A
Cycle of Sevens
by
Bob Tompkins
During my many hours of poring over New York Mets statistics for the past
several years, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. It seems that roughly every
seven years, the Mets experience a complete reversal of fortunes. First they're
a bunch of patsies, then they experience a time of being solid contenders, then
stooges again, then champions, in a continuing cycle of sevens. Okay, so it's
not scientific, except in the sense that it bears a certain resemblance to Dr.
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And in fact, the periods of swing time are not
specifically seven years (as I'll show further on), but the seven-year breaks
are significant enough to show the pattern.
|
STRICT 7-YEAR BREAKDOWN 7-YR PERIOD WINS LOSSES PCT. |
The chart at the left shows the entire history of the Mets to date, broken down into seven-year batches. For the first seven years of the Mets' existence, they were simply a dreadful ballclub! After that, they had a seven-year period of respectability, which of course included the 1969 World Championship. Following that period of success, they went through another seven-year span marked by incredible ineptness (the 1962-1968 horrors could be explained partially by the inequities of being an expansion club during that time in baseball history, but 1976-82 can only be attributable to gross mismanagement). After that, however, the Mets experienced their period of greatest triumph, as they were probably the best club in baseball for their fourth seven-year era, including the 1986 World Championship. Following that, another period of incompetence, and following that, another period of impressive success, including their appearance in the 2000 Subway Series versus the Yankees.
This pattern of sevens, if there is anything to it other than merest coincidence, does not bode well for the beginning of the Art Howe era in New York, as it appears we are getting ready to enter another long drought, marked by mediocrity at best. One thing to be hopeful about, though, is that each "bad" period wasn't quite as bad as the one that preceded it. From 1962-68 the cumulative winning percentage was .348, from 1976-1982 it was .420, and from 1990-1996 it was .463. Perhaps we could reasonably expect the winning percentage from 2004-2010 to be around .490 to even .500, especially since owner Fred Wilpon is trying his best to be committed to winning. And, of course, my sincere wish about this is that I am absolutely mistaken, and we are getting ready to enter another golden age at Shea.
Let's take a little bit closer look at each period in the Mets' history, and the things that distinguished each one.
Period One: Expansion
For those of you who
have been aware of expansion only since the days of the Marlins, Rockies,
Diamondbacks, and Devil Rays, you need to understand two important facts: (1)
When expansion first happened in the early 1960s, the only players new clubs
were allowed to pick from the other teams were really, really bad players, and
(2) there was no free agency.
Put these two facts together, and you were guaranteed that success as a franchise was a complete impossibility (at least as far as wins and losses were concerned) for quite a few years. In their first seven years, the Mets finished last five times and next-to-last the other two.
That isn't to say that the Mets didn't have their share of colorful characters staying in the home clubhouse at first the Polo Grounds, and then later at brand-new Shea Stadium. With Casey Stengel at the helm, the following Hall of Famers all were Mets during the club's first few years: Yogi Berra, Duke Snider, Warren Spahn, Richie Ashburn, and coaches Rogers Hornsby, Red Ruffing, and Bill Dickey. But each of those stellar players was at the very end of his career and couldn't do anything at all to lift the Mets from the basement.
Period Two: Tom Seaver
Sure, there was more to this parcel of time than Tom Seaver...but not much. I'm going to make the first amendment to the strict Cycle of Sevens here and add one year to this period, making it 1969-1976, since '76 was the last full season Seaver spent with the Mets before being traded away to Cincinnati for a large basket of spare parts. For the eight-year period of 1969-76, Tom Seaver's won-lost record was 150-82. The rest of the pitching staff for those eight years compiled an aggregate record of 520 wins and 537 losses. They didn't call Seaver "The Franchise" for nothing!
(The Mets had first
won the rights to have Mr. Seaver as a member of
their team by having their name pulled out of a hat by the Commissioner's
office. If that fortuitous event had not taken place, it is very likely that my
Cycle of Sevens theory would not have existed in any form at all.)
Other Hall of Famers who appeared for the Mets during this era were Nolan Ryan and Willie Mays, both of whom had virtually no effect on the team's success, though they both did appear in a World Series for New York (Ryan in 1969 and Mays in 1973). And from that time until this, no other Hall of Famer has ever played with the Mets, at least not until Gary Carter or Eddie Murray gets inducted.
Period Three: Trying to Recover from Disaster
The strict Cycle of Sevens here represents the years of 1976-1982, which produced a record of 452-623--a dreadful .420 winning percentage. Using the amended Cycle of Sevens introduced by extending the Tom Seaver era to 1976, I will make this period of time the seven years from 1977-1983, which produced an even worse record of 434-641, which makes for an almost incomprehensible winning percentage of .404!
As Thumper's mother said, "If you can't say something nice about somebody, don't say anything at all." So I'm keeping quiet about the identity of the Chairman of the Board who stripped the club of its entire identity in the late 1970s by ordering several disastrous trades. Suffice it to say that if the Mets ever had a Mr. Hyde in their history, M. Donald Grant was the guy.
Period Four: Frank Cashen and Davey Johnson
Strict Cycle of
Sevens: 1983-1989 (643-489, .568). Amended Cycle of Sevens: 1984-1990 (666-466,
.588).
Frank Cashen was the general manager of the great Baltimore Orioles teams of the late 1960s and early '70s, and Dave Johnson was one of his star players. Cashen was called to New York in the early '80s to try and right that sinking ship, and Johnson became his manager in 1984. Together they reigned over what became the best team in the big leagues for the next seven years. Of course, there were All-Star players in New York during that period of time, too! Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden, Keith Hernandez, and Gary Carter were the headliners, but the cast was solid top-to-bottom.
Period Five: The Worst Team Money Could Buy
|
AMENDED CYCLE OF SEVENS 7ish-YR PERIOD WINS LOSSES PCT. |
Strict Cycle of Sevens: 1990-1996 (494-572, .463). Amended Cycle of Sevens: the six years from 1991-1996, finally giving back that extra year we took for Tom Seaver (403-501, .446).
The end of the Davey Johnson era saw the Mets try to replace their departed veteran stars in a series of poorly-executed free agent signings and trades. Actually, many of the players that were brought in were fine athletes, but somehow they just never blended into a winning mix. David Cone, Dwight Gooden, Bret Saberhagen, Vince Coleman, Eddie Murray, and Bobby Bonilla all found themselves in negative spotlights of varying hues during those years
Period Six: Steve Phillips and Bobby Valentine
From 1997 to the present time (at this writing, the close of the 2002 season): a pretty good 524-448, .539 record.
A time marked by
several blockbuster trades, this could easily have been called the Mike Piazza era in Met history. Mike's
degree of success at the plate has had a fairly direct correlation in wins and
losses for the Mets for the last three seasons.
But the Mets became a winning team once again even before Mike arrived, and the principal catalyst for that appeared to be manager Bobby Valentine. His uneasy partnership with GM Steve Phillips was well-known, but the two of them reached the 1999 playoffs and the 2000 World Series with a wonderful ballclub composed of classy veterans Robin Ventura, Al Leiter, John Olerud, Todd Zeile, and young standout Edgardo Alfonzo.
Predicting the Future: The Fred Wilpon Era
With no knowledge of what the Mets' personnel will look like during the next decade, I'll go out on a limb and predict an 85-win season to close out the 1997-2003 cycle. During the 2004-2010 seven-year period, I'll say there will be three winning seasons and four losing seasons, but nothing overly impressive, either bad or good. And then, in 2011, after seven sevens, it will be The Year of Jubilee! The Mets' 50th season! And that year will produce a club-record 109 victories and a World Championship victory over the Yankees.
I'll leave this essay posted as long as I have a website. If I turn out to be right about these things, you can send me an email (if we're still using email in 2011) congratulating me. And if I turn out to be wrong, go gently with me. I'll be an old man.
Conclusion
The only real conclusion to be reached at this point is that the Mets have had a really unsteady history! The periods of time when they have been bad have been very, very bad. And the periods when they have been good have produced two trips to the post-season each time. And that's not bad at all!
While they have not enjoyed sustained periods of brilliance like the Yankees and Braves of the last dozen years, they also have not suffered any sustained periods of complete ineptitude, like the Cubs and Phillies. All in all, there's been a pretty nice balance of pain and pleasure, changing gears just about every seven years. And that makes this a pretty satisfying team to root for: During the lean years, we have the feasts of recent championships to savor in our memories, and when the fat years come again, the champagne tastes all the sweeter because of how tight our bellies were, just so long ago.
* * * * *
back to the Essays Table of Contents - New York Mets Hall of Records Home Page - Rounding Third baseball card shop
* * * * *
Would you like to comment on this article?
View comments others have written on this article.
