A Theorem Of Relative Nonsense

Before Wednesday’s loss to the Braves, Sandy Alderson responded to a question about whether the Mets should be buyers or sellers at the trade deadline. Here’s what he had to say:

“We kind of like our team. If you look at the run differential, we should be a .500 team. We’re not. At the same time, it doesn’t mean we should throw everyone overboard.”

The mistake I made today was that I took the part about the run differential and argued it in a vacuum. What Alderson did was use the run differential stat as a tool to convey a point about the method of building the team for the future. Those who chide Alderson about how this team should be better than it is based on run differential should take note of the context. But those who use the run differential tool to defend Alderson to the point of convincing everybody who complains about the Mets abysmal W-L record are wrong as well.

Context is important. It’s something I didn’t have a handle of when I read about the run differential thing in a vacuum. The whole run differential thing is important for getting a handle on whether a team needs to do more than it does. But until a team makes the post-season on the strength of a Pythagorean W-L record, then guess what: you are what your record says you are. I say that with all apologies to the guy on twitter who hates that quote with fair reasoning (much like I hate the term “low risk high reward). But 37-48 sucks. And if your team is 37-48 while the Pythagorean W-L says you should be a .500 team, that’s not an argument for things being “better than you think”. It means something or someone is preventing this team from reaching its potential. Point is, Pythagorean W-L record should start discussions. Not end them.

It’s probably the manager. But again, much the same way that W-L record or the Pythagorean W-L record doesn’t tell the full story, blaming one person for all the ills of this team probably doesn’t tell the full story. For example, from the same article:

Alderson didn’t blame the bullpen, a usual culprit for close defeats, but rather the team’s inability to hit late in games.

This includes players who Sandy Alderson signed (or was forced to sign because there was no money for anyone better). So there’s more to any kind of W-L record than meets the eye.

And one more point about this whole thing: It’s not as if this team has had a good season recently. The team has had 77, 74, and 74 wins the last three years. The Pythagorean wins have been: 79, 75, and 74. It’s only been this season so far that there has been a large difference in real wins and perceived wins. A couple of blowout losses and that easily balances out. But whether it does or it doesn’t, both totals mean something. Pythagorean is a good tool to decide what needs to be upgraded. But real life wins and losses still decide who goes to the playoffs and who is doomed to a lifetime of mid 70’s mediocrity.

(By the way, the last year of the horrible Jerry Manuel regime, their Pythagorean W-L record was 81-81. It sure as hell didn’t feel like a .500 season, and it didn’t even feel like the 79-83 season it actually was.)

As for 2014? You can’t put lipstick on a pig that has 37 wins and 48 losses. The 48th loss featured Ruben Tejada with his back to the play as Jacob deGrom started his windup to B.J. Upton, and Upton promptly singled in the hole. Not that Tejada would have made that play had he been paying attention, but … can you pay attention, Ruben??? (You want to use Pythagoras’ theorem to figure out how to improve the Mets? That’s a damn good place to start.) The Braves, of course, would score three runs that inning and run away with the game. They only scored the three runs, but against the Mets offense, that constitutes running away.

The Mets next game is Friday, which will most likely be rained out by the remnants of Tropical Storm Arthur. David Wright, who is due back Friday, will most likely get an extra day of rest unless the Mets wait until 9:00 to call the game and Wright pulls a muscle getting hit by lightning while warming up in the rain.