Mets Must Avoid The Second Half Blues

The All-Star Break represents the unofficial end of the first half of the baseball season.  Going into this year's break, the Mets have a 46-40 record.  They are 4½ games behind the Washington Nationals for first place in the National League East and a half-game behind Atlanta for the second wild card spot.

If the Mets are going to be serious contenders in September, they're going to have to continue playing as well as they did in the first half, if not better.  The Mets have shown no signs of coming apart at the seams, but then again, they didn't show signs of doing so in each of the last two seasons either.  Now if you catch yourself saying "but I don't remember the Mets being competitive over the last few seasons", you'll have to step aside and allow me to retort.

In 2011, the Mets were also above .500 at the All-Star Break with a 46-45 record.  Once they returned from their four-day break, the Mets proceeded to go 31-40 over the season's final 71 games.  Similarly, in 2010, the Mets went into their summer hiatus with an even better 48-40 mark.  Then they went out west after the break and tanked, losing nine of 11 en route to a 31-43 second half record.

But second half sleepwalks are nothing new for the Mets.  In fact, they've been doing in throughout their half-century of existence.  Let's look at the Mets' record in each of their first 50 seasons prior to the All-Star Break and compare it to their second halves.  The winning percentage for each half will also be included as part of this analysis.  Bold face and orange color denotes the half with the higher winning percentage.

• 1962: First Half (23-59, .280); Second Half (17-61, .218)
• 1963: First Half (29-55, .345); Second Half (22-56, .282)
• 1964: First Half (23-58, .284); Second Half (30-51, .370)
• 1965: First Half (29-56, .341); Second Half (21-56, .273)
• 1966: First Half (35-48, .422); Second Half (31-47, .397)
• 1967: First Half (31-47, .397); Second Half (30-54, .357)
• 1968: First Half (39-43, .476); Second Half (34-46, .425)
• 1969: First Half (53-39, .576); Second Half (47-23, .671)
• 1970: First Half (47-39, .547); Second Half (36-40, .474)
• 1971: First Half (46-40, .535); Second Half (37-39, .487)
• 1972: First Half (49-38, .563); Second Half (34-35, .493)
• 1973: First Half (42-51, .452); Second Half (40-28, .588)
• 1974: First Half (40-52, .435); Second Half (31-39, .443)
• 1975: First Half (43-42, .50588); Second Half (39-38, .50649)
• 1976: First Half (46-42, .523); Second Half (40-34, .541)
• 1977: First Half (37-55, .402); Second Half (27-43, .386)
• 1978: First Half (36-50, .419); Second Half (30-46, .395)
• 1979: First Half (38-49, .437); Second Half (25-50, .333)
• 1980: First Half (38-40, .487); Second Half (29-55, .345)
• 1981: First Half (17-34, .333); Second Half (24-28, .462)
• 1982: First Half (40-47, .460); Second Half (25-50, .333)
• 1983: First Half (30-50, .375); Second Half (38-44, .463)
• 1984: First Half (47-34, .580); Second Half (43-38, .531)
• 1985: First Half (50-36, .581); Second Half (48-28, .632)
• 1986: First Half (59-25, .702); Second Half (49-29, .628)
• 1987: First Half (47-40, .540); Second Half (45-30, .600)
• 1988: First Half (53-34, .609); Second Half (47-26, .644)
• 1989: First Half (45-39, .536); Second Half (42-36, .538)
• 1990: First Half (47-31, .603); Second Half (44-40, .524)
• 1991: First Half (46-34, .575); Second Half (31-50, .383)
• 1992: First Half (42-46, .477); Second Half (30-44, .405)
• 1993: First Half (27-60, .310); Second Half (32-43, .427)
• 1994: First Half (40-47, .460); Second Half (15-11, .577)
• 1995: First Half (25-44, .362); Second Half (44-31, .587)
• 1996: First Half (41-46, .471); Second Half (30-45, .400)
• 1997: First Half (48-38, .558); Second Half (40-36, .526)
• 1998: First Half (44-39, .530); Second Half (44-35, .557)
• 1999: First Half (50-39, .562); Second Half (47-27, .635)
• 2000: First Half (48-38, .558); Second Half (46-30, .605)
• 2001: First Half (38-51, .427); Second Half (44-29, .603)
• 2002: First Half (43-44, .494); Second Half (32-42, .432)
• 2003: First Half (40-53, .430); Second Half (26-42, .382)
• 2004: First Half (44-43, .506); Second Half (27-48, .360)
• 2005: First Half (44-44, .500); Second Half (39-35, .527)
• 2006: First Half (53-36, .596); Second Half (44-29, .603)
• 2007: First Half (48-39, .552); Second Half (40-35, .533)
• 2008: First Half (51-44, .537); Second Half (38-29, .567)
• 2009: First Half (42-45, .483); Second Half (28-47, .373)
• 2010: First Half (48-40, .545); Second Half (31-43, .419)
• 2011: First Half (46-45, .505); Second Half (31-40, .437)

In 28 of their first 50 seasons, the Mets' winning percentage in games played prior to the All-Star Break was higher than their winning percentage after the break.  This may not seem like much of a disparity, but let's dig a little deeper.

The Mets have finished above .500 in 23 of their first 50 seasons.  But this season marks the 25th time they've been at .500 or better at the All-Star Break.  The Mets have only had 22 second halves in which they finished with a winning record.  And when the Mets struggle in the second half ... boy, do they ever struggle!

Beginning in 1962, when the Mets' second half winning percentage was .062 lower in the second half compared to their first half winning percentage, the Mets have had 23 seasons in which their second half winning percentage was at least .040 lower than their first half winning percentage.  In all but five of the seasons in which the Mets' production fell off after the All-Star Break did they remain within .040 of their first half winning percentage.

Meanwhile, in only 13 seasons did the Mets improve by at least .040 from the first half to the second half.  The last time this occurred was in 2001, when the Mets were thirteen games under .500 at the break, but recovered to play over .600 ball during the second half of the season.

The Mets have always been a first half team.  In seven of their last ten seasons, they've performed better prior to the All-Star Break, only to crumble after the Midsummer Classic.  This season, the Mets are once again having a solid first half.  Will they continue to follow the precedent they've set over the past decade or will they finally rid themselves of the second half blues?  If the Mets are going to play meaningful games in September for the first time at Citi Field, they better make sure it's the latter.

 

Percentage-Wise, Mets Drew Better Than The Yankees

Baseball is a game of stats. Even casual fans know the home run records (73* and 762*) and how many rings the Yankees have, although that might be due to those "Got Rings?" shirts worn by the Yankee fans.

Therefore, one stat I just uncovered might bring a smile to the faces of Mets fans. Mets fans might be disappointed that their team didn't do as well in the standings as their crosstown rivals did, but at least they showed up to cheer them on (until they decided to dress up as green seats during the final month of the season).











During the regular season, the Mets averaged 38,942 tickets sold per game. Citi Field has a capacity of 41,800. Therefore, the Mets sold 93.2% of their seats for their inaugural season at Citi Field.

By comparison, the Yankees sold an average of 45,918 tickets per game, but the official capacity at the new Yankee Stadium is 52,325. Therefore, they only sold 87.8% of their available tickets.

Although team officials have said otherwise, none of the first four playoff games played at Yankee Stadium has been a sellout. In fact, only one game had a paid attendance of 50,000 and that one barely cracked the mark. Here are the attendance figures for each playoff game so far:

• ALDS Game 1 vs. Twins: 49,464
• ALDS Game 2 vs. Twins: 50,006
• ALCS Game 1 vs. Angels: 49,688
• ALCS Game 2 vs. Angels: 49,922

On average, Citi Field had slightly under 3,000 seats available for sale for each REGULAR SEASON game played. Yankee Stadium has a similar number of available seats for PLAYOFF GAMES.

This is a team that hadn't played in an ALCS since 2004 and they can't sell 50,000 tickets for the games against the Angels!

Had the Mets made the playoffs, I'm sure each game would have been sold out. After all, the Mets sold nearly every seat at Citi Field during the regular season while the Yankees averaged more than twice as many unsold seats at their new ballpark.

Of course, buying tickets at Yankee Stadium might cause Yankee fans to have to take out a second mortgage on their homes, but this is the playoffs. Even former Indianapolis Colts coach Jim Mora was stunned to hear that the Yankees couldn't sell out playoff games.

Perhaps I'm just a jealous Mets fan who can't find anything else to write about now that the Mets are playing golf and the Yankees and Phillies are still playing for the trophy. But I was one of those Mets fans who showed up at Citi Field this season despite the disappointing product I was paying to watch on the field. I was there for 20 games (about one-quarter of the home schedule) and plan on going to more games next season.

Real fans go to the games to share their love of their team with fellow fans. The Rockies sold out their playoff games and showed up during sub-freezing temperatures and threats of snow. Why can't Yankee fans show up in chilly weather? I guess Yankee fans don't want to share anything with their fellow fans other than their ubiquitous "Got Rings?" T-shirts. After all, those people in suits with the bulging wallets who occupy most of the seats aren't really fellow fans anyway.