoffs with 88 wins and 35.3 WAR from those players.

My view of what a shocking Mets playoff run might have to look like from those 15 players:

6.4 Wright
3.8 Davis
2.8 Tejada
2.2 Murphy
2.1 d'Arnaud
1.8 Duda
1.8 Nieuwenhuis
1.5 outfielder x

3.5 Niese
3.3 Harvey
2.8 Santana
1.9 Wheeler
1.5 Gee
1.5 Parnell
1.1 Francisco

I think this is a little more realistic than Mark Simon's. In short, if the Mets are going anywhere next year, I think it's going to be because their best young players stepped up and topped their previous best performances. Simon's suggestion that Santana could have another Cy Young type season at this stage seems much less likely than Ike Davis being better at age 26 than he was at 23, or Ruben Tejada being better at 23 than he was at 21-22, or Matt Harvey delivering twice as many WAR in 30 starts as he did last year in 10 starts.

In short, everyone needs to step up and get a little better, and you need to get something from Wheeler and d'Arnaud, but you don't need any major miracles. Instead, lots of minor miracles. Still very unlikely, and there's not really enough depth here to make up for it if things do start to go wrong and some players do struggle or get injured.

[Harry777]

Why does this thread even exist? There is absolutely 0% NO CHANCE IN HELL we get into the playoffs this year. I try to stay optomistic, but come on. This is just insanity.

[Claymation]

Why does this thread even exist? There is absolutely 0% NO CHANCE IN HELL we get into the playoffs this year. I try to stay optomistic, but come on. This is just insanity.

If you read the OP you would have read that there is .8%.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCKOI24k_UY

[SJ5382]

Baltimore had 7 regulars with a positive ops+, The Mets had 4 including Hairston. Manny Machado replaces one of them.

Is Tejada as good as Machado? Manny played at 19 last year.
Let's be fair here.

Is anyone in our outfield as good as Nick Markakis?

or Nolan Reimold for that matter?

Well you're completely ignoring defense and pitching, for one. Second, I'm assuming you're including Betemit's 101 OPS+ while ignoring Duda's comparable 98 OPS+. And Wright's OPS+ is 17 pointers (or more) higher than anyone on that entire team. Not a great method for comparison.

I'm saying that production-wise, the 2012 Orioles were basically equivalent to the 2012 Mets. Obviously they have more talent than we do. Trust me, I'm never going to be defending the talent we have on this roster.

[SJ5382]

No, not in the slightest, if you've won 74 games out of 162 games then you're a 74 win team.

Luck is just another excuse for failure.

You can make baseball stats say anything you want, there's so many of them, so many interpretations and approaches, I think fans fall back on stats when reality is too painful, "let's ignore the only stat that matters which is the standings and pretend we're a 90 win WAR team".

The Orioles are not a great team but they found ways to win, over and over again, and that's all that matters, so did the A's. Not quite sure how Mets fans can talk about outlier seasons when we have won nothing since 2006, and been in the post season one since 2000 - how's that for an outlier?

Too many baseball fans think the sport is played out on spreadsheets, it's not.

Okay, we'll stop this "debate" right there. That's a fundamental difference in our mindsets, so no need to go any further. If you don't think luck is a huge factor in BASEBALL, then obviously in-depth statistics are no use to you.

[Claymation]

Well you're completely ignoring defense and pitching, for one. Second, I'm assuming you're including Betemit's 101 OPS+ while ignoring Duda's comparable 98 OPS+. And Wright's OPS+ is 17 pointers (or more) higher than anyone on that entire team. Not a great method for comparison.

I'm saying that production-wise, the 2012 Orioles were basically equivalent to the 2012 Mets. Obviously they have more talent than we do. Trust me, I'm never going to be defending the talent we have on this roster.

The Mets fielded Duda, Thole and Murphy, any discussion about fielding should stop there.

And they had a bullpen, the Mets didn't. The Mets had 2 starting pitchers with an ERA+ of over 100, Granted one was Dickey. Baltimore had 4.

There is a reason why Baltimore won and the Mets didn't. In every facet of the game Baltimore was better.

[SJ5382]

The Mets fielded Duda, Thole and Murphy, any discussion about fielding should stop there.

And they had a bullpen, the Mets didn't. The Mets had 2 starting pitchers with an ERA+ of over 100, Granted one was Dickey. Baltimore had 4.

There is a reason why Baltimore won and the Mets didn't. In every facet of the game Baltimore was better.

Again, I just think the "count how many players were a bit above league average" argument is ignorant. Looking at it that way, sure, they had a larger variety of talented players I suppose. But we had the Cy Young and a guy who should have been a top 5, maybe top 3 MVP candidate. That makes a substantial difference. IMO, there were many, many teams that were far more productive and won far fewer games.

I agree their pitching was substantially better, and there fielding was a bit better, but IMO our offense was more productive relative to the park we played in as well as other factors. They hit more home runs, but struck out far more and had terrible speed. As long as we're using BR stats, you should at least consider that Baltimore won 11 more games than their pythagorean W/L. That means something. Bottom line: I think the Orioles were one of the luckiest teams in the history of the game in 2012.

[StoicSentry]

Okay, we'll stop this "debate" right there. That's a fundamental difference in our mindsets, so no need to go any further. If you don't think luck is a huge factor in BASEBALL, then obviously in-depth statistics are no use to you.

Funny how this is supposed to be the "scientific" approach to baseball and yet it uses the totally unscientific concept of "luck" to account for all it's failings. Any spot where the stats didn't work, you just plug in "luck." It's like magic! Except it's... science?

[Claymation]

Again, I just think the "count how many players were a bit above league average" argument is ignorant. Looking at it that way, sure, they had a larger variety of talented players I suppose. But we had the Cy Young and a guy who should have been a top 5, maybe top 3 MVP candidate. That makes a substantial difference. IMO, there were many, many teams that were far more productive and won far fewer games.

I agree their pitching was substantially better, and there fielding was a bit better, but IMO our offense was more productive relative to the park we played in as well as other factors. They hit more home runs, but struck out far more and had terrible speed. As long as we're using BR stats, you should at least consider that Baltimore won 11 more games than their pythagorean W/L. That means something. Bottom line: I think the Orioles were one of the luckiest teams in the history of the game in 2012.

I'm sorry. My point is ignorant.
Let me ask you this. Would you rather have 1 .900 ops player & a player with an ops of .700 or would you have two players with an ops of .800?

[Nymfan87]

Let's have a fun little exercise, shall we? Here's side by side the teams sorted by WAR (fangraphs batting+fangraphs RA/9), and teams sorted by actual season win total. Without looking it up, guess which list is which. The O's are left out because it would be too much of a giveaway:

Nationals         Nationals 
Reds              Reds
Braves            Yankees
Yankees           Braves
Cardinals         A's
Angels            Giants
Rays              Rangers
A's               Rays
Rangers           Angels
Giants            Cardinals
D'Backs           Tigers
Brewers           Dodgers
White Sox         White Sox
Dodgers           Brewers
Tigers            Phillies
Phillies          D'Backs
Pirates           Pirates
M's               Padres
Padres            M's
Royals            Mets
Red Sox           Blue Jays
Mets              Royals
Blue Jays         Red Sox
Twins             Marlins
Marlins           Indians
Cubs              Twins
Rockies           Rockies
Indians           Cubs
Astros            Astros

[Nymfan87]

I'm sorry. My point is ignorant.
Let me ask you this. Would you rather have 1 .900 ops player & a player with an ops of .700 or would you have two players with an ops of .800?

One .900 OPS player, easy. You can easily upgrade that second ****** player, assuming we're not talking about a 1B and SS (or C) as the two positions.