How close?

[Guest Edgy DC]

A few have declared this season over (or the playoffs beyond worthiness of pursuing) and I'm just trying to find out when a season qualifies as such.

For the purpose of anticipating the "it depends on how many teams are in the hunt" position, I've included a net-games-back number (calculated by raising all games-back numbers over 1.0 to a power of 1.75). You may vote by the games-back number, the net-games back number, or both, whichever is your wont.

The full-length question: How close would your team have to be at the exact moment of the trade deadline for you to eschew selling off your sellable (productive, expensive, back-of-the-contract) players?

[TransMonk]

I split the middle with 5. It would still depend on how many teams were involved and how well those teams were positioned to go down the stretch.

[Chad ochoseis]

I went with 3.

If I'm much further back than that, I don't want to pin my hopes on "well, if the Braves start losing and the Diamondbacks get sunstroke and Prince Fielder gets traded to the Padres and Tony LaRussa starts batting his pitchers leadoff, then maybe we can sneak in to the wild card and get whupped by the Giants in the first round". I'd rather trade today's chips and have the best team in the league two or three years from now.

In old pool parlance, I think that makes me a non-TITTS man. I'm more of a LEGGY (Let 'Em Go, Get Younger) kind of guy.

I'm curious, Edgy. Why 1.75 as the exponent?

There are a lot of other variables here - do I anticipate my team (or other teams) strengthening later in the year because of players coming back from injury? Do I anticipate my team weakening because some guys are playing over their heads? How much am I getting for my tradeable chips? Etc. Etc. Etc.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I was a 3/7 guy. But as TM said, a lot would depend on how teams-- including my own-- were poised to move.

It also would depend on what sort of sellable assets we were talking about. In a case like Beltran's, there's more impetus to move the player in any borderline case because of the no-arb clause.

[seawolf17]

I'm with Monk. Depends on the other teams, the rest of the schedule, the health of my roster, etc. Impossible to answer.

[Ceetar]

Chad Ochoseis wrote: There are a lot of other variables here - do I anticipate my team (or other teams) strengthening later in the year because of players coming back from injury? Do I anticipate my team weakening because some guys are playing over their heads? How much am I getting for my tradeable chips? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Reyes is back, Wright's coming back. etc.

I dunno. I never know how to answer this question.

A lot depends on what you get back. The better the package, the closer you can be and still trade him. The Mets are probably farther back and will get a better prospect back, and yet, if we're only really chasing Atlanta (i.e. the Braves will win it if the Mets don't) then technically the Mets control their own destiny. (8 losses back, 9 to play against the Braves)

I think if the Mets could get to 5 losses back, which might not happen even if the Mets go 12-0, you maybe consider not trading him if the package doesn't blow you away.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I aimed the cursor in the middle, but I'm not motivated so much by "X games back" as much as the feeling that those in front can be caught. IOW, I don;t think our best team has the horses to catch them even with our horses.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Chad Ochoseis wrote: I went with 3. If I'm much further back than that, I don't want to pin my hopes on "well, if the Braves start losing and the Diamondbacks get sunstroke and Prince Fielder gets traded to the Padres and Tony LaRussa starts batting his pitchers leadoff, then maybe we can sneak in to the wild card and get whupped by the Giants in the first round".

There are two months, though. Surely, everything doesn't have to go wrong for everyone else to make up three games in two months.

Chad Ochoseis wrote: I'm curious, Edgy. Why 1.75 as the exponent?

It just seemed to produce a pretty typical result. I fear I'm kinda grossly wrong on that, though. The Mets are currently 8.5 out, but merely 17.5 out net, which is closer to an exponent of 1.35.

[Ceetar]

I think direction matters too. If you're gaining ground it feels different than if you're losing it.

[MFS62]

Didn't the 1969 team come from 9 games back in August to win it all?
I voted 9.5 games, but anything's possible.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, coming from 20 games behind with 10 to play isn't really possilble, but yeah.

So anybody who voted 5, or fewer, if the Mets close a mere 2.5 games in the next 11 days, they're there.

[MFS62]

I'm optimistic they'll stay in the hunt for the wild card.
Can you please explain the use of the multiplier and the "net games" term?
Why isn't the games behind figure sufficient?
Remember, I'm still trying to figure out all the new stats.

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

I can't speak to the multiplier, but as for net games, I think that's something that Edgy came up with.

Look at it this way, it's one thing to be 5 games behind and in second place, but it's another thing entirely to be 5 games behind and in fourth place; you have three teams to pass instead of one, and even if the first place team falters, there are two other teams better positioned to take advantage of that. The Net GB attempts to address that.

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I can't speak to the multiplier, but as for net games, I think that's something that Edgy came up with. Look at it this way, it's one thing to be 5 games behind and in second place, but it's another thing entirely to be 5 games behind and in fourth place; you have three teams to pass instead of one, and even if the first place team falters, there are two other teams better positioned to take advantage of that. The Net GB attempts to address that.

Thanks.
Being behind multiple teams - makes sense some adjustment factor might be required.
I'm still not sure if the 1.75 factor has to be changed depending on how many teams you trail.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

Net games back is something I've concentrated on in past years. It's the nunber of games you are in back of everybody.

So if the standings look like this:

Team	W	L	GB
Philadelphia	66	44	-
New York	60	50	6.0
Atlanta	58	52	8.0
Florida	52	58	14.0
Washington	49	61	17.0

...the Mets are 6.0 games behind of Philadelphia and a net 6.0 games behind everybody, because they are in second place.

But if the standings look like this:

Team	W	L	GB
Philadelphia	66	44	-
Atlanta	65	45	1.0
Florida	63	47	3.0
New York	60	50	6.0
Washington	49	61	17.0

... the fourth-place Mets are still 6.0 games back of Philadelphia, but a net 14.0 games in back of everbody (Phily, Atlanta, and Florida), and their climb is much steeper, because even if they win while the Phillies are losing, Atlanta and Florida will have to lose also, and that's further challenging because sometimes they will be playing each other, or the Phillies and they can't both lose on such days.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I can't speak to the multiplier, but as for net games, I think that's something that Edgy came up with. Look at it this way, it's one thing to be 5 games behind and in second place, but it's another thing entirely to be 5 games behind and in fourth place; you have three teams to pass instead of one, and even if the first place team falters, there are two other teams better positioned to take advantage of that. The Net GB attempts to address that.

Except all that matters is how many games back you are at the end.

If the first place team falters n this case, and the second place team jumps them, you were never really 5 games back to begin with.

[Theoldmole]

I don't have to run the team, or have a long term strategy. My only job is to root for Real Mets like Carlos Beltran, and root for them not to be traded, and suffer agonies if they are.

[Guest Edgy DC]

MFS62 wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I can't speak to the multiplier, but as for net games, I think that's something that Edgy came up with. Look at it this way, it's one thing to be 5 games behind and in second place, but it's another thing entirely to be 5 games behind and in fourth place; you have three teams to pass instead of one, and even if the first place team falters, there are two other teams better positioned to take advantage of that. The Net GB attempts to address that. Thanks. Being behind multiple teams - makes sense some adjustment factor might be required. I'm still not sure if the 1.75 factor has to be changed depending on how many teams you trail. Later

The 1.75 figure wasn't a factor but an exponent. It was just a random number pulled out to generate different levels of net games back we might be working from. Ignore it.

[Guest Edgy DC]

TheOldMole wrote: I don't have to run the team, or have a long term strategy. My only job is to root for Real Mets like Carlos Beltran, and root for them not to be traded, and suffer agonies if they are.

That's why I voted 10.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: TheOldMole wrote: I don't have to run the team, or have a long term strategy. My only job is to root for Real Mets like Carlos Beltran, and root for them not to be traded, and suffer agonies if they are. That's why I voted 10.

As long as they are at least as close as 7 games back with 17 to play.

[MFS62]

Net games back is something I've concentrated on in past years. It's the nunber of games you are in back of everybody. ... the fourth-place Mets are still 6.0 games back of Philadelphia, but a net 14.0 games in back of everbody (Phily, Atlanta, and Florida), and their climb is much steeper, because even if they win while the Phillies are losing, Atlanta and Florida will have to lose also, and that's further challenging because sometimes they will be playing each other, or the Phillies and they can't both lose on such days.

Thanks.
Got it!
Now I can gladly ignore the 1.75 factor.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

Dear Abby,

I can't tell when people are fucking with me on my forum anymore. They post those smiling faces, but I don't know what the joke is.

What should I do?

Sincerely,

Lance Blankenship Fan

[MFS62]

Dear Lance Blankenship Fan,
Upon reading that post, it seems that the poster was thanking you for your explanation and was laughing about your comment to ignore the factor.
I did not detect any malice or sarcasm, nor do I think any was intended.

Sincerely,
Abby

[soupcan]

Dear Lance Blankenship Fan, Upon reading that post, it seems that the poster was thanking you for your explanation and was laughing about your comment to ignore the factor. I did not detect any malice or sarcasm, nor do I think any was intended. Sincerely, Abby

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ceetar wrote: If the first place team falters n this case, and the second place team jumps them, you were never really 5 games back to begin with.

What???

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, my head spun around a coupld of times at that also.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: If the first place team falters n this case, and the second place team jumps them, you were never really 5 games back to begin with. What???

Ultimately, you're chasing a number. You need to have more wins than everyone else at the end of the season. say it's Braves, Pirates, Mets separated by 3 games each. If the Pirates in two weeks jump ahead of the Braves and suddenly look like the 'favorites' then today you weren't really 6 back, because you only really needed to make up the 3 games.

I just mean that you don't necessarily know how many games back you are when there are more teams in the race. Sure, it means there are other teams that could play better than you, but it also means the team in first might not be the ultimate target.

And sure, they have to play each other so they both can't lose, but they also both can't win. This is less meaningful in a wild card race, but the third place team often has a chance to win against the teams in front of them, and if the two teams play each other it means one of them has to lose and can actually be beneficial.

[Fman99]

Not sure how this mathematically translates, but my answer is "closer than we were when those fucktards gave away Kazmir for Zambrano."

[seawolf17]

I'm pretty sure Edgy just started this poll so he could call you fellas on it in a few weeks.

"But you said three weeks ago that the Mets had to be within five games to be in contention; they're five and a half games out and you seem to think they still have a shot."

[Guest Edgy DC]

Not quite, but I like to narrow these things down.