Here's something to root for!

[Benjamin Grimm]

The Mets need to win 2 of their remaining 15 games to clinch a winning decade for only the second time in their history!

In the 1960's, they were 494-799. (.382)

In the 1970's, 763-850. (.473)

In the 1980's, 816-743 (.523)

In the 1990's, 767-786 (.494)

And so far in this still-unnamed decade, they're 808-795 (.504)

With 9 wins, they can make it their winningest decade.

If all 15 remaining games get played, the Mets will have played a total of 1,618 games in the 2000's, topping the 1,614 played in the 1970's.


Who said these remaining games are meaningless???

[Guest Kong76]

BG: The Mets need to win 2 of their remaining 15 games <<<

They'll need to battle, but I think they can do it.

[metirish]

Cool stats Grim , Jerry really needs to try and win every game now. Even if it means pulling the starter in the third.

taking the piss here

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

This is the kind of stuff that makes the Ultimate Mets Database the greatest thing ever invented, excluding the blowjob.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The name of the decade is the aughts.

I will also accept the Ord��ezes, so named for one of the two men to have the balls to take the field wearing 0, and doing it in the decade of the zeros.

[Benjamin Grimm]

BG: The Mets need to win 2 of their remaining 15 games <<<

They'll need to battle, but I think they can do it.

[HahnSolo]

I was somewhat surprised how close the aughts are to the 80s, then I remembered how bad they were from 80-83. And that '81 was a strike year.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Let's hope that the 2010's are a 900-win decade.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Can you tell me how this year's team is doing on the list of worst second halves?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I can check that.

How would we define second half? Games 82 through 162? Or games on-or-after July 1?

[Frayed Knot]

A .523 winning pct is averaging almost 85 wins/year. Not bad for an overall average and more than 3 wins/year better than this decade's .503 (81.6 wins/yr)


"If all 15 remaining games get played, the Mets will have played a total of 1,618 games in the 2000's, topping the 1,614 played in the 1970's."

MLB definitely makes more of an effort to play just about every game scheduled these days than they used to, so I'm not surprised that our total number of games played (and I bet that of many teams) is higher this decade.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It's also the first decade the Mets have played in which their number of games wasn't reduced by either a strike or, in the case of the 1960's, two seasons of non-existence.

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, those things make an even bigger difference.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Mets, on or after July 1:

1962 20 67 0.230
1963 22 63 0.259
1964 31 55 0.360
1965 24 62 0.279
1966 37 54 0.407
1967 36 57 0.387
1968 37 51 0.420
1969 60 30 0.667
1970 43 46 0.483
1971 38 50 0.432
1972 42 47 0.472
1973 50 40 0.556
1974 41 47 0.466
1975 45 46 0.495
1976 47 39 0.547
1977 33 55 0.375
1978 33 51 0.393
1979 32 60 0.348
1980 33 58 0.363
1981 24 28 0.462
1982 29 58 0.333
1983 39 48 0.448
1984 52 39 0.571
1985 60 30 0.667
1986 58 33 0.637
1987 52 35 0.598
1988 51 32 0.614
1989 47 40 0.540
1990 50 41 0.549
1991 38 50 0.432
1992 36 49 0.424
1993 36 51 0.414
1994 21 15 0.583
1995 46 38 0.548
1996 34 48 0.415
1997 43 39 0.524
1998 45 39 0.536
1999 53 32 0.624
2000 49 36 0.576
2001 47 33 0.588
2002 35 46 0.432
2003 31 49 0.388
2004 34 52 0.395
2005 44 40 0.524
2006 50 33 0.602
2007 42 41 0.506
2008 49 31 0.613
2009 26 45 0.366


Mets, Game 82 through the end of the season:

1962 17 62 0.215
1963 22 59 0.272
1964 30 52 0.366
1965 23 59 0.280
1966 31 49 0.388
1967 29 52 0.358
1968 35 46 0.432
1969 53 28 0.654
1970 38 43 0.469
1971 37 44 0.457
1972 36 39 0.480
1973 47 33 0.588
1974 36 45 0.444
1975 39 42 0.481
1976 43 38 0.531
1977 33 48 0.407
1978 32 49 0.395
1979 30 52 0.366
1980 28 53 0.346
1981 10 13 0.435
1982 27 54 0.333
1983 38 43 0.469
1984 43 38 0.531
1985 52 29 0.642
1986 52 29 0.642
1987 49 32 0.605
1988 48 31 0.608
1989 45 36 0.556
1990 43 38 0.531
1991 30 50 0.375
1992 34 47 0.420
1993 34 47 0.420
1994 19 13 0.594
1995 37 26 0.587
1996 34 47 0.420
1997 43 38 0.531
1998 44 37 0.543
1999 52 30 0.634
2000 48 33 0.593
2001 47 34 0.580
2002 35 45 0.438
2003 31 49 0.388
2004 30 51 0.370
2005 43 38 0.531
2006 49 32 0.605
2007 42 39 0.519
2008 49 32 0.605
2009 24 42 0.364

[Guest Edgy DC]

OK, by the first measure, it's the team's fifth-worst second half ever, and worst since 1982, and by the second it's the fourth-worst, and worst since 1982.

No wonder Bambi quit.

And died.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Zowie, worse than 2003 and the no-win August!

We have to go back to 1982 for a fuglier 2nd half. (edit... and beaten)

[Chad ochoseis]

It's also the first decade the Mets have played in which their number of games wasn't reduced by either a strike or, in the case of the 1960's, two seasons of non-existence.
[/quote:2i0mfz5o]

If the Mets play 11 of their 15 remaining games, the aughts will pass the '70's to become the Mets' showing-uppest decade.

on edit - missed the part of the thread where this was already pointed out

[Benjamin Grimm]

Zowie, worse than 2003 and the no-win August![/quote:37i97yma]

I think you mean 2002. The Mets were 15-12 in August 2003, but 6-21 in August 2002.

[Frayed Knot]

Wasn't there a winless-at-home month of August one of the years earlier in this decade?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Zowie, worse than 2003 and the no-win August![/quote:1mvof4gs]

I think you mean 2002. The Mets were 15-12 in August 2003, but 6-21 in August 2002.[/quote:1mvof4gs]

D'oh. My memory used to be good, now it sucks.

The year I was referring to was the one where they dropped that doubleheader to the D-backs (I was there and it was awful) and just kept losing. ... that was 2002.

[Frayed Knot]

2002 was also the no home-win month: 0-13 at home; 6-8 on the road