Forum Home

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.



That we have one more game vs Miami and three more vs the Braves makes 2nd place more possible.
That we have three more against the Nats makes it less so. And, yeah, I know they clinched last night, but even if they sit all their regulars next week, their pitchers and backup catchers have a better-than-average shot at out-HR-ing our position players in any given series.

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?

Edgy MD wrote:
Playing Houston, too. But the Astros' September lineup may be stronger than their April-August lineup.


Springer shut down though.

smg58
Sep 17 2014 11:49 AM
Re: Second place?

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote:
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.


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.
The good news is that the Braves welcome a VERY motivated Pirate team into Atlanta for a four-game set.

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 ?

I feel like I am being sold a lemon here, but there is a lot to look forward to I think .

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?

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
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.


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?

Gwreck wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
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.


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.



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?

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.


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.


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?

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.


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.


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.


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?

Edgy MD wrote:
Yeah, reaching second place isn't nearly the climb that reaching .500 is.


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.



Modicum of Suspense as Mets’ Year Winds Down

SEPT. 23, 2014

by JAY SCHREIBER and ELENA GUSTINES

We interrupt Derek Jeter Week with an unexpected announcement: The Mets — yes, the Mets — have suddenly put some suspense into the final week of their season.

Not pennant-race suspense, mind you; that may still take a while. But with a 76-80 record after a three-game weekend sweep of a deflated Atlanta team, the Mets actually have a chance to finish at .500, or even above that mark, something they have not done since 2008.

Of course, 2008 is not exactly a source of pleasant memories for Mets fans. That was the year the Mets managed to collapse in the final month of the season in almost identical fashion to the way they threw away a playoff spot in 2007.

Even now, it is hard to believe the Mets were able pull off such a miserable feat. But consider what came after that:

In 2009, in their first season at Citi Field, the Mets sank to a 70-92 record under Manager Jerry Manuel. Months of bad baseball were encapsulated in one play: the infamous pop-up that Alex Rodriguez hit and Luis Castillo dropped with two outs in the bottom of the ninth and the Mets leading the Yankees by a run in the Bronx. Instead, the Yankees won, 9-8.

The following season, the Mets went 79-83. Jason Bay entered the scene with a four-year, $66 million contract and proceeded to hit very few home runs while also sustaining a concussion. He never rebounded.

Meanwhile, Oliver Perez dragged the Mets into absurdity. He pitched poorly; refused a demotion to the minors; was, in turn, ignored and rarely used in games; and then, finally, in the final game of the season, was summoned to the mound in the 14th inning of a tie game and proceeded to hit one batter and walk three more as the Mets lost, 2-1.

In 2011, Sandy Alderson took over as general manager and tried to make sense of the mess the Mets had become. He brought in Terry Collins as manager as well as all sorts of bargain-bin players, hoping some would make an impression, although few did. Meanwhile, every day of the week he was confronted by the Bernard Madoff financial scandal in which the Mets’ ownership had become increasingly ensnared.

And in May of that year, Fred Wilpon, the principal owner, only made matters worse in an interview with The New Yorker. Pulling a George Steinbrenner, he gratuitously insulted some of his best players.

Of Jose Reyes, he said: “He thinks he’s going to get Carl Crawford money. He’s had everything wrong with him. He won’t get it.”

Of David Wright, Wilpon’s verdict was: “A really good kid. A very good player. Not a superstar.”

And Carlos Beltran, Wilpon said, was “65 to 70 percent of what he was.”

For the season, the Mets went 77-85. And in the final game, Reyes bunted for a base hit in the first inning and then took himself out of the game, thus assuring he would become the first Met to ever win a batting title and also guaranteeing that people would mock him for the way he won it. Not long afterward, he became a Florida Marlin.

In 2012, the Mets retreated to 74-88, not that it made a difference. On June 1, Johan Santana threw the first no-hitter in Mets history, but the eye-opening number of pitches he needed to do it — 134 — created a foreboding feeling, since he had missed the entire 2011 season because of shoulder surgery. And sure enough, Santana was never the same after that historic night.

Three months later, R .A. Dickey, the literate knuckleballer, notched his 20th victory in the final home game of the season. Not long afterward, he became a Toronto Blue Jay.

As for 2013, well, Matt Harvey emerged as a monster until he went down with a torn elbow in his pitching arm. The Mets’ final record was 74-88, the same as the year before. And there was one unsightly footnote — a June 8 game in which the Mets took 6 hours 25 minutes, and 20 innings, to lose to the awful Marlins, 2-1. In what may have been the most unwatchable game in their history, the Mets went 0 for 19 with runners in scoring position.

Which brings us to 2014. The Mets have had a losing record for much of the season, and have often felt borderline irrelevant, but they have also made real strides in developing a core of talented young players in outfielder Juan Lagares, catcher Travis d’Arnaud and starting pitchers Jacob deGrom and Zack Wheeler. Jenrry Mejia and Jeurys Familia are a decent tandem in the bullpen. Harvey is set to return next season after sitting out a year after Tommy John surgery. The Mets need another corner outfielder who can hit, and if they acquire one, well, who knows?

For now, the Mets have three games this week in Washington against the Nationals, a team they rarely beat, and then three more at home against the Houston Astros. Five out of six gives them an 81-81 record and keeps them from a sixth straight losing season, which would leave them just one short of their franchise record.

Can they do it? Can they really avoid another losing record? Probably not. But for now, by Mets standards, it qualifies as pretty suspenseful.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/sport ... .html?_r=0

And in May of that year, Fred Wilpon, the principal owner, only made matters worse in an interview with The New Yorker. Pulling a George Steinbrenner, he gratuitously insulted some of his best players.

Of Jose Reyes, he said: “He thinks he’s going to get Carl Crawford money. He’s had everything wrong with him. He won’t get it.”

Of David Wright, Wilpon’s verdict was: “A really good kid. A very good player. Not a superstar.”

And Carlos Beltran, Wilpon said, was “65 to 70 percent of what he was.”


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?

batmagadanleadoff wrote:


You know what's ironic about eff Wilpon's now infamous comments to The New Yorker?


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?

Lefty Specialist wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:


You know what's ironic about eff Wilpon's now infamous comments to The New Yorker?


That he's actually correct for the most part-now.



[fimg=555]http://media.tumblr.com/f3c94163c0c3b46e614734170d41d3ed/tumblr_inline_mso8auuUYb1qz4rgp.gif[/fimg]

Ceetar
Sep 23 2014 11:34 AM
Re: Second place?

Lefty Specialist wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:


You know what's ironic about eff Wilpon's now infamous comments to The New Yorker?


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.


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.

Historical guide to the eleven prior Met second-place finishes (and a couple of near-misses) here.

G-Fafif
Sep 26 2014 11:50 PM
Re: Second place?

It's a triply dead heat!

NYM 77-83
MIA 77-83
ATL 77-83

It couldn't be closer! Or less competitively redeeming.

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.

Yeah, I'm counting Tejada.

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.
Magic number for clinching at least a tie for 2nd is 1

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.
So in this case, the Mets (15th pick) wind up picking one spot ahead of the Braves (16th) next June.

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.

Mets as noted, have the head-to-head edge and the better run differential.

Edgy MD
Sep 29 2014 02:29 PM
Re: Second place?

SquadronPyth WPyth LPyth Win %Pyth GB
Washington9864.604---
Mets8280.50916
Atlanta7884.47920
Miami7785.47821
Philadelphia7389.44825


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?

Edgy MD wrote:
SquadronPyth WPyth LPyth Win %Pyth GB
Washington9864.604---
Mets8280.50916
Atlanta7884.47920
Miami7785.47821
Philadelphia7389.44825


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.


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.
Their biggest decision next year is Adam LaRoche. I think the plan all along was to move Zimmerman and his throwing problems over to 1B, but losing LaRoche will be a loss for them and losing Zimmerman isn't an option.
They'll also need to figure out 2B. Asdrubal Cabrera was a stop-gap and it's clear they have no faith in Danny Espinosa.

But Rendon's a future MVP candidate (hell, he's a current one), Harper was still the youngest regular in the majors, Span turned into the leadoff/CF they needed, and that pitching staff is awesome, young, and all under control.

Ceetar
Sep 29 2014 03:01 PM
Re: Second place?

Frayed Knot wrote:
Except that the Nationals are a MUCH better team right now so that's a huge bridge.
Their biggest decision next year is Adam LaRoche. I think the plan all along was to move Zimmerman and his throwing problems over to 1B, but losing LaRoche will be a loss for them and losing Zimmerman isn't an option.
They'll also need to figure out 2B. Asdrubal Cabrera was a stop-gap and it's clear they have no faith in Danny Espinosa.

But Rendon's a future MVP candidate (hell, he's a current one), Harper was still the youngest regular in the majors, Span turned into the leadoff/CF they needed, and that pitching staff is awesome, young, and all under control.


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?