batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Nats, for what it's worth (or werth), aren't really full strength.... That's can't be good for the Mets. Not at full strength and still on a 17-4 tear? Yikes! Well, I meant to refute your notion of "now practically back to full strength." If the Nats being at full strength is bad news for the Mets, and the Nats not being at full strength is bad news for the Mets, I don't know what to say. Bad news for the Mets, I guess. Very obviously, Werth and Fister had not been out during the duration of that 17-4 stretch.