Master Index of Archived Threads


Here's something to root for!

Benjamin Grimm Sep 18 2009 12:49 PM

The Mets need to win 2 of their remaining 15 games to clinch a winning decade for only the second time in their history! In the 1960's, they were 494-799. (.382) In the 1970's, 763-850. (.473) In the 1980's, 816-743 (.523) In the 1990's, 767-786 (.494) And so far in this still-unnamed decade, they're 808-795 (.504) With 9 wins, they can make it their winningest decade. If all 15 remaining games get played, the Mets will have played a total of 1,618 games in the 2000's, topping the 1,614 played in the 1970's. Who said these remaining games are meaningless???

Kong76 Sep 18 2009 12:56 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

BG: The Mets need to win 2 of their remaining 15 games <<< They'll need to battle, but I think they can do it.

metirish Sep 18 2009 12:59 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

Cool stats Grim , Jerry really needs to try and win every game now. Even if it means pulling the starter in the third. taking the piss here

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 18 2009 01:00 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

This is the kind of stuff that makes the Ultimate Mets Database the greatest thing ever invented, excluding the blowjob.

Edgy DC Sep 18 2009 01:09 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

The name of the decade is the aughts. I will also accept the Ordóñezes, so named for one of the two men to have the balls to take the field wearing 0, and doing it in the decade of the zeros.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 18 2009 01:20 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

[quote="Kong76"]BG: The Mets need to win 2 of their remaining 15 games <<< They'll need to battle, but I think they can do it.

Yeah, it's by no means a sure thing.

HahnSolo Sep 18 2009 01:55 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

I was somewhat surprised how close the aughts are to the 80s, then I remembered how bad they were from 80-83. And that '81 was a strike year.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 18 2009 01:58 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

Let's hope that the 2010's are a 900-win decade.

Edgy DC Sep 18 2009 02:10 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

Can you tell me how this year's team is doing on the list of worst second halves?

Benjamin Grimm Sep 18 2009 02:15 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

I can check that. How would we define second half? Games 82 through 162? Or games on-or-after July 1?

Frayed Knot Sep 18 2009 02:16 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

A .523 winning pct is averaging almost 85 wins/year. Not bad for an overall average and more than 3 wins/year better than this decade's .503 (81.6 wins/yr) "If all 15 remaining games get played, the Mets will have played a total of 1,618 games in the 2000's, topping the 1,614 played in the 1970's." MLB definitely makes more of an effort to play just about every game scheduled these days than they used to, so I'm not surprised that our total number of games played (and I bet that of many teams) is higher this decade.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 18 2009 02:18 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

It's also the first decade the Mets have played in which their number of games wasn't reduced by either a strike or, in the case of the 1960's, two seasons of non-existence.

Frayed Knot Sep 18 2009 02:22 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

Yeah, those things make an even bigger difference.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 18 2009 02:44 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

Mets, on or after July 1: 1962 20 67 0.230 1963 22 63 0.259 1964 31 55 0.360 1965 24 62 0.279 1966 37 54 0.407 1967 36 57 0.387 1968 37 51 0.420 1969 60 30 0.667 1970 43 46 0.483 1971 38 50 0.432 1972 42 47 0.472 1973 50 40 0.556 1974 41 47 0.466 1975 45 46 0.495 1976 47 39 0.547 1977 33 55 0.375 1978 33 51 0.393 1979 32 60 0.348 1980 33 58 0.363 1981 24 28 0.462 1982 29 58 0.333 1983 39 48 0.448 1984 52 39 0.571 1985 60 30 0.667 1986 58 33 0.637 1987 52 35 0.598 1988 51 32 0.614 1989 47 40 0.540 1990 50 41 0.549 1991 38 50 0.432 1992 36 49 0.424 1993 36 51 0.414 1994 21 15 0.583 1995 46 38 0.548 1996 34 48 0.415 1997 43 39 0.524 1998 45 39 0.536 1999 53 32 0.624 2000 49 36 0.576 2001 47 33 0.588 2002 35 46 0.432 2003 31 49 0.388 2004 34 52 0.395 2005 44 40 0.524 2006 50 33 0.602 2007 42 41 0.506 2008 49 31 0.613 2009 26 45 0.366 Mets, Game 82 through the end of the season: 1962 17 62 0.215 1963 22 59 0.272 1964 30 52 0.366 1965 23 59 0.280 1966 31 49 0.388 1967 29 52 0.358 1968 35 46 0.432 1969 53 28 0.654 1970 38 43 0.469 1971 37 44 0.457 1972 36 39 0.480 1973 47 33 0.588 1974 36 45 0.444 1975 39 42 0.481 1976 43 38 0.531 1977 33 48 0.407 1978 32 49 0.395 1979 30 52 0.366 1980 28 53 0.346 1981 10 13 0.435 1982 27 54 0.333 1983 38 43 0.469 1984 43 38 0.531 1985 52 29 0.642 1986 52 29 0.642 1987 49 32 0.605 1988 48 31 0.608 1989 45 36 0.556 1990 43 38 0.531 1991 30 50 0.375 1992 34 47 0.420 1993 34 47 0.420 1994 19 13 0.594 1995 37 26 0.587 1996 34 47 0.420 1997 43 38 0.531 1998 44 37 0.543 1999 52 30 0.634 2000 48 33 0.593 2001 47 34 0.580 2002 35 45 0.438 2003 31 49 0.388 2004 30 51 0.370 2005 43 38 0.531 2006 49 32 0.605 2007 42 39 0.519 2008 49 32 0.605 2009 24 42 0.364

Edgy DC Sep 18 2009 02:51 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

OK, by the first measure, it's the team's fifth-worst second half ever, and worst since 1982, and by the second it's the fourth-worst, and worst since 1982. No wonder Bambi quit. And died.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 18 2009 02:52 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

Zowie, worse than 2003 and the no-win August! We have to go back to 1982 for a fuglier 2nd half. (edit... and beaten)

Chad Ochoseis Sep 18 2009 02:53 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

[quote="Benjamin Grimm":2i0mfz5o]It's also the first decade the Mets have played in which their number of games wasn't reduced by either a strike or, in the case of the 1960's, two seasons of non-existence. [/quote:2i0mfz5o] If the Mets play 11 of their 15 remaining games, the aughts will pass the '70's to become the Mets' showing-uppest decade. on edit - missed the part of the thread where this was already pointed out

Benjamin Grimm Sep 18 2009 02:55 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

[quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket":37i97yma]Zowie, worse than 2003 and the no-win August![/quote:37i97yma] I think you mean 2002. The Mets were 15-12 in August 2003, but 6-21 in August 2002.

Frayed Knot Sep 18 2009 03:48 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

Wasn't there a winless-at-home month of August one of the years earlier in this decade?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 18 2009 06:16 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

[quote="Benjamin Grimm":1mvof4gs][quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1mvof4gs]Zowie, worse than 2003 and the no-win August![/quote:1mvof4gs] I think you mean 2002. The Mets were 15-12 in August 2003, but 6-21 in August 2002.[/quote:1mvof4gs] D'oh. My memory used to be good, now it sucks. The year I was referring to was the one where they dropped that doubleheader to the D-backs (I was there and it was awful) and just kept losing. ... that was 2002.

Frayed Knot Sep 18 2009 07:15 PM Re: Here's something to root for!

2002 was also the no home-win month: 0-13 at home; 6-8 on the road