Frayed Knot wrote: The Mets Pythag projection for the season overall lists them as 'deserving to be' two games better than they currently are ... so I don't think "very unlucky" is quite accurate. Yes, but Pythag is theoretical, and so it necessarily has a margin of error. So if Pythag says the Mets are under performing by two games, it might by three. Or five. Or eight. But mainly, I'm not trying to dismiss the Mets flaws this season. Their record-breaking and now mocked historic payroll includes a large chunk allotted for superstar reliever Edwin Diaz, who's lost for this season. And they've gotten no starting pitching this year, which is bad in and of itself, but also puts a strain on the already compromised bullpen. The team has problems. But they might be very unlucky, just as well.