The collapse isn't real
Frustration isn't the same as failure
In 2006, as the Mets tried to clinch the NL East, they got swept by a Pirates team that would end up finishing the season 67-95. For three days, we watched them lose to a team whose regular starting pitchers all had ERA’s above 4.40. The unbelievable, incredible Mets lineup, the best of my lifetime, scored five runs in three games. The team was utterly asleep, falling from the highest of highs to the basement with no warning at all.
The only thing that saved them? They had a 16-game lead before the series, and a 13.5-game lead when it ended.
I bring this up because…well, you know why. Over their last six games, the Mets have gone — prepare to keel over in disgust — 2-4. They’ve fallen out of first place in the NL East. They’ve collapsed. The season (stop me if you’ve heard this before) might as well be over.
Except — really? Take the smallest step back and look at what’s actually happening, and the whole “collapse” theory of the case becomes completely ridiculous.
Why does it seem like the Mets have collapsed? Because the Braves have gone 23-5 over their last 28 games. The Mets have gone 15-13, and have gone from 33 games over .500 to 35. Believe it or not, even great teams sometimes (by which I of course mean “always”) have stretches where they don’t play at a 100-win place. It’s way too easy to always cite the 1986 Mets, but it’s still true: the ’86 team played through a 16-16 stretch in the second half of the season. The only reason nobody minded is that their division lead was never in jeopardy.
The gist of it? The Mets are still the same team that won their series against the Dodgers last week. They’re still the same team that went on a 17-3 run in the middle of the season, making them all but a lock for the postseason by August. The Mets going through a 2-4 stretch just as the Braves seem unable to lose is unfortunate. It absolutely does not make them a worse team than before.
The Mets are 87-52. After 139 games, the 2006 Mets were…87-52. The 2015 Mets were 78-61. The 1969 Mets were 82-57. The 2022 Mets are a good team. They have their problems, and they’ve done some things wrong, but they’re still a good team, and have been all year. The only — literally, only — problem is that the Braves have gone 23-5 over their last 28 games.
If the Mets had a “go 23-5” button, they would have pressed it; I promise. But you can’t define “collapse” to mean “win as much as the team chasing you wins, no matter what.” You can’t say the Mets have “collapsed” when their actual offense is “failure to hold off a team going 23-5.”
“Urgency” and “the will to win” and “wanting it more” are nothing more than proxies for how the team is doing on the field. The Mets want to win, they want it really badly, and they’re being urgent about it, and you may quote me on that. But even if a team wants to win more than anything in the world, there’s still no magic button. It’s not an achievement you can unlock: “Hey kids! Collect 50 ‘want to win’ coins, and you’ll be exempt from playing badly!” The teams that want to win — the teams that really want to win — still don’t always win.
Don’t get me wrong; watching the Mets go 2-4 has been frustrating. It’s been mind-numbingly painful. But the key to baseball — the whole point, really; the principle behind the ideal that if you strike out one at-bat, you can still hit a home run next time up — is that frustration is not the same as failure.
I would love the Mets to win their division, and they’re good enough to do it. But they might not. Sometimes, your opponent goes on a 23-5 run, and as much as fans would like to think that a truly great team would respond by going on a 23-5 run of its own, that’s just not how it works.
The 1985 Mets didn’t collapse when their 98 wins finished second to the Cardinals’ 101. The 2021 Dodgers didn’t collapse when their 106 wins finished behind the Giants’ 107. You know who collapsed? The 2007 Mets. The Mets have 23 games left, and they’ll be better than the 2007 Mets if they win two of them.
Mets play the Marlins tonight. Carrasco on the hill, Walker tomorrow, probably Bassitt and deGrom after that. The Mets have played good baseball all year. Whether the Braves win or lose, all the Mets can do is keep going.
All fair arguments against the narrative that they are collapsing. But what about those of us who think they are not giving themselves the best chance of winning this race with the Braves? There is strong evidence Buck is managing with a lack of urgency: the decisions to pitch Medina, Montes de Oca, and Rodriguez in late spots of close games. Three times in one week. Three out of four of the losses. A rested bullpen available each time. Each one, coming on the heals of the previous one, is that much more alarming. Last night was probably the worst for that reason. To have managed with enough urgency to pull the starter in the 4th at 4-0, but then not use a rested Diaz or Ottavino at 4-3 in the 8th? And then to say because you wanted Diaz for the 9th which may not even come? We all get the idea of not burning out guys, but when you turn around and realize Diaz hasn’t pitched in a week, at least admit that you messed up.
You could also argue that Megill and Guillorme should be up by now. And Vientos too. We have two guys on the roster supposedly here for flexibility, who have not found there ways onto the field now in the 9 days they’ve been here. How are those roster spots contributing? And Darin Ruf? That’s an insanely long leash he’s been afforded.