Do The Phillies Have To Win Against the Mets To Be Good?

by David S. Cohen on Jun 11, 2009 1:55 PM EDT Comment 19 comments

More photos » by Kathy Willens - AP

Last night while listening to the radio broadcast of the Phillies/Mets game, I heard Larry Andersen bemoaning the Phillies inability to win against the Mets this year. (Of course, he was talking when it looked like the Phillies were going to drop to 1-5 against the Mets this season and before the Phillies tied the game up in the seventh and took the lead in the eleventh.) A large part of his reasoning was that the Mets are the Phillies' chief rival in the NL East right now and a team can't win its division without doing well against the chief rival.

On the surface, Andersen's comments ring true to an extent. It's certainly not necessary to dominate your chief rival, as the Phillies did last year against the Braves, winning 14 of 18. But, a significantly losing record against your chief rival will hurt as each loss is a two game swing in the standings. Take last night's Phillies win for example. The Phillies entered the game 2 games up on the Mets. Had they lost, they would drop to only 1 game up. However, the Phillies won, so they are now 3 games up on the Mets. Andersen is absolutely correct that winning against your chief rival is important in this sense.

However, he's wrong as a historical matter that it's necessary to win against your chief rival. In fact, he's shockingly forgetting last year. Last year, the Phillies won the NL East by 3 games over the Mets, yet they lost the season series to the Mets -- 7 Phillies wins, 11 Mets wins. Losing to their chief rival certainly didn't stop the Phillies last year. Of course, their trip to the post-season would have been easier had they finished with a winning or even .500 record against the Mets. But, they didn't need to win against the Mets to win the NL East.

And that's held true for many recent playoff teams. Looking back over the last 5 years in the majors, 11 of the 30 division winners have had losing records against the division runner-up. Interestingly, the worst record during that timeframe is the Phillies' 7-11 record against the Mets last year, but there are also a lot of 8-10 and 8-11 records.

Of course, having a winning record against the runner-up is certainly preferable. But, despite Andersen's concerns last night, it's not required.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

When the phillies finish the season in first place and the mets in second – will anyone care if they had a winning or losing record against them?

I know I won’t.

A lot of impact is put on one team that makes up slightly more than 10% of your schedule, the 90% is pretty important too and if you perform ‘below par’ in that 10% you make it up in the 90%

"Someone created the box score," Morey says, "and he should be shot."

Blocked shots — they look great, but unless you secure the ball afterward, you haven’t helped your team all that much.

by jemagee on Jun 11, 2009 2:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

by David S. Cohen on Jun 11, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, and getting swept by the Pirates does not help the Mets case. You have to beat the teams that you are “supposed to beat,” and this is something the Phillies were not able to do in past seasons when they failed to make the playoffs.

by doubleh on Jun 11, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't agree with that either

There’s one thing you have to do to make the playoffs – have a better record than the other teams in your division (or, in the wild card era, a better record than all the other non-division-winning teams). You can do that so many different ways, and I have no doubt that over the course of MLB history, all those different ways have been done.

So, just like you don’t have to win against your nearest rival, you also don’t have to win against the teams you are “supposed to beat.” As long as you make up for those losses in your other games in a way that gets you to a win total that is more than your competitors, you’re fine. There are no other “have tos.”

by David S. Cohen on Jun 11, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There are have tos – but there are no ‘have to’ beat teams – the whole have to beat thing is a media creation – or writer or whatever – they make it bigger to get attention to the writing or their broadcasts – but each game against the mets is as important against each game against the nats or braves – and any other team.

There are ‘have tos’ closer to the end of the season if you ‘have to clinch’ oron the last day it’s win or go home – but it’s not team dependent

"Someone created the box score," Morey says, "and he should be shot."

Blocked shots — they look great, but unless you secure the ball afterward, you haven’t helped your team all that much.

by jemagee on Jun 11, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that there are no "have to beat" teams

But a game against an divisional team is slightly more important that a nondivisional foe, simply b/c it’s a guaranteed two game swing.

by Screen Name 20 on Jun 11, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds like SOMEONE'S got a case of the "S'poseda's!"

Seriously, though…

I think it’s more accurate to say there are teams that you are “supposed to beat” instead of saying there are teams you “have to beat.” We are “supposed to beat” the Nationals whenever we play them. We “have to beat” the Nationals if a playoff spot is on the line.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Jun 11, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but...

The main reason we made the playoffs while losing against the Mets was because the Mets fell apart against other teams. It got to the point where how we played against them didn’t matter. You knew that Heilman, Schoenweis, and others would blow games for them… so all we had to do was take care of our own business.

I think that, given the Mets’ improved bullpen, it is more important for us to beat them this year than it was last year. Sure, we can make the playoffs with a losing record against them, but we also have to be prepared for the fact that we may have to face them in the NLCS. Plus, nothing inspires overall confidence like beating one’s chief rival. Perhaps most importantly, a healthy Mets bullpen will not lose games in the 7th-8th innings. So while we’re taking care of business against the other 90% of our schedule, they will be too.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Jun 11, 2009 3:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I disagree.

So while [the Phillies are] taking care of business against the other 90% of [the Phillies’] schedule, [the Mets] will be too.

Not true so far. The Mets have taken care of business against the Phillies this year, hence the Mets having a 4-2 record versus the Phillies. The Phillies remain 3 games ahead of the Mets, however.

Versus the non-Phillies competition, the Mets are 27-24. Against the rest of the league (the “Not Mets”), the Phillies are 32-19. Looks like the Mets are not taking care of business against the rest of the league, after all, so your predictive statement is thus far incorrect, and the Mets only have 105 games (minus the ones against the Phillies) to correct it.

If the Mets win the division title, it is going to have to be because they beat the Phillies head-to-head. I suspect that they are so far behind already in “vs everyone else” that they will not catch the Phillies that way.

So, in response the the professor’s initial question, do the Phillies have to beat the Mets head to head to ~~win the division~~ be good? No. But the other, unasked question is: Do the Mets have to beat the Phillies head to head to “be good”? I think that answer is (at this point in the season) probably “yes.”

Remember the Phitans

by RememberthePhitans on Jun 11, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

still early, lots can change

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jun 11, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but...

But — with each passing game, it gets less early, and the ability to “make up” games gets harder. It’s the incredible shrinking math game where the tree of possibilities gets pruned and odds get longer and longer. You know this, obviously. I just suspect that most of us don’t really realize how fast it can be “over” during the course of a 162 game season that feels pretty long.

Let’s look at one of the points I made above in response to the original claim as an illustration (the Mets will “take care of business” against the rest of the league this year). The Mets and Phillies play 18 games. 6 are in the book. 12 remain. The Mets play 144 non-Phillies games, all told. The Mets have played 51 of those games, leaving 93. Over a 93 game schedule, they have to play 6 games better than the Phillies to win more games against “others” (Ben, Jacob, etc.).

If the Phillies play .500 against “others”, the Mets have to play .5645 against others the rest of the way to pass the Phillies. Over a 92 game “others” schedule, the Mets have to play .5652. Each game tightens the noose, and the ones at the end really do it. For the purposes of the OP and his point, the chances that the Phillies get outperformed that much over 92 games with what we’ve seen so far is pretty poor. If you look at W3 and L3 numbers (and I don’t have them) for “rest of league” scenarios and see how likely it is that the Mets overtake the Phillies in that category, I think you’d find it is highly unlikely. I’d SWAG 1 it at about 85%-15%, in favor of the Phillies.

My total point was that I think the Mets need to beat the Phillies to “be good” (which I converted to “win the division”) where the Phillies do not need to be the Mets to do so.

I make this bold prediction, even though it appears to “be early”:

The Mets, if they win the division, will win it by having a winning record against the Phillies and a record “against the rest of the league” that is worse than that of the Phillies.

“Early” in baseball is, to me, often more early than you might subjectively think. The season is effectively over for probably half of the league by the end of June. Oddly, I take this view even thought the Phillies have been walking dead at points over the last two years. Thank you, Mets.

1 Scientific Wild Ass Guess

Remember the Phitans

by RememberthePhitans on Jun 11, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So wait – now SWAG has two meanings – god damn it

Every games counts just as much as any other game

"Someone created the box score," Morey says, "and he should be shot."

Blocked shots — they look great, but unless you secure the ball afterward, you haven’t helped your team all that much.

by jemagee on Jun 11, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No they don’t. A game vs. your nearest season rival counts more, because by winning you can also simultaneously guarantee a loss by them, and vice versa, whereas a win against another team only improves your own record without necessarily hurting your rival’s. That doesn’t mean you necessarily have to win the games vs. your rivals, but of course they are more important than other games, it’s just an obvious mathematical truth.

To the extent LA said it’s literally impossible to win without beating your nearest rival more often than they beat you, he was, of course, incorrect. It’s very unlikely that he meant it literally though – he was talking extemporaneously, not writing a legal brief. Probably all he meant was that games vs. your nearest rival are of heightened importance, which is true. The bigger mistake on LA’s part was assuming that the Mets are necessarily going to be our nearest rival. That could be true, but it’s too early to tell at this point.

by taco pal on Jun 11, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

My total point was that I think the Mets need to beat the Phillies to "be good" (which I converted to "win the division") where the Phillies do not need to be the Mets to do so.

This I agree with. It’s more important for the Mets to do well against us (psychologically and standings-wise) than it is for us to do well against them. Still, given their improved lineup, I expect this to be another season in which the division title is decided in the final few games.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Jun 11, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay...

You make a good point, and it is one that I did not consider. However, what I was trying to say is that the Mets – especially when healthy – are a better team than they were last year. When we didn’t beat them last year I wasn’t happy, but I knew that they would lose other games that they should win, and that would always give us a chance to catch up.

We won this series, sure. We deserved to. But the outcome may have been different if they had Delgado and Putz in the lineup. We had all sorts of trouble against the Healthy Mets earlier in the season.

And to be clear, I did say that the Phillies could still make the playoffs so long as they are competitive against the Mets this year. The Phils are doing well on the road, and their defense has been fantastic. As long as those two trends continue, I like our chances to win the division again. But the Mets are not going to get in their own way this year, like they did the past two years.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Jun 11, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mets Phils

Mets fan here.

Intense series so far the last two days. I’m watching on TV but I’m seeing a few more Phils caps in the crowd than we usualiy see. I gotta admit that the catch by Mr.Werth was most excellent. I follow my Mets very closely. Even though I now live far away from NYC I catch about 150 games a year on the baseball package. We seem to play with much more intensity against you guys than say the Nats or Braves. It is fun to feel almost playoff baseball in June. Games against lesser teams seem to be sleep walk affairs for us. Otherwise, we still lack another starter and the injuries are mounting. Ironically we seem more consistent with Cora at SS than Reyes. Go figure. I’ll be in your park on July 5th. Be nice to the old Mets fan!

by Jerry Grote on Jun 11, 2009 5:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs