Dodgers and Giants Prediction poll

[G-Fafif]

I made the mistake of looking up the Braves' score. That was a mood-dampener.

[Centerfield]

1-6 is not very good.

[kcmets]

=Centerfield post_id=75052 time=1629482350 user_id=65]
1-6 is not very good.

[Benjamin Grimm]

My vote for 5 is looking wildly optimistic.

[kcmets]

It's surreal, one runs out of things to say about it. 0-9 again today with RISP.

[seawolf17]

Okay, so maybe winning all 13 was a stretch.

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: My vote for 5 is looking wildly optimistic.

As of now 5 is still in play.

[Lefty Specialist]

They take one of three from the Giants and I will have nailed it (unfortunately).

[Frayed Knot]

So a (non-yet complete) post-mortem on this four series/two teams stretch of games.



If you take away the blowout (14-4, 1st game vs Scherzer) and, yeah, I know, you can't, but I'm doing so for purposes of this exercise:



-- the Mets were outscored just 33 to 32 over the other nine games and yet went 2-7 ... a feat which should be very difficult to do and yet they seemed to do so with very little difficulty.

-- worse yet is that they did this while Out-Hitting the opposition 68 to 63 (and getting 10 HBPs to just one the other way). BBs were dead even at 21 each.



They trailed in HRs but even that was only 10-7

The others places where they trailed you can probably guess: in LOBs by a gaping 64 to 42, a gap which translates to over 7/game for the Mets vs 4.7/per for SF/LA combined, which of

course was triggered by 12/69 w/RiSP (.174) vs a still not great 13/54 (.222) for LAD/SFG. But the real story there is that we had 15 more ABs w/RiSP over the course of nine games yet

couldn't convert most of them.



iow, a couple of well-timed hits could have turned that 2-7 record into a more respectable 3-6 or even 4-5 (maybe 5-4 ???) ... but you already knew that didn't you?

[Edgy MD]

It sort of indicts them as not so much a bad team but a good team that plays badly, or at least is currently playing badly.

[bmfc1]

Good analysis, FK.

[Frayed Knot]

Frayed Knot wrote: The others places where they trailed you can probably guess: in LOBs by a gaping 64 to 42, a gap which translates to over 7/game for the Mets vs 4.7/per for SF/LA combined, which of course was triggered by 12/69 w/RiSP (.174) vs a still not great 13/54 (.222) for LAD/SFG. But the real story there is that we had 15 more ABs w/RiSP over the course of nine games yet couldn't convert most of them. iow, a couple of well-timed hits could have turned that 2-7 record into a more respectable 3-6 or even 4-5 (maybe 5-4 ???) ... but you already knew that didn't you?

Oh wait, but it gets better!



LOBs are sometimes a misleading stat as a team might hit into two quick outs but then string a series of hits together that produces a couple of runs but, unless the rally ends with a HR, will

inevitably leave runners on base which is not really a bad thing here. On the flip side, loading the bases with no one out but not scoring means that three different hitters EACH left three

runners on and lord knows we've seen a few of those lately.



So, looking at the cumulative LOBs for the ten games (and I included the blowout loss here because even in that game we had more chances to score despite eventually losing by 10)

the Mets wound up with a stunning 161 runners stranded following an AB over ten games compared to 120 for the oppo side (34% more)

In only two of the ten games did we NOT have more chances to knock in runs (and just by one each time) while in several games the Mets had more than double the opportunities.



Game #1: 19 cumulative LOBs for the Mets vs 15 for LAD [Lost by 1 in extras]

Game #2: 17 to 12 [Lost by 1 in extras]

Game #3: 26 to 19 [Lost by 10]

Game #4: 19 to 8 [Lost by 2]

Game #5: 11 to 5 [Lost by 1]

Game #6: 20 to 21 [Won by 4 in extras]

Game #7: 9 to 10 [Lost by 3]

Game #8: 15 to 8 [Lost by 1]

Game #9: 18 to 16 [Lost by 1]

Game #10: 17 to 6 [Won by 5]

[Lefty Specialist]

So...................

[Benjamin Grimm]

So... even those of us who were most pessimistic turned out to be overly optimistic.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

My inclination in these polls is always to choose the most optimistic option and I hovered with the "13" box selected before I thought, "No, man. What's most likely is they hold serve on trend with the big picture, and if you're wrong, what a nice surprise!"



I checked 6, I'm surprised, and I'm disappointed. This is why I'm quitting.

[kcmets]

Yikes!

[Frayed Knot]

11 losses, 7 by 1 run

[The Hot Corner]

The team managed to do worse than the most pessimistic of predictions.

[MFS62]

The Hot Corner wrote: The team managed to do worse than the most pessimistic of predictions.

Everybody lost - the folks who participated in the poll and the Mets.



Later

[G-Fafif]

I looked at the Mets' record of two under; calculated they'd be seven over if not for having gone nine under vs LA and SF; and remembered they all count, dammit.

[kcmets]

Dodgers helped us again last night, so there's that. Five out with a month left.

[G-Fafif]

Dodgers also slipped past the Giants into first place, meaning the second Wild Card looms as a ticket to San Francisco's South Beach.



You know, in case Atlanta doesn't keep playing the Dodgers and we have to find some other way in.

[Edgy MD]

Cincinnati currently leading for that second wild card spot, which just doesn't feel right.



The Mets sit 5 1/2 games off that pace, but three teams are in between them and the Reds.



I've said it before, but we're gonna have to bop our way home.

[kcmets]

I'd bet my last cranebuck they ain't wild-carding, it's DivisionOrBust2021.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Thirteen of the remaining 30 games are against the Nationals and the Marlins. I know we can't assume anything. They've certainly failed to capitalize against the "lowly" teams often enough this year, but maybe they'll be able to do it this month.



I'm planning on a rather disinterested October, but there's still hope.