Frayed Knot

That could be a season-saving catch for the Reds!! Reds Win!!

btw, the CIN/PIT game on Thursday is a 12:40 start and even the ARZ/LAD tilt is a rare day game in Phoenix (3:40 our time) so both those games will be over before ours even starts as we're back to 7:40 first pitch and local TV tomorrow.

K to start B 11 - Will Benson hitting: Walk, 1st & 2nd, 1 out - Matt McLain: FO, no runners advance - TJ Freidl as the Reds last hope: BB (from a 1-2 count), bases loaded - Noelvi Marte as the new best last hope: GO TO 3RD Pirates Win!!!!

Leadoff double for the Bucs scores a run as the batter and ghost runner switch places/ And then the new runner gets doubled off 2nd on a liner to 2B 4-3 Pirates but 2 out/bases empty. Going to bottom 11, P 4 - R 3

- Spenser Steer -- K - Elly De La Cruz -- Single, 1st & 2nd, 2 outs K ... and they're going to the 11th

B10: Mureta in to pitch - Noelvi Marte -- Single, 1st & 3rd - Gavin Lux -- Sac Fly, Tie Game, runner on 1st, 1 out

Sounds right.

- a WP to the leadoff hitter sends the ghost runner to 3rd, but a foul pop-up fails to score him - RBI 2B - K - GO So just the one run. Often that's not enough in this era.

Followed by Single - K - K Going to the clown car rules. Reds two runs tonight: inside-the-park HR (8th), HR (9th)

B9: Dennis Santana on the mound Stewart - K Stephenson - HR Tie Game

Top 9, 2 outs, bases full of Buccos ... and a 1st pitch fly out. Still 2-1, going for the close out.

2-0 Pitt, end of 7

The Skenes/Greene matchup sees the Pirates push the first run of the game across in the top of the 4th And speaking of the Pirates and Reds and playoff odds and all that, this all makes me remember that I posted a similar analytical type thread 26 years ago* (almost exactly) on the same topic and involving several of the same teams. So as we fade back to 1999, the Mets had just lost 7 straight and 8 of 9 (mostly to ATL & PHI) coming down the stretch to find themselves two games out of the WC race with just three to play. My angle at that time was that out situation wasn't quite as bad as it looked because, unlike this year where we have to stay ahead of two teams on our tail, then we only had to catch one of the two teams in front of us: the Astros & Reds. It was still odds against us as we had to be at least two games better but at least it was over either/or rather than both so that upped the odds. The winner of HOU & CIN would get the automatic in while the loser had to merely finish ahead of the Mets in that one WC only era. Houston wound up winning 2 of 3 that final weekend, but Cincy went 1-2 so when the first pitch to Piazza** (bases loaded/one out) in our final regular season game went to the backstop and allowed Melvin Mora to score, the Mets had their sweep of the Pirates forcing the trip to Cincinnati for the Leiter gem in the one-game win-or-go-home playoff the next day. * so this would have been on the old forum, not technically this one ** and Mike with the look on his face seeming to say, 'But I was supposed to be the hero here and you didn't even give me a chance'

That's why I think, if and when this [expansion + realignment] gets done they're going to blow up the entire system and base the leagues (or whatever they'll call them) on an east/west basis the way the NBA & NHL do. So the end result might look something like CF's vision only with the two western divisions teams grouped together and the two east ones as well. Travel is part of it but Manfred specifically spoke, even if just casually and with a 'nothing's set in stone' disclaimer, about wanting to regionalize the early playoff round(s) so as to keep matchups within a time zone or two rather than across three or four. So the goal is more a TV ratings ploy than it is strictly a travel savings.

I am sorry you do not have the slightest idea what I am asserting. -- So am I I do not know why you have printed the eight daily possibilities, so there! -- "So there" ... Really? OE: My "two possibilities," which I thought was clear, refers to the two season outcomes of (1) the Mets finishing ahead of the Diamondbacks, and (2) the Mets finishing ahead of the Reds. These are related, as a single Mets performance affects both outcomes. -- So I see now that you are talking about end of season outcomes not game outcomes although it's the game outcomes that determine the season outcomes so I'm not sure why the distinction. And you keep repeating how a single Met outcomes affects "both" outcomes but the outcome of every game and every final record of the concerned teams affects all others so, again, I don't know what the point is. The bottom line is that there are a finite number of possibilities involving these fifteen NYM/CIN/ARZ games and, by my calculations, more than half of the eventual outcomes wind up with the Mets on the outside looking in. Now the possibilities of the Reds being the odd team out and the Snakes being left behind (for a second straight season) are also more than half. But this just means that because the Mets are currently ahead they have a better shot than EITHER Cincy or Zona, that doesn't add up to them having a better chance than the other two combined. Even if you disagree, and disagree strongly, it is easy enough to understand that thesis, having been stated several times. -- I'm still not sure what the thesis even is. You began by implying that my data was wrong because I wasn't accounting for the idea of 'outcomes being not independently produced'. Yet every win and every loss by each of the three teams is independently produced and the season outcomes for each team will be as a result of those games.

Which "two possibilities" are you talking about? On each of the next five days there will be 8 different possible outcomes* which, if you assume each is a 50/50 proposition, are all equally likely to occur. But the outcome of each game has no effect on the outcome of each of the other two games. You seem to be trying to 'weight' one as being more important than others which it is to the team playing it but that applies also to the other two games as well, each of their wins will be 'two good outcomes' to them too. So I still haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say here. * Eight daily possibilities: 1) NYM Win, Reds Win, DBacks Win 2) Mets Win, Reds Win, DBacks Lose 3) Mets Win, Reds Lose, DBacks Win 4) Mets Lose, Reds Win, DBacks Win 5) Mets Win, Reds Reds Lose, DBacks Lose 6) Mets Lose, Reds Win, DBacks Lose 7) Mets Lose, Reds Lose, DBacks Win 8) Mets Lose, Reds Lose, DBacks Lose

None of this makes a lick of sense to me. The Mets half of the equation affects both games. -- not the outcome of those games, it doesn't. If the Mets win, it affects both outcomes. If the Mets lose, it affects both outcomes. -- affects them how? It is not an independent variable. The Mets effort to stay ahead of one directly impacts their effort to stay ahead of the other. -- ????????????? YES!!!!!

The Mets', Reds' and Dbacks' games aren't independent of each other?

To ball park it quickly: if there's a 65.6% chance* at staying ahead of Cincy and a 65.6% chance of staying ahead of Arizona, then there's roughly a 43% shot (.656 x .656) at pulling off both. Or about 3-in-7 * Figuring 21 'Good' outcomes out of 32 possibilities while treating each game as a generic 50/50 shot without regards to opponent, starting pitcher, home field, etc.

Sure it was. But it was HUGE mainly because the opposite result would have been a disaster: gain ground on no one while losing ground to Arizona and being behind TWO teams in the fight for one spot with another day erased off the schedule. So even though the odds of finishing ahead of either pursuer is now in the Mets favor, the fact that they still have to hold off both still makes the odds very tenuous. I may have time later to do a deep dive into the numbers as it gets complicated when three clubs are involved. But to short-cut it: there are 32 possible permutations* when playing five games and right now the Mets stay ahead of EITHER Cincy or Arizona in 21 of them or about two out of three. Good, right? Well, yeah, except that the Mets wind up on the outside looking in if just one or the other plays their next five even one game better than them so that likely keeps their odds under the 50/50 mark. So while our position is better than it was at this time yesterday ... that still doesn't make it good. So, yeah, small victories all around. * in one of those 32 you go 0-5 and one where you go 5-0 1-4 & 4-1 each have 5 possibilities (win/lose only the first game, only the 2nd ... etc.) and there are ten different ways each of finishing 3-2 or 2-3 [so 10 + 10 + 5 + 5 + 1 + 1 = 32] So if you treat each game as a 50/50 proposition, the odds of going 5-0 = 3.12% (1/32) 4-1 = 15.6% (5/32) 3-2 = 31.25% (10/32) 2-3 = 31.25% (10/32) 1-4 = 15.6% (5/32) 0-5 = 3.12% (1/32)

I always thought the Hefner philosophy was based around wearing silk pajamas 24/7, but I could be wrong.

So we started the day having to out-win the Reds by at least a margin of one over a six game span. We start tomorrow having to out-win the Reds or just play them even over the next five. And we prevent the DBacks from getting any closer no matter what happens out west tonight. Small victories, sure ... but I'll take them.

Game 2 Wednesday 6:40 -- Paul Skenes vs Hunter Greene

So we are, however temporarily, back in the WC #3 lead (they lost tonight and we haven't).