Been 6 months now

Published on August 20, 2006 By Dr Guy In Sports & Leisure

Well, almost! And the Mets have the largest lead of any division leader! But not the best record (only the second best). That goes to Detroit (I am reminded of 84 83?). But they have been slowing down and may be back to good from Ouch soon enough.

But the one thing I have noticed is why the Mets are doing so well.

Hitting? Nah! Just average.

HomeRuns? (I love the days of Kingkong Kingman, but they never amounted to any champioiships). Nah, average again.

Pitching? Bingo!

Both Detroit (leading both leagues, even with that stupid DH rule) and the Mets are 1-2 in Pitching!

Hitting draws in the fans, but Pitching wins the games! The Yankees and Red Sox (Buckner boot! hehehe, sorry RS fans, I had to add that) are clobbering the hell out of the ball! And they do lead their division (depending upon the day, one or the other). But the Mets have won all of their champioships with Pitching (and use to be known for the best farm system for them).

So now it is down the stretch and the Mets, no jinx, so I will not say it, are just leading. But leading well!

As my Birthday is in October, I am hoping they can give me the best birthday present! YEA! Sorry Chiprj stopped the fantasy leagues. Maybe I will try to start one this year for Football. Just to figure out how.

GO METS!

Comments

Jythier

on Aug 20, 2006

The statistics gathered involving pitching is what makes pitching so important. Wins and ERA? If you're winning, you will have wins. If you are winning, most likely you're keeping them from getting runs. Pitching doesn't win the game - winning creates good pitching stats!

Dr Guy

on Aug 20, 2006

winning creates good pitching stats!

I love that! yet it was pitching in 69, 73 and 86 that got them there! What comes first the chicken or the egg?

Yes, you are probably right. But then you have to have good pitching to win!

uDigItTheMost

on Aug 21, 2006

If the Mets don't get to the Series then they suck. Who will they have to fear in the NL?

The Mets have the 2nd best record and I guess that is good. Do you think they would have the same record if they were in the AL? No way.

Their pitching is above average. Not great and almost good. Believe me you better hope Houston's offense keeps putting up no runs. Because if they had just a little offense the Mets would not wanna face Clemens, Oswalt and Pettitte. You better hope Pedro's arm holds up and Glavine's blood clot doesn't end his season. The Mets still have a lot of questions.

I'm not so sure it's a great thing to clinch a division title really early. More often than not teams get complacent. While teams still fighting for a playoff spot late into the season seems to play better come post season time. Look at the Marlins a few years ago and the Astros last year. Beware of the Dodgers!!!

Dr Guy

on Aug 21, 2006

The Mets have the 2nd best record and I guess that is good. Do you think they would have the same record if they were in the AL? No way.

I agree the AL looks like the best league this year, but I think the Mets would hold their own. Besides, the once stratospheric Tigers are coming down to earth, so there is no Run Away Winner.

I agree on the clinching, but then with the division they are in, the only alternative is to purposely lose games! And you dont do that (play sub standard) until you clinch. Remember the 69 Cubs? Up by 20 games at the start of August, and they lost it!

But I will worry about the Dodgers if they can make it to the dance. They have a tough road to get there tho.

Dr Guy

on Aug 23, 2006

Just a tilt of the chapeau to Udigit, but!

What is the only team that has a non-losing record to every team in their league?

We may lose when we get there, but I like our chances of getting there!

uDigItTheMost

on Aug 24, 2006

---What is the only team that has a non-losing record to every team in their league?

We may lose when we get there, but I like our chances of getting there!---

You mean to tell me the Amazing Mets have a winning record against every team in a league where the 2nd best team in their league, not their division, but their league has barely over a .500 record. Wow!

If I was betting big money in Vegas which team in all of baseball would make the World Series I would bet on the Mets. The Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox and Tigers are all better teams though in my opinion. And if Francisco Loriano wasn't hurt the Twins would give them a run for the money.

If the Mets were in the American League would they even make the playoffs? I think the only division they would contend in the AL would be the West, and it wouldn't even be automatic there.

Despite saying all that the Mets could easily win the World Series. They have an easy road there so when they get there their pitching should be lined up and ready. While the AL teams are going to beat up on each other and be forced to use all their pitching. Once there the Mets will be facing most likely a tired ballclub, and they only need to get hot 4 times.

It kinda reminds me of the NBA of the 80s. While Boston, Philadelphia, and Detroit beat each up in the Eastern playoffs the great Laker teams costed through. They always had a big advantage facing a tired ballclub. It wasn't the Lakers' fault the Western Conference had weak teams. Just like it's not the Mets' fault the NL has sorry teams. But you can't sit here and say they don't have an edge come post season.

Dr Guy

on Aug 24, 2006

You are baiting me! but I love it! If the Mets were in the AL, they WOULD be number 2! Sorry, I can find no fault with the tigers.

But as they are the NL, they will be there. And whoever the AL puts up (forget Boston and ChiSox), the Mets start out on even ground.

For you younguns (and I know you are), remember the Buckner Boot!

We may not win it, but we got ways!

I dont claim edges. I claim the title! So WHO is really your team?

Mine beats yours every day! They KNOW when to win, and when to just play it safe. Until it counts!

Time to lay down the cards! I challenge you, Sir Udigit! let us have this through now! And may the oldest man win! Hahahahahaha

Dr Guy

on Aug 24, 2006

While Boston, Philadelphia, and Detroit

BTW. Detroit was never a factor back then. Dates you, you young whipper snapper!

uDigItTheMost

on Aug 26, 2006

---Detroit was never a factor back then.---

They were in the late 80s. It took them a few years to get by Boston then they made the finals in '88 losing in 7 games to L.A.. Then in '89 they whipped the Lakers in 4.

uDigItTheMost

on Aug 26, 2006

---You are baiting me! but I love it! If the Mets were in the AL, they WOULD be number 2! Sorry, I can find no fault with the tigers---

No way would the Mets would be number 2 in the AL. No way! I think they would only be the 5th best team at best if they were in the AL.

---But as they are the NL, they will be there. And whoever the AL puts up (forget Boston and ChiSox), the Mets start out on even ground.---

Yes, you are completely right. That was my whole point in my first post (post #6). That is why the Mets have the best odds of making the World Series because they're in the extremely weak NL. Quite frankly, if they were in the AL the only way they would make the World Series is if they bought tickets. But as you said earlier they ARE in the NL so they have a big advantage making it to the WS. BTW .. you say forget Boston and ChiSox. I think those 2 teams would be the best in the NL if they played there.

---I dont claim edges. I claim the title! So WHO is really your team?---

My favorite teams are the Yankees and the Pirates.

---Time to lay down the cards! I challenge you, Sir Udigit! let us have this through now! And may the oldest man win! Hahahahahaha---

All I have to say is watch out for LA or the wild card team. Smell that, Doc? I smell an upset.

Dr Guy

on Aug 27, 2006

They were in the late 80s. It took them a few years to get by Boston then they made the finals in '88 losing in 7 games to L.A.. Then in '89 they whipped the Lakers in 4.

Yea, but that is kind of the end of the 80s, not "the 80s" (although technically true). And the Lakers of the 80s were always the best team. Kareem, Magic, Worthy, Scott. Kareem is the only reason I started following the NBA again as they had ruled it to death before he got there. And now that they are all gone, it is getting boring again.

Dr Guy

on Aug 27, 2006

No way would the Mets would be number 2 in the AL. No way! I think they would only be the 5th best team at best if they were in the AL.

yes way! Check out the latest ESPN Power ratings! The Mets are for real!

My favorite teams are the Yankees and the Pirates.

Well, I dont hate either. But the only regular season game I have ever seen the Mets play was against Pittsburg in 83 in Pittsburg. It was late season, and they were fighting for the cellar. The Mets won as king Kong Kingman belted a homer that day.

Needless to say, I had excellant seats as the game was not packed!

uDigItTheMost

on Aug 27, 2006

---yes way! Check out the latest ESPN Power ratings! The Mets are for real!---

I'm not saying the Mets aren't for real. They have a great chance to win it all. Their odds of winning it all are better than anybody else's. The reason their odds are so high though are because they don't have to face any strong teams until the World Series.

Their ESPN rankings are misleading. All their games are against inferior competition. It's like the rankings in college basketball. Gonzaga has a great record every year. They were ranked as high as #4. Were they the 4th best team? No way. But since they play in an inferior league their record is very good. Now imagine they faced the same sorry competition all the way to the championship game without one game against a traditional powerhouse. They would, despite not being as good as Duke, North Carolina or other major powers, be a good favorite to win it all. That's how the Mets have it in the NL.

In the NFL, most of the power teams are in the AFC. Do you really think Seattle would have the record they did if they played in the AFC? Would they had made it to the Super Bowl if they were still in the AFC? No and no. They play in the NFC, and it just so happens the NFC doesn't have alot of good teams in it. Here's how tough the NFC is, if the Raiders played in the NFC they would have a realistic chance to win a playoff spot. In the ESPN Power Rankings, Seattle were as high as number 2, which means to you, you would think Seattle was the 2nd best team last year. They were not the 2nd best team last year. I think they would be the 4th best team if they were in the AFC.

But with the Mets, Seattle and Gonzaga it's none of their faults their competition sucks. They can only play the teams put before them. If the other teams in their division, league or conference can't field a better team then the hell with them. I do have a problem though when fans of those teams can't see pass their own biases.

Dr Guy

on Aug 28, 2006

Gonzaga has a great record every year. They were ranked as high as #4. Were they the 4th best team? No way. But since they play in an inferior league their record is very good.

But that is the whole purpose of the power ratings. To take strength of schedule into consideration. That was why in 1979, Indiana State (not IU), was never ranked #1, even though they made it to the championship of the NCAA (only to lose to Michigan State). They had a wimpy schedule, so their perfect record was fluff.

I will not argue that the Mets have an easier schedule than the AL. But as you correctly point out, they cant help if their opposition are a bunch of buffoons. They can only beat them consistently.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!