Master Index of Archived Threads


New World Order, May 26 Onward

G-Fafif Jun 28 2013 06:29 AM

The National League East standings from May 26 through June 27: New York 15-14 Miami 14-14 Atlanta 15-16 Washington 14-15 Philadelphia 14-17

Swan Swan H Jun 28 2013 07:11 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Ceetar Jun 28 2013 07:13 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

I'm just impressed they've played over .500 for 29 games. Please, someone show up and hit a little and we might even get a 16-13 next 29!

Ceetar Jun 28 2013 07:19 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Yankees 12-18 in that stretch.

Edgy MD Jun 28 2013 08:38 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Is there a fast way of telling, though the IMDB, what the earliest date is from which that the Mets have a .500+ record?

Lefty Specialist Jun 28 2013 08:50 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

What's more impressive is that the MARLINS have played .500 ball.

Ceetar Jun 28 2013 09:11 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Edgy MD wrote: Is there a fast way of telling, though the IMDB, what the earliest date is from which that the Mets have a .500+ record? you mean this season or overall? I've been wanting to track that overall, but I sorta destroyed my database accidentally and haven't found the time.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 28 2013 09:20 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Edgy MD wrote: Is there a fast way of telling, though the IMDB, what the earliest date is from which that the Mets have a .500+ record? I'll have to think about that. Maybe. (I'll assume you mean the UMDB, by the way.)

batmagadanleadoff Jun 28 2013 09:35 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

G-Fafif wrote: The National League East standings from May 26 through June 27: New York 15-14 Miami 14-14 Atlanta 15-16 Washington 14-15 Philadelphia 14-17 This is an incredible stat. What possessed you to even think about this so that you could then calculate it?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 28 2013 09:50 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

If this isn't 73 all over again I don't know what.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 28 2013 09:51 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

The Mets lost 3-2 to the Dodgers in Los Angeles on May 8, 1979. Since that loss, the Mets have a .500 regular-season record, 2,714 wins and 2,714 losses.

seawolf17 Jun 28 2013 09:54 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Lefty Specialist wrote: What's more impressive is that the MARLINS have played .500 ball. Yeah, but nine of those fourteen wins are against us.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 28 2013 09:54 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: If this isn't 73 all over again I don't know what. I think that the '73 Mets get shortchanged. They seem to be regarded as a fluky team in a weak division. But the '73 Mets had the best pitching in all of baseball that season and that has to count for a lot. They might not have been an imposing offensive team but they had the pitching equivalent of Bench, Rose and Morgan. They were extremely banged up, but when more or less healthy at the end of the season, they were unstoppable.

G-Fafif Jun 28 2013 09:56 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Before 2009 to present -- the last month notwithstanding -- really kicked in, you used to be able to take the ".500 (or over .500) since..." date back to 1968 or late 1967. Mets are 29 games over .500 since 1980, so you have to go back to the first time the Mets were more than eight games under .500 in 1979 to delineate the longest standing winning record. That was May 10 of that year, as Grimm indicated. Thus, a 14-1 loss to the Dodgers actually has its uplifting utility.

G-Fafif Jun 28 2013 09:57 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

seawolf17 wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: What's more impressive is that the MARLINS have played .500 ball. Yeah, but nine of those fourteen wins are against us. Actually, five of those fourteen. This is just the last month or so. A longer contemplation on the current statistical phenomenon here.

G-Fafif Jun 28 2013 10:02 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

batmagadanleadoff wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: If this isn't 73 all over again I don't know what. I think that the '73 Mets get shortchanged. They seem to be regarded as a fluky team in a weak division. But the '73 Mets had the best pitching in all of baseball that season and that has to count for a lot. They might not have been an imposing offensive team but they had the pitching equivalent of Bench, Rose and Morgan. They were extremely banged up, but when more or less healthy at the end of the season, they were unstoppable. I have to agree, no matter that I'd be happy to discover we're on the edge of something more. 1973's yearbook didn't have all those All-Stars on its cover for nothing. This moment in time seems to have more in common with 1980, 1992 and 2004, years when lousy Mets teams hung around in a lousy division until somebody remembered to get hot and leave them in the dust. Or it's akin to those moments in May of 1981 (seven of ten) and June of 1983 (splitting a ten-game homestand that was crammed into a week) when a few welcome signs of life emerged far from the top of the division. Or it's something else altogether. It's fun for sure, so what the hell?

Edgy MD Jun 28 2013 10:06 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Is there a fast way of telling, though the IMDB, what the earliest date is from which that the Mets have a .500+ record? I'll have to think about that. Maybe. (I'll assume you mean the UMDB, by the way.) I do, but if there's any Tom Cruise data that you find, let me know. Benjamin Grimm wrote: The Mets lost 3-2 to the Dodgers in Los Angeles on May 8, 1979. Since that loss, the Mets have a .500 regular-season record, 2,714 wins and 2,714 losses. GREAT! Let's keep pushing that back.

dinosaur jesus Jun 28 2013 10:06 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

batmagadanleadoff wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: If this isn't 73 all over again I don't know what. I think that the '73 Mets get shortchanged. They seem to be regarded as a fluky team in a weak division. But the '73 Mets had the best pitching in all of baseball that season and that has to count for a lot. They might not have been an imposing offensive team but they had the pitching equivalent of Bench, Rose and Morgan. They were extremely banged up, but when more or less healthy at the end of the season, they were unstoppable. I understand what you're saying. But there are a lot of .500 teams in baseball history that could say the same thing--that when they were healthy they were great. Dozens, at the very least. So yeah, the '73 Mets probably were a lot better than their record, better than quite a few teams that have made the postseason. They're still the luckiest team ever. Or second-luckiest; they were a lot better than the 1987 Twins.

Chad Ochoseis Jun 28 2013 10:13 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

batmagadanleadoff wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: If this isn't 73 all over again I don't know what. I think that the '73 Mets get shortchanged. They seem to be regarded as a fluky team in a weak division. But the '73 Mets had the best pitching in all of baseball that season and that has to count for a lot. They might not have been an imposing offensive team but they had the pitching equivalent of Bench, Rose and Morgan. They were extremely banged up, but when more or less healthy at the end of the season, they were unstoppable. Defense up the middle. Grote. Harrelson. Millan. Even Don Hahn wasn't bad, or at least I didn't think so when I was eight.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 28 2013 10:19 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Yeah I wasn't trying to shortchange the 73 Mets but to make a comment on the seeming winnability of this division in particular and the likihood of the race coming down to a matter of whose momentum is best in late September. If we somehow have another 2 good weeks we are in this thing ready or not. I'm also struck by a lot of personal shit. 73 was the first season I followed the club for real; Lunchpail today is the exact same age I was then and he can say the same for 2013.

Edgy MD Jun 28 2013 10:25 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

1985 Royals weren't lucky? Sereiously, a division full of terrible teams where everybody's around .500 looks a lot like a division full of great teams where everybody's around .500. Sure, one can feast on those 72 extra-divisional games, but in general, t's hard to tell the difference.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 28 2013 10:32 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Edgy MD wrote: Sereiously, a division full of terrible teams where everybody's around .500 looks a lot like a division full of great teams where everybody's around .500. Sure, one can feast on those 72 extra-divisional games, but in general, t's hard to tell the difference. This is a great point, and one I always raise when I try to rewrite the legacy of the '73 Mets in my personal sphere of influence. Still, the theory does, unfortunately, have its weaknesses. I mean, it ain't easy arguing that the '73 Expos or Phillies were contenders.

Edgy MD Jun 28 2013 10:36 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Certainly, it has its weaknesses, but zero-sum theory has be be part of the conversation.

G-Fafif Jun 28 2013 10:51 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The National League East standings from May 26 through June 27: New York 15-14 Miami 14-14 Atlanta 15-16 Washington 14-15 Philadelphia 14-17 This is an incredible stat. What possessed you to even think about this so that you could then calculate it? I looked at the standings yesterday. I noticed we were nine out in the loss column. Then I saw we still had the third-worst record in all of baseball and it hit me how nobody in the East had been doing much lately. Then after last night it occurred to me that we were twelve under after that horrid suspended game business (and succeeding game) against the Braves in late May (because somebody on Twitter goaded me that night into being very clear that "17-29" bore repeating). A month-plus later, even taking into account all the misery that transpired after the Subway Series sweep, we were somehow only eleven under. And I got curious. Calculating in-season segments is easy thanks to Baseball-Reference which posts "record after this date" for every team.

Frayed Knot Jun 28 2013 10:56 AM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

The NL East was a collective 30 games under .500 for the 1973 season (20 of that courtesy of the Phils). Put another way, they played the west to a 201-231 (.465) record - the equivalent of the east being a 75.5 win team vs the west's 86.5 It means that the east was down that year although it was hardly the most lopsided year ever.

Zvon Jun 28 2013 03:50 PM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yeah I wasn't trying to shortchange the 73 Mets but to make a comment on the seeming winnability of this division in particular and the likihood of the race coming down to a matter of whose momentum is best in late September. If we somehow have another 2 good weeks we are in this thing ready or not. I'm also struck by a lot of personal shit. 73 was the first season I followed the club for real; Lunchpail today is the exact same age I was then and he can say the same for 2013. Same here. If the Mets can pull off a 73' type of season this year my Met fan life would be complete. Full circle. The little guy has not experienced a winning team yet (2006 don't count cause he didn't know he was a Met fan then). Come on Mets, do it for Lunchpail!

Lefty Specialist Jun 28 2013 04:59 PM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

You need look no further than the 2006 Cardinals to see a mediocre team that got hot at the right time. If we somehow have another 2 good weeks we are in this thing ready or not. Every time I think that, they either a) have 1 1/2 good weeks and then tank, or b) tank immediately. I've seen this movie before.

Ashie62 Jun 28 2013 05:50 PM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

I thought this thread was about tag team wrestling..

Edgy MD Jun 28 2013 06:09 PM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

We haven't had a good wrestling thread in a while.

Swan Swan H Jun 28 2013 06:10 PM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Edgy MD wrote: We haven't had a good wrestling thread in a while. Oxymoron alert!

Ashie62 Jun 28 2013 07:17 PM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Maybe Anthony Wrecker likes Wrestling?

Swan Swan H Jun 28 2013 07:26 PM Re: New World Order, May 26 Onward

Ashie62 wrote: Maybe Anthony Wrecker likes Wrestling? Anthony in a singlet? I'm not sure Edgy could take that.