batmagadanleadoff

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=171871 time=1727371210 user_id=68] =Gwreck post_id=171864 time=1727362689 user_id=56] And this is an Arizona team that just lost twice to an under .500 Giants team with nothing to play for.

=Gwreck post_id=171864 time=1727362689 user_id=56] And this is an Arizona team that just lost twice to an under .500 Giants team with nothing to play for.

=Gwreck post_id=171841 time=1727333289 user_id=56] -6 cancel the games on Monday entirely: NYM and either ATL or ARZ has clinched and there is no seeding at issue. -13 scenarios have NYM and either ATL or ARZ clinching before Monday, but seeding still undecided. -My personal favorite: 10 scenarios have NYM clinching in advance, but the games matter to determine if ATL or ARZ gets the wild card. In 7 of these instances, NYM's seed is undecided, and in 3 instances it doesn't matter. (Should this situation come to pass, Mets need to tell MLB to pound sand, they're not going to Atlanta, and let ATL and ARZ play a tiebreaker game between themselves, flip a coin, or whatever). -Conversely, there are 2 scenarios in which ATL clinches before Monday and the games matter to determine if NYM or ARZ gets the final wild card. In both instances, NYM would need to win only 1 of the 2 games of the doubleheader to clinch. -19 scenarios would require NYM to win either of the 2 games in Atlanta. In 10 of those instances, they can clinch with a win in Game 1 and Game 2 is cancelled. In 4 instances, if NYM wins Game 1, Game 2 still matters to determine if ARZ or ATL gets the other wild card. In 5 instances, the second game would matter only for NYM/ARZ seeding. -13 scenarios would require NYM to win both games on Monday. In 9 instances, second game is cancelled if the NYM loses. In 4 instances, second game would matter for ATL/ARZ seeding. -Finally, there is 1 scenario in which NYM is eliminated before Monday: MIL sweeps NYM, ATL sweeps KC, ARZ sweeps SD.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Talk about shit shows. On the bright side, the Mets might avoid Sale and Lindor gets two more days of rest without having to miss games.

https://x.com/Joelsherman1/status/1839055228051624166 That's right. In that case, the games are moot because either way, the Mets and Braves are both road teams in the WC round. No, that's not right. They have to be seeded. Who would they each play in the WC round?

https://x.com/Joelsherman1/status/1839055228051624166 That's right. In that case, the games are moot because either way, the Mets and Braves are both road teams in the WC round.

In the future, man will be able to control the weather. Either that, or every stadium will be domed.

The way I see it, a team should be given tremendous leeway in making roster decisions and always, the benefit of the doubt. Who the hell is an arbitrator to question how a team manages its roster or why a team cuts a player? Maybe he sucks. Maybe the team wants to save money. If the team cuts a player, he's expendable, isn't he? What next? The team is taken to court or an arbitration because it pinch-hit Winker instead of Torrens? I remember this issue coming up with the Mets and K-Rod. I think it had to do with the number of saves KRod accumulated. What? The Mets were obligated to save all of the save opportunities for K-Rod? What nonsense.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Just spitballing here but the rate at which MLB churns relievers and loses guys to injury is such that the need for major leaguers is greater than in 1971. There may also be something to the notion of there being more riding on the opportunities for 1st round picks given the investment is so much bigger than in 1971 Makes sense to me. In the 70s, a typical Mets team would have 30+ players appearing in a given season. These days, it's in the 60s, or very close to it. Assume that it's the same for every team and given that there are now 30 teams instead of 24 as in '71, and that's one explanation. Scouting is probably better than back then, too. And the amateur players are also better.

=Gwreck post_id=171733 time=1727277534 user_id=56] Don't you DH Lindor in that circumstance?

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Let's say Lindor is in. Do you DH Acuna? Martinez is garbage, Winker won't play Would be a huge blow to Martinez 's ego, being benched for a rookie in what is so far, the biggest game of the season.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=171722 time=1727271469 user_id=68] Mets and Braves ESPN odds to make the playoffs are now practically even after the Braves took the opener of their three game series. Mets (78.0%), Braves (69.2%). Probably because the Braves need just a split of the remaining two games to secure the tiebreaker and Sale likely to pitch one of those two games. Let's see what kind of havoc the Hurricane weather wreaks on the rest of the series.

Mets and Braves ESPN odds to make the playoffs are now practically even after the Braves took the opener of their three game series. Mets (78.0%), Braves (69.2%). Probably because the Braves need just a split of the remaining two games to secure the tiebreaker and Sale likely to pitch one of those two games. Let's see what kind of havoc the Hurricane weather wreaks on the rest of the series.

Just noticed -- every team he's played for this season has an "A" on its cap.

[FIMG=211]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54018883556_ea1629ae9c_h.jpg[/FIMG][FIMG=211]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54018884046_7884f9e2f5_h.jpg[/FIMG][FIMG=211]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54017983607_ba3efb32d6_h.jpg[/FIMG]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=171515 time=1727176014 user_id=68] The Mets now charge $40.00 for parking. That's the second highest parking fee in MLB: parking at Wrigley Field will set you back $85.00.

The Mets now charge $40.00 for parking. That's the second highest parking fee in MLB: parking at Wrigley Field will set you back $85.00.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They have the advantage over the Padres and Diamondbacks. The tiebreaker between the Mets and the Braves will be determined this week. Whichever team wins the series will also secure the tiebreaker. If the Mets win the series, however, they will have secured more than the tiebreaker -- they will have clinched a playoff spot, as well, thus rendering the tiebreaker as superfluous. In other words, if the Mets secure the tiebreaker, they then automatically qualify for the playoffs. Actually, that tiebreaker would not be meaningless even though the Mets would clinch a playoff spot by taking two of three from the Braves. The Braves could lose two of three to the Mets and still make the playoffs. The DBacks might collapse the rest of the way and end up being the odd team out, and the Braves could end the season in a tie with the Mets. In that case, the tiebreaker would give the Mets the fifth seed and the Braves the sixth seed. A Mets sweep of the Braves, however, would guarantee that the Mets finish the season with a better record than the Braves and would moot that tiebreaker

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not sure they'd be "essentially tied". If the Mets win one of the three games in Atlanta, they would be 88-71, and the Braves would be 87-72. That's still an advantage. Ignoring the Diamondbacks, if the Mets and the Braves went on to have the same record over the last three-game series, the Mets would win the playoff spot. Yes. If the Braves won two of three from the Mets, they'd still have to do one game better than the Mets over the rest of the season.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They have the advantage over the Padres and Diamondbacks. The tiebreaker between the Mets and the Braves will be determined this week. Whichever team wins the series will also secure the tiebreaker. If the Mets win the series, however, they will have secured more than the tiebreaker -- they will have clinched a playoff spot, as well, thus rendering the tiebreaker as superfluous. In other words, if the Mets secure the tiebreaker, they then automatically qualify for the playoffs. So the Mets magic number is five, but really, they would clinch a playoff spot by beating the Braves twice. If the Braves were to take two of three from the Mets, they'd still be one game behind the Mets in the standings, but with the tiebreaker now in their favor. In that case, the two teams would go into the last weekend of the season essentially tied, if not mathematically tied, because of the tiebreaker.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They have the advantage over the Padres and Diamondbacks. The tiebreaker between the Mets and the Braves will be determined this week. Whichever team wins the series will also secure the tiebreaker. If the Mets win the series, however, they will have secured more than the tiebreaker -- they will have clinched a playoff spot, as well, thus rendering the tiebreaker as superfluous. In other words, if the Mets secure the tiebreaker, they then automatically qualify for the playoffs. So the Mets magic number is five, but really, they would clinch a playoff spot by beating the Braves twice.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They have the advantage over the Padres and Diamondbacks. The tiebreaker between the Mets and the Braves will be determined this week. Whichever team wins the series will also secure the tiebreaker. If the Mets win the series, however, they will have secured more than the tiebreaker -- they will have clinched a playoff spot, as well, thus rendering the tiebreaker as superfluous. In other words, if the Mets secure the tiebreaker, they then automatically qualify for the playoffs.

Also, Luis Torrens might be tomorrow's Mets scratch starter and pitch a perfect game. It's possible.

Because the "odds" are not mathematical odds. They are the results of a simulation. Garbage in, garbage out. This is what I thought. But I figured that they must have simulated the rest of the season like a million times to arrive at their odds. I'm guessing that what's going on is that their model has the Braves as being a slightly better team than the Mets and winning the Mets/Braves series more often than the Mets in their simulations.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=171255 time=1726979488 user_id=68] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=171040 time=1726808349 user_id=68] Mets ESPN playoff odds are only 8% better than the Braves, even though they're two games up on the Braves with just nine games left to play. Padres 87-66 (+2) (99.5%) Mets 85-68 (--) (63.3%) DBacks 85-68 (--) (82.0%) Braves 83-70 (-2) (55.2%) The DBacks are given an almost 20% better chance of making the playoffs than the Mets even though the two teams have identical records and the Mets hold the tiebreaker advantage over the DBacks. Must be that looming head-to-head series with the Braves, right? (But the DBacks and Padres end their seasons playing each other). Or that the Mets finish the season with a tough schedule, at least on paper, playing three playoff contenders.