Mets Would Beat Los Angeles

[LouGehrig]

Joe Torre has taken his act to the West Coast, where Los Angeles is viewed as having a good chance of winning the division, which is irrelevant because of the Mets.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/mets_would_beat_los_angeles

[SamtheBravesFan]

They're only going to play each other six times. What's the point of doing a direct comparison?

[NJMetfan4life]

That's pretty humble of Torre

[JerseySoxFan19]

i don't get the comparison. everybody knows the mets got the Nl wrapped up until boston wipes 'em out in the series

[Coachsmallhead]

This post....and article, seem a bit presumptuous. Comparing the Dodgers and Mets doesn't make a lot of sense...given how they rarely they play each other in the regular season. I think it might have been more relevant to breakdown the Phils vs. Mets.....since the Phils might have something to say about how the East is won. As good as Santana is....he only throws once a week!!

[DodgerBlue8188]

Mets are not a lock either. All it takes is for Santana to get hurt and another start player to have an off year. How many times have we seen the Yankees have all the starts to only lose in the divisional playoffs.

[Doctor X]

Not enough.






:cap:

--J.D.

[hudsonharden]

Seems like a very NY-centric article, comparing a team led by the Yankees old manager to the Mets. In my opinion, the Diamondbacks are the most improved team in the NL and have a good chance of winning that division again.

[NYMets523]

i don't get the comparison. everybody knows the mets got the Nl wrapped up until boston wipes 'em out in the series

Like in 1986 :p

Mets are not a lock either. All it takes is for Santana to get hurt and another start player to have an off year. How many times have we seen the Yankees have all the starts to only lose in the divisional playoffs.

If ANY team's ace gets injured and a starter has an off year they will struggle.

[Doctor X]

i don't get the comparison. everybody knows the mets got the Nl wrapped up until boston wipes 'em out in the series

Like in 1986 :p

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/images/smiles/meanie1.gif

:cap:

Reminds me of a certain Boston sportswriter who is "affectionately" referred to by many Red Sox fans as "CHB"--"Curly Headed Boyfriend"--who in early 2006 declared the AL East locked up by the Red Sox.

We all know how well that turned out!

Why I rather dislike predictions of success before the season has even started. As you note, it take just one or two injuries that you cannot replace to sink a "lock" team.

--J.D.

[metfan13]

Mets are not a lock either. All it takes is for Santana to get hurt and another start player to have an off year. How many times have we seen the Yankees have all the starts to only lose in the divisional playoffs.

Yeah, not many teams lose key players and win. These kinds of comparisons (made in February) have to be made under the assumption that players stay relatively healthy.

[metfan13]

This post....and article, seem a bit presumptuous. Comparing the Dodgers and Mets doesn't make a lot of sense...given how they rarely they play each other in the regular season. I think it might have been more relevant to breakdown the Phils vs. Mets.....since the Phils might have something to say about how the East is won. As good as Santana is....he only throws once a week!!

And Pedro Martinez and a couple of 15 game winners throw the other days.

[Doctor X]

And Pedro Martinez and a couple of 15 game winners throw the other days.

. . . and Pedro is now the most dominant pitcher from the 90s!!

:cap:

--J.D.

[Mattingly]

Joe Torre is quite familiar with NL ball, since he's played his entire career in the NL (Milwaukee & Atlanta Braves, Cards, Mets). Before the Yanks, he'd only managed NL teams (Cards, Braves, Mets). After 12 seasons, we'll finally see what he can do without a $200m payroll.

There's no guarantee that any team will make the playoffs, since people have predicted the Yanks to win the WS for so many years, but have lost the past 3 LDS's in a row.

Johan Santana (whose first name the article misspells) is at a disadvantage, since he's never played in the NL, whereas Brad Penny has played only for Florida and LAD. Santana has also never been in one of the top media cities out there, but Penny has. Santana will have to adjust, since the Mets fans do definitely expect that with himself and Pedro, they will make the playoffs this season.

[Mattingly]

i don't get the comparison. everybody knows the mets got the Nl wrapped up until boston wipes 'em out in the series
How does anybody predict in February what will happen the following October? Will people return in October to admit their mistakes? I somehow doubt this.

They're only going to play each other six times. What's the point of doing a direct comparison?
It could be the Joe Torre-Willie Randolph connection. I think that Mets fans could start worrying more about the Phillies and Braves moreso than anyone else. Whatever the less powerful Fish give them, and whichever wins they can get off the Nats would be gravy.

[philkid3]

Oh come on, LouGehrig. I dislike most of your stuff, but this is especially bad.

First off, not everything has to revolve around New York.

LA Will Not Beat the Mets
You have a crystal ball now? Why are LA and the Mets the only team that matters?

I hate to tell you this, but there are no guarantees. Your word is not the law of what will absolutely happen in sports.


It is also a stretch to say the Mets are the best team in baseball and a HUGE stretch to say they have the best pitching. They have the best pitcher. That doesn't make them the best.


The Phillies Didn't Win -- The Mets Lost

Blatant lie.



Why does this article even exist? Why does there even have to be a comparison between the two teams?

[metfan13]

Johan Santana (whose first name the article misspells) is at a disadvantage, since he's never played in the NL, whereas Brad Penny has played only for Florida and LAD. Santana has also never been in one of the top media cities out there, but Penny has. Santana will have to adjust, since the Mets fans do definitely expect that with himself and Pedro, they will make the playoffs this season.

Not really. Typically it's to the pitcher's advantage for the batters not to have seen him. Also pitchers coming from the AL to the NL are helped by not facing DH line-ups but line-ups with #8 & pitchers. Finally Santana will be helped a lot by the new Mets catcher Brian Schneider who does know all those NL hitters and is adept at calling a game.

[NYMets523]

Johan Santana (whose first name the article misspells) is at a disadvantage, since he's never played in the NL, whereas Brad Penny has played only for Florida and LAD. Santana has also never been in one of the top media cities out there, but Penny has. Santana will have to adjust, since the Mets fans do definitely expect that with himself and Pedro, they will make the playoffs this season.
I didn't know Santana did not participate in Interleague play.

Here are his interleague stats, BTW.

W L S CG SHO IP ERA H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP
16 4 0 2 2 182.2 2.27 121 49 46 16 46 0 191 5

Santana has an advantage over Penny because he is a better pitcher. LA is not the type of city NY is. As for Santana, he's handling the media well in ST and doesn't seem like he'll be fazed by the pressure.

[STLCards2]

Santana has an advantage over Penny because he is a better pitcher. LA is not the type of city NY is. As for Santana, he's handling the media well in ST and doesn't seem like he'll be fazed by the pressure.

Thank you! This is the most common sense thing I have read on this thread yet!

[NYMets523]

Thank you! This is the most common sense thing I have read on this thread yet!

Thank you

Blatant lie.
It's not a lie, there is truth to it. The Phillies needed the Mets to collapse to have a prayer at winning the division.

[Matt1901]

The Mets were "a lock" for the playoffs last season, in September in fact. Nothing is certain. The Yankees had the 2004 A.L.C.S. locked, but nothing is certain when there are games to be played.

I also think everyone thought that the Mets would beat the Dodgers in the 1988 N.L.C.S., but then they actually played the series.



Johan Santana (whose first name the article misspells) is at a disadvantage, since he's never played in the NLI think Santana will get an advantage now that he gets to face pitchers now on a regular basis.

[Mattingly]

I didn't know Santana did not participate in Interleague play.

Here are his interleague stats, BTW.

W L S CG SHO IP ERA H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP
16 4 0 2 2 182.2 2.27 121 49 46 16 46 0 191 5

Santana has an advantage over Penny because he is a better pitcher. LA is not the type of city NY is. As for Santana, he's handling the media well in ST and doesn't seem like he'll be fazed by the pressure.
I've made the stats smaller, since I couldn't even read a single line of code w/o this (using the [size=1] code).

Yes, Santana does participate in Interleague. However, there are 162 games in a season. Of Santana's career 137 decisions (93-44), he's had 20 in Interleague (16-4). That doesn't show very much to me. I think I'd rather wait a few months into the season to see how well he does against the Phillies and Braves, who'll definitely be seeing him a few more times. What he does against the Yanks once or twice a season is nice, but to me, what he does against those two team is more important, since those are his divisional rivals.

Yes, Santana is a better pitcher. He's not called the "best pitcher in baseball" for no reason, so insert pitcher's name and it's a given, no questions asked.

Why do you say that LA's not the same as NYC? There's nothing like LA, just as there's nothing like NYC. In fact, there's nothing like Vegas, but both NYC & LA are still big media magnates and the two largest major cities in the USA, right?

I'm sure he's handling the media well. How does he handle this after a loss? How does he handle them if he's injured? That's why I suggest waiting until the season starts. If he's handling the media, he should consider himself fortunate, since Randy Johnson got spooked by a reporter coming from out of the bushes.

Don't forget, the NYC sports media (reinforced by the New Jersey, Connecticut and Long Island sports media) can be relentless if the team isn't doing as well as expected. If not, then we'd have to see how well he's really handling the NYC media. I figure they're going "light" on him, since he's a nice guy and all. Once the season starts, I'd have to see.

I wish him the best, but I'm looking more towards what he does against the NL East than anything else (including whatever he may do against my Yankees).

[Mattingly]

Not really. Typically it's to the pitcher's advantage for the batters not to have seen him. Also pitchers coming from the AL to the NL are helped by not facing DH line-ups but line-ups with #8 & pitchers. Finally Santana will be helped a lot by the new Mets catcher Brian Schneider who does know all those NL hitters and is adept at calling a game.
All depends. Which pitchers in recent years do you believe have fared better when going the NL from the AL? Pedro and Clemens come to mind.

Please elaborate a bit on Brian Schneider, including some of the pitchers he's helped on their game. If any have converted from the AL, please make sure to discuss that.

[NYMets523]

Yes, Santana does participate in Interleague. However, there are 162 games in a season. Of Santana's career 137 decisions (93-44), he's had 20 in Interleague (16-4). That doesn't show very much to me. I think I'd rather wait a few months into the season to see how well he does against the Phillies and Braves, who'll definitely be seeing him a few more times. What he does against the Yanks once or twice a season is nice, but to me, what he does against those two team is more important, since those are his divisional rivals.
Using decisions sucks. Go by IP. He has 187.7 which is a good sample to go buy.

Why do you say that LA's not the same as NYC? There's nothing like LA, just as there's nothing like NYC. In fact, there's nothing like Vegas, but both NYC & LA are still big media magnates and the two largest major cities in the USA, right?
LA doesn't have as much pressure as NYC.

I'm sure he's handling the media well. How does he handle this after a loss? How does he handle them if he's injured? That's why I suggest waiting until the season starts. If he's handling the media, he should consider himself fortunate, since Randy Johnson got spooked by a reporter coming from out of the bushes.

Don't forget, the NYC sports media (reinforced by the New Jersey, Connecticut and Long Island sports media) can be relentless if the team isn't doing as well as expected. If not, then we'd have to see how well he's really handling the NYC media. I figure they're going "light" on him, since he's a nice guy and all. Once the season starts, I'd have to see.

I wish him the best, but I'm looking more towards what he does against the NL East than anything else (including whatever he may do against my Yankees).

I know how the media is. I'm merely pointing out how he's done so far since that is all there is to go by.

[Mattingly]

Using decisions sucks. Go by IP. He has 187.7 which is a good sample to go buy.
You have a point, but being the stinker that I am (I'm just being honest, OK?), you'll have divided those IP by 2, since 1/2 of them were played in an AL park. Only those played in NL parks where he actually had to hit would count to me. He'd be facing the same batters, but unless he steps to the plate to bat, I don't see that as being true "NL ball".
LA doesn't have as much pressure as NYC.
That could be more due to the team than the city. Who's to argue that LA isn't a huge media market? Look at the Lakers. We've got two baseball teams, and they've got the Clippers as a second NBA team. Of course, I won't count the Halos, since they're actually in Anaheim.

Anyway, I don't know too many people who expect an LA team to be in the playoffs every single year. I think that every season, the fans of both NYC teams expect to be in the playoffs, so if you're referring to the teams, I'd agree with you.
I know how the media is. I'm merely pointing out how he's done so far since that is all there is to go by.
No problem. I still say I want to see how he handles the media after a loss. Everybody loses, and some guys are out there after a loss, speaking to the media. Some guys just shower, change quickly, put on their headphones and are out the door. I wouldn't expect that from Santana.

Like I said, in the end, he'll have to do something very good against the Phillies and Braves, then the Fish and Nats. That right there is about 45% of the season.

[NYMets523]

You have a point, but being the stinker that I am (I'm just being honest, OK?), you'll have divided those IP by 2, since 1/2 of them were played in an AL park. Only those played in NL parks where he actually had to hit would count to me. He'd be facing the same batters, but unless he steps to the plate to bat, I don't see that as being true "NL ball".
They're against NL teams which is good enough for me.

That could be more due to the team than the city. Who's to argue that LA isn't a huge media market? Look at the Lakers. We've got two baseball teams, and they've got the Clippers as a second NBA team. Of course, I won't count the Halos, since they're actually in Anaheim.
No one cares about the Clippers. Angels do count.

Like I said, in the end, he'll have to do something very good against the Phillies and Braves, then the Fish and Nats. That right there is about 45% of the season.
He's faced and won against much harder teams. Plus the lineup he had when he did so was weak compared to the Mets'.

[philkid3]

Thank you


It's not a lie, there is truth to it. The Phillies needed the Mets to collapse to have a prayer at winning the division.

Yes, it's a lie. The Phillies won AND the Mets lost. Both needed to happen.

He siad the Phillies did not win. Blatant lie.

[metfan13]

You have a point, but being the stinker that I am (I'm just being honest, OK?), you'll have divided those IP by 2, since 1/2 of them were played in an AL park. Only those played in NL parks where he actually had to hit would count to me. He'd be facing the same batters, but unless he steps to the plate to bat, I don't see that as being true "NL ball".

That could be more due to the team than the city. Who's to argue that LA isn't a huge media market? Look at the Lakers. We've got two baseball teams, and they've got the Clippers as a second NBA team. Of course, I won't count the Halos, since they're actually in Anaheim.

Anyway, I don't know too many people who expect an LA team to be in the playoffs every single year. I think that every season, the fans of both NYC teams expect to be in the playoffs, so if you're referring to the teams, I'd agree with you.

No problem. I still say I want to see how he handles the media after a loss. Everybody loses, and some guys are out there after a loss, speaking to the media. Some guys just shower, change quickly, put on their headphones and are out the door. I wouldn't expect that from Santana.

Like I said, in the end, he'll have to do something very good against the Phillies and Braves, then the Fish and Nats. That right there is about 45% of the season.

He's a good hitter too. Another advantage Santana

[NYMets523]

Yes, it's a lie. The Phillies won AND the Mets lost. Both needed to happen.

He siad the Phillies did not win. Blatant lie.

You don't get what he's saying. He means the Mets lost the division, they gagged it up and the Phillies took advantage of that. They didn't win it in the sense that they were the better team.

[willisraverchk77]

No one cares about the Clippers. Angels do count.


why not? they draw more than philadelphia, new jersey, indiana, milwaukee, atlanta, memphis, seattle, charlotte etc... and there not even a good team

[spark240]

He means the Mets lost the division, they gagged it up and the Phillies took advantage of that. They didn't win it in the sense that they were the better team.

The Phillies were the better team.

Except for rare wire-to-wire seasons, winning a division generally means having another team falter in front of you. This does not in any way detract from the Phillies', or any winners', accomplishment. Over the whole season, the Phils were just a little better.

Winning baseball games is what baseball teams are constructed to do; by definition, it is always nonsense to say that a non-winning team is better than the winning team. Arguing otherwise is as silly as arguing that a shot which doesn't hit the target is "better" than a shot which does.

[Mattingly]

You don't get what he's saying. He means the Mets lost the division, they gagged it up and the Phillies took advantage of that. They didn't win it in the sense that they were the better team.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/schedule?team=nym&season=2007&seasonType=2&half=2

When you lose 7 of 7 to a division rival like the Phillies, 5 of 6 to Washington, 2 of 3 to Florida, I'd say that the Mets could've done much better.

The Mets also won some nice games, but you cannot lose to your division rivals like that.

I also think that Florida was determined to beat the Mets when they'd sent out Dontrelle Willis in the deciding game which let the Phillies capture the WC.

I wouldn't say that Philadelphia was by far the better team, but they did make the playoffs, one which some felt it was the Mets' to lose. Hey, happenned to the Yanks quite a few times.

[Mattingly]

They're against NL teams which is good enough for me.
I still have to see what he does under a full season of NL baseball. If he can lay down a nice bunt, then he's in business.

I'm interested in how he adjusts to the double-switch and not having to face a DH.
No one cares about the Clippers. Angels do count.
Is that because the Clippers are an NBA team? Or is that because they're the second most popular NBA team in LA?

Why would the Angels count according to yourself?1
He's faced and won against much harder teams. Plus the lineup he had when he did so was weak compared to the Mets'.
So you're saying that the Indians and Motown are better teams than the Phillies, Braves, Fish and Nats? If so, why do you say so, since they don't regularly face one another?

[philkid3]

You don't get what he's saying. He means the Mets lost the division, they gagged it up and the Phillies took advantage of that. They didn't win it in the sense that they were the better team.

But that would not be possible without the Phillies winning. Saying the Phillies did not win is a lie.

And the Phillies were the better team. Over 162 games they were better than the Mets. Their pythagrean was even better.

[digglahhh]

Why does this article even exist? Why does there even have to be a comparison between the two teams?

Preach on, Phillkid.

I can understand that people who write about sports (baseball) for a living need to write articles like this, it's their job to do so, they have many columns to file and inches to fill. Their editors ask them to write pieces like this, it stirs controversy, it riles people up and sells papers.

But, Gehrig, you are a blogger, who writes gratis. What is the purpose of this piece? You couldn't find something more substantial and interesting to write about? I didn't even read the piece, but I know that it is irrelevant by nature. I'm not trying to insult you, it's just that I don't really understand why this is a topic that should be explored - in February.

[digglahhh]

What is this nonsense about Santana switching leagues? Is there really anything that is not a certainty.

Brad Penny, is this a comparison?

Here's an analogy to show how absurd this discussion is, ready:

Hmm... I dunno, would Lebron still be the same level player in the West?

Lamar Odom has proven he can deal with the pressure of L.A. Maybe he has an advantage over Lebron.

And before you tell me that Johan isn't Lebron, I'll admit, you're right. In terms of what Johan does, he's actually Kobe!!

[philkid3]

I didn't even read the piece, but I know that it is irrelevant by nature.

I never read Gehrig's stuff, but I did read this one. Let me sumarize the points you may find the most "interesting" for you:


A west coast team matters because a former Yankees manager is in charge now, and they could win the division, but that doesn't matter because the Mets have already been named World Champions before the season even started, by nature of playing in New York. (I don't even know what the hell the point of this statement is.)

The 2008 New York Mets are the best team in baseball and have the best pitching.

The Mets "will" win the World Series because it is not 2007.

The Dodgers "will not" beat the Mets (in the much anticipated post season match up, I guess) because Barrack Obama is not. . . Barry Goldwater?

Johana Santana is better than Brad Penny because the Mets have a better lineup.

Wins are a good way to measure pitchers.

Chad Billingsly is good because Chad Billingsly could be good.

No team won the NL East last year, though the Mets did lose it. The Phillies won no baseball games in 2007.

New York is the only city that is relevent. A former Yankees manager going to a team somewhere west of the Mississippi makes that team the only other relevent team in the National League. The Yankees "will not" make the playoffs, so the American League is irrelevent.


That last point is just an assumption from the nature of the blog.


Also, I found the bold part of this chuckle-worthy sentence especially chuckle-worthy:
Starting pitching depth is more important to LA than it is to New York because the Mets figure to win the division easily, despite what the Phillies exclaim.

[LouGehrig]

They're only going to play each other six times. What's the point of doing a direct comparison?

To assess, going into spring training, what might happen in October, based on the teams today. Since the Mets will not make major changes, and knowing Torre, neither will Los Angeles, it is an interesting comparision.

If they were to meet in October, anything can happen, but the Mets winning is more likely to happen.

Of course, there is always 1988, but Joe Torre is not Tommy LaSorda, and where is Orel Hershiser?

[LouGehrig]

i don't get the comparison. everybody knows the mets got the Nl wrapped up until boston wipes 'em out in the series

The same way Boston wiped them out in 1986.

[LouGehrig]

This post....and article, seem a bit presumptuous. Comparing the Dodgers and Mets doesn't make a lot of sense...given how they rarely they play each other in the regular season. I think it might have been more relevant to breakdown the Phils vs. Mets.....since the Phils might have something to say about how the East is won. As good as Santana is....he only throws once a week!!

I am going to do that last. The Padres, Cubs, Brewers, and interestingly, the Rockies, will be done first.

[LouGehrig]

Joe Torre is quite familiar with NL ball, since he's played his entire career in the NL (Milwaukee & Atlanta Braves, Cards, Mets). Before the Yanks, he'd only managed NL teams (Cards, Braves, Mets). After 12 seasons, we'll finally see what he can do without a $200m payroll.



Johan Santana (whose first name the article misspells) is at a disadvantage, since he's never played in the NL, whereas Brad Penny has played only for Florida and LAD. Santana has also never been in one of the top media cities out there, but Penny has. Santana will have to adjust, since the Mets fans do definitely expect that with himself and Pedro, they will make the playoffs this season.

Dear friend Mattingly:

Wouldn't it be great if Santana were a Yankee? And Torre has already shown what he can do in the NL --- and that is lose.

[LouGehrig]

How does anybody predict in February what will happen the following October? Will people return in October to admit their mistakes? I somehow doubt this.


I PROMISE. I will return, but I must make other comparisons as well.

[LouGehrig]

Oh come on, LouGehrig. I dislike most of your stuff, but this is especially bad.

First off, not everything has to revolve around New York.

You have a crystal ball now? Why are LA and the Mets the only team that matters?

I hate to tell you this, but there are no guarantees. Your word is not the law of what will absolutely happen in sports.

It is also a stretch to say the Mets are the best team in baseball and a HUGE stretch to say they have the best pitching. They have the best pitcher. That doesn't make them the best.

Blatant lie.

Why does this article even exist? Why does there even have to be a comparison between the two teams?

I don't care if you like my stuff or not. At least you read it.
I did not state what will happen. I compared two starting pitching staffs, and concluded that the Mets' staff is better than the Los Angeles staff. Do you disagree?

The Mets and Dodgers are merely the first in a number of comparisions between the Mets and the NL pretenders.

Unfortunately, my word is not the law. If it were, the Yankees would never lose.

And finally, the Phillies did not win. The Mets lost.

[LouGehrig]

Yes, it's a lie. The Phillies won AND the Mets lost. Both needed to happen.

He siad the Phillies did not win. Blatant lie.

A level of sophistication exists which your posts lack. Most games are not won --they are lost. I will let you figure that out.

[SamtheBravesFan]

To assess, going into spring training, what might happen in October, based on the teams today. Since the Mets will not make major changes, and knowing Torre, neither will Los Angeles, it is an interesting comparision.

If they were to meet in October, anything can happen, but the Mets winning is more likely to happen.

Of course, there is always 1988, but Joe Torre is not Tommy LaSorda, and where is Orel Hershiser?

Well, fine, you do what you want. However, it's still pretty strange to do this kind of playoff comparison. You'd have to do a whole lot more comparisons. I mean, why stop after comparing the Mets to the NL West? What about the NL Central? And what about the Philadelphia Phillies and Atlanta Braves? They're in the "playoff hunt" before the season.

[LouGehrig]

Preach on, Phillkid.

I can understand that people who write about sports (baseball) for a living need to write articles like this, it's their job to do so, they have many columns to file and inches to fill. Their editors ask them to write pieces like this, it stirs controversy, it riles people up and sells papers.

But, Gehrig, you are a blogger, who writes gratis. What is the purpose of this piece? You couldn't find something more substantial and interesting to write about? I didn't even read the piece, but I know that it is irrelevant by nature. I'm not trying to insult you, it's just that I don't really understand why this is a topic that should be explored - in February.

I respect your comments. I am writing about the Mets v. the other NL teams that seem to have a chance to win the pennant. It helps ME get some perspective on those teams, and familarizes me with them, since there are so many players and changes.

See today's article on the infields:

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_mets_and_dodgers_infield

[philkid3]

If they were to meet in October, anything can happen.

Certainly not how you made it sound.

[LouGehrig]

Certainly not how you made it sound.

You are right, but I wanted to have a series, and I needed a start. Today I compared the infields.

By the way, while I am a Yankees fan, I have rooted for the Phillies for a long, long time. I go back to the days of By Saam in 1951 when I listened to the Phillies on WCAU, 1210 on the dial.

I lived through the days of Harry Kalais, who still is almost as good as Vin Scully, and Richie Ashburn.

Few fans were happier that the Mets collapsed and the Phillies were division champions last year, but I really think the Phillies have little chance this year. It would be great if I were wrong, but I just don't see the Phillies pitching. The last comparison I will make, probably in about two weeks, will be the Phillies and Mets.

[philkid3]

I did not state what will happen.
Orly?

Since it is no longer 2007, the Mets will get into the playoffs, win the playoffs, and then beat either Detroit or Boston in the World Series. It will be the first time since 1986 that the Mets make the playoffs and the Yankees do not.

LA Will Not Beat the Mets

[Winning the division is irrelevent because the Dodgers] will not beat the Met in October.

Seems to me like you said what will happen quite often.



I compared two starting pitching staffs, and concluded that the Mets' staff is better than the Los Angeles staff. Do you disagree?
You did a whole lot more than that. Maybe you should re-read your own article?


The Mets and Dodgers are merely the first in a number of comparisions between the Mets and the NL pretenders.
Rather New York-centric, isn't it?


And finally, the Phillies did not win. The Mets lost.
You are incorrect. Without the Phillies winning, the Mets losing would not have mattered.

The Phillies won more times than the Mets over 162 games. The Phillies won and the Mets lost.


A level of sophistication exists which your posts lack. Most games are not won --they are lost. I will let you figure that out.

It is a cold, hard fact that for one team to lose, the other must win.


And the point I know you're trying to make is even more of a struggle because it's not like the Phillies struggled in the pennant race and managed to win anyway. They played their asses off. The Mets collapse would not have mattered without the team behind them playing great at the same time.

[philkid3]

You are right, but I wanted to have a series, and I needed a start. Today I compared the infields.

By the way, while I am a Yankees fan, I have rooted for the Phillies for a long, long time. I go back to the days of By Saam in 1951 when I listened to the Phillies on WCAU, 1210 on the dial.

I lived through the days of Harry Kalais, who still is almost as good as Vin Scully, and Richie Ashburn.

Few fans were happier that the Mets collapsed and the Phillies were division champions last year, but I really think the Phillies have little chance this year. It would be great if I were wrong, but I just don't see the Phillies pitching. The last comparison I will make, probably in about two weeks, will be the Phillies and Mets.

Okay. I myself hate the Phillies, and that has nothing to do with the fact that I think the Mets will win the division this year..

Why are you telling me all this?

[Mattingly]

Dear friend Mattingly:

Wouldn't it be great if Santana were a Yankee? And Torre has already shown what he can do in the NL --- and that is lose.
I would have absolutely no problem with Johan Santana, but our payroll is already sky high. No so with the Mets, and since Boston has Beckett, I'm not sure they'd really need a pair of aces. Or as they say in poker, "Two of a kind".

Upon coming to the Yanks, Joe Torre was ridiculed by the papers as "Clueless Joe" since he couldn't find a way to win consecutively with the Cards, Braves and Mets. I think it was more the level of talent that the 1996 Yanks had which allowed them to win, not their payroll.

Anyway, I haven't been too enthused with Torre's management style the past few decades, and the "anything but Joe Torre" thing has been active amongst some Yankee fans. Therefore, I don't see how the Dodger suddenly pick up any more steam than getting their names mentioned more often in the LA Times.

Why aren't the Dodgers being compared to the Rox, who went to the WS? What about the Padres or D-Backs? I think that teams should worry more about other teams in their division.

Comparing the Mets to LAD isn't too productive, especially in mid-February, since like the Yanks, the Mets only play LAD 6 times a season.

[LouGehrig]

Comparing the Mets to LAD isn't too productive, especially in mid-February, since like the Yanks, the Mets only play LAD 6 times a season.

The issue has been addressed in other posts. See the infield comparison thread,and my explanation the phillies kid.

[philkid3]

The issue has been addressed in other posts. See the infield comparison thread,and my explanation the phillies kid.

I'm rather insulted. I assume you're refering to me. Perhaps you should look at the avatar. And the signature.

[LouGehrig]

I'm rather insulted. I assume you're refering to me. Perhaps you should look at the avatar. And the signature.

I am deeply sorry. Please forgive me, philkid3.

[Coachsmallhead]

Maybe I'm a bit confused....are you planning on comparing each NL team against the Mets? In other words, you started off by comparing the Mets to the Dodgers and concluding that the Dodgers would lose to the Mets. Are you planning on going through each team in the NL in a similar fashion and resolving that because the Mets have signed Santana they will win the NL....

btw....the Phillies WON the east....the Mets didn't lose it. You don't hear anyone saying the Marlins lost the east....or the Braves....bottom line, at the end of 162 games the Phils were the best team in the east.

[LouGehrig]

Maybe I'm a bit confused....are you planning on comparing each NL team against the Mets? In other words, you started off by comparing the Mets to the Dodgers and concluding that the Dodgers would lose to the Mets. Are you planning on going through each team in the NL in a similar fashion and resolving that because the Mets have signed Santana they will win the NL....

btw....the Phillies WON the east....the Mets didn't lose it. You don't hear anyone saying the Marlins lost the east....or the Braves....bottom line, at the end of 162 games the Phils were the best team in the east.

I will compare the division contenders with the Mets, not all the teams.

The Mets did lose it. It was one of the worst collapses in MLB history.

See the 1964 Phillies and the 1969 Cubs.

[DodgerBlue81]

Stupid article written by a Mets homer who hates Joe Torre. Yeah the Mets on paper are better than the Dodgers and the rest of the NL, but who cares? They were last year too. And they're not better than the Tigers or Red Sox. And why worry about the Dodgers, go worry about the Phillies and the NL East first.

[LouGehrig]

The "Mets homer" is a Yankees fan -- an old fashioned Yankees fan -- who roots for the Yankees first, the AL second, and rooted as hard as possible for the Dodgers in 1988.

[Mattingly]

The issue has been addressed in other posts. See the infield comparison thread,and my explanation the phillies kid.
Which other posts? I still don't get what the purpose is of comparing one of the top NL East teams to an NL West team. Why not compare them at least to the Rox, who at least went to the WS?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAD/

LAD won the WC in 2006 and the NL West in 2004, but hasn't done much in the playoffs before this since having won the 1996 WC.

So you're also saying that with the Mets' infield and the addition of Johan Santana, they are expected to go to the WS?

[digglahhh]

A level of sophistication exists which your posts lack. Most games are not won --they are lost. I will let you figure that out.

Or both... you want "sophistication" you can refer to Heraclitus on the above question.

I think Philkid is actually one of the more "sophisticated" regulars around, whether one agrees with his views and hard statistical bent or not.


<Rosie Perez>
Sometimes when you win, you actually lose,
Sometimes when you lose, you actually win
And sometimes when win or lose, you actually tie
And sometimes when tie, you actually win or lose
</Rosie Perez>

[LouGehrig]

So you're also saying that with the Mets' infield and the addition of Johan Santana, they are expected to go to the WS?

Yes, I am.

[LouGehrig]

Or both... you want "sophistication" you can refer to Heraclitus on the above question.

I think Philkid is actually one of the more "sophisticated" regulars around, whether one agrees with his views and hard statistical bent or not.


<Rosie Perez>
Sometimes when you win, you actually lose,
Sometimes when you lose, you actually win
And sometimes when win or lose, you actually tie
And sometimes when tie, you actually win or lose
</Rosie Perez>


I do agree with you. He is one of the best of all who post.

[philkid3]

The Mets did lose it. It was one of the worst collapses in MLB history.

Made possible by the Phillies winning more games. The Phillies won.


I'm not sure how you can continue to argue this when it's a fact. The Mets lost, the Phillies won. One cannot exist without the other.

[LouGehrig]

Yes, but the expression or phrase is used to denigrate a team. How many teams with a decent first place lead did what the 2007 Mets did the last two weeks of the season?

[digglahhh]

Yes, but the expression or phrase is used to denigrate a team. How many teams with a decent first place lead did what the 2007 Mets did the last two weeks of the season?

None.

And, I get what you are saying, the crux is that the Phillies playing well would not have been good enough on its own. They could have won out down the stretch and it all would have been for naught had the Mets simply played like .500 ball.


Here's something you may not have considered though. You said that you chose to use the expression specifically to denigrate the Mets. That's fine, they deserve to be slammed for their historic collapse. However, by phrasing it the way you do, you simultaneously denigrate the PHILLIES. To claim that Phils didn't win, but rather the Mets lost undermines the Phils' agency in their own success.

Both Philly's success, and the Mets' failure were equally necessary to produce last season's outcome. By playing either up, you slight the other one.

[LouGehrig]

None.

And, I get what you are saying, the crux is that the Phillies playing well would not have been good enough on its own. They could have won out down the stretch and it all would have been for naught had the Mets simply played like .500 ball.


Here's something you may not have considered though. You said that you chose to use the expression specifically to denigrate the Mets. That's fine, they deserve to be slammed for their historic collapse. However, by phrasing it the way you do, you simultaneously denigrate the PHILLIES. To claim that Phils didn't win, but rather the Mets lost undermines the Phils' agency in their own success.

Both Philly's success, and the Mets' failure were equally necessary to produce last season's outcome. By playing either up, you slight the other one.

The Phillies played well -- not great -- the last two weeks. They won only 4 of their last 7 games and 7 of their last last 10 games were against Washington. The Phillies, early in the season, and throughout the season, never played pennant winning (division winnning) baseball. I stand by my statement that the Phillies didn't win the division. The Mets lost it.

[digglahhh]

The Phillies played well -- not great -- the last two weeks. They won only 4 of their last 7 games and 7 of their last last 10 games were against Washington. The Phillies, early in the season, and throughout the season, never played pennant winning (division winnning) baseball. I stand by my statement that the Phillies didn't win the division. The Mets lost it.

And I stand by statement, that I won this and argument AND you lost it...:rofl:

"Division winning baseball" isn't some abstract platitude when we are referring to event have actually taken place. The Phillies played baseball, the won their division. That is division winning baseball, by definition.

Who played "division winning baseball." Did Arizona? They were outscored, right....