Master Index of Archived Threads
Second place?
Mets Guy in Michigan Sep 17 2014 06:34 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 17 2014 07:24 AM |
The way the Braves are falling apart, we're only 2.5 games out of second place. Granted, that speaks more about the division than it does the Mets. But in a looking-for-anything-positive kind of thing, I wouldn't mind that.
|
Frayed Knot Sep 17 2014 06:44 AM Re: Second place? |
Braves now sub-.500 after being in the playoff picture seemingly just a week or so ago.
|
Edgy MD Sep 17 2014 07:30 AM Re: Second place? |
Playing Houston, too. But the Astros' September lineup may be stronger than their April-August lineup.
|
Frayed Knot Sep 17 2014 07:33 AM Re: Second place? |
Yeah, they're an over-.500 team since Aug 1st (23-19)
|
Ceetar Sep 17 2014 08:49 AM Re: Second place? |
|
Springer shut down though.
|
smg58 Sep 17 2014 11:49 AM Re: Second place? |
|
Right. The Mets can finish in second and can also finish last. It might not make much tangible difference, but psychologically the difference is enormous.
|
Mets Guy in Michigan Sep 21 2014 03:20 PM Re: Second place? |
Your New York Mets are now just a half-game frm second place!
|
Frayed Knot Sep 21 2014 05:27 PM Re: Second place? |
The tough part now will be maintaining some sort of momentum while heading to the D of C for 3 w/the Nats who are still motivated to snag the NL's best overall record.
|
Edgy MD Sep 21 2014 07:55 PM Re: Second place? |
Yeah, reaching second place isn't nearly the climb that reaching .500 is.
|
metirish Sep 21 2014 08:04 PM Re: Second place? |
Would second place be an achievement to be happy about?, is it even an achievement ?
|
batmagadanleadoff Sep 21 2014 08:17 PM Re: Second place? |
The Mets as a second place team just tells me how weak the rest of the NL is, or how bad the NL East is. On the other hand, the Mets have the sixth best run differential in the NL, so there's that. Make of it what you will, but if it weren't for the lame wild card format, their season would've died about a month before it actually did.
|
Gwreck Sep 21 2014 08:31 PM Re: Second place? |
|
When did you think the Mets' season died? They were four games under .500 at the all-star break and haven't been any closer to .500 since.
|
metirish Sep 21 2014 08:37 PM Re: Second place? |
||
those are sobering numbers , as mentioned above .500 is the number
|
Edgy MD Sep 21 2014 09:00 PM Re: Second place? |
Second place: It's certainly a happier achievement than third, fourth, or fifth.
|
batmagadanleadoff Sep 21 2014 09:08 PM Re: Second place? |
||
I'm the wrong guy to ask that question. I wasn't as optimistic about this squad as you guys appeared to be. Because I'd tell you that for me, the 2014 season died in 2013, as soon as it was announced that Matt Harvey would miss this entire season due to surgery. And still, a year after the Harvey announcement, I never, not even for one game, ever got my hopes up this year that the Mets would be in meaningful contention -- not even while the Mets played their best ball of the season around the all-star break, and not even after deGrom broke out as a rookie sensation and as a star player worth watching. This season played out, more or less exactly as I thought it would: they'd never be in it, and their outfield would suck a big collective suck, and the big position player free agents, Young and Granderson, would suck. They were without Harvey. And whatever they gained, or recouped from deGrom, they more than gave back again when their star franchise player Wright delivered the worst season of his career -- a terrible season not just by his personal standards, but in comparison to every other MLB third baseman. I thought the Mets improved over the course of the season, but the games in April count just as much as the ones now, and they had a very bad team on the field for far too long to make up the ground, I thought. If they morphed into the '86 Mets, or the Big Red Machine during the course of the season, then maybe they could've overcome their first half. But they morphed into, perhaps, a .500 team -- a notable accomplishment, but not enough to contend, I figured. I wouldn't count them out for next year, though, at least not this early. I could see meaningful improvement for next year -- and the kind you could reasonably hope for -- not the kind where Lucas Duda and David Wright have to hit like MVP's and three Mets pitchers contend for the Cy Young award. This was a tedious season for me, waiting in place for the cavalry to arrive, killing time over what I see as futile and pointless comparisons between dead ends like den Dekker and Nieuwenhuis.
|
Zvon Sep 21 2014 10:31 PM Re: Second place? |
|||
I felt the same way when Harvey went down. I figured this season was a filler (didn't we all?). And considering that, I've enjoyed the season, pretty much. But only because I allowed myself to hope and I allowed myself to enjoy it. I feel we came out ahead of my expectations by a bit with deGrom, Familia, Lagares, Herrera. I thought this season really would suck (wishful predictions aside) and it really didn't.
|
Ceetar Sep 22 2014 07:38 AM Re: Second place? |
|
And if they did manage to reach .500 I think it'd be something like a 260 game stretch they could claim that over. It's not necessarily super meaningful, but it's a nice big springboard for next season "We've been .500 for a while, you should've expected us to suddenly take that next step"
|
Edgy MD Sep 22 2014 08:03 PM Re: Second place? |
And just like that. Pittsburgh beats Atlanta and the Mets spend their off-day climbing into second place.
|
batmagadanleadoff Sep 23 2014 10:38 AM Re: Second place? |
||
Second place and the quest for .500: A concise summary of the Mets' Citi Field era in just a few paragraphs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/sport ... .html?_r=0
You know what's ironic about eff Wilpon's now infamous comments to The New Yorker?
|
Lefty Specialist Sep 23 2014 11:25 AM Re: Second place? |
|
That he's actually correct for the most part-now. Beltran had two good years with the Cards before hoodwinking Cashman for 3 more years. Reyes has never had another season like he had with the Mets. Wright is not the superstar he was, and it remains to be seen if he can ever perform to the level he was accustomed to. Maybe Fred would like to sell the team and become a scout.
|
batmagadanleadoff Sep 23 2014 11:30 AM Re: Second place? |
||
[fimg=555]http://media.tumblr.com/f3c94163c0c3b46e614734170d41d3ed/tumblr_inline_mso8auuUYb1qz4rgp.gif[/fimg]
|
Ceetar Sep 23 2014 11:34 AM Re: Second place? |
||
Disagree. baring injury, Wright HAS been a superstar since then. (never mind the ancillary stuff) Reyes didn't quite get Crawford money, but he got a big payday. and contract length. Beltran was the closest, but he had three good years after that comment, I don't know what the percentages are, but of course, the aging curve can't be avoided. that stuff is a given.
|
G-Fafif Sep 23 2014 10:38 PM Re: Second place? |
Still tied for second, albeit with Marlins creeping within a half-game of both Mets and Braves...and you know how unpleasant creeping Marlins can be.
|
G-Fafif Sep 26 2014 11:50 PM Re: Second place? |
It's a triply dead heat!
|
Edgy MD Sep 27 2014 06:58 AM Re: Second place? |
Tough grind, considering that we're getting maybe four big-league starters in the lineup every night.
|
Frayed Knot Sep 27 2014 08:22 PM Re: Second place? |
No worse now than a 3rd place tie - could be a 2-way tie, or maybe a 3-way.
|
Valadius Sep 29 2014 12:47 PM Re: Second place? |
To finish tied for second with the Braves, who came in with lofty expectations, while the Mets were given short shrift by basically everyone, is a pretty nice achievement. And to finish with a positive run differential is even better.
|
Mets – Willets Point Sep 29 2014 12:51 PM Re: Second place? |
So there's no official tiebreakers for this thing that I'm aware of, but by my accounting the Mets went 10-9 head-to-head with the Braves, so I'd say that should put the Mets ahead of the Braves.
|
Frayed Knot Sep 29 2014 01:54 PM Re: Second place? |
The good part going forward is that there is a tie-breaking system for determining next year's draft picks. When two teams finish with the same record, the draft order is determined by comparing records of the previous season.
|
Edgy MD Sep 29 2014 02:13 PM Re: Second place? |
If the first tiebreaker was division record, Atlanta would win, with a 40-36, vs. the Mets 38-38. They also have the better intra-league record.
|
Edgy MD Sep 29 2014 02:29 PM Re: Second place? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Terry speaks of needing to get 10 or 12 games better. The good news might be that some of that could (could) happen just by standing still. The bad news is that getting 16 games better is probably a better target.
|
Ceetar Sep 29 2014 02:43 PM Re: Second place? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
well, all things being equal, sure. But are the Nationals as good? Plus, it's also equally important that some of those 12 wins are also Nationals losses, so that'll bridge that gap too.
|
Frayed Knot Sep 29 2014 02:56 PM Re: Second place? |
Except that the Nationals are a MUCH better team right now so that's a huge bridge.
|
Ceetar Sep 29 2014 03:01 PM Re: Second place? |
|
It's a long way to next April. Certainly they're better, but to say they couldn't take a step back for any number of reasons, and that the Mets can't actually beat them occasionally making it even closer?
|