THE HIGH POINT OF THIS FRANCHISE

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

After which day's game did this franchise reach it's alltime high in w/l pct.?

Not so easy to find as you might think, since this franchise started bad (a bad first month, a bad first half of the first season, a bad first season, a bad first seven seasons.) I'm thinking it must have been sometime around the mid-70s that this franchise had its high water mark, but maybe not (it gets harder and harder to affect the overall w/l pct the more games you play, of course, but then again that first seven years represented some pretty bad play to overcome.) Anyway, I thought it would be fun to guess when this point is, and then to track down the exact game, and perhaps to memorialize and study that game closely.

Who says I'm a buzzkill, anyway? Buzz away.

[Guest Rotblatt]

Interesting.

Without looking, I'd have thought like late 80's or so.

[Elster88]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: After which day's game did this franchise reach it's alltime high in w/l pct.?

I'd have to go with Game 1.

[Frayed Knot]

I figured this out one time but have since lost my work.
We also had a discussion about it on the EZ-Board forum so it might be there - but I wouldn't know where to start looking for it.

I believe it occured just before the early '90s collapse.

[Guest Rotblatt]

And I'm wrong.

At the end of 1990 (91-71), our W% was .468 (2164 W, 2463 L). At the end of 2005, it was at .474 (3311-3677)

Which makes me think that our best W% might very well have come this season. How about May 6, after our 6-5 victory over Atlanta? Our record was 21-9 (I think).

3332-3686: .474779 W%.

How am I doin'?

[Frayed Knot]

But Shirley it would have been higher at some point in 2001 than it was at the end of 2005 since the 4-games-over in '05 plus the handful so far this season wouldn't have been enough to counteract the losing years of '02-'04

[soupcan]

I could be 100% wrong (and more times than not I usually am) but I seem to recall that The Mets were actually creeping very close to .500 finally in the late '80s.

Sometime in '89 after this horribly juvenile logo was bandied about on every souvenir they could fit it on (I have a pair of socks still in the plastic with this ugly thing on them).

="Bret Sabermetric"]Who says I'm a buzzkill, anyway? Buzz away.

Me. I say you are a buzzkill.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Frayed Knot wrote: I figured this out one time but have since lost my work. We also had a discussion about it on the EZ-Board forum so it might be there - but I wouldn't know where to start looking for it..

We needed some kind of archivist. I'll bet Yancy has all sorts of searchable stuff in the UMBD that'll will help. Rotball, where are you getting your stats from?

[Guest Rotblatt]

Frayed Knot wrote: But Shirley it would have been higher at some point in 2001 than it was at the end of 2005 since the 4-games-over in '05 plus the handful so far this season wouldn't have been enough to counteract the losing years of '02-'04

Good point. So 2001, then?

3016-3326 at the end of 2001: .47555976

[Guest KC]

It's not rocket science. Put the win-loss records in a spreadsheet, make
cumulative columns, and make a column figuring the %. I think I have
something like this at home through maybe 2002, don't have time to do
it now.

[Frayed Knot]

The high point doesn't necc need to be at the [u:ced65eeb1b]end of a season[/u:ced65eeb1b]

[Guest Rotblatt]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: We needed some kind of archivist. I'll bet Yancy has all sorts of searchable stuff in the UMBD that'll will help. Rotball, where are you getting your stats from?

I'm going from Baseball Reference's team page. They list the W-L of each each year. They also have the cumululative total here, which I've been trying to work backwards from.

[Guest KC]

FK: >>>The high point doesn't necc need to be at the end of a season<<<

Ok, so it's bordering on rocket science. Maybe this thread turn in to "how to
use raw retrosheet data and put it to practical use" or something.

It's all right there ... anyone ever use ASS or whatever it was called?

[seawolf17]

="soupcan"]I could be 100% wrong (and more times than not I usually am) but I seem to recall that The Mets were actually creeping very close to .500 finally in the late '80s. Sometime in '89 after this horribly juvenile logo was bandied about on every souvenir they could fit it on (I have a pair of socks still in the plastic with this ugly thing on them).

Dude... my uncle, one of the guys for whom I named my newborn son, designed that logo.

[Guest Rotblatt]

And the answer is . . .

2001, with .4755598

So the exact moment of our peak will be somewhere in that neighborhood.

[Guest Rotblatt]

We cracked .300 in 1965 & .400 in 1971. It wasn't until 1986 that we cracked .450. We made it to .475 in 2001, hovered there briefly through 2002, before falling flat on our faces with with a 95-loss season in 2003.

[Guest Rotblatt]

On July 31, 2002, our record sat at 54-50, or .4762717.

I think that's it. Could be wrong, though.

[Guest KC]

Mets were 55-51 after winning on 7/31 ... not to pick nits.

[Guest Rotblatt]

KC wrote: Mets were 55-51 after winning on 7/31 ... not to pick nits.

Ooops. Thanks. That's what's in my spreadsheet, so the percentage is still right.

[Guest KC]

So if that's indeed the game, our beloved Mets went out with a bang ...

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B07310NYN2002.htm

[seawolf17]

="KC"]So if that's indeed the game, our beloved Mets went out with a bang ... http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B07310NYN2002.htm

Pitching two innings in relief in that game for Houston was Brandon Puffer, perhaps best known for this Topps baseball card:

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

And right now, what's the total w/l pct? Is getting back to .476etc a reasonable goal for this season? For next season?

[Guest Rotblatt]

]And right now, what's the total w/l pct? Is getting back to .476 etc a reasonable goal for this season? For next season?

Right now, we're at: .47453

If we go 86-76 over the season, we'll be at .475105 for our franchise.

If we go 93-69, we'll be at .476084.

Which will mean we have to crack a .508 winning percentage over the rest of the season to better .475, which is totally doable, IMO. To better .476, we'll have to play at a .566 pace. Possible, IMO. If we stay at our .600 pace, our franchise W% will be .476643.

I'd say cracking .476 is a reasonable goal. I'd be shocked if we didn't crack .475.

On edit: if we keep playing .600 ball for the next 12+ years, we'll be at .5010076 for the franchise.

[Gwreck]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: And right now, what's the total w/l pct? Is getting back to .476etc a reasonable goal for this season? For next season?

I don't know, but as was pointed out earlier in the thread, it's not hard to figure out.

"Goal" is clearly a strange term to use here. It's really a "who cares" sort of issue, not a goal.

[Willets Point]

Well I care if the Mets manage to go over .500 in franchise history 'cause that means they'll be playing some damn good baseball over the next few years.

[Gwreck]

Interestingly, all of the .500+ teams all-time are all "original" clubs, including some with long histories of (percieved) ineptitude:

Boston, Chicago (both), Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, MFYs, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and St. Louis. (Arizona is the lone exception).

[soupcan]

="seawolf17"] Dude... my uncle, one of the guys for whom I named my newborn son, designed that logo.

Oops. Does he have the '89 revised yearbook with that logo on the cover? That would be a cool thing to have if he designed it.

That was a contest held by the team wasn't it? Fans sent in designs and they picked the best one I think.

To be fair though it wasn't so much the design of the logo I hated (although I did find it a bit unimaginitive) but the way it was produced. It just looked like it had been drawn badly I also didn't like that it represented a kind of a bragging about...what?

Best record in baseball since 1984? So? How many World Series did you win? Oh, just one? Shut up then.

Remember the Cincinnati Reds in '81? They had the best record in the NL that year but because of the strike and the split season they didn't make the playoffs. They made a lot of noise about having the best record. I think they even hung a banner at Riverfront the next year proclaiming 'Best Record In Baseball 1981'.

Who cares?

[stevejrogers]

="soupcan"] ="seawolf17"] Dude... my uncle, one of the guys for whom I named my newborn son, designed that logo. Oops. Does he have the '89 revised yearbook with that logo on the cover? That would be a cool thing to have if he designed it. That was a contest held by the team wasn't it? Fans sent in designs and they picked the best one I think. To be fair though it wasn't so much the design of the logo I hated (although I did find it a bit unimaginitive) but the way it was produced. It just looked like it had been drawn badly I also didn't like that it represented a kind of a bragging about...what? Best record in baseball since 1984? So? How many World Series did you win? Oh, just one? Shut up then. Remember the Cincinnati Reds in '81? They had the best record in the NL that year but because of the strike and the split season they didn't make the playoffs. They made a lot of noise about having the best record. I think they even hung a banner at Riverfront the next year proclaiming 'Best Record In Baseball 1981'. Who cares?

Apparantly every one expect the Yankees!

Don't forget this is the same franchise where THE MASCOT WAS A JACK ASS!-Don LaGreca 1050 WFAN Radio on one particularly loud tirade about some "minor league" thing we were doing