.622 x 162 = 104

[roger_that]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I have the number 108 as a target.

[kcmets]

"Beware the September Swoon!"

[Lefty Specialist]

I'm perfectly happy with 103 wins.

[kcmets]

And a bye.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Definitely the bye.

[ashie62]

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

[soupcan]

I think they end with an even hundy.

[roger_that]

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]

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

[roger_that]

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]

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

[roger_that]

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