The Mets overachieved across the board this year, just not necessarily in the ways we had imagined.
Back in March, we shared our bold predictions for the 2024 season. Let’s recap how we did.
Allison McCague: Francisco Alvarez will be the best catcher in the National League
Linda Surovich: Francisco Alvarez will hit 42 HR, setting a new club record for the position
Both Allison and Linda were high on Francisco Alvarez coming into the season, and unfortunately both of these predictions fell short. The 22-year-old catcher missed a good chunk of time with a thumb injury, appeared in only 100 games, and hit .237/.307/.403 before looking lost in the postseason and ultimately making the final out of the NLCS.
That said, this was far from a bad season from Alvarez. His offense was basically league average (102 wRC+, 97 DRC+) and he accrued roughly two wins (1.9 fWAR, 1.9 WARP) while playing as the youngest starting catcher in baseball since Ivan Rodriguez. His defense, long worried to be a liability, has become a real strength as well; he ranked 8th in catcher defensive value per Baseball Prospectus’ metrics, largely on the back of his strong framing metrics.
There’s clearly still work to do here. Alvarez has obvious pitch recognition issues and frequently loses his approach for long stretches. Some of the tweaks to his stance and setup at the major league setup have been puzzling, leaving him even more vulnerable to breaking stuff away. Sometimes, catchers just take a bit longer to really take the next step offensively. That said, Alvarez is already a very solid player and someone you can comfortably pencil in as the starter next year, even if both of these predictions were whiffs.
Cumulative Score: 0/2
Michael Drago: The Mets’ bullpen will be good (for real this time)
Another unfortunate whiff. Edwin Díaz did not look the same as his pre-injury self, losing some velocity and the feel for his slider (particularly after a sticky-stuff suspension in early July). Brooks Raley went down with Tommy John surgery, Jake Diekman was a disaster, and Michael Tonkin was poor with the Mets before some unfortunate scheduling squeezed him off. Yohan Ramirez was bad, and Nate Lavender also had Tommy John.
That said, the Mets were able to cobble together a unit that was far from an outright liability. Reed Garrett was quite good in stretches, and deadline pickups Phil Maton and Ryne Stanek (both acquired essentially for free) were quite good in their roles. José Buttó and Dedniel Núñez took major steps forward, when healthy. The Mets also still have a bevvy of upper minors arms that could provide flexible bullpen depth of variable quality.
All of this is to say even though this prediction didn’t quite work out this year, David Stearns has clearly laid the groundwork for the same sort of bullpen successes he had in Milwaukee. Perhaps Michael should wheel this prediction back out for a third straight season in 2025.
Cumulative Score: 0/3
Brian Salvatore: The rotation will be good
Vas Drimalitis: The Mets’ starting pitching will be a strength, not a liability
Your initial impression here might be that both of these predictions were correct. Sean Manaea is going to receive down-ballot Cy Young votes. Luis Severino was solid, as was Jose Quintana in the second half. David Peterson was fantastic after returning from his hip injury. The bits and pieces we got from Jose Butto, Tylor Megill, Christian Scott, and Paul Blackburn were generally good. The only objectively bad pitcher who got significant run in the rotation was Adrian Houser, and he made only seven starts before being jettisoned off the roster.
Step back and look at the numbers and things are less rosy. Mets starters ran a 3.91 ERA, which was only 12th best in the league in what was a down offensive year. Their 10.2 fWAR ranked 19th. Their team DRA (which includes the bullpen, to be clear) was 4.42, 15th in baseball, and their 99 DRA- is nearly bang on average. As a team (again, including relievers) their .314 xwOBA ranked 17th in the league. All of these metrics are flawed in one way or another, but that’s a whole lot of data that suggests the Mets’ rotation was closer to average than “good” or “a strength.”
There were certainly positive pitching developments across the organization for pitching, but not enough of them impacted the major league staff just yet. Credit a half point here for Vas specifying the rotation would not be a “liability,” but no more.
Cumulative Score: 0.5/5
Chris McShane: Jeff McNeil will reclaim the National League batting title
McNeil unfortunately did not have the even-year bounce back Chris was hoping for, batting a paltry .238/.308/.384 (97 wRC+). He also missed time with a wrist injury and eventually lost his job to Jose Iglesias. Meanwhile, Luis Arraez won his third straight batting title with a .314/.346/.392 line for Miami and San Diego.
It was mostly another bad year for McNeil, and he’ll turn 33 in early April next year. That said, there were some reasons for optimism; McNeil hit .289/.376/.547 (156 wRC+) in the second half as he returned to a more selective, pull-happy approach that led to significantly improved power output. It was only 149 PA, but maybe there’s something he can carry forward into next season.
Cumulative Score: 0.5/6
Lukas Vlahos: The Mets will win 88+ games
Despite being pegged as a .500 team by most projection systems in the preseason, the Mets won 89 games. Nailed it.
I wasn’t quite on the nose in terms of where this overperformance came from, however. Yes, the Mets’ portfolio of mid-tier free agents performed very well, and they got internal breakouts in several key spots. But it wasn’t Brett Baty finally figuring out how to launch the ball, it was Mark Vientos—a prospect I’ve been low on for years—making huge strides in his swing decisions and becoming a potential star. It wasn’t Drew Gilbert supplanting Starling Marte, it was Tyrone Taylor having a surprisingly strong season that made him look like a viable starting center fielder going forward. It wasn’t Christian Scott seizing a rotation spot, it was David Peterson finally putting things together.
More critically, I said the Mets had a very complete roster even if they lacked a superstar. That was very obviously wrong. Francisco Lindor was everything you could want from a player and more, a more than worthy MVP candidate in most seasons even after a miserable April and May. The trade may not have been completely optimal, the contract may be a touch to big and who knows how it will age, but no Met fan should ever again question how elite a player Francisco Lindor is nor forget to appreciate him spending a good chunk of his prime on the Mets.
Cumulative Score: 1.5/7