My Dreams for MLB: Shortening the Regular Season, Eliminating the Second Wild Card, and Making the Division Series Best-of-7

Two years ago, I wrote a post on the old “Below the Belt” Sports Blog.  In light of the 93-win Nationals dispatching of the 106-win Dodgers in the NLDS, I felt that it was appropriate for me to re-release this post, with a few minor alterations to modernize the piece, on my new blog.  It is a busy time in my life, so you will have to accept that I am not going to take the time to put pictures in this post.  That said, I feel that, since the Dodgers/Nats series represented the 7^th time in 16 Division Series matchups in the Wild-Card-Game era (the only era in which the #1 seed in each league has been guaranteed to face the Wild Card in the Division Series) that the Wild Card emerged victorious; it was time for this post to see the light of day once more.  If Elton John could make hits out of three different versions of “Candle in the Wind” in three different decades, I can make this post happen again.  Thus, here it goes.  Enjoy!



Change #1: The MLB season should be cut to 144 games.


There is only one good reason to have a 162-game season.  That reason is, “We have no playoffs, just a World Series.  Therefore, we want a big enough sample size to ensure that the best AL team and the best NL team make the World Series.”  That reason did exist from 1961 through 1968.  I will add that, prior to 1961, there were also no playoffs, just a World Series; but the season was 154 games long.  Frankly, I would personally love to eliminate divisions and return to the 1961-1968 “162 games, no playoffs” format, but I realize that this country is no longer equipped to handle a scenario in which half the league is eliminated from World Series contention by Memorial Day.  Therefore, I am not proposing that.  Moving on…


Since 1968, MLB has expanded its playoff three times:


1969 – NL and AL were split into two divisions apiece, and the ALCS/NLCS round of playoffs was born.  


1994 – NL and AL were split into three divisions apiece, and the ALDS/NLDS (with one Wild Card per league) round of playoffs was born.


2012 – NL and AL each added a second Wild Card team and a Wild Card play-in game.


In my opinion, MLB and the MLBPA dropped the ball on one major thing with these three playoff expansions: Each expansion of playoffs should have come with a decrease in the length of the regular season.  Again, the one good reason to have a 162-game season is to ensure that the best team has enough games to rise to the top of its respective league.  However, as soon as a playoff system was created in 1969, that concept was gone.  In baseball, the underdog typically has a reasonable chance to beat the favorite in any series.  As far back as in 1973, Reds manager Sparky Anderson was quoted stating his displeasure that the Mets (82-79) were even given the opportunity to defeat the Reds (99-63).  He felt that the Reds deserved to play in the World Series, as a result of having a far-superior record over 162 games.  I don’t blame him.  After all, for all of baseball history until a few years prior to that, Sparky’s Reds would have been in the World Series.  I can’t find Sparky’s exact quote, but I know that I have heard it.  


Anyway, I am glad the 1973 Mets beat the Reds.  Without that, Tug McGraw’s “Ya Gotta Believe!” likely would not have become one of the Mets’ mottos, and 1973-Mets-Manager Yogi Berra’s “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over” would be less famous.  Meanwhile, Sparky Anderson’s anger unintentionally brought up the reason why I favor a shorter MLB regular season.  When MLB decided that playoff series – much more random than a long season – would determine who plays in the World Series, the need to play 162 games disappeared.  Unfortunately, when MLB started having playoffs before the World Series, I had not been born yet, so I could not inform anyone of my views.  Enough though about stuff from 46-50 years ago.  Let’s bring this discussion to the modern era.  Let’s look at the regular-season finishes of the World Series participants of the Wild Card era (1995 – 2018: 24 seasons).  The chart below shows how many World Series participants finished with the best record, second-best record, third-best record, etc. in their leagues.

National League		American League
Best Record	7 teams	Best	10.5 teams
2nd-Best Record	5 teams	2nd	6.5 teams
3rd-Best Record	5.5 teams	3rd	4 teams
4th-Best Record	4 teams	4th	2 teams
5th-Best Record	2.5 teams	5th	1 team
6th-Best Record	0 teams	6th	1 team

*If a team finished in a tie between two places, I counted that as “half a team” for each place.

Notice that only 7 of 24 NL regular-season leaders have made the World Series and that only 12 of the 24 NL World Series teams have even finished with a top-two record in the league. (Note: In 2019, the NL World Series participant will have had either the 3^rd- or 4^th-best NL record.) In the AL, regular-season champs have fared better, with 10.5 (including the 1998, 1999, 2003, and 2009 Yankees) of 24 reaching the Fall Classic.  In the AL, 17 of the 24 years have seen top-two finishers reached the World Series.  (Note: In 2019, one of the top two AL finishers will again reach the World Series.)  


That all said, when you throw the NL and AL together, a mere 17.5 of 48 World Series participants (roughly 36.4%) have been AL or NL regular-season champs, and 29 of 48 (60.4%) have finished in the top two of their respective leagues.  


Why am I harping on this?  I harp because you don’t need to play 162 games if it is still 40% likely that someone who finished with the 3^rd-best-or-worse record in your league is going to make the World Series!!!  


Let’s now talk about the 2017 season.  In mid-August of that season, what did we know?  We knew that the Nationals, Cubs, Dodgers, Indians, and Astros were going to win their divisions.  We knew that the Red Sox and Yankees would make the playoffs, with the Red Sox more likely winning the division.  We knew that the Diamondbacks would be an NL Wild Card.  We knew that the Rockies would likely win the Wild Card.  The only thing that was greatly up for grabs was the second AL Wild Card.  In mid-August, the entire AL was seemingly alive for the race.  By mid-September, the race has been whittled down to just the Twins and Angels, a tight battle that did not exactly captivate the nation during the first month of the NFL season.


Yes, the Indians’ winning streak that season was extremely exciting.  Yes, it was interesting to see the Dodgers lose 14 of 15 after winning of 14 of 15 earlier in the year. Yes, August and September were an exciting time for fans of all playoff and potential playoff teams.  However, everyone was ready for the playoffs by early September.  By that point, we had already known for a few months who the true contenders were. I felt like the Yankees had been at least 3 games up in the Wild Card and at least 3 games back in the division for months.  


We really need a 144-game season.  We should have really eliminated 6 regular-season games each time a playoff round was added, but let’s make up for lost time and eliminate 18 games now (OK, in 2020).


With a 144-game season, the MLB regular season could end two weeks earlier than normal, moving from Week 4 to Week 2 of the NFL season, and start a week later (More like April 5-6, instead of the last few days of March).  This would be great for several reasons:

1    1) The World Series would now end in early-to-mid-October, as it should.

2    2) There would be fewer cold-weather games in the beginning of the season.

3    3) Currently, fans of bad teams check out around Labor Day.  Four weeks later, when the playoffs start, these fans are long gone.  However, with only two weeks between Labor Day and the playoffs, some of those fans might stick around to watch more of the postseason.

4    4) With the regular season ending sooner, perhaps demand would more generally increase for watching playoff games.  Remember that the addition of the Division Series more or less coincided with lower ratings for all playoff rounds and the World Series.  While I cannot guarantee causation for this correlation, I can guarantee that when the supply of a product goes up, the value of one unit of the product goes down.  Therefore, I am going to assume at least some causation.  Now, it’s time to turn things around.  By decreasing the supply of regular-season games, hopefully the value of postseason games increases.

5    5) In an era in which both it is miraculous to have any pitcher avoid injury, and also some teams regularly make us suffer through "bullpen games"; 18 fewer games and thus 18 fewer pitcher starts seems like a good thing. 

      6) With players not taking amphetamines and theoretically not using PEDs, the 162-game season takes a greater toll on players than it did in previous days.  With 18 fewer games, the quality of play would likely improve.

Now that I have mentioned the pros of shortening the season, please allow me to refute some counterarguments.  Naturally, the first retort to a “let’s shorten the season” proposal is that teams would lose money.  Of course; I realize that, if teams are going to lose profit, my idea will not happen.  However, are we really sure that teams would overall lose profit under my plan?  Bad teams play in front of empty stadiums all September long.  Do teams really profit from these games?  There are a lot of costs in running a stadium, and I don’t believe that revenue exceeds costs if the stadium is 15% full.  


Maybe I’m wrong.  If I am, here’s another thought.  With 9 fewer home games (81 down to 72) per team, each team can charge a little bit more per ticket.  Each game will be a bit more in demand than with the current schedule, and the same goes for TV.  Somebody should do a study as to whether or not ratings would go up per game if there were fewer of them.  If ratings were to rise, MLB teams could theoretically maintain the same level of ad revenue as they currently receive.  After all, we know the following things:

1)     Football is the ratings king because it has so few games.

2)     The NHL and NBA did well with ratings and ticket prices during their lockout-shortened seasons.

3)     MLB would never do a 200-game regular season, because that would be considered unprofitable (for many of the reasons mentioned earlier – demand, injuries, etc. – and quality of play).  Plus, as I said earlier, the quality of play should be greater with fewer games.  Therefore, if we have established that a sport with 16-game seasons is king, that a 200-game season would be unprofitable, and that fewer games means greater quality; are we really certain that a 144-game season would be less profitable than a 162-game season?  I am not.  Just because we have done 162 games for the past six decades does not mean it is the optimal number of games.

To summarize my main point, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.  If we are going to spend the summer of 2006 getting pumped for the Subway Series, only to end up with St. Louis/Detroit….if we are going to spend the summer of 2002 getting psyched for the Braves and the Moneyball A’s in the Fall Classic, only to end up with Angels/Giants….and if we are going to spend the summer of 2014 looking forward to a Trout/Harper Fall Classic, only to get a dual-Wild-Card SF/KC battle; then let’s at least have 18 fewer games and keep more fans watching the playoffs through the disappointing WS matchup. 

Change #2: Go back to having one Wild Card.  Change the Division Series to Best-of-7.  Give the #1 seed 5 home games against the Wild Card.

When I first heard the proposal of the second Wild Card and the Wild Card game back in 2011, I hated it.  Eight years later, I still hate it.  As you have probably gathered by now, I don’t exactly love that a sport that plays so many games allows so many teams into its playoffs.  The first Wild Card has always seemed reasonable to me, given that there are many times when a league’s second-best team has the misfortune of playing in the same division as the top team in the league.  However, in my opinion, the second Wild Card was a bridge too far.  For every 2015 Cubs (97 wins), there are a whole bunch of sub-90-win teams – like the 2014 Giants - earning those second Wild Card spots. 

Having a one-game playoff in baseball is just stupid.  Baseball is the ultimate marathon, and then you have a one-game playoff?  It does not feel right.  Some people advocate making the Wild-Card Round a “Best-of-3”, but that would not be good either.  In baseball, the rust factor usually outweighs the rest factor.  In the NHL or NBA, it is typically an advantage to get extra rest before a series.  This is not so in MLB.  Just look for example at the 2006 Tigers, 2007 Rockies, 2012 Tigers, and 2015 Mets.  All of these teams dominated the LCS, only to look rusty in the World Series after long layoffs.  

Why did baseball add a second Wild Card?  One reason was to keep teams “in the race” longer, but the main cited reason was to increase the value of winning the division.  I have always liked that rationale.  I didn’t like that, in 2010 (in the one-Wild Card era), the Yankees and Rays, both seemed to want the Wild Card, not the division crown.  Thus, re-establishing incentive to win the division was a good thing.  That is why I would have and still would eliminate the Wild-Card game, extend the Division Series to Best-of-7, and give the #1 seed home games in Games 1-2 and 5-7 in the Division Series.  Also, the #1 seed would automatically face the Wild Card in the Division Series, which was not the case before 2011.  Back then, teams from the same division could not face each other in the Division Series.  

Anyway, my plan accomplishes the goals of the modern Wild-Card Game but in a more satisfactory way:

      1) There is still a clear benefit to winning the division over the Wild Card, as a team with only 2 home games is at a major disadvantage.  

2    2)The Best-of-7 aspect actually likely adds more playoff games and more revenue than just having the two Wild-Card games themselves. 

3    

      3) I’ve always felt a Best-of-5 is too short for a baseball series, as teams can often get by with two great pitchers.  The Best-of-7 tests a team’s depth.  Plus, if a #1 or #2 seed loses Game 1 in a Best-of-5, the team already feels its back is much more against the wall than in a Best-of-7.  The first playoff round should be kinder to teams who have dominated for six months.

4  

      4) You don’t have the potential scenario in which a mediocre second Wild Card team needs to win only one game to upend a superior team.  I hate the Yankees to an unhealthy degree, but having the Twins in the 2017 ALDS because they won one Wild-Card Game against the far-superior Yankees is just not how baseball is meant to be. I root hard against the Yankees nearly all the time because I hate them, but I rooted for them in the 2017 Wild-Card Game to satisfy the baseball purist in me.

Meanwhile, some might counter my anti-second-Wild-Card logic by saying that more teams would be out of playoff contention earlier.  While this is true, I don’t think it would be too drastic a change.  More years than not, the two Wild Card teams are close enough in record through at least mid-August that there is not a huge impact.  That was certainly the case in 2019 as the Mets chased the Nationals and Brewers in August and September.  Plus, fans of many teams don’t typically even get that excited when chasing the second Wild Card because their teams usually aren’t that good.  If you are chasing the second Wild Card, you are likely just a few games over .500, if that, and fans can spot mediocrity.  For example, 2017 Angels fans were not showing up in droves because of a chance at the second Wild Card.

So there you have it. Rob Manfred, let’s drop down to 144 games and change the playoff format.

PS  I was going to add a whole thing on how the NBA and NHL should also cut back from 82 games (6 months) to 66 games since over half of each league makes the playoffs, but this post is already long enough.  That said, I do advocate those changes as well, for reasons analogous to those listed for baseball.

Enjoy the Ride, Mets Fans

There is a cliché that says, “Life is about the journey, not the destination.”  I cannot stand most clichés, but I happen to like this one.  In fact, this cliché is especially true in sports.  If you ask a fan of a championship team to state his/her favorite part of winning the championship, chances are the fan will talk about the thrilling wins and anticipation of big games along the way.  Of course, we fans love championship celebrations, trophy presentations, ticker-tape parades, and drunken Brett Hull

victory speeches; but the journeys to these exhilarating moments contain many other exhilarating moments in their own rights.


That premise brings me to discussion of this year’s New York Mets.  After falling to 11 games under .500 following a loss in Miami (first game after the All-Star Break), the team has gone on a 19-5 run.  The Mets now find themselves 3 games over .500, a half-game out of a Wild-Card spot, and 8.5 games out of first place in the National League East.  That said, what does this all mean, Basil?  

The optimist in me says that the Mets can keep playing well for the rest of the season (albeit not at a near-.800 winning-percentage pace like the team has shown over the past 24 games) because the team has fixed its fatal flaw, the bullpen, from the first half of the year.  Even if the pen does not dominate like it generally has over this 24-game stretch, it is difficult to imagine the pen being as legendarily putrid as it was in May and June.  Additionally, the optimist in me sees a team that can expect dominant pitching starts every night, now that Marcus Stroman is in the fold.  Lastly the optimist in me loves the emerging young core of position players in Jeff McNeil, Pete Alonso, Michael Conforto, Amed Rosario, and J.D. Davis and knows that this group will give the Mets a legitimate chance to win every game the rest of the way.

I like to think there is no pessimism in me, so let us instead say that the realist in me has doubts about the rest of the Mets’ season.  The realist in me worries that the Mets’ 19-5 run is more a product of the Mets facing the subpar Marlins, Pirates, White Sox, and Padres over the bulk of that stretch.  The realist in me worries that the relievers outside of Seth Lugo and Justin Wilson will be hit hard as the Mets embark upon a stretch of 11 series in which 10 are against above-.500 teams.  Lastly, the realist in me worries that having too many games with 6/7/8 hitters of some permutation of Tomas Nido, Angel Echevarria, Luis Guillorme, Juan Lagares, Todd Frazier, and/or Aaron Altherr will be the undoing of this team.  (It is a shame that Robinson Cano succumbed to injury as his bat was finally starting to heat up.)  

Thus, who is correct?  The optimist in me or the realist in me?  The truth is that, right now it does not matter.  To return to the cliché at the top, sports is all about enjoying the ride.  I have loved these past four weeks of Mets baseball as the team has played like the best team in baseball.  Whether this Mets season keeps going strong or not, I will always look fondly upon this stretch of baseball for however long it lasts.  


Thinking back, my four favorite seasons as a Mets fan were 1999, 2000, 2006, and 2015.  When I think of 1999, I think of the team’s countless dramatic wins as the Mets progressed to and through a Game-162  win to force a one-game Wild Card tiebreaker and ultimately lost in a 6-game NLCS to the Braves.  That team also beat the D-Backs in an exciting NLDS that featured game-winning 9^th-inning homers from Edgardo Alfonzo and Todd Pratt. 

With 2000, I think of the Mets’ thrilling run to their first World Series of my fandom, as the Mets dispatched of the Giants in an exciting 4-game NLDS and easily beat the Cardinals in a 5-game NLCS.  In 2006, I experienced the Mets’ first divisional crown of my fandom, and the team also tied with the Yankees for the best record in the league.  It was a wonderful six months, and I thoroughly enjoyed the team’s NLDS sweep over the Dodgers and everything in the NLCS through the Endy Chavez catch in Game 7.  Lastly, with 2015, I experienced the most enjoyable Mets season of the Citi Field era, as the Yoenis Cespedes arrival sparked an incredible 6-week stretch in August and September that gave the Mets the NL-East crown.  Then, it was a delight to watch the Mets’ four dominant starting pitchers (deGrom, Syndergaard, Matz, and Matt Harvey) lead the Mets past the Dodgers in a tight 5-game NLDS and the Cubs in a complete 4-game thrashing in the NLCS.  

Writing that previous paragraph made me extremely happy.  That said, I should acknowledge that those seasons also presented the most upsetting moments I have experienced as a Mets fan.  Kenny Rogers walking Andruw Jones, Jose Vizcaino’s and Luis Sojo’s game-winning hits, Yadier Molina’s game-winning homerun, and Eric Hosmer’s mad dash for home plate were all brutal moments.  However, when I think of those seasons, I think first of the long, glorious roads that led to those brutal moments. 

I think of sitting in Shea Stadium for Melvin Mora’s game-winning run in Game 162, Robin Ventura’s grand single, Mike Piazza’s homer in the 10-run inning, Bobby Jones’s 1-hit shutout, and Endy Chavez’s catch.  As for Citi Field, I think first of being there for Daniel Murphy’s homerun in Game 1 against the Cubs….and I also reminisce about being present for the “Wilmer Flores crying” game. 

As we move further into the future, the joy of the happy moments greatly overtakes the pain of the depressing endings.  I would much rather have the chance for a negative ending than have a season like 2017 or 2018 in which the Mets were out of contention by the end of May.  As Rick DiPietro often mentions, the “currency of hope” is a valuable commodity, and I am happy to possess it whenever I can, such as during the current Mets’ run.

Meanwhile, if you are not like me but are instead a Mets fan who thinks of 1999 as a disappointment because of Kenny Rogers and 2015 as a disappointment because the team lost the World Series, then I do not know why you are a fan.  Unless you root for a team who has won a whole bunch of World Series in recent years (not the Mets’ case, obviously), you should enjoy whatever rides your team gives you.  Maybe this season will not take the Mets to the NLCS or beyond, as happened in previous seasons.  Maybe this season will be more like 1997, 1998, 2001, or 2016; when the Mets provided exciting runs but fell short of reaching the NLDS.  (Note: even the optimist in me cannot put a silver lining on a 7-game collapse, or even a 3.5-game mini-collapse, with 17 games left in the season.  Sorry, 2007 and 2008.)  Perhaps this season will actually be more like that of the 2010-11 Devils, who went on a 23-3-2 from January through March to turn a 27-point playoff deficit to a 6-point deficit. 

While that team ran out of steam in mid-March and missed the Stanley Cup Playoffs, I nevertheless look back upon that run as one of my favorite times as a Devils fan…and I have experienced much more success as a Devils fan than as a Mets fan.

That Devils run gave me hope for a miraculous championship that never materialized.  Similarly, this Mets run is giving me hope for a near-miraculous championship.  Will this dream come to fruition?  Only time will tell, but I am happy to have the currency of hope.  I did not have that currency at this time last year, at this time in 2017, nor in June and early July of this season. Thus, the moral of the story is this: we have no idea how this Mets season is going to finish, but we now know that, after most of us had buried the team for dead, the team now has a legitimate chance to do something special.  Let us enjoy the ride for as long as it lasts.

It Is Very Tough to Fix a Team With an Atrocious Bullpen

The Mets’ bullpen is a complete train wreck and is the biggest reason why the team is so terrible, sporting a record of 40-50.  Only the Marlins are below the Mets in the National League standings.  There are many ways to measure the Mets’ bullpen ineptitude, but I will highlight the keys:


-The Mets lead the majors in blown saves (21).


-The Mets have the lowest save percentage (50%) in the majors.


-The Mets have the third-highest bullpen E.R.A. (5.57) in the league.


-The Mets’ bullpen has pitched the fourth-fewest innings (294) in the majors.  


-The Mets’ bullpen has the fourth-highest batting-average-against (.272) and second-highest OPS-against (.834) in the majors.


As you read that list, you should note the outlier, the one positive stat – that the Mets’ bullpen has pitched the fourth-fewest innings in the majors.  Yes, that is good when taken by itself, but the stat also shows that one cannot blame the bullpen’s woes on overtaxation. 

Furthermore, the eye test also validates the premise that the pen is not overtaxed.  I have watched Mets manager Mickey Callaway extend starting pitchers longer this year than he would have last year and longer than most of his contemporaries would push guys this year. While there is plenty to criticize with Callaway, the man deserves credit in terms of pushing his pitchers.  Continuing with the eye test; I watched the Mets lose five games, in all of which the Mets had multi-run leads, in late June.  If I previously had any doubt as to where to cast the most blame for this Mets season, that stretch erased said doubt.

Anyway, we all know that the Mets’ bullpen is awful.  While the pen has had a relatively small workload, compared to other bullpens, the Mets have still “entrusted” the pen with 36.7% of the team’s innings pitched this year.  If you give a terrible bullpen more than a third of your team’s innings, your team probably will not have a good season.  That’s baseball, Susan.  The question though is whom is to blame for this predicament, and that is a tough question to answer.  


Let us return to Mickey Callaway.  Yes, I would love to see the Mets replace this guy with Joe Girardi.  I would sign up for that in a heartbeat, but I think Girardi would have earned the Mets no more than 2 or 3 more wins than Callaway has so far this year.  While there were several times last year when Callaway made head-scratching pitching changes, he has made only three or four changes this year that I feel have been very bad decisions.  However, the baseline number of bad pitching changes a manager makes over 90 games is not zero.  The average manager makes three of four bad changes too.  (Note that when I say “bad”, I mean with foresight, not with hindsight.) 

I listened to 10 years of talk radio when Joe Girardi managed in New York, and he makes some questionable pitching changes too. All managers make questionable pitching changes.  When teams make an average of 3 to 4 pitching changes per night, it is only natural that some of those moves will be questionable.  Thus, the moral of the story here is that I do not blame Mickey Callaway for the Mets’ bullpen disaster.


Moving on, the next candidate for blame is Mets’ GM Brodie Van Wagenen.  I do not like this guy.  I don’t care for his corporate speak, such as when he talked about how the Mets are not heeding their “mission statement”, a nauseating comment for a baseball fan to hear. 

I also don’t care for the fact that he threw a chair during a meeting with Callaway and others after yet another bullpen meltdown.  A good leader knows that he brought in the pitchers who are pitching badly and thus should not be blaming his subordinates when those pitchers falter.  Clearly, Brodie is not a good leader.


However, I cannot fault him for the approach he took to assembling the bullpen.  In the offseason, Van Wagenen was asked to restock a bullpen that contained two legitimate pieces – Seth Lugo, whom is a strong reliever but needs a great deal of rest, and Robert Gsellman, who is probably underqualified as a Top-4 reliever on a team but fine as a back-end guy.  Thus, what did Van Wagenen do?  He brought in three key relievers – Edwin Diaz, Jeurys Familia, and Justin Wilson.  


We all know what an epic disaster the Diaz trade has been, but I admit that I liked the deal at the time it was brokered.  Van Wagenen acquired a young flamethrower in Diaz, who was coming off a 57-save season in Seattle.  Sure, the Mets had to take a risk on adding five years of an aging Robinson Cano, and they had also to trade away prospects Jarred Kelenic and Justin Dunn, plus Jay Bruce and Anthony Swarzak.  Let’s now talk about what is and is not revisionist history.  Nobody was worried that Jay Bruce, coming off a season with a .223 average and 9 homers, was going to revert to his 2012 form, as he appears to have done.  Then again, to be fair, nobody knew he would end up on the Phillies where he could not only torment the Mets but also play in a stadium that inflates everyone’s power numbers.  What is not revisionist history, however, is to suggest that Diaz might decline upon moving from Seattle to the bright lights of New York. 

It is also not revisionist history to suggest that post-steroid, aging Cano, would be a bust.  Meanwhile, time will tell what the two prospects become.


However, I said at the time of the trade that the Mets were taking a worthwhile risk.  Had the Mets not pulled the trigger on this trade, the only other top-flight closer available would have been Craig Kimbrel.  I would have preferred signing Kimbrel and not making the Cano/Diaz trade, but Kimbrel looked bad in last year’s playoffs, was likely warn down by the playoff run, and was entering his 10^th season in the majors (as opposed to Diaz, who is in his fourth season).  As we stare down Edwin Diaz’s 5.50 ERA and countless meltdowns this year (and the complete disaster of everything with Cano), we could wonder what might have been with Kimbrel. 

Then again, four appearances into his Cubs season Kimbrel is pitching to an E.R.A above 12.  Sure, that will not last, but the fact remains that Kimbrel could absolutely have been a disaster this year in New York too.


Meanwhile, let us not forget the Mets’ Familia and Wilson signings.  Although the old blog for which I wrote is no more, I did write an article last year about the fact that Jeurys Familia was much better pitcher for the Mets than Mets fans typically remember.  When the Mets brought him back this year after sending him to Oakland at last year’s trade deadline, I assumed Familia could be a reliable set-up man for Diaz.  I did not foresee him pitching to an E.R.A of 7.50.  As for Justin Wilson, he should have rounded out quite a foursome with Diaz, Familia, and Lugo.  Plus, Justin Wilson’s being a lefty would have provided him additional value.  Unfortunately, Wilson has spent most of the season on the injured list.


Thus, as much Van Wagenen’s personality annoys me, I cannot blame him for his bullpen moves this offseason….and this is the conundrum with assembling bullpens.  Unless you are talking about Mariano Rivera, the year-to-year variance of relievers’ performance is enormous.  These guys often throw 60-70 innings, the equivalent of a third of a starting pitcher’s season, in a given year.  That is such a small sample size, yet, over time needed to gain a significant sample size (3-5 years, perhaps); the pitcher’s abilities and health can change greatly for better or for worse.  


Therefore, does anyone really know what to expect out of relievers from year to year?  It is easy now to rip Van Wagenen and praise Brian Cashman (who let’s be honest, is an incredible GM) for their bullpen moves this offseason, but is it crazy to think of an alternate reality in which Adam Ottavino and Zach Britton are having horrible seasons in the Bronx while the Familia/Diaz/Wilson trio dominates in Queens? 

It really isn’t.  Everyone knows that bullpens are year-to-year propositions, which is why it is so tough to construct, manage, or root for a team with an atrocious bullpen.  I am usually loathe to blame anything in life on luck; but I do believe that bad luck is the biggest reason for the Mets’ awful bullpen.


Thus, how do the Mets fix their bullpen next year?  They need better luck.  Yeah, I realize this is not a great approach.  Actually, my dream is to return to the days where starting pitchers regularly go 7, 8, or 9 innings, but we are not there.  Thus, the Mets’ options for improving the bullpen next year are either hoping that Diaz, Wilson, and Familia get back on track or unloading those guys and bringing in three additional high-variance guys.  I don’t know the answer.  You don’t know the answer.  Brodie doesn’t know the answer.  Regardless of Van Wagenen’s choice, the Mets and their fans have to hope that this year’s bad bullpen luck turns into next year’s good bullpen luck.  That is the best we can do, and that is the frustrating part of rooting for a team with an atrocious bullpen.