Mets Projected to Finish First

[GordonGecko]

New York Mets 91-71
Philadelphia Phillies 88-74
Atlanta Braves 87-75
Washington Nationals 80-82
Florida Marlins 71-91

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/

[NJTankMets]

Baseball Prospectus is usually very good this is a good sign

[Paulypal]

If those standings were to hold true you can have a Met/Phils NLCS. Now that would be fun.

With that said I would like to see the individual player projections to get that many wins.

[nymx5793]

For some reason, I don't see the Marlins finishing last, and I don't see the Nats winning 80 games.

[EasilyFound]

Baseball Prospectus is usually very good this is a good sign


What were their 2008 projections?

[Dalkowski110]

Keep something in mind...Nate Silver hasn't "humanized" the projections yet. He gets around to that in early April. This should NOT be considered the final draft of the BP Projected Standings...

[All-StarLF1713]

they wont get first. the phillies are better. ill give you this: the mets are good. but i just dont think theyll be first. but itll be close

[NYMets523]

they wont get first. the phillies are better. ill give you this: the mets are good. but i just dont think theyll be first. but itll be close

The Mets are capable of winning the division. The Phillies do not have a great advantage over them.

[spark240]

Both the Mets and Phillies could win the division. I also expect the Braves can run closer than would be comfortable for either of those teams. It should be a good year for the division.

[NYMets523]

I only see the Braves being relevant if they can get an outfielder.

[spark240]

I only see the Braves being relevant if they can get an outfielder.

Like Garret Anderson, say?

[NYMets523]

Like Garret Anderson, say?

I said outfielder, not DH.

[GordonGecko]

they wont get first. the phillies are better. ill give you this: the mets are good. but i just dont think theyll be first. but itll be close
No way the Phillies are better, they just came through in the clutch where the Mets choked and have an exceptional year n the bullpen where the Mets self destructed. Mets have the better team, and now they just need to play up to their potential

[EasilyFound]

No way the Phillies are better, they just came through in the clutch where the Mets choked and have an exceptional year n the bullpen where the Mets self destructed.

Hence, the Phillies were the better team.

This year, we'll see.

[AutographCollector]

Hence, the Phillies were the better team.

This year, we'll see.

I am baffled. Are you a Mets fan or a Philly fan?

[NYMets523]

Admitting the Phillies were better doesn't make someone a Philly fan.

[EasilyFound]

LOL. I'm a Mets fan. I just don't see the point of claiming that the Mets were the better team when two years in a row the Phillies have won the NL East. There are no prizes for finishing second and being the "better" team. It just doesn't matter if you believe you were the "better" team. I mean, who was the "better" team in the NFL two years ago? The 10-6 Giants or the 16-0 Patriots? Prolly the Patriots, most people would say, but who cares? The Giants won when it mattered most. In sports there are "champions" and everybody else.

[Inge15]

For some reason, I don't see the Marlins finishing last, and I don't see the Nats winning 80 games.

This.

Also, I still think the Mets will find a way to fail.
They always do.

[NYMets523]

This.

Also, I still think the Mets will find a way to fail.
They always do.

And what team do you root for?

[Dalkowski110]

"This.

Also, I still think the Mets will find a way to fail.
They always do."

This comment is absolutely silly.

"Hence, the Phillies were the better team.

This year, we'll see. "

So by your logic, the 1969 Mets were a better team than the 1969 Baltimore Orioles?

[EasilyFound]

So by your logic, the 1969 Mets were a better team than the 1969 Baltimore Orioles?


By my logic, the 1969 Mets were the World Champs. Arguments about who was the "better" team are for runners-up and also-rans. It just doesn't matter who was the "better" team. Seriously, and with no insult intended, arguments about who has the "better" team are for boys in junior high and high school, talk show hosts, and barflys. IMHO, it is a pointless debate. You're either a champion or you're not.

[AutographCollector]

Admitting the Phillies were better doesn't make someone a Philly fan.

Well no kidding.

He sure is defending them like he is one though.

[theAmazingMet]

Easilyfound, hear hear :clapping

[ThoseBackPages]

Mets fan here, cynical and an never failing pessimist, but a Mets fan none-the-less, since 1978.

Since the death of the Shea Demo Thread, i am looking for a new home, i hope this will be it.

As for 2009, as easily as the Mets could win 90 games this year, they sure can lose 90 as well.

Dan Murphy is a Third baseman, not a left fielder, not a second baseman.

Church is one wacky fly ball in right field at Citi Field away from retirement.

what ive seen about the "new Castillo" is nice, but lets see something before beliving it.

Management is happy with the way the offense is currently "set"? thats crazy. Sure its nice to have Putz and KRod, but when the score is 1-5 in the 8th, cant see them being much help, short of pinch hitting.

[AutographCollector]

Sure its nice to have Putz and KRod, but when the score is 1-5 in the 8th, cant see them being much help, short of pinch hitting.

Yeah but if the score is 5-1 in the 8th we rarely will be seeing any blown saves. :nod:

[Dalkowski110]

"By my logic, the 1969 Mets were the World Champs. Arguments about who was the "better" team are for runners-up and also-rans. It just doesn't matter who was the "better" team. Seriously, and with no insult intended, arguments about who has the "better" team are for boys in junior high and high school, talk show hosts, and barflys. IMHO, it is a pointless debate. You're either a champion or you're not."

This is complete bull and frankly, a pretty foolish approach to it if you ever want to understand the how and why of a team not winning it all but being best on paper. What are you going to say? The '69 Orioles (who won the the WS the next year with a nearly identical roster) were chokers, or something? The 1969 Orioles were better than the 1969 Mets, end of story. That team was a joke in terms of its hitting and got by on pitching alone along with some bad breaks for the Orioles pitching staff. And I say this as a New York Mets fan.

"Mets fan here, cynical and an never failing pessimist"

You'll fit right in with this bunch, certain members of which often are pessimistic to the point of denial that the team actually is capable of doing good things...I mean heck, we had calls to fire Omar after the Santana trade, after the Angel Pagan trade, and I seem to recall after Kris Benson for Jorge Julio and this guy named John Maine...

[Baseball Guru]

For some reason, I don't see the Marlins finishing last, and I don't see the Nats winning 80 games.

I definitely agree.. I actually think the Fish could finish as high as 3rd...

[EasilyFound]

This is complete bull and frankly, a pretty foolish approach to it if you ever want to understand the how and why of a team not winning it all but being best on paper.

OK. I don't understand your attitude or why you think I don't understand "the how and why of a team not winning it all but being best on paper." I think you're missing my point.

All I said was that I see champions and non-champions. Being the best team "on paper" means nothing. Absolutely nothing. I don't care to spend time thinking about whether the team that won the championship "on the field" was also the best team "on paper." It just doesn't matter. IMHO, it is kind of a juvenile debate. No matter how good you are "on paper," you still have to win it on the field.

[spark240]

This is complete bull and frankly, a pretty foolish approach to it if you ever want to understand the how and why of a team not winning it all but being best on paper. What are you going to say? The '69 Orioles (who won the the WS the next year with a nearly identical roster) were chokers, or something? The 1969 Orioles were better than the 1969 Mets, end of story. That team was a joke in terms of its hitting and got by on pitching alone along with some bad breaks for the Orioles pitching staff. And I say this as a New York Mets fan.

What were the Orioles better at? The ultimate goal was to win the Series, and they failed at that while the Mets were succeeding. The better team is able to avoid or overcome bad breaks.

And I say that as (in this context) an Orioles fan.

[Dalkowski110]

"What were the Orioles better at?"

Hitting, and one could argue defense. Their pitching staff wasn't as good, but it could at least be spoken about in the same glowing terms.

"All I said was that I see champions and non-champions. Being the best team "on paper" means nothing. Absolutely nothing."

Absolutely wrong. In this statement, you demonstrate that you cannot comprehend how or why measuring a team as best on paper matters. If you fail to look at a team's performance on paper, then you can't analyze it properly for possible strengths/weaknesses and must go with your gut every single time. Sound familiar? Willie Randolph did it all the time. And look what happened to him. If you do analyze a team or a player on paper, then you can improve the areas that are lacking, trade high on an overperforming player, buy low on an underperforming player, and so on.

Let me put it this way: In 1965, Jack Fisher lost a game 3-1 in 13 innings. Pitched every inning. In 1986, Sid Fernandez went 7 innings, gave up 6 runs, and won a game. Now, take away the pitiful lineups of 1965 and the powerful ones of 1986. Who pitched the better game? By your logic, it was Sid Fernandez that pitched a better game because he got the win.

But wait, you may say. El Sid only got that win because he had great hitting behind him. Well, obviously. But since you're only concerned with the end result and are unconcerned with how you get there, the hitting behind him shouldn't matter. He won and that's that. And if you do in fact think that Fernandez pitched the better game, then I cannot put into words how absurd that is.

"No matter how good you are "on paper," you still have to win it on the field."

While I agree with this statement, your dismissal of anything on paper is rather silly. Let's approach it from another angle: why critique any move, any signing, or any trade AT ALL until we've seen the player play out his entire career? After all, the speculation we conduct is nothing more than making our own on-paper projections.

"The ultimate goal was to win the Series, and they failed at that while the Mets were succeeding."

Yes, but they had plenty of opportunities to break through. What if the fly ball Nolan Ryan got with the bases loaded hadn't found a fielder? What if Davey Johnson's fly ball had travelled a bit further and cleared the fence? These are things the individual players can't control. They're a series of happenings that happened about 50% by skill and 50% by sheer luck. If they did not happen by pure chance at a rate under 50%, then Al Weis would've been hitting .400 with 40 homeruns a season.

"The better team is able to avoid or overcome bad breaks."

By the very nature of the saying, you can't overcome a bad break.

[EasilyFound]

Dalk, cool off. Context is everything. You have ignored the context in which I made my statements. The context was in a debate about which team was better last year or in a prior year. In that context, there is no point arguing that the team that lost was, overall, the better team. I mean, you can if you want, but so what?

You're now talking in a different context, namely looking at a team "on paper" as a manager who must manage the team each day, a general manager seeking to improve the team, or even a fan who wants to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the team and debate w/other fans about the best way to improve the team and make it better. Obviously, in that context, there is a point to making a judgment about whether you are better than other teams in your division or your league or both leagues. I don't think I said anything to the contrary.

My point is simple: once the season is over, and all of the games have been played, and a champ is crowned, don't cry that "the better team" lost the World Series. Because it just doesn't matter. Nobody will care if you are correct. Nobody.

[Dalkowski110]

"You have ignored the context in which I made my statements."

Not really. They were simply incredibly foggy until now. Thanks for clarifying.

"You're now talking in a different context"

Unless you mean that we've not been on the same plane since I hit the submit reply button with my first response to you, my context hasn't changed one bit. Indeed, perhaps I misunderstood you, but your statement here shows a poor understanding of me and my responses to you.

"Nobody will care if you are correct. Nobody."

Except for approximately two dozen people that are on the History of the Game Forum on any given day, but they're all defined as "nobody," I guess...

[NYMets523]

World Series Champion =/= Best Team

[EasilyFound]

"You're now talking in a different context"

Unless you mean that we've not been on the same plane since I hit the submit reply button with my first response to you, my context hasn't changed one bit.

That is exactly what I mean. You responded to my argument, correct?

OK. I think we've each made our points, so I'll bow out of this thread.

[RedsoxMetsFan123]

Yea, the baseball prospectives are alot of the times right. The only reason why we were horrible at the end of the year was because of the bullpen.

[GordonGecko]

Keep something in mind...Nate Silver hasn't "humanized" the projections yet. He gets around to that in early April. This should NOT be considered the final draft of the BP Projected Standings...
Well BP did update their predictions yesterday, 3/12, and the Mets are still projected on top:

New York Mets 91-71
Philadelphia Phillies 87-75
Atlanta Braves 85-77
Washington Nationals 77-85
Florida Marlins 69-93

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/

[Dalkowski110]

The final projections are in April. The top of the division looks pretty realistic, but the Nats seem just a tad off and the Marlins seem way off. He's getting there, but he isn't there yet.

[islanderbill]

Any prediction that puts the Mets on top makes me happy :clapping:clapping


However I will believe it when It holds in September :D

[whoisonit]

hahaha

This was a fun thread to read though.

EasilyFound, you sure are a breath of normalsy.