At least the Times is covering the Mets at all. Not a given, most of the year.
2
We're getting a little sick and tired of this paper trying to pull down the Mets like a pack of mongrel dogs jumping an innocent (hang on - my metaphor-generator needs a little oil) New York pedestrian and leaving nothing but a few scraps of horsehide behind....
Nevermind. The Mets are playing solid .564 ball while these Gnats you mention are barely over 500, and the Amazins are gonna win, again, this year.
End of Story.
Nevermind. The Mets are playing solid .564 ball while these Gnats you mention are barely over 500, and the Amazins are gonna win, again, this year.
End of Story.
3
You tell 'em, Tony.
1
We are accustomed by now to the NYT finding negative angles on the Mets, while fawning over everything that the considerably less exciting (and less winning and less first-placing) Yankees are doing, but that is par for the course with the Times. Even the "NY is changing its pinstripes" piece couldnt help throwing in a pro-Yankees barb in the last line.
That's ok. Every paper -- like every person -- has its character flaws.
But what is amazing is that the NYT has been trying so hard lately to find sympathetic angles on the Nationals. First there was that sob piece about how the Nats woes have to do with injuries (cry me a river, the Mets DL dwarfed DC's for the entire first half of the season) and now this.
I just don't get it. It's shameful.
That's ok. Every paper -- like every person -- has its character flaws.
But what is amazing is that the NYT has been trying so hard lately to find sympathetic angles on the Nationals. First there was that sob piece about how the Nats woes have to do with injuries (cry me a river, the Mets DL dwarfed DC's for the entire first half of the season) and now this.
I just don't get it. It's shameful.
7
Well put Alex. The NYT is a liberal paper supposedly, and I'm a flag-waving liberal, but if the paper doesn't support the Metropolitans then I'm gonna play rough lol.
2
Try to imagine the reaction of a Greinke or Kershaw or Bumgarner if a manager took them out of a game in the middle of a pennant race for some arbitrary precautionary reason. The Mets were on a roll with a confident, upbeat clubhouse. Then Boras went to the media, Harvey did his best A-Rod me-first imitation (before A-Rod fired Boras and worked his way back to the trust of his teammates and the fans). Harvey has lost the respect of the fans, upset his manager and poisoned the clubhouse atmosphere. Even as Boras looks to protect his investment it appears he has convinced Harvey that Harvey’s priority must be the future contract Boras has convinced him he’ll get. Too bad Mets can’t trade him now; you know, addition by subtraction.
4
The article completely fails to mention that, even if the Nats were to arrive in Flushing 3 games back and were to win the final series of the season, they would STILL need to win a tie-breaker -- in Flushing -- the following day.
So, yes, it's not actually a 6-game lead (well, 6-1/2, but let's not obsess over numbers) ... maybe it's even a bit more than that in reality.
By the way, I've rarely seen such disagreement in a Times comments sections: Half the folks think this is a very silly article, and the other half think it's a very inaccurate article.
Can't we all just compromise and agree that it's a silly AND inaccurate article? (From an otherwise intelligent and thoughtful journalist no less!)
So, yes, it's not actually a 6-game lead (well, 6-1/2, but let's not obsess over numbers) ... maybe it's even a bit more than that in reality.
By the way, I've rarely seen such disagreement in a Times comments sections: Half the folks think this is a very silly article, and the other half think it's a very inaccurate article.
Can't we all just compromise and agree that it's a silly AND inaccurate article? (From an otherwise intelligent and thoughtful journalist no less!)
2
What the heck is the matter with you people?
You never heard of a Jinx? The Kinahora? The Maloick? A Hex? The old HooDoo? The Kiss of Death? How about hubris?
Don't say it can't happen! That's the surest way to make it happen!
Jeez, Louise!
Ya gotta believe but ya can't be smug!
You never heard of a Jinx? The Kinahora? The Maloick? A Hex? The old HooDoo? The Kiss of Death? How about hubris?
Don't say it can't happen! That's the surest way to make it happen!
Jeez, Louise!
Ya gotta believe but ya can't be smug!
3
Please note the difference in physical builds of the pitchers today and to those of yesteryear: They look like different species! We all like to think we are so better off today and smarter. We work out and make big muscles. I believe the workout regimen of modern day players is at the root of many injuries. Strength training tightens and shortens muscles making injury far more likely. Not nearly enough stretching is being done by players..and as for elbows..Proper massaging of the tendon and less muscle mass will go a long way in preventing the need for TJ surgery.
So you're just going to gloss over the fact that being 3 games back with 3 games to play is a very bad spot to be in, even if you're playing the team ahead of you, especially when the Mets have outplayed the Nationals all season?
The Mets have also dominated both the Braves and the Phillies and play enough games against those two to clinch before the Nats series, even if the Nats go 10-0 before then.
And, on top of that, the Nationals now finish the season by playing 13 straight games without a day off. How is the Nationals bullpen expected to hold up to that kind of stress?
The Mets have also dominated both the Braves and the Phillies and play enough games against those two to clinch before the Nats series, even if the Nats go 10-0 before then.
And, on top of that, the Nationals now finish the season by playing 13 straight games without a day off. How is the Nationals bullpen expected to hold up to that kind of stress?
7
Here's better math:
The Mets' magic number is 7 with 12 games remaining (13 for the Nats) which means they could go 3-9 the rest of the way while the Nats go 9-4 and the Mets would still win the division.
Who would you rather be?
The Mets' magic number is 7 with 12 games remaining (13 for the Nats) which means they could go 3-9 the rest of the way while the Nats go 9-4 and the Mets would still win the division.
Who would you rather be?
5
The premise of this article is almost as ridiculous as the recent one that charged the USTA with racism.
3
Also keep in mind that the Mets have had the Nats number since the All-Star break, winning 8 of the last 9 head-to-head games. Hopefully, this race will be over before Oct. 2, though.
1
Actually, he's right. The Mets six game lead isn't really a six game lead.
It's a six and a half game lead.
It's a six and a half game lead.
11
This article is ridiculous, how on earth is the 6 game lead really 3???? So what your saying is if it gets to the last three games and they have a 3 game lead its over Mets lose?? Nats would have to sweep in Citi good luck sounds like a big up hill battle for them Mets would need to win on game of the last 3 and its over! It actually benefits the Mets that they face each other and not different teams.
2
How do these stupid articles get published? Are we assuming that the Nationals are going to win the last three games with the Mets? This article certainly implies that.The Mets are 10-6 against the Nats this season and the Mets have won the last six games!!! Why would anyone think the tides would suddenly turn? The Mets have looked a little shaky the past few games but this team will pull it together. The Mets magic number is down to 7 now. This all that matters. The pressure is all on the Nats and not the Mets. The Nats were supposed to win the division and NOT the Mets. If the Mets win, it would be considered a big failure on the parts of the Nats.
6
Been saying it for 5 years now, the Mets will never win anything except a high draft pick with Terry Collins at the helm.
Case in point last Sunday night. Rather than dam the torpedoes (Scott Borish [sic]), peddle to the meddle, stick the knife down the throats of the steroid dynasty (Yankees), and crush any hope in DC, the Mets & Harvey (he's as much to blame although being in 20's means by definition your stupid) has a pitch count. And I might add Collins teams were unprepared in Saturday's lost and he had no viable plan B or C on Sunday night. Four errors is inexcusable and benching were called for.
And that's the Mets, everything to everybody, happy happy joy joy and winning is great as long as everyone has a great time.
As opposed to the steroid dynasty which has openly admitted through their two time felon now deceased patriarch (G. Steinbrenner,) they will do everything and anything to win including cheating (see 2000* & 2009*).
See the difference???? Any questions????
Case in point last Sunday night. Rather than dam the torpedoes (Scott Borish [sic]), peddle to the meddle, stick the knife down the throats of the steroid dynasty (Yankees), and crush any hope in DC, the Mets & Harvey (he's as much to blame although being in 20's means by definition your stupid) has a pitch count. And I might add Collins teams were unprepared in Saturday's lost and he had no viable plan B or C on Sunday night. Four errors is inexcusable and benching were called for.
And that's the Mets, everything to everybody, happy happy joy joy and winning is great as long as everyone has a great time.
As opposed to the steroid dynasty which has openly admitted through their two time felon now deceased patriarch (G. Steinbrenner,) they will do everything and anything to win including cheating (see 2000* & 2009*).
See the difference???? Any questions????
3
Your math is shaky. For the remainder of the season, in total, the Gnats and Mets have 25 games between them. If the results go the Gnats' way 18 out of 25 times, which is 72% of the time, the Mets win the division. Taking out those last three games leaves 19 games between the two teams. In order for the Gnats to EVEN HAVE A CHANCE, the results have to go the Gnats' way *at least* 13 out of 19 times, thich is 68.4% of the time. Still sanguine?
2
Only in Metsville can a 6-game lead be considered a 3-game lead. Such negativity and doom. Why assume the Nationals have a good chance to sweep even if they are only three back coming into the final series?
Would you rather be six games ahead or six games behind?
See you all in the NLDS.
Would you rather be six games ahead or six games behind?
See you all in the NLDS.
4
An answer to "what's with young pitchers today" is the rash of Tommy John surgery. In this instance, Harvey had this surgery and Tom Seaver didn't. And with the reliance that teams have on their bullpen, how they've built them up, this will continue to happen. It's now part of strategy; protect young or injured arms.
The article is rubbish, nothing more than that.
1
Ridiculous. If, on the unlikely chance, Washington does enter the last weekend 3 games behind, all it guarantees is that they're still in the race. It doesn't draw them "even" by any stretch of the imagination. Some might say that the pressure is more on the hunted than the hunter at that point, but the Nats would be facing elimination in each of the 3 games, while the Mets would only face elimination if they were swept and forced into a one game playoff. Clearly an advantage to being 3 games ahead rather than 3 games behind.
3
Please all you pundits and Mets fans stop all the “hand-wringing!”
The 2015 Nationals are not even close to the 2007 Phillies and the Mets starting pitching is better than 2007. Any comparison to 2007 is silly. The Mets have 1 remaining player from that year David Wright and not even playing in the same ballpark.
But let’s go with the assumption the Nationals need to only be 3 back coming into Citi Field. Let’s take those 3 games out of the picture and look at them as a “mini” playoff.
Taking those 3 games out, as of this morning 9/21, the Mets are 3 ½ up with 9 games to play. If the Mets go a 4-5 against the Braves (2), Reds (4), Phillies (3), who have records of 60-91; 63-86; 56-94 respectively, the Nationals, with 10 games to play, need to go 9-1. Under that scenario their records going into the Friday 10/2 match up would be Mets 89-70 (they are 85-65 today) and the Nationals would be 87-72 (they are 78-71 today). The Mets starting pitching is unlikely to go 4-5 against very weak teams and the Nationals going 9-1 is also very unlikely. But let’s continue... On 10/2 the Nationals are 87-72 and the Mets 89-70. The Nationals would have to sweep all three at Citi Field. Sweeping all 3 games gives the Nationals a 90-72 record and losing all 3 gives the Mets an 89-73 record.
The Mets will not go 4-5; the Nationals will not go 9-1 and the Mets will not get swept at Citi Field. Mets fans if you need something to worry about start worrying about Greinke and Kershaw.
The 2015 Nationals are not even close to the 2007 Phillies and the Mets starting pitching is better than 2007. Any comparison to 2007 is silly. The Mets have 1 remaining player from that year David Wright and not even playing in the same ballpark.
But let’s go with the assumption the Nationals need to only be 3 back coming into Citi Field. Let’s take those 3 games out of the picture and look at them as a “mini” playoff.
Taking those 3 games out, as of this morning 9/21, the Mets are 3 ½ up with 9 games to play. If the Mets go a 4-5 against the Braves (2), Reds (4), Phillies (3), who have records of 60-91; 63-86; 56-94 respectively, the Nationals, with 10 games to play, need to go 9-1. Under that scenario their records going into the Friday 10/2 match up would be Mets 89-70 (they are 85-65 today) and the Nationals would be 87-72 (they are 78-71 today). The Mets starting pitching is unlikely to go 4-5 against very weak teams and the Nationals going 9-1 is also very unlikely. But let’s continue... On 10/2 the Nationals are 87-72 and the Mets 89-70. The Nationals would have to sweep all three at Citi Field. Sweeping all 3 games gives the Nationals a 90-72 record and losing all 3 gives the Mets an 89-73 record.
The Mets will not go 4-5; the Nationals will not go 9-1 and the Mets will not get swept at Citi Field. Mets fans if you need something to worry about start worrying about Greinke and Kershaw.
5
A 6.5 game lead with 12 to play? That's the 1964 Phillies, isn't it?
One thing is certain. If the Mets "succeed" in blowing what was an 8 game lead with 15 to play, they will have completed the greatest collapse in baseball history, "besting" the '64 Phils and their own 2007 squad. Of course the Phils overworked their aces Short and Bunning while the Mets are underworking theirs, Harvey and deGrom.
They really can't blow this lead. Or can they?
One thing is certain. If the Mets "succeed" in blowing what was an 8 game lead with 15 to play, they will have completed the greatest collapse in baseball history, "besting" the '64 Phils and their own 2007 squad. Of course the Phils overworked their aces Short and Bunning while the Mets are underworking theirs, Harvey and deGrom.
They really can't blow this lead. Or can they?
1
If the Nats pull even. If my mother had wheels she'd be a baby carriage.
1
Thank you! I've been saying this for a while. If the Nationals were to enter Citi Field back three games they would also be playing relaxed, with nothing to lose, while the Mets would be playing with everything to lose.
How would that Nats have "nothing to lose" if they had a chance to win the division with 3 games left?
1
How long did it take the Yankees to lose their lead to Toronto? I remember many pundits saying they were almost a certain shoo ins for the pennant back in mid-summer (they don't mention that now).
Baseball teams slump and teams go on hot streaks- especially these Mets. They might win this by 10 games or they might end up not making the playoffs. It is the absolute uncertainty that keeps us tuned in.
Baseball teams slump and teams go on hot streaks- especially these Mets. They might win this by 10 games or they might end up not making the playoffs. It is the absolute uncertainty that keeps us tuned in.
3
The whole premise of this article is absurd. It suggests that the Gnats have it made in the shade if they knock three games off the Mets' lead in the next ten because it's a given that the Gnats will then sweep all three games AND an elimination game probably at Citi despite the Mets' having swept the past two Gnats series. The Gnats make up three games in ten AND sweep the Mets AND win the road elimination game AND replicate the historic collapses of 2007-08 because it's ingrained in the franchise despite only Wright remaining from that time? It's a magic number of eight, we're fine.
16
Now seven...and nobody could think that the Os will go easy on the Gnats.
6
The premise is false; the math is the same regardless of whom the Metsies play. Any combination of 7 Mets' wins/Nats' losses ends the chase. If the Mets go 6-6, the Nats need to go 13-0. For the Nats to get to Citi only 3 back, means if the Mets go 4-5, they would have to 7-2. Not impossible, but the point is the ratio is the same.
2
Exactly! The whole premise is silly and I'm very confident the Mets will clinch before the Nats even get to Citi for the final series. But I guess the media justs likes to stir up things.
2
Nooooooooo.....Don't do it! Please Metsies, Do not stick your collective fingers down your throats and Gag! Please....I beg you....I just can't watch it again! For cryin' out loud, pull up your socks and go forward like champions!!! This summer's success has been totally unexpected and the pieces for a real big league team are finally in place (although for how long?). Now's the time! Next year is a whole new roll of the dice. So...count your innings...get some rest...stay out of the bars and play like the big-league-ers that you are paid to be. Don't let us down.
Your pal,
Ralph, Mets fans since 1975
P.S. at least the Yankees didn't refer to you as their little sister.
Your pal,
Ralph, Mets fans since 1975
P.S. at least the Yankees didn't refer to you as their little sister.
2
"In some respects"? In no respects is the lead only 3 games. It is 6. The games at the end of the year with the Nats are only different than the 3 game set with the Braves in that that a Mets win also guarantees a Nationals loss. The Nats have to cut the lead to 3 by the last series to make their whole season meaningful. But they still have to overcome 6 games. And the lead isn't important it is the magic number, which is 8. The lead is really not that important. They just need a combo of 8 wins & Nats losses. Doesn't matter what order they come in.
16
However, a 3 game head to head series is much more likely to result in a 3 game swing than 2 separate 3 game series ( 6 independent events vs 3 ). I think that's really the point of this article.
1
7...moving down from Gary Carter to Ed Kranepool.
4
Fran, a head to head 3 game series has only four possible results, while two concurrent 3 game series has 16 possible outcomes.
But over a full season (2014), in a 3 game series, the road team sweeps only 9.4% of the time. For the first two months of this season, the road team has done maginally better with about 10%.
But over a full season (2014), in a 3 game series, the road team sweeps only 9.4% of the time. For the first two months of this season, the road team has done maginally better with about 10%.
1
A well considered and insightful article. Thanks. I do have a couple of thoughts on the whole mess, if you will. First and foremost; the problem. Dr. James Andrews, Scott Boras, Terry Collins and the folks who are in a position to influence (if not compel) his decisions. To yank a pitcher who is in the process of a one-hit, seven-strikeout shutout because of future considerations is to deny the existence of "the future is now". The Yanks' demoralizing blowout--and I mean demoralizing to players as well as the fans--was a huge mistake. That decision turned what was arguably a credible shot at least at a pivotal win, was something that gave the Nats hope, momentum and spirit. You do not want that in the old ballgame.
Inning limits? Pitch count? Doctors? Agents? Give me Seaver any time.
Inning limits? Pitch count? Doctors? Agents? Give me Seaver any time.
15
One of the most true things I have heard about the game is what Keith Hernandez said one time: "Baseball can break your heart." That is the spirit in which I read Jay Schreiber's piece. Some others got a different message. I'm keeping two things in mind at the same time -- one of the great pleasures in life: what could happen and the hope that it will not happen.
In fairness to Terry Collins, it should be pointed out that he most likely did not make the decision to pull Harvey out of that Sunday game. The decision was made by management. And it was a good decision, because Harvey is a young man with a future and his future depends on his arm and his arm is not capable at this point of endless stress.
The fact that Harvey looked grumpy after being taken out is part of his public performance. It is much more than I care to see from an athlete, but he is entitled to be like countless other pitchers in the history of the game, who believe that the ball should never be taken away from them. It is not logical, by the way, to assume that if he pitched one or more innings after being relieved that he would have coasted to some kind of baseball hit-free zone.
In fairness to Terry Collins, it should be pointed out that he most likely did not make the decision to pull Harvey out of that Sunday game. The decision was made by management. And it was a good decision, because Harvey is a young man with a future and his future depends on his arm and his arm is not capable at this point of endless stress.
The fact that Harvey looked grumpy after being taken out is part of his public performance. It is much more than I care to see from an athlete, but he is entitled to be like countless other pitchers in the history of the game, who believe that the ball should never be taken away from them. It is not logical, by the way, to assume that if he pitched one or more innings after being relieved that he would have coasted to some kind of baseball hit-free zone.
1
The Mets must get into the playoffs this year. In spite of the new players the Mets are still a dreadful defensive team. If their top pitchers can not pitch in the last few games what is the point of having them. If Harvey is limited who needs him for next year? Cespides just lost value to his future by slumping when he was needed. Sloppy baseball will doom the Mets. Tighten up boys, you are almost there. Play major league baseball.
4
Sherwood, I feel your anxiety, and i even share it. But we need to relax. Even Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle went into little mini slumps, or longer ones. Cespedes is a top ten player, and he will command that kind of money. The Mets will be NL East division champs; nobody said it would be easy.
3
True,the Mets were sloppy last night, but Cespedis is back! They are now on track for a historic run to the World Series.
Re: Harvey, I heard a report that Boris is financing his Dark Knight lifestyle, prior to him getting a big contract. No wonder they are petrified of him pitching too many innings.
Re: Harvey, I heard a report that Boris is financing his Dark Knight lifestyle, prior to him getting a big contract. No wonder they are petrified of him pitching too many innings.
I'm a Nats fan and I think this argument is pretty silly. The Nats are six games back, period. If they've cut the lead to three by the last weekend of the season, they're still three back, and all the Mets need to do is win one of those three games. At this point, the much more meaningful number is the Mets' magic number. Unfortunately -- from my perspective -- that's now at 8.
11
"The more accurate number might be three"? What kind of nonsense is that? Of course, it's possible that the lead could be cut by three in the next 10 games, but likely, "more accurate"? Talk about negativity!!
7
What is it about young pitchers these days, that going beyond 6 innings or even 5 late in the season, is so difficult? That is not to criticize any pitcher, but to ask about what pitching has become. Why could a young Tom Seaver finish or go so deep into games even late in the season?
12
Nancy, it has nothing to do with young pitchers, it has to do with any pitcher coming off major reconstructive surgery.
3
It also has to do with the fact that we now have information that was not available back then. It is a fact that pitchers fare less well when facing a hitter for the third and fourth time in a game, and that goes for all pitchers, not just bad and average ones. Oddly, Seaver is one of the rare exceptions, but it definitely goes for just about everyone else.
I couldn't believe the Mets TV people were questioning taking Niese out after six innings last night. It was absolutely the right move.
I couldn't believe the Mets TV people were questioning taking Niese out after six innings last night. It was absolutely the right move.
No, it really doesn't have anything to do with young pitchers coming off reconstructive surgery. It has to do with the huge paydays that await almost all quality players when they become free agency eligible and the willingness to make that the priority over winning. Harvey being told to shut it down by his agent in the heat of a pennant race is an example of what baseball has become. How can any fan (and I attended my first Met game at the Polo Grounds and was in Shea Stadium on both days the Mets won World Championships) ever get excited over a team when the players have made winning a secondary consideration?
1
Looks to me like somebody needed to come up with something, anything, to justify this week's paycheck