THE CRANE POOL FORUM thecranepool.net (.com)


Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


Galaxy .500

Johnny Dickshot
Jul 06 2005 08:40 PM

Tonight we reached .500 for the 19th time this year. We have to be approaching the all-time Met record. Anyone know what that might be?

5
6
7
8
11
13
14
19
23
24
26
32
33
37
38
39
40
41
42

metirish
Jul 06 2005 08:55 PM

No idea Johnny but I will guess 37, I really want this team to go on a 8/9/10 game win streak, that would be cool...

soupcan
Jul 06 2005 08:56 PM

metirish wrote:
I really want this team to go on a 8/9/10 game win streak, that would be cool...


Great idea! Let's have a bake sale!

metirish
Jul 06 2005 08:59 PM

screw you soup....hey I hope you're not doing the baking...

soupcan
Jul 06 2005 09:02 PM

I'm just funnin' with you dude.

metirish
Jul 06 2005 09:05 PM

soup I knew that, we have posted together long enough to know when balls are being busted,I never thought anything other than you were funnin'

cooby
Jul 06 2005 09:06 PM

Maybe so, but I still hope he's not doing the baking

SwitchHitter
Jul 06 2005 09:27 PM

I know I've seen at least one cake recipe that uses a can of Campbell's Tomato Soup, so maybe it would work out okay.

Elster88
Jul 07 2005 06:52 AM

So what's the answer anyways?

TheOldMole
Jul 07 2005 06:59 AM

If life hands you tomatoes, make tomato soup.

Johnny Dickshot
Jul 07 2005 08:02 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 07 2005 08:39 AM

Here’s the total list of years (times at .500) and their .500 W-L points each year (numbers indicate wins and losses):

1962 (0)

1963 (0)

1964 (0)

1965 (0)

1966 (2)
1
2

1967 (2)
1
4

1968 (3)
1
2
3

1969 (4)
1
2
18
23

1970 (18)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
19
21
22
23
25

1971(7)
1
5
7
58
62
64
66

1972 (2)
1
2

1973 (6)
12
13
14
20
21
77

1974 (2)
1
2

1975 (6)
1
6
10
15
16
32

1976 (13)
2
3
4
5
6
7
23
24
33
51
52
55
61

1977 (5)
3
4
5
6
9

1978 (2)
5
9

1979 (2)
2
3

1980 (5)
1
2
3
42
43

1981 (2)
1
4

1982 (4)
1
10
12
35

1983 (1)
2

1984 (3)
1
22
23

1985 (0)

1986 (2)
2
3

1987 (7)
6
9
12
13
22
25
28

1988 (3)
1
2
3

1989 (5)
1
9
24
29
30

1990 (8)
1
2
7
9
13
14
19
28

1991 (1)
57

1992 (6)
1
2
7
28
29
48

1993 (6)
2
3
4
6
7
8

1994 (11)
9
10
11
12
13
14
20
22
23
25
26

1995 (1)
2

1996 (2)
1
2

1997 (2)
18
20

1998 (2)
1
13

1999 (4)
1
2
27
28

2000 (6)
1
2
3
7
19
20

2001 (3)
1
2
73

2002 (20)
1
2
3
4
19
29
30
31
32
34
35
39
40
41
44
46
55
56
57
58

2003 (4)
1
2
3
4

2004 (15)
1
2
3
4
5
22
23
26
27
28
34
36
39
45
47

Five-hundrliest seasons, in order:
1. 2002 (20)
2. 2005 (19)*
3. 1970 (18)
4. 2004 (15)
5. 1976 (13)
6. 1994 (11)
7. 1990 (8)
8.1971(7)
1987 (7)

10. 1973 (6)
1975 (6)
1992 (6)
1993 (6)
2000 (6)

15. 1977 (5)
1980 (5)
1989 (5)

18. 1969 (4)
1982 (4)
1999 (4)
2003 (4)

22. 1968 (3)
1984 (3)
1988 (3)
2001 (3)

26. 1966 (2)
1967 (2)
1972 (2)
1974 (2)
1978 (2)
1979 (2)
1981 (2)
1986 (2)
1996 (2)
1997 (2)
1998 (2)

37. 1983 (1)
1991 (1)
1995 (1)

40. 1962 (0)
1963 (0)
1964 (0)
1965 (0)
1985 (0)

*-Still active

Elster88
Jul 07 2005 08:07 AM
Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 07 2005 08:15 AM

I don't understand what the ".500 W-L points" refer to. I thought at first that they were game numbers, as in if 2 was on there they would be .500 after Game 2. But some of those are consecutive numbers, so that doesn't work since you can't be .500 in back to back games.

Edit: Or does each point mean the first possible point? As in the number 1 means 1-1? Now I realize it's pretty simple. I'm an idiot. Sorry.

Edgy DC
Jul 07 2005 08:13 AM

Two means 2-2, after four games

Three means 3-3, after six.

At least so I understand.

Good work, JDS.

Johnny Dickshot
Jul 07 2005 08:29 AM

Pretty interesting if you look into it: I wouldn't have guessed 2002 was the year to beat: I started looking after years I suspected were 500-ish: 1976, 1973 and 1970.

I like those years when we go and stick just one up in the middle of the year: 1991, when we were 57-57; as well as those years with big gaps between the .500 points: 98 games in 1971.

Here's hoping that we don't revisit another 500 point but in the event we do, I guess it will be time to begin looking at our place among the 500-est teams of all-time.

Elster88
Jul 07 2005 08:36 AM

1, 2, 71 in 2001.

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 07 2005 08:49 AM

It's surprising how relatively late in the season the Mets were at .500 in years that ended poorly. Like 1992 and 2002 for example.

Clearly, the 42-42 the Mets have now is no guarantee that we're not looking at a 90-loss season.

Edgy DC
Jul 07 2005 08:52 AM

Have you forgotten August 2002 already?

metirish
Jul 07 2005 09:12 AM

Was that the August we din't win any home games?

Edgy DC
Jul 09 2005 08:08 AM

The Mets hit 43-43 with their defensive showcase last night, their 20th time at .500, making 2005 already tied for .500iest season in thier history.

Johnny Dickshot
Jul 09 2005 09:09 AM

A graph of this year looks pretty much like this:

____________________________________________________________

Edgy DC
Jul 10 2005 02:16 PM

The Mets are at 44-44 after Pedro's gem today, their 21st time at .500, making 2005 now their for .500iest season in thier history.

It is also the eighth consecutive even game that has placed them at .500. They're like a pendulum always swinging back to center.

seawolf17
Jul 10 2005 02:19 PM

Last time the Mets were more than one game away from .500 was entering the Yankees series, two weekends ago.

mlbaseballtalk
Jul 10 2005 08:55 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
Here’s the total list of years (times at .500) and
40. 1962 (0)
1963 (0)
1964 (0)
1965 (0)
1985 (0)


Hmmm. We've gone Wire-To-Wire over only once and Wire-To-Wire the other way the first 4 years of existence! Which means it took 5 years to actually GET to .500

Of course our pennache for winning Opening Days helps in that regard, though that didn't really start untill 1970 though...

Steve

Edgy DC
Jul 15 2005 07:57 PM

At 45-45, the Mets have extended their own record for .500-ness.

Nine trips to .500 in nine opportunities. Who says they aren't amazin'?

Valadius
Jul 16 2005 12:36 PM

We need a bump. NOW.

Spacemans Bong
Jul 16 2005 12:43 PM

Is this game the season?

seawolf17
Jul 16 2005 12:51 PM

Spacemans Bong wrote:
Is this game the season?


90 games down, 72 to go... if you think this team is playoff bound, they're going to probably have to win around 90 games. That's 45-27 the rest of the way. I wouldn't say that today is the season yet, but it certainly doesn't get easier with a loss. I'd say they'd have to win both this weekend.

Edgy DC
Jul 17 2005 01:58 PM

Ten straight trips to sea level and 23 overall.

Wow.

Edgy DC
Jul 20 2005 07:56 PM

And the streak ends at 10, and ends the right way.

Let's let this thread die at 23.

Frayed Knot
Jul 20 2005 07:59 PM

First day at 2-over .500 since June 11.
That was the Anderson I-t-P-HR to tie, then Looper BlownSave, then Cliff HR to win it vs. LAA game.

We then went on the Sea/Oak road trip and bit the big one and haven't been there since.

Johnny Dickshot
Jul 20 2005 08:09 PM

Big Game tomorrow.

Frayed Knot
Jul 21 2005 12:38 PM

Last time 3 games over - and yes, I'm tempting the BBGs by typing this - was following the June 8th 4-1 loss to Houston (31 - 28), a loss which dropped us from our only time this season being 4 games over.

Rotblatt
Jul 21 2005 12:46 PM

Even if we manage to hold on to win today, we'll probably just drop 3 in a row to get back to our baseline.

/appeasement of BBG

metirish
Jul 22 2005 10:46 AM

Guess when the last time the Mets were 3 over .500 this late in the season...




]THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: July 22, 2005)


NEW YORK — The last time the Mets were three games over .500 this late in the season, Bobby Valentine was the manager, Mo Vaughn could still fit into his uniform, and Timo Perez was considered a bright young talent.

That was 2002 and it didn't last. Bobby V got fired, the Hit Dog retired, and Perez was shipped out of town like just about everybody else.



http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050722/SPORTS01/507220334/1108/SPORTS01

Elster88
Jul 22 2005 05:00 PM

I sure as hell didn't consider Timo a bright young talent in 2002.

mlbaseballtalk
Jul 23 2005 09:09 AM

]I sure as hell didn't consider Timo a bright young talent in 2002.


When was Timo ever actually considered a "bright young talent"

Reminds me of Chris Berman parachuting in for the ESPN broadcast of the Mets and Giants calling Timo "A hot young prospect called up to inject enthusiam in September"

Yeah a 25 year old journyman (could be older) finally cracks the show after years of Globehopping and he gets labeled a prospect callup?

:roll: [/code]

Frayed Knot
Jul 23 2005 11:30 AM

I just never considered Timo to be very bright.

Johnny Dickshot
Jul 23 2005 04:13 PM

Timo kicked St. Louis & San Francisco ass in 2000. Forthat he's a pretty good Met. For everything else... yuk.

Johnny Dickshot
Jul 23 2005 05:31 PM

Great stuff by Alan Schwartz:

The New York Times
July 24, 2005
In the Race for Mediocrity, the Mets Rule
By ALAN SCHWARZ

In baseball's Hall of Fame of vapid clichés, "I just want to stay consistent" makes it on the first ballot. No one quite knows what it means, but the generally accepted translation is, "I just want this interview to end."

Consistency remains one of the sport's most prized attributes, as murky and mystical as inner peace. Yet the hobgoblin lurks in the most unexpected places.

Take this season's Yankees and Mets.

The Yankees have appeared to be one of the most inconsistent clubs in the majors, yo-yoing their way to dizzying streaks: They opened the season 11-19, then went 16-2, then 3-11, then 6-0, then 3-8, then 12-5 after Friday's loss. Several times this season, Manager Joe Torre has said, "We have not had consistency," usually with a resigned shake of his head.

The Mets, meanwhile, have traveled a remarkably straight path. In fact, from June 24 until last Wednesday, the Ambivalins spent 25 straight days either at .500, one game above or one game below. (Call it the longest Wimbledon tie breaker of all time.) Even after last week's series sweep of the San Diego Padres, only once since the first week of the season had the Mets stood more than three games from middle ground; every time they ventured above .500, its gravitational pull drew them back. General Manager Omar Minaya's lament was: "We haven't been consistent."

Something's wrong here. The Yankees and the Mets can't both be inconsistent, can they? A closer look at the numbers yields some surprising results.

First, if we define consistency as the tendency to repeat one's last action, the Yankees are slightly more consistent than the Mets - after all, that's how streaks are built. Through Thursday, the Yankees had followed a victory with a victory or a loss with a loss 56 percent of the time; the Mets had done so at a 52 percent rate.

The Mets haven't flipped back and forth quite as much as it would seem. Entering Friday, they had fewer one-game nonstreaks, 21, than the Yankees (22). But they had far more two- and three-game streaks than the Yankees (12 to 20), keeping their identity less defined. (Even to their respective general managers. The Yankees' Brian Cashman has confidently labeled his team a "Jekyll and Hyde situation," while Minaya said, "We don't know what we are.")

Then again, humans' tendency to pick out obvious trends causes them to miss others more hidden. Some mathematical gymnastics can portray the Yankees and the Mets as virtually opposite of what they initially appear.

Depending on where you put the cutoff point, the Yankees appear surprisingly consistent, with records of 9-11, 14-10, 14-12 and 14-11 since the start of the season. And our seemingly steady Mets? They zigzagged at 0-5, 11-4, 0-4, 6-1, 6-10 and 15-10.

Clearly, consistency and inconsistency are in the eye of the beholder. Searching for them is like measuring the length of a coastline, which varies with how closely you zoom in on every inlet. A walk from Miami to Maine is vastly longer for an ant than a giant.

At least one expert on baseball statistics has zoomed in on the Mets this season, just for fun, trying to determine how rare their dance around .500 truly is. Tom Ruane, an I.B.M. computer programmer in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., designed what he calls a Mediocrity Index. It essentially averages how close a team stays to .500 throughout a season. Sure enough, the Mets could set the major league record.

Through 95 games, the team had strayed an average of just over two-thirds of a game - .684 of a game to be precise - from .500, which is good enough for seventh place in the Mediocrity Index at this point in a season. (The top two Mediocrity Index teams this deep into a season were the 1959 White Sox, at .474 of a game, and the 1984 Montreal Expos, at .600.) If the Mets can stay this so-so the rest of the way, they could threaten the lowest score for a full season, .779 by the 1903 Brooklyn Superbas, later the Dodgers.

"It's tough to maintain over a whole season - all the other teams had long losing or winning streaks," Ruane said. "But I've found myself watching the Mets' scores and rooting one way or another when they're one game away from .500. You hope the anomaly continues."

So perhaps the Mets will become the most consistently inconsistent team ever, while the Yankees stay inconsistently consistent. Or something like that. It does get awfully confusing, especially when you're a player in the middle of it.

Perhaps the Yankees' Derek Jeter put it best, on the eve of his team's June series with - wouldn't you know it? - the Mets.

"The only consistency we've had," Jeter said, "is that when we're playing well, we win games consistently for a week. And when we're playing bad, we lose games consistently for a week."

This is a matter probably best suited for off-season contemplation. Walking along some beach somewhere, taking in the coastline.

E-mail: keepingscore@nytimes.com

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 23 2005 07:13 PM

The 1959 White Sox were American League champions.

They obviously broke the .500 pattern, and in a good way, late in the season.

Edgy DC
Jul 23 2005 08:01 PM

Something tells me Tom Ruane was a poster. Maybe at the MOFo.

Frayed Knot
Jul 25 2005 09:20 AM

Well, we've hit our peak of .500+4 games - a spot we've been only once before this season (31 - 27) - and after which we proceeded to lose 9 of the next 11. Hopefully, a trip to Colorado won't start us on that same path.

The good news is that we're 7-3 since the A-S break while playing against 2 defending division champs and a current 1st place team (OK, so that's grossly misleading ... whatareyagonna do, shoot me?) with a RS/RA of 55/26

Rotblatt
Jul 25 2005 10:00 AM

The bad news is that Colorado & Houston both do really well at their respective ballparks. Colorado is 24-23 at home, versus 10-40 on the road, and Houston is 30-14 at home and 21-33 on the road.

The good news is that we now have our secret Colorado weapon, Santiago. I hope our plan is to abuse the shit out of him on this road trip, then replace him with Bell, who will hopefully have feasted on AAA batters . . .

Oh, I read an article that Bell was sent down to work on his change-up.

Elster88
Jul 25 2005 10:27 AM

Rotblatt wrote:
Colorado is 24-23 at home, versus 10-40 on the road


Our last four games of the year are vs Colorado at Shea.

Edgy DC
Jul 31 2005 10:24 PM

Lest it be overlooked, going into today's game, the Mets were back at .500, for the 24th time this season, I believe.

They won today, so I again ask that they never return. Never return.

metirish
Aug 02 2005 08:21 AM

metirish
Aug 02 2005 08:22 AM

The above graph is from The Hardball Times..

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/in-good-standings/

Rockin' Doc
Aug 04 2005 05:30 PM
This is getting old...

metirish
Aug 04 2005 08:48 PM

Joe Gergan on August baseball for the Mets..

]As August sizzles, Mets fizzle


As August sizzles, Mets fizzle

These are the times that fry men's soles. It's hot, it's humid, it's sticky, it's exhausting, it's the eighth month of the year. August in New York never has been confused with autumn by any songwriter of note.

For major-league baseball players, the season is two-thirds complete. Already, there is wear and tear on their bodies. Now the strain begins to seep into their minds. Pennants rarely are won in August but more than a few have been lost amid the dog days and breathless nights.

"It's a grind," Mets first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz said. "The more games you play, the longer the season seems. It's hot and the travel begins to catch up to you. You've got to care of yourself, get your rest, get sleep, but still keep the cardio going."

For only a few times in their history have the Mets mastered the art of baseball in August. Yes, the franchise has a losing record overall, but in no other month have the Amazin's lost at a similar rate. Their 11-17 mark a year ago not only effectively erased them from postseason consideration but also lowered their lifetime performance in the month to 560-674, a percentage of .454.

"Last year was so bad," leftfielder Cliff Floyd said, "I was ready to go to LaGuardia the whole last month."

Playing in August is taxing on the best and best-conditioned of athletes. It's even worse when the team has to check the newspapers to find a pennant race.

That's when the mental fatigue threatens to overwhelm the physical, or at least magnify the soreness.

"When you're in pressure situations or exciting situations, the adrenaline takes over," pitcher Tom Glavine said. "You feel the aches and pains far less."

The Mets felt very good Monday night after their first game of the month, even though it required 11 innings and consumed 4 hours, 28 minutes.

They took the field at Shea Stadium last night with a spring in their step despite a 90-degree reading and were even more energized after carrying a 4-3 lead into the eighth inning behind Pedro Martinez. Then Martinez departed and the Mets wilted.

Game time today is 12:10. Hoo boy.

"You've got to keep fighting one day at a time," Floyd said shortly before he smote a long home run off the top of the Big Apple just to the right of centerfield in the second inning. "You keep fighting 'til the ninth inning and at the end of the day, you see what happens."

It's been five years since the Mets truly prospered in August. They won 20 of 29 in the month and placed themselves in contention for the wild-card berth that they punched as their ticket to a Subway Series against the Yankees. It was only one victory shy of the 21-10 and 21-11 records posted by the 1969 and 1986 teams, respectively. Not only did both reach the World Series but they ultimately prevailed against the American League champions.

Such is their position now - last in the National League East but one game over .500 - that a similar surge might mark this as a September to remember. But a repeat of last August or, worse, the 6-21 they experienced in 2002, likely would bury them unless they had the clout to earn immediate transfer to the woeful NL West.

Glavine was unaccustomed to playing out the string during the last 12 of his 15 seasons in Atlanta. With first place at stake, inspiration overcomes perspiration.

"The mental fatigue is less if you're in a pennant race," he said. "If not, you've got to come to the park with your own motivation."

"That's when you hope you've got strong individuals for teammates," said Mientkiewicz, who spent last August with the streaking Red Sox after three consecutive playoff seasons with the Twins and had three hits last night. "This is the farthest out of first place I've been in six years. But we've still got a shot."

That shot grew longer last night when the Mets evened their August record at 1-1 with a 6-4 defeat at the hands of the Brewers. Not only did they lose the opportunity to gain a game on the first-place Braves but they fell farther behind the Nationals and the Phillies in their own division. The aches ached a little more.

But today's a new day. Pass the sun screen.

DocTee
Aug 04 2005 10:06 PM

Q: when's the latest in a season that all teams in one division were .500 or better?

DocTee
Aug 04 2005 10:06 PM

or, considering the sad state of the NL West, worse than .500?

cooby
Aug 05 2005 11:30 AM

My dad had a car like that, only it was red. And it did not have a shaker hood

Willets Point
Sep 08 2005 07:46 AM

We may see a need for this thread again (and that sucks!).

Benjamin Grimm
Sep 08 2005 08:02 AM

I know. When the Mets were 8 games over, I thought that this was done with.

Wild Card hopes are fading fast. RIght now, I think I'm rooting for 82-80 and fourth place.

Elster88
Sep 08 2005 08:07 AM

I wonder if 82-80 will be enough for fourth.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 161) Johnny Lewis

Benjamin Grimm
Sep 08 2005 08:10 AM

It may not be.

Rotblatt
Sep 08 2005 08:27 AM

We're going to finish 1 game out of the wild card race at 85 wins.

You heard it here first.

Actually, I think we'll probably end up at 82 wins or so, ahead of Washington by a game.

Really, though, we haven't played that badly the last few games. We're pitching brilliantly, we're hitting the ball, we're fielding pretty well, and we're working pitchers okay. We're just not getting that one big hit and the few mistakes we're making are instantly being capitilized on.

And Willie's a fucking moron, which I suppose I shouldn't really gloss over.

If we don't let up, some of those hard-hit balls will start falling in and we'll win a few games. Of course, our pitching will probably implode once that happens, but one thing at a time, I suppose . . .

Elster88
Sep 08 2005 08:48 AM

]we're hitting the ball


I'd argue with this one.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 161) Johnny Lewis

seawolf17
Sep 08 2005 08:55 AM

Rotblatt wrote:
We're pitching brilliantly

I'd argue this one too.
Rotblatt wrote:
we're working pitchers okay

But I agree with this one. Reyes, Matsui... it feels like there are a couple of guys starting to take a few pitches.

Elster88
Sep 08 2005 08:56 AM

I think it was just Tuesday where Reyes was getting lambasted after popping out on the first pitch in the ninth following Anderson's walk.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 161) Johnny Lewis

Rotblatt
Sep 08 2005 09:37 AM

Elster88 wrote:
]we're hitting the ball


I'd argue with this one.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 161) Johnny Lewis


Over the series, we hit at a .279 AVG and got on base at a .336 clip. Our SLG wasn't good--.365 SLG--but we certainly did get hits and get on base.

As for our pitching, we gave up 11 runs over 25.67 IP, which equals a 3.86 ERA & we allowed 1.05 batters per inning to reach over that time.

That's pretty darn good.

What we didn't do was score runs, but if we keep hitting the way we have--with the addition of a few XBH--we're going to, and if we keep pitching the way we have, that'll translate to winning games.

Edgy DC
Sep 08 2005 09:47 AM

Not running into outs might help a bit too.

Elster88
Sep 08 2005 09:49 AM

Thats an OPS of .701, which would be good for last in the NL.

The above sentence in some admitted cherry-picking, since the BA of .279 would be first in the NL and the OBP would be tied for sixth (though third through 11th are seperated by nine points in OBP).
_____________________________
This post had the designation 161) Johnny Lewis

Rotblatt
Sep 08 2005 10:53 AM

Well, I didn't say we were hitting it HARD . . .

;-)

Valadius
Sep 08 2005 12:48 PM

The problem is we haven't been hitting home runs, and we don't hit in the clutch.

Elster88
Sep 08 2005 01:04 PM

I don't think anyone has ever hit in the clutch.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 160) Kaz Matsui

Willets Point
Sep 08 2005 01:08 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 08 2005 01:28 PM

Elster88 wrote:
I don't think anyone has ever hit in the clutch.


I've been hit in the crotch but that's different.

Elster88
Sep 08 2005 01:09 PM

I miss the days when you ejected toast.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 160) Kaz Matsui

Willets Point
Sep 08 2005 01:24 PM

I liked it when you actually had a picture of Kevin Elster.

Valadius
Sep 08 2005 01:26 PM

Yeah, where'd that go?

Elster88
Sep 08 2005 01:44 PM

? Still there.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 160) Kaz Matsui

Valadius
Sep 08 2005 03:57 PM

No, now it's a UMDB picture.

Valadius
Sep 08 2005 08:54 PM

And so, we return to .500.

Edgy DC
Sep 09 2005 09:13 PM

BOO
HOO

Elster88
Sep 09 2005 10:18 PM

I really didn't think there would come a time again this year where I would be hoping for .500 Let's rest Glavine, Reyes, Floyd and Pedro for the rest of the year like Bart said and shoot for a high draft pick.
____________________________
This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

Edgy DC
Sep 09 2005 10:26 PM

Healthy players do not get shut down.

mlbaseballtalk
Sep 24 2005 08:02 PM

77 Up, 77 Down!

Moving along relentlessly. Lets hope we get wins 78, 79, 80 and 81 in short order, I'd hate to have to pay attention to Sunday's game at Shea with a .500 season on the line... In other words lets have a completely meaningless October

Steve

Nymr83
Sep 24 2005 08:06 PM

with 8 remaining the mets weould have to win out to hit my expected win total. i'll be happy with 5-3.

mlbaseballtalk
Sep 24 2005 08:23 PM

Nymr83 wrote:
with 8 remaining the mets weould have to win out to hit my expected win total. i'll be happy with 5-3.


I thought this is around where they should be, just thought they'd be coming DOWN to it towards the end, rather than trying to go UP to it!

mlbaseballtalk
Sep 27 2005 08:56 PM

One more win assures us of being here (or slightly above) for the year 2005!