Chad ochoseis

Centerfield wrote: Lefty on the mound. I pray that Terry doesn't do something stupid like start Eric Campbell. It also demonstrates the failure of Sandy and this organization that they were not able to get a major league quality right-handed hitter. With five playoff positions, now everyone with a .500 record is still a contender. So it's no longer so easy to find that one extra player you need for 20 ABs in September, much less to expect him to clear waivers.

Is Granderson not CFing after yesterday's screwup? Sucks to sit Conforto against a righty.

sharpie wrote: The rules are idiotic. There is no serious downside to losing the first round as you are guaranteed a second chance (if you are Team A or . Should be B vs. C, loser out. B/C winner vs. A, loser out. And the thought is that there's no "wild card" game - whoever wins goes on to play in the divisional series. That gives A a 50% chance of making it to the divisional series, and B & C each 25% chances (assuming all three teams are evenly matched and that home field doesn't give an advantage). The WC winner definitely has played two games to get to the divisional series The current rules give A and B each a 37.5% chance of making it to the divisional series and C a 25% chance (same assumptions). The WC winner has played either two games or three games (if, for example, A loses to B in the first play-in, A beats C in the second play-in, and A beats B in the WC game). So they may go into the divisional series with the pitching staff completely not set up well. I prefer the current rules, as the B vs C, loser out, etc. approach gives too much of a reward to A for winning the tiebreaker. The three teams played dead even through the season. The tiebreaker should give as little advantage as workable. The Mets record against its divisional foes might come into play. So these losses to the Braves are worse then they appear to be. Nope. It's mathematically impossible for the Mets to simultaneously tie the Cardinals for the regular season and have a better divisional record at this point. That article ridiculously complicated the issue.

Now I remember why the Braves are in last place.

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Out of the frying pan, into the soup. I'd bat Bruce here. Bruce in a slump isn't much worse than Campbell playing like Campbell. I stand corrected.

Out of the frying pan, into the soup. I'd bat Bruce here. Bruce in a slump isn't much worse than Campbell playing like Campbell.

Zvon wrote: Shit. Cardinals already have a 3-1 lead in the 2nd. It's very possible that we can wake up tomorrow with the Mets in a three-way tie for the wild card, with the Marlins 3 games out and the Pirates 3.5 games out.

[bigpurple:3byqxv4p]KABOOM[/bigpurple:3byqxv4p] Somebody give TJ a better uni number than 54.

The tiebreakers are now decided. By splitting the four game series with the Giants, the Cardinals win the season series 4-3. Since the Cardinals and Mets both beat the Giants head to head, the Giants lose all tiebreakers. The Cardinals win a Mets-Cardinals tiebreaker, since the Cardinals can't both play two games better than the Mets over the remaining 13 and play 1 1/2 games worse in their 10 remaining intradivision games. But all this means is that a WC game or a play-in game for the WC would be played in St. Louis, where the Cardinals are 33-41.

I'm interpreting the 3 way tie thusly: If the Cardinals finish with a better season record than the Giants, Mets and Cardinals play. Winner gets 1st WC, loser goes to SF to play for 2nd WC. Location of the Mets- Cardinals game is based on intradivision record. If the Giants finish with a better season record than the Cardinals, that wacky last bullet point applies, and the next step is to compare each team's total record against the other two. So the Mets are 7-6, the Cardinals are definitely below .500, and the Giants are at least 7-7 in their 14 total games against the Mets and Cards. Mets play the Giants for WC1, loser goes to Busch to play for WC2. Location of Mets-Giants is Citi if the Giants are 4-3 against the Cardinals on the season, SF if they're better than 4-3. Bottom line is that the Mets will either finish first or second in the 3-way tiebreaker, which is important because the first two teams get two chances to play in, while the third team plays one must-win game at home.

That's a good thing. The Mets should be able to pick up two games on at least one of them. And only one of them needs to be beaten out for a WC spot.

RealityChuck wrote: I still have the 1969 season preview issue. Their capsule prediction for the Mets: "Back to the cellar again." Just a tad off. This is interesting. I'd always read/thought/understood that although the grandfathers of the #LOLMets nincompoops were represented in 1969, most people with a clue knew about Seaver, Koosman, and Gentry and gave the Mets a good shot at .500 and third place. I've searched the net for 1969 preseason predictions and can't find anything.

Well, it was quick, anyway.

The Mets' home record this year is 38-33 and their away record is 38-34. Among the likely opponents, the Giants are also only slightly better at home and the Cardinals are 11 games worse. I think there's plenty of luck behind those differences, and all else being equal it's a significant advantage to play at home. But it's not as much of an advantage as having Syndergaard start and Colon available if he falters. I'd pitch Lugo and take the increased risk of playing the WC game on the road.

Hunter Pence just drove in two runs to make it 5-2 Gigantes. But he feels kind of guilty about it.

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Bases loaded, one out. For the first five months of this season, this was a situation to be dreaded. Now, I'm feeling pretty good about getting a run or two in here. C�spedes up. Or maybe four. Cespygrandkaboom!!!

Bases loaded, one out. For the first five months of this season, this was a situation to be dreaded. Now, I'm feeling pretty good about getting a run or two in here. C�spedes up.

28-25, .528, with 21 to go. So, on pace for 39, though with the improved lineup and weak schedule, somewhere around 41 looks more likely. Surprisingly enough, nobody picked Reyes or Kelly Johnson as SHaM MVP candidates. No, wait a second. LWFS nailed it.

Frayed Knot wrote: One thing that's helping the Mets WC odds -- aside from things like 5 more vs ATL, Minn x 3, Phil x 7, etc -- is that, starting this coming Thursday, the Cards go to SF for a four-game series (Sept 15-18) This also implies that the Braves were mathematically eliminated last night, even though the standings still have their elimination number as 1. Either the Cardinals or the Giants are guaranteed to win at least two more games. OE: WRONG! It's still mathematically possible for 75 wins to get a wild card. So, Braves fans - all six of you - don't lose hope yet!

Giving this thread a bump. With 22 games left to play, four more KABOOMs from Wilmer and one more from Cabrera would give the Mets their first ever season with 5 players with 20 or more.

Did they? The interwebs tell me it's 2-2 in the bottom of the 8th. I'm in Napa for work and, annoyingly enough, my hotel doesn't carry the Giants' broadcast station. And I can't watch the game on MLB.tv since I'm in their blackout zone. Mets now need to go 14-9, an eminently non-miraculous .609 winning percentage, to get to FK's magic 87-win number. And given the way that every contending team that doesn't have a bird on their bat has been rolling over, it may not even be necessary to win 87.

Giants manage to get themselves shut out at Coors, 6-0, and are now only half a game ahead of St. Louis for the first WC spot.

Looks like I didn't vote in the poll, but I hated this deal. I thought we were getting Old Wilmer Flores. This goes a long way towards explaining why Sandy is the Mets' GM and I'm not.

Sounds like a rather Metly crowd this afternoon.

Bruce is slowly beginning to make that trade look less crappy.