Standings, Twenty-Twelve

[Fman99]

Ceetar wrote: The Mets reasonably projected to have one of the best offense in the league

Really? That's some wild eyed optimism and/or meth rock smoking. I was and still am hopeful that guys like Tejada and Duda can take the next step, that Murphy can continue to hit for average and that Jason Bay could manage to not kill any one who was hitting successfully. But I don't think many people reasonably projected the Mets hitters as a group to be much better than average, aside from you.

I'm just saying.

[Ceetar]

we're also leaving out in our 'the Mets have to regress' arguments, that the Mets are HORRIBLE with the bases loaded. That will regress too. It's not so much that the Mets haven't been getting on base at a good clip, it's that they've been failing to drive them in. Luck has created a lot of baserunners but less RBIs. More solo home runs than 3-run home runs.

Fman99 wrote: Ceetar wrote: The Mets reasonably projected to have one of the best offense in the league Really? That's some wild eyed optimism and/or meth rock smoking. I was and still am hopeful that guys like Tejada and Duda can take the next step, that Murphy can continue to hit for average and that Jason Bay could manage to not kill any one who was hitting successfully. But I don't think many people reasonably projected the Mets hitters as a group to be much better than average, aside from you. I'm just saying.

I'm by far not the only one, and the math works too. They should be better than last year, in which they were in the top bunch, and part of that projection was David Wright being much better, which appears to be true.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

"Good" offense, yes. "One of the best... in the league?" One of the 9 or 10 best, certainly. Otherwise... not really.

That the Mets are looking better than predicted is great... but it doesn't change the fact that most didn't expect the bats to be more than league-average-y.

[Edgy MD]

Looking worse than I expected.

[TransMonk]

This is a team that leads the league in Ks and has little-to-no speed...and these are things that are not going to improve much as the sample size gets bigger. The offense is flawed, but they've shown their ability to get on base and win close games.

Yes, they have been lucky. But so what? A 162 game baseball season eliminates most of the luck that any one team can acquire. I'm happy that they are where they are for now. This is a team that should be looking to improve game by game and not worry about regression to the mean or pythagorean winning percentages or what their record is going to be in September. Build, improve, sustain. Enjoy the ride. We're obviously not there yet.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

The one thing that's changed for me this year is that I feel the Mets can not be particularly great but can still contend: The division and league seems to have rolled back to them a bit so far.

Particularly if they can solve the No. 5 starter thing and Dickey can stop giving up HRs like they were book signings at film openings.

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: "Good" offense, yes. "One of the best... in the league?" One of the 9 or 10 best, certainly. Otherwise... not really. That the Mets are looking better than predicted is great... but it doesn't change the fact that most didn't expect the bats to be more than league-average-y.

I understand we lost Reyes and Beltran, but Duda and Davis and more of a better Wright and also less AB from Justin Turner. (and Willie Harris)

Should that not be better than last year? Obviously health plays in, but health always plays in.

They were 6th last year in runs scored, best in the division. second in OBP with all reasonable projections putting them at more power leading to more runs out of that OBP (which is what hasn't happened yet)

They scored 718 runs. here's a poll that suggests many people think they'll score more than 700.

http://www.tedquarters.net/2012/03/01/mets-over-under-14/

[Ceetar]

TransMonk wrote: This is a team that leads the league in Ks and has little-to-no speed...and these are things that are not going to improve much as the sample size gets bigger.

Ike Davis is not going to strike out nearly 200 times.

Lucas Duda is not going to strike out the 150+ times he's on pace for.

Torres WILL add more speed than Hairston and Baxter. And the team's not necessarily slow. Duda's slow and Davis and Thole are below average, but that's it. everyone else is serviceable. Murphy's not fast but he's not an anchor, and he certainly has plenty of defensive range and probably shouldn't be stealing anyway. I imagine if i went to look up the stats you'd find he goes first to third as much as anyone.

[TransMonk]

Who is going to lead the team in steals this season and how many will they swipe?

OE: And I'm not looking at individuals and their Ks. I'm talking about Tejada striking out when the situation calls for a groundball to the right side or Thole striking out when a long fly ball will score a run. IMO, this team will finish in the top 5 of the NL in Ks.

[Ceetar]

TransMonk wrote: Who is going to lead the team in steals this season and how many will they swipe? OE: And I'm not looking at individuals and their Ks. I'm talking about Tejada striking out when the situation calls for a groundball to the right side or Thole striking out when a long fly ball will score a run. IMO, this team will finish in the top 5 of the NL in Ks.

yes, but all that's minor stuff (and fluky) they're going to score a ton of runs.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I wasn't trying to predict where the Mets would finish this season. I merely observed that given their quality of play to date, they're extremely fortunate. Things could be a lot worse. Should be a lot worse. The Mets are still mathematically alive if the playoffs started today.

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.

James' Theorem is highly predictive and correlates powerfully to a team's won-loss record. But even without getting into the simple junior high school math behind the theorem, it's plainly obvious that a team that allows more than 20% of the number of runs it scores will almost always be among the league's worst. There's no way to get around this fact.

[Edgy MD]

Well, there's the sample size thing. It's early.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: Well, there's the sample size thing. It's early.

Yeah. And that's why I wasn't predicting the rest of the season.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Well, there's the sample size thing. It's early. Yeah. And that's why I wasn't predicting the rest of the season.

calling them lucky, and a last place team, is predicting.

[Frayed Knot]

End of April snapshot

---	RS/G	BA	OBA	SLG	WkRate	IsoP	K
NL-Avg	4.00	.247	.314	.383	.067	.136	170
METS	3.96	.268	.341	.390	.073	.122	196
Place	9th	2nd	2nd	T-7th	---	---	1st

---	RA/G	WHiP	Ks	HRs	OPS-A
NL-Avg	4.00	1.281	170	19	.687
METS	4.83	1.366	185	23	.735
Place	14th	13th	5th	13th	12th

[Edgy MD]

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

By the way, you ever invite Howard to post here?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

To the point I think Ceetar's trying to make the numbers would suggest the Mets aren't too many adjustments away from showing a better offense. For example, you'd think if OBP stayed where it was all year we'd move up in that runs scored category if only by by accident eventually and that of course would improve the pythagorean figures.

The HRs allowed, really the pitching in general, is the bigger concern in most every way. I have less expectation of it continuing to be as good as its been and it hasn't been great.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Well, there's the sample size thing. It's early. Yeah. And that's why I wasn't predicting the rest of the season. calling them lucky, and a last place team, is predicting.

Uh, no. I was suggesting that they were lucky in April and that they should be in last place. But you'll be happy to know that I'm enjoying the hell out of this year's team, flaws and all and Pythagorean Theorem, and remain as hopeful and optimistic as even a nine year old baseball fan oughtta be.

[metsmarathon]

for what it's worth, baseball prospectus has our third-order winning percentage at 0.541 (12.4/10.6 W/L)

that appears to take into account underlying statistics and what-nots, but also quality of opponent, whatever that means.

as a comparison, the nats sit at 0.596, the braves at 0.511, the phillies at 0.477, and the marlins all the way down there at 0.384

poor marlins.

[batmagadanleadoff]

If the playoffs started today, the Schwinden Mets would still be mathematically alive, three game losing streak to the Astros and all.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: If the playoffs started today, the Schwinden Mets would still be mathematically alive, three game losing streak to the Astros and all.

So the Mets would have to play Arizona for a Second Wild Card tiebreaker and then play Atlanta in the one-game Wild Card Playoff. Seeing that it's entirely possible for this scenario to play out at the end of the season makes the poorly-conceived-let's-let-even-more-teams-into-the-playoffs-Bud-Selig-cash-bonanza-second-wild-card-team plan even stupider.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: If the playoffs started today, the Schwinden Mets would still be mathematically alive, three game losing streak to the Astros and all.

OE - If the playoffs started today, the Schwinden Mets would still be mathematically alive, three game losing streak to the Astros and worst run differential in the National League, better only than the 6-18 Twins.

[G-Fafif]

Schwinden Mets visiting Atlanta to open premature, hypothetical postseason today.

[G-Fafif]

Rottino Mets still loom as the one-game visitors for the season that is exactly one-sixth complete.

[G-Fafif]

Batista Mets guarantee they'll travel to Philly with a one-game date Atlanta awaiting them in early October.

[batmagadanleadoff]

ESPN's playoff odds gives the Mets a 15.8% of qualifying -- the Mets best odds so far, this season. Though I'm not sure whether those are odds for the Mets being one of the final four teams or final five teams in the league. (I'm guessing last five).

[G-Fafif]

Whatever the odds, the Valdespin Mets have clinched a spot after the 30-game season is complete.

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ESPN's playoff odds gives the Mets a 15.8% of qualifying -- the Mets best odds so far, this season. Though I'm not sure whether those are odds for the Mets being one of the final four teams or final five teams in the league.

Add up the odds for ALL the teams (in one league).
If those odds add up to 500% then it's for five teams. If they only total 400% then they never got around to updating things to the new format.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: ESPN's playoff odds gives the Mets a 15.8% of qualifying -- the Mets best odds so far, this season. Though I'm not sure whether those are odds for the Mets being one of the final four teams or final five teams in the league. Add up the odds for ALL the teams (in one league). If those odds add up to 500% then it's for five teams. If they only total 400% then they never got around to updating things to the new format.

The odds for all NL teams, cumulatively, equals exactly 500%. Good idea.

[batmagadanleadoff]

G-Fafif wrote: Whatever the odds, the Valdespin Mets have clinched a spot after the 30-game season is complete.

With the Reds loss tonight, the Mets are guaranteed a playoff spot even after the end of the 31 game season. (Mets playoffs odds now 16.1% - a .3% increase in just the last hour).