Master Index of Archived Threads


.622 x 162 = 104

Yes, 105 wins or more

6 votes

They will hit 104 on the nose

2 votes

Don't be greedy--they won't make that figure.

6 votes

roger_that Aug 07 2022 06:25 PM

Roughly. That's the Mets' current W-L pct. times a full season's games, to yield the number of victories they are on pace to win.

roger_that Aug 08 2022 11:02 AM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

We seem evenly divided so far between what I'll label as the "Having deGrom and Scherzer healthy for the final third of the season can only help" group and the "Yeah, deGrom's healthy for 10 innings so far--I wouldn't count on him to be healthy for 11" group.

kcmets Aug 08 2022 11:10 AM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

We seem evenly divided so far between what I'll label as the "Having deGrom and Scherzer healthy for the final third of the season can only help" group and the "Yeah, deGrom's healthy for 10 innings so far--I wouldn't count on him to be healthy for 11" group. No, it's divided on whether they'll reach 104. You didn't mention players, no voters have mentioned players and after five votes (now six) so you read into all that with 'labeling' the voting? I don't get it.

roger_that Aug 08 2022 11:39 AM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

We seem evenly divided so far between what I'll label as the "Having deGrom and Scherzer healthy for the final third of the season can only help" group and the "Yeah, deGrom's healthy for 10 innings so far--I wouldn't count on him to be healthy for 11" group. No, it's divided on whether they'll reach 104. You didn't mention players, no voters have mentioned players and after five votes (now six) so you read into all that with 'labeling' the voting? I don't get it. I'm extrapolating. Maybe I'm misreading the polling results.

ashie62 Aug 08 2022 11:46 AM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

I have the number 108 as a target.

kcmets Aug 08 2022 12:06 PM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

"Beware the September Swoon!"

Lefty Specialist Aug 08 2022 12:54 PM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

I'm perfectly happy with 103 wins.

kcmets Aug 08 2022 01:00 PM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

And a bye.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 08 2022 01:17 PM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

Definitely the bye.

ashie62 Aug 08 2022 02:05 PM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

Doesn't having Jake and Max make Metsies swoon proof.

soupcan Aug 08 2022 02:29 PM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

I think they end with an even hundy.

roger_that Aug 08 2022 03:00 PM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

I think they end with an even hundy. Which is great, but why exactly do you think they'll do less well WITH deGrom (and Vogelbach and Ruf) than they were able to do without them? We're at .622, we're healthier than we've been all year, we seem to have shored up our troublesome DH spot, but we're going to play UNDER .622 down the stretch? .622, hell. You've got them playing under .500, 21-23 from this point forward. Logic and fanship dictate, it seems to me, that we'd be overwhelmingly going for "They'll blast through 108 wins easily" but instead we're saying (so far) "Nah they ain't that good, they've been playing over their heads so far." Which may just be warding off the jinx, ingrained years of Wilpon-induced pessimism, skepticism about de Grom's health, or who know what.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 08 2022 03:08 PM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

Winning 100 games would be 30 and 23 the rest of the way.

roger_that Aug 08 2022 03:51 PM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Winning 100 games would be 30 and 23 the rest of the way. [headslap] Teach me to do subtraction in my head. So .566 from here on in. Some reason I got in my head that yesterday's win was their 79th, not their 70th. I just read on Twitter, btw, that Jake's game was the second-highest viewership in SNY's history.

roger_that Aug 09 2022 02:33 AM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

Almost at 105 now. Today's projection is 104.49.

roger_that Aug 10 2022 07:41 PM Re: .622 x 162 = 104

Tonight's win over the Reds now projects the Mets to win 106 games.