On Track

[roger_that]

Despite our stellar record to date, we're actually doing worse by the Pythagorean method, which puts us about two games better (24-11) than our record of 22-13, mainly because we've won several blowouts but very rarely lost a game by more than a run or two, which is an earmark of very strong teams.



Close losses are mostly due to bad luck, though some people like to point to poor managerial decisions or a weak bullpen, neither of which seems to apply at all to the Mets so far this year. If you get the bases loaded with the heart of a strong lineup due at the plate in the late innings of a close ballgame, as happened yesterday, the odds are that you're going to score a lot of runs, but sometimes you don't, merely by the odds. Unless you're a subscriber to the "character" issue in baseball, which I'm not, sometimes you just have to walk away from a close loss with a shrug and "We'll get 'em next time" because the odds are that you will.

[batmagadanleadoff]

.

Edited May 5, 2025 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

=roger_that post_id=191692 time=1746444151 user_id=128]
Pete has now inched over the 60 doubles in a season pace, at 60.2. Theoretically, he's within striking distance of Earl Webb's mark of 67. He currently leads the major leagues in doubles. His previous high-water mark was 31, set last year, and he looks pretty solid to break that personal record.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=roger_that post_id=191696 time=1746448750 user_id=128]




But getting back over .700 will be tough.

[Bob Alpacadaca]

Bob Alpacadaca wrote: If the thread annoys you, why do you keep reading it and posting in it? Because disagreements and differences of opinion are far more interesting to read. What would a book or a movie be without a conflict?

Sure, but that's not what's happening here. And people know what you do to people who disagree with you.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Bob Alpacadaca wrote: Bob Alpacadaca wrote: If the thread annoys you, why do you keep reading it and posting in it? Because disagreements and differences of opinion are far more interesting to read. What would a book or a movie be without a conflict? Sure, but that's not what's happening here. And people know what you do to people who disagree with you.

You're dead wrong on what it is that I think you're suggesting.

[roger_that]

Despite our stellar record to date, we're actually doing worse by the Pythagorean method, which puts us about two games better (24-11) than our record of 22-13, mainly because we've won several blowouts but very rarely lost a game by more than a run or two, which is an earmark of very strong teams. Close losses are mostly due to bad luck, though some people like to point to poor managerial decisions or a weak bullpen, neither of which seems to apply at all to the Mets so far this year. If you get the bases loaded with the heart of a strong lineup due at the plate in the late innings of a close ballgame, as happened yesterday, the odds are that you're going to score a lot of runs, but sometimes you don't, merely by the odds. Unless you're a subscriber to the "character" issue in baseball, which I'm not, sometimes you just have to walk away from a close loss with a shrug and "We'll get 'em next time" because the odds are that you will.

I just read Rob Neyer's substack last month where he discussed Gil Hodges' boost into the Hall of Fame based on his managerial skills (he's against Gil in the Hall, but not vehemently). One of the things he cited was Gil's teams' performance in one-run games, which he shows was very strong in 1969, but not in other seasons, suggesting the Mets were lucky in 1969 rather than, say, being managed especially skillfully. Here's his nut-quote:

after going 26-37 in one-run games in 1968, in ‘69 they went 41-23. Of course their run differential was also better in ‘69: +91. Still, how do you win 101 games with a +91 run differential? Well, again: You go 41-23 in one-run games. That's most of it.

He then shows how, in later seasons, the Mets did NOT do well in one-run games under Hodges, so he concludes that we were a very lucky team in 1969, which we were. Of course, Gil's supporters maintain that 1969 is just icing on the cake of his career.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The 1969 Mets were very good and yes, very lucky, though it's probably sacrilegious to say that in these parts. But this isn't that surprising. To be extremely succesful, to win 100 regular season games and then two short series against very good teams, you have to be good and lucky. If the Mets and Orioles were to play each other exclusively in 1969, 162 times, the Mets don't win even half of the games played. Also, Tom Seaver didn't deserve to win the Cy Young award that year. He led the league in wins and back then, wins were everything to an awards voter. A pitcher who led the league in wins was the odds-on facvorite to win the Cy. And if a pitcher back then led his league in wins while pitching for a first place team, he was a virtual lock to win the Cy, all boxes that Seaver checked. That's what mattered mostly to voters back then. And Seaver also had the best back story in all of baseball as the leader, spiritually and on the field, of a beloved fairy-tale team that would write one of the most feel-good stories in baseball history. But Seaver wasn't better than Bob Gibson in 1969.

[stevejrogers]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=191750 time=1746478880 user_id=68]
The 1969 Mets were very good and yes, very lucky, though it's probably sacrilegious to say that in these parts. But this isn't that surprising. To be extremely succesful, to win 100 regular season games and then two short series against very good teams, you have to be good and lucky. If the Mets and Orioles were to play each other exclusively in 1969, 162 times, the Mets don't win even half of the games played.

[roger_that]

With 36 games played, Pete's new total of 9 HRs makes projecting his season's final total fairly easy, just over 40 HRs in 162 games.



Similarly easy eyeball-ready stats are Soto's 27 BBs and Runs, which work out to a hair over 120 of each, and Vientos' hits, also 27. Luisangel Acuna has struck out 18 times in 36 games, despite which he's off to a very good start.



With last night's victory, Canning has risen to the team lead in wins. His 5-1 record works out to 22-5 or 23-4 (halfway between the two). Aside from the W-L, he and Megill share a number of stats at this point: starts (7), IP (36) ER (10) E.R.A (naturally) (2.50), BB (15). Surprisingly, Canning has a 1.0 WAR at this point while Megill has exactly half of that WAR figure.

[stevejrogers]

BTW, another interesting note for the whole 1969 “good, very lucky, or both” or even if they deserve a “One Year Wonder” tag, discussions.



The 1968 Cubs were third in the NL with 84 wins, same record they'd have as they finished in second in the 1970 NL East race. They also had 87 in 1967, also good for third (oddly also behind the champion Cardinals and Giants). And 83 wins in 1971, tied with the Mets for third in the division.



The case can be made that the Cubs in the middle of that hot stretch in ‘69 were way outperforming themselves, and fell back to slightly above their norms by the end of the year. They also could get tagged with a “One Year Wonder” label as well.

[roger_that]

With 3 Ks and only 1 BB last night, Pete's ratio has returned to its historic norm, more Ks than BBs. He's also slipped below 150 RBI on the year.

[Frayed Knot]

=roger_that post_id=191916 time=1746632828 user_id=128]Pete's ratio has returned to its historic norm, more Ks than BBs.

[roger_that]

Frayed Knot wrote: =roger_that post_id=191916 time=1746632828 user_id=128]Pete's ratio has returned to its historic norm, more Ks than BBs.

The more Ks than BBs is accurate (and was probably inevitable), but his ratio so far this season is still markedly different than any other in his career.

His 'historic norm' is about 2.3 Ks for every one BB and only the 2022 season saw his ratio inch below 2:1 [128 K / 67 BB = 1.91]

[batmagadanleadoff]

... does this guy take a hint ...by his earnest constant updating on things that are only good for a chuckle once or twice until late August/early September, or the All-Star Break if historic achievements are legitimately on the line.

You got that right. Here's another doozy:

Despite our stellar record to date, we're actually doing worse by the Pythagorean method, which puts us about two games better (24-11) than our record of 22-13...

Really? Two games off of Bill James' Pythagorean Theorem? In a sport that likely has two or even three times more luck than any other major team sport or Olympian event? Two games? Two whole games? This is nothing but noise. Much ado about absolutely nothing. And Bill James' Pythagorean Theorem is not even a real theorem, let alone a real mathematical formula -- it's a theory -- an estimate. It's not an algorithm that's supposed to generate a specific and precise mathematical result -- like the real Pythagorean Theorem that yields the exact length of a hypotenuse. Bill James "toy" estimates the number of wins a team will have at season's end. It's a fun tool. And who's to say which teams are lucky or unlucky? How do you really separate luck and randomness from the final result? Were the Pirates really lucky when they won the WS in 1960 despite being thoroughly outscored cumulatively? He might as well write a treatise on discovering that he got 40 french fries in his large McDonald's french fries box when he usually gets 39 french fries.

[roger_that]

I lost an extensive post due to being logged out after I'd been logged in (how else could I have composed my post?) so I'll summarize myself: all five starters have now started 7 games, and they're remarkably close in IP but not in results. The two furthest apart in results, Canning (5-1, 2.50) and Peterson (2-2, 3.52) are almost identical in many stats including WHIP, 1.389 and 1.383.



Oh yeah, just remembered this: Canning's W-L is on pace to end up 23-4 or 22-5, halfway between the two.

[stevejrogers]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=191978 time=1746657630 user_id=68]
=stevejrogers post_id=191703 time=1746450052 user_id=57]




... does this guy take a hint ...by his earnest constant updating on things that are only good for a chuckle once or twice until late August/early September, or the All-Star Break if historic achievements are legitimately on the line.

[roger_that]

We're now at the quarter season mark, or approximately so (you can bump all these figures up by a rounding error) , so it might be interesting, some would say "intriguing," others "fascinating," still others " boring and meaningless, " to see what happens if we multiply current numbers by 4.



First off, of course, is Mets wins, 25, or 100 ( plus a hair) which also applies to Lindor's RBI, impressive for a leadoff batter.

[roger_that]

Next, Holmes and Megill are on track (with 42 and 2/3rds and 40 and 2/3rds IP) to qualify for the ERA title. Canning will join them if he pitches over 5 innings today, giving him 41 IP in 41 games. Senga and Peterson will also qualify over the next few games by pitching 4 or 5 innings. I don't know the last time the Mets had five qualifying starters.



I just noticed that no starter (nor reliever) has walked a batter intentionally so far this year, which gives you some insight to Mendoza's managerial philosophy. Has any team ever gone a full season without issuing an IBB?



Baty and Winker are tracking very closely at this point in the year, 67 and 66 ABs respectively, and also in OPS (.738, .746) and RBI (each with 10). Obviously, I'm marking a point in the year immediately following Baty's best game, but I really can't see how Baty hasn't taken away Winker's role as lefty DH--he's six years younger, far more useful in the field (so can play elsewhere than just DH) and has a lot more upside. They won't just dump Winker when he comes back, of course, but a healthy Baty will cut into his playing time. And Vientos'. And McNeil's. And maybe even Marte's if he doesn't start hitting soon (Baty playing 3B against some lefties while Vientos DHs.).



Pete still leading the league in doubles and RBIs, and projects to hit over 56 doubles and drive in over 136 runs. He's well under 40 HR on the year.



Soto on track to score over 120 runs and to get over 120 BBs. Acuna's on track to steal over 40 bases.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Next, Holmes and Megill are on track (with 42 and 2/3rds and 40 and 2/3rds IP) to qualify for the ERA title. Canning will join them if he pitches over 5 innings today, giving him 41 IP in 41 games. Senga and Peterson will also qualify over the next few games by pitching 4 or 5 innings. I don't know the last time the Mets had five qualifying starters.

There's no need to calculate anything whatsoever to determine which pitchers are on track to "qualify". Here's how it works: any pitcher that's qualified today is on track to "qualify" at season's end. Any pitcher who isn't "qualified " today is not on track to "qualify" at season's end. No math needed.



I hope this was helpful..

[batmagadanleadoff]

=roger_that post_id=192253 time=1746968057 user_id=128]
Next, Holmes and Megill are on track (with 42 and 2/3rds and 40 and 2/3rds IP) to qualify for the ERA title. Canning will join them if he pitches over 5 innings today, giving him 41 IP in 41 games. Senga and Peterson will also qualify over the next few games by pitching 4 or 5 innings. I don't know the last time the Mets had five qualifying starters.

[Cowtipper]

Magic number down to 122!

[Cowtipper]

The Rockies are on track to lose 134 games this season.

[Frayed Knot]

One "on track" mark that's starting to come into focus is Pete tying/breaking the NYM career HR record.



With his 12th of the season today he now needs 14 to tie/15 to break. At his current pace the time to buy your ticket in advance if you want to witness the event is looking like late August, just as the Mets are in the midst of a lengthy stretch of NL East games.



At the moment 'Tie Day' projects to Friday 8/22 which is the opening game vs the Braves although that one is in Atlanta so ... 'ROAD TRIP'!!!!

The Mets come home the following Monday to start a series with the Phils which is perfect as HR# 253 currently slated for the final game of that series on Wed 8/27.

They'll then stay at home and welcome the Marlins for four games thru Sunday 8/31 so, on the tiny possibility that this schedule doesn't play out as designed,

he'll still have those four games to achieve the feat at home.

[whippoorwill]

=Cowtipper post_id=193238 time=1747750252 user_id=166]
The Rockies are on track to lose 134 games this season.

[Bob Alpacadaca]

I miss Roger That. I didn't always agree with his points, but I liked the discussions.



It's a shame he feels he was chased out.

[whippoorwill]

I miss him too. I like new ideas here.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Eff him. Pompous ass who contorted himself into pretzels trying to pass off the dullest and most obvious as Bill Jamesian-like groundbreaking baseball discoveries.



New ideas? Like what? Name one. Name half of one.

[whippoorwill]

Not bitching about Trump

[whippoorwill]

Or for half an idea: not bitching