How would the Mets starters fare with average run support?

They say that timing is everything. Last year, the Mets averaged 3.88 runs per game but not every starter received the same level of support. But what if they did? How would things look if each starter received the same run support, at the same time, for each game? Let’s examine if they did, with the full understanding that this is nothing but a theoretical exercise. No game would ever wind up the same if played out in real life under these circumstances.

Having said that, here are the rules. We’re going to round up and give the Mets exactly four runs in each game. And those four runs are all going to come in the first inning. Meanwhile, the other team is going to score the same amount of runs that they did in the real game. We will assign wins and losses to each pitcher based on the Mets scoring exactly four runs and the opposition scoring whatever it did in real life.

So, every game in which the other team scored three or fewer runs overall will result in a win for the starting pitcher. No more 2-1 or 3-2 tough-luck losses. On the flip side, no more 9-5 wins, either. If our starter pitched six innings and gave up no runs and got a win in real life, it would be a no-decision if the other team scored four or more runs in the actual game. Here’s how the 2014 Mets starters would have fared under these conditions:

This reinforces what a tremendous year that deGrom enjoyed in 2014. Only twice did he put his team in a really bad position. In a bit of a surprise, the next best pitcher in winning percentage in this exercise is Gee. Of course, he was bailed out a lot by this early run support, having seven games where he allowed four runs. In real life, he went 0-4 in those seven contests.

Wheeler turned in a very nice season under these circumstances. In 2014, there were 20 games where he pitched fewer than seven innings and allowed no more than three runs. In real life Wheeler was 9-3 in these games. Here, with four runs at his disposal, he was 16-0.

My expectation was that Niese would have done better playing by these rules. While surely the perception of him in real life would be a lot different if he was 13-6 last year, it was surprising to me that his record here wasn’t better. While Niese allowed three runs or fewer in 23 of his 30 starts last year, he only grabbed a decision in 57% of the games in this exercise. And this included games where he pitched seven or more innings. Recall Wheeler’s success rate of 80% decisions in games where he gave up three runs or less, despite not managing Niese’s innings load. It appears the bullpen let down Niese at least as much, if not more, than the offense did in 2014.

Unlike Gee, who was bailed out of a bunch of outings where he did not pitch well, when Colon was bad, he was very, very bad. His eight losses here were completely expected. While it’s beyond the scope of what we’re doing here, it’s an interesting question if a pitcher like 2014 Colon is more valuable than a pitcher like 2014 Gee. Their ERA’s were very similar but the way they achieved them was completely different. Colon gave a Quality Start 65% of the time while Gee did it 50% of the time. But Gee only gave up five or more runs 9% of the time while it happened in 26% of Colon’s starts.

The type of offensive team you have might dictate if you desired a guy like Colon who generally gave more innings of higher quality but when he was off it was ugly, versus a guy like Gee who rarely got blown out but who generally gave up two to four runs in six to seven innings. A strong offensive team like the 2014 Angels might prefer Gee, while Colon might be more valuable to a team that struggled to score runs like the Padres.

Just for fun, let’s look at one more pitcher under these rules. In 2013, Matt Harvey would have been 18-1 if he got four runs of support in the first inning.