This will be the first in a series of post in which the authors at TRDM make an argument for a statement and allow you the readers to agree or disagree with the statement.
To start the series I am looking at Jerry and meaningful games in September.
The Mets would be playing meaningful games in September this year if they had fired Jerry after the terrible road trip in July.
No this is not another, Jerry is an idiot post. Nor is this a post about how Wally could have done better. This is a post on the likely increase in winning percentage due to a manager change.
As my fellow author pointed out here: Grave Notions: Mid-Season Managerial Changes
there is usually an uptick in performance following a managerial change. The median for that change was .045. Based on my not so incredible math skills that would have given the Mets 68 wins and would have placed them only 5 games back of the wild card about the same position the Rockies were in to start September. If they had won the same 8 games they have already in September they would be 5.5 games back of Atlanta in the WC race with a weekend series against them coming up. Perhaps my math is off in a couple of areas, however, my point is that the Mets starting on September 1st woudl have still been playing meaningful games. While I know it would have been incredibly unlikely for the Mets to come up big instead of fold who is to say that the manager change could not have sparked a chain of events?
By default the Mets winning more games equals the teams they played winning less. During those 32 games 19 of those have been against teams that would have been ahead of us in the division or WC race.
Also you have to factor in that if the Mets were in the race it would have increased the chances of a deadline deal in July or August may have been increased.
The final point I will make is that could that winning have been negative in the scheme of what is important to the Mets for 2011 and beyond?