Standings, Twenty-Twelve

[Edgy MD]

Nats win on wild pitch in 10th. Mets fall into second place.

East	W	L	PCT	GB	NGB	L10	Away	Home	Away
Washington	5	2	.714	-	-	5-2	W3	1-0	4-2
=#0000FF]NY Mets	4	2	.667	0.5	0.5	4-2	L2	4-2	0-0
=#BF0000]Philadelphia	2	3	.400	2.0	3.5	2-3	W1	1-1	1-2
=#000080]Atlanta	2	4	.333	2.5	5.0	2-4	W2	0-0	2-4
=#FF4000]Miami	2	4	.333	2.5	5.0	2-4	L1	0-1	2-3

[Benjamin Grimm]

BOOOOOOOOOOO![/bigpurple]

[Edgy MD]

Dude, we still qualify for a wild card spot.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm just trying to get a jump on the negativity.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Dude, we still qualify for a wild card spot.

division or bust. Wild Card is a crap shoot. None of this "well, maybe we can snag that second spot" stuff.

[Edgy MD]

Well, it's where we are now, not what I'm rooting for.

[TransMonk]

I'll be overjoyed if this team is good enough to clinch the second wildcard spot this season.

[Frayed Knot]

The Nats win today was 3-2 on a 10th inning wild pitch. This was all after Lidge blew a 2-0 lead in the 9th.

So while I don't want to say the Nats are getting lucky here cuz they're certainly getting good starting pitching (7 shut-out innings from Gio Gonzalez today on the heels of 6 from Strasburg & 5 from Detwiler) but, geez, that's 5 of their last 7 runs scored (and 7 of their last 11) that were "driven in" via walks, errors, short fly balls, ground outs, and WPs

[TransMonk]

It will be hard for them to sustain these type of wins over the next 6 months. Eventually, they will need to start stringing hits together.

[Ceetar]

The counter argument is that if you can steal wins that way while not hitting, it minimizes the losses while you're offense is slumping.

[Edgy MD]

Don't know how or when Atlanta snuck in there. I guess it has something to do with sweeping the Mets.

East	W	L	PCT	GB	NGB	L10	Away	Home	Away
Atlanta	14	8	.636	--	--	7-3	W1	7-2	7-6
=#FF0000]Washington	14	8	.636	--	--	5-5	L4	8-2	6-6
=#0000FF]NY Mets	13	9	.591	1.0	2.0	6-4	W2	8-5	5-4
=#BF0000]Philadelphia	10	12	.455	11.0	3.5	5-5	L1	4-5	6-7
=#FF4000]Miami	8	13	.381	5.5	17.0	3-7	L1	6-4	2-9

[Gwreck]

Edgy DC wrote: I guess it has something to do with sweeping the Mets.

Wasn't a sweep; Mets lost 2 of 3 in Atlanta.

[soupcan]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pleasantly surprised.

Not getting caught up in it though as I can't believe they'll even finish .500.

Would love to see it, but can't believe it....yet.

[Edgy MD]

Believe it. And not just because it's the only article of faith for Met fans. Really, things certainly could fall apart in the next two months, but as the season progresses, they have a good chance to get better, not worse.

[TransMonk]

The longer they stay over .500, the more I believe. Honestly, they have more-or-less looked better than I thought they would through the first month. I'd be happier if Pelfrey wasn't lost for the year, but I do like this team.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I can't be the only one breathing a sigh of relief after nearly every win that the opposition played as badly as they did.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, as beating bad teams is what good teams do.

[Edgy MD]

My thinking is that young teams get better as the season progresses, and Terry has the team grinding hard enough to keep at it even after they screw up, instead of drowning in despondency. (They're a team of Daniel Murphys in this regard.)

He did last year, too. And it's a real contrast with Doghouse Manuel, from my perspective.

[TransMonk]

Edgy DC wrote: My thinking is that young teams get better as the season progresses...

I agree with this. This team is really thin and really can't afford any more injuries anywhere.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, but they may also not deal with adversity as well as a more experienced team would.

I'm still very much wait-and-see with this year's Mets. I don't expect any October excitement, but I'd be delighted with a finish above .500.

[Edgy MD]

Injuries suck. They've undermined many a recent season, so it certainly makes sense that we are constantly conscious of them. But I'm not so sure this team is any more vulnerable to them than most. Younger players get hurt less frequently, recover faster, and recover more fully, and these Mets are younger than most. Meanstwhile, the Phillies await the return of their two best hitters, and wonder where Utley is going to play, because they don't think he'll come back with the range to play second, and they're waiting for Howard to play first. Poorly.

Meanwhile, Buffalo is 14-10, so there must be some dudes who can help down there. Mike Baxter has gone from being an embarrassing load at the end of the bench to being Rusty Staub's little brother. Washington has played their ace in Bryce Harper, but our aces (particularly Harvey) remain in the hole. Nice.

The longer Schwinnie, Hefner, Young, et al. can keep us from having to play that ace, the better, so that's certainly something to watch.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I feel like I'm talking to myself here but afaic, Schwinny ought to be on a very short leash here. Did not pitch nearly well enough in his first start, especially given the fact he had a nice lead, and taxed the crap out of the bullpen too. And I think it is important that he pretty much did the same thing last year too. If 4+ IP, 5 ER is what we can expect, he's got no biz interfering with what little mo we have now. I'd put him at the back of the line.

[Edgy MD]

Oh, certainly. Schwinstone is pitching for his life. I'm willing to write off the Coors start to the Coors factor if he's willing to isolate it in his performance. Another offensive park in Houston, but show me something.

Hefner has certainly done a better job of capturing my imagination --- an all-important measurement of success.

[Guest attgig]

Frayed Knot wrote: The Nats win today was 3-2 on a 10th inning wild pitch. This was all after Lidge blew a 2-0 lead in the 9th. So while I don't want to say the Nats are getting lucky here cuz they're certainly getting good starting pitching (7 shut-out innings from Gio Gonzalez today on the heels of 6 from Strasburg & 5 from Detwiler) but, geez, that's 5 of their last 7 runs scored (and 7 of their last 11) that were "driven in" via walks, errors, short fly balls, ground outs, and WPs

They're doing this with Zimmerman out. Morse has been out since the beginning of the year and was expected to be a middle of the lineup hitter. Now they got Bryce up. They'll be interesting come late May/early June when Zimmerman comes back and Morse could come back around then as well.

Their offense could match their pitching at that point...and they may be scary good.

[Guest attgig]

Edgy DC wrote: Oh, certainly. Schwinstone is pitching for his life. I'm willing to write off the Coors start to the Coors factor if he's willing to isolate it in his performance. Another offensive park in Houston, but show me something. Hefner has certainly done a better job of capturing my imagination --- an all-important measurement of success.

yeah, MinuteMaid's an offensive park, but it is the Astros....

[Edgy MD]

attgig wrote: Their offense could match their pitching at that point...and they may be scary good.

Let's pass them now to be safe.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The Mets phenomenal record in one and two run games this season coupled with Bill James' Pythagorean theorem, suggests that the Mets are a very lucky last place team.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Mets phenomenal record in one and two run games this season coupled with Bill James' Pythagorean theorem, suggests that the Mets are a very lucky last place team.

I don't think it suggests that at all. I don't think it's predictive.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Mets phenomenal record in one and two run games this season coupled with Bill James' Pythagorean theorem, suggests that the Mets are a very lucky last place team. I don't think it suggests that at all. I don't think it's predictive.

If the Mets keep on winning one and two run games at the current pace, well yeah, they're not gonna finish in last place. But a one or two run game is likelier to be decided by luck than a five or six run game. A team's record in games decided by larger margins is a more reliable measure of its true talent. The '69 Mets were 40-19 in one run games.

[Ceetar]

A team's record in games decided by larger margins is a more reliable measure of its true talent.

There a write up on this somewhere?


We're still in the small sample size space. Duda and Davis aren't really hitting for instance. The offense clearly isn't playing to potential. The Mets reasonably projected to have one of the best offense in the league, and they've scored more than 3 runs in an inning what..twice? this year. That will change. I think the one-run wins is a reflection of the Mets possessing quality players that both keep the offense from bottoming out completely, and manage to hold down leads via good pitching. There record probably is better than it should've been in 1-run games, and they probably have some luck, and some Heath Bell to thank for things like that, but while we can't always expect the Mets to win every 1-run game, we can't reasonably expect the Mets to play as many 1-run games either.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The Mets phenomenal record in one and two run games this season coupled with Bill James' Pythagorean theorem, suggests that the Mets are a very lucky last place team.

Did Megdal copy my post again -- 11 minutes ago?

As I thought more about last night�s 4-3 loss to the Astros, a game lost by the bullpen, the phrase kept coming back to me- wasted opportunity. Let�s put it this way: the Mets are 13-10, but they haven�t really played like a 13-10 team. Their Pythagorean record, based on runs scored and runs allowed, is actually 9-14. They are actually playing at a 63-win pace per production, but winning at a 91-win pace. If you are betting on what is likelier to happen going forward- continuing to outpace production, or regressing to that production in their results- the smart money is on the latter. So really, they must, must win those games like Monday night to bank wins. Inherent in even the performance to date is an offense that really might be overachieving. So far, the Mets have received better than league average production (an OPS+ of greater than 100) at every position but first base-at some positions, much more than league average. Six Mets are at 114 or better. ZIPS projections, however, had just five Mets above 100, and none above 116. So either ZIPS is way off, or the Met offense is due to regress in a big way. In the rotation so far, three of the five Mets starters have an ERA+ 126 or better, and one of those three, Mike Pelfrey, won�t throw another pitch this season. ZIPS had Santana at 108, Dickey at 102, and everyone else below league average. But the bullpen: that�s performing just about as expected. And that�s too bad. If the bullpen had held, New York would be 14-9. That�s not enough to guard against all that regression. But if at least some of the early production is for real- and for my money, Ruben Tejada and Lucas Duda are two examples of players who appear ready to bull through their mean projections- they�ll need to bank all the wins they can get. It�s still going to be hard in this division.