Marlins at Mets, 8/10-8/12

And the 6 and 7 game streaks were both in September, so what's the point? The 2000 Yankees were having a fine season through September 13, with a winning percentage of .587 (a 95 win pace), and were up 9 games in the standings. They then proceeded to lose 15 of their last 18 games, and were lucky to make the postseason, as the Red Sox were 10-10 in their last 20 games. The 2007 Mets cannot expect to have that luxury, since they have two teams chasing them, not just one, and have a 2.5 game lead, not a 9 game lead.

All of this is besides the point anyway. The first two sentences of your post contradict each other. You'd better care if they win 111 or 87 games, because they're a hell of a lot more likely to make the postseason if they win 111. Regular season win totals and the standings are strongly related to each other. People invoke the 2006 Cardinals and 2005 Astros (and 2000 Yankees) as examples of how mediocre teams can get to and/or win the World Series, but that is making the very common mistake of confusing two different conditional probabilities (this is often called the "prosecutor's fallacy," since it is commonly made when discussing DNA evidence).

The Mets are currently on an 89 win pace. Let's call teams that win between 82 and 89 games (inclusive) mediocre - teams that might have a shot at the postseason, but didn't have very good seasons. Over the last 10 seasons, 2 of the World Series winners had between 82 and 89 wins (2006 Cards and 2000 Yankees) and 2 of the World Series losers also did (2005 Astros and 1997 Indians). Thus, a reasonable estimate of the probability that a team is mediocre given they were a World Series winner is 2/10 = .2 (that's also the estimate of the probability that they were mediocre given they were in the World Series, since it would be 4/20). These are estimates of P(mediocre | WS), depending on what you mean by "WS" (the "|" sign represents the word "given").

That sounds pretty good, but unfortunately is not at all the number that matters. At this point in time (during the season), the number that matters is the probability of winning the World Series (or getting to the World Series) given you're a mediocre team; that is, P(WS | mediocre), not P(mediocre | WS). During the last 10 seasons, 63 teams won between 82 and 89 games during the season. Of those 63, 4 made the World Series, and 2 won it (as noted above). That is, a reasonable estimate of the probability that a team will win the World Series given that it is mediocre is 2/63 = .03, and an estimate of the probability that a team will make the World Series given that it is mediocre is 4/63 = .06. Right now the Mets look like an 82-to-89 win team to me (since you picked the number 87 in your post, I suspect that you don't disagree). This means that based on history there is relatively little chance that they will get to or win the World Series. That's why I say that they don't look like serious contenders to me.

 

True, the more wins you have, the more likely it is you'll make the playoffs.

Wins don't carry over into the postseason, however. Just ask the 2001 Mariners.

Yeah, if in late March, you ask me if I want the Mets to win 111 or 87 games, I'll opt for the 111. But if their division sucks and 87 is good enough to win it, so be it. 87 just might win the NL East this year. I'm not concerned with the probability that an 87-win team would do this or would do that in the postseason. What happened in the past with other 87-win teams is not going to affect the 2007 Mets.

The games behind/games ahead is still the most important part of the standings for me.

 

Yes, 87 wins might be enough, but it easily won't, and the Mets throwing away games to bad teams like they have the last two nights makes it less likely they'll even win that many.

As to the statement that "What happened in the past with other 87-win teams is not going to affect the 2007 Mets," that is just ridiculous. Of course what the 2004 Padres did has no direct effect on what the 2007 Mets will do, but by that logic the fact that all those previous times that hot humid air and cold dry air collided to form big thunderstorms had no direct effect on the weather last Wednesday morning, so the forecasters shouldn't have bothered issuing those tornado warnings. The indisputable fact is that the vast majority of teams who play the way the Mets have played this season don't make it to the World Series, and nothing is going to change that. Is it better for the Mets that they're not 5 games behind? Sure. Does that change the fact that for more than two months they've played like a very mediocre team, and such teams rarely make or do well in the postseason? No.

 

Yes, such teams rarely do well in the postseason, but not all of them do poorly in the playoffs.


You're not really going to change my opinion on this matter. I've seen too many 90+ win teams, teams that were perceived to have been playing great ball in the regular season, either fail to make the playoffs or fizzle in the playoffs.

I can't stress enough about how I am not concerned with win totals. I'm about the GB column and team health entering the playoffs. It's not like the NFL where winning more and more regular season games gives you a real advantage in the playoffs.

 

Are you concerned that Maine has given up 12 runs his last 2 starts and Perez 16 his last 3? That the bullpen which has helped carry this team along with the starting pitching has blown 2 games in a row?

At this point of the season it's pretty obvious that the Mets are merely a middle of the pack offensive team. Stands to reason that if the guys mentioned above keep going the way they're going the Mets aren't going to win too many more games.

That's what I'm concerned about, not a 2.5 game lead with almost 30% of the season left to play.

 

I don't like a whole lot about the team right now. They didn't make any moves with the pitching staff before the 7/31 trade deadline.

Last year many of us Mets fans thought the team would win the NL when they took the field before the first playoff game. Maybe right now it doesn't look as promising. That does not mean they can't win in the playoffs.

Also, for what it's worth, if the Mets fail to make the postseason I might exit the baseball scene (which I came close to doing after the 1994 strike). It would be totally inexcusable. Between re-signing Glavine and continuing to employ Mota and Schoeneweis and several other annoying things, I am kind of pissed off at the organization.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Mets would have no chance in the playoffs if they made it. Where I'm coming from is that I don't think it looks all that likely that the Mets will make the playoffs the way they are playing.

Obviously anything can happen in the playoffs but I wouldn't carry it to the extreme you seem to be doing and say that an 80something win team has just as much chance of winning the WS as a 110 win team does.

 

Why does a team with a better record have a better chance in MLB postseason play? Maybe one more home game if the teams meet in a series? (That's, of course, if the higher win team is not the Wild Card team.)

Does the team with the higher win total have more confidence or something?

The team with the higher win total obviously achieved more in the regular season, but I'm not convinced it translates to having a better chance to win in the postseason.

What if the Mets play the Brewers and/or Diamondbacks and/or Indians in the postseason? Those teams all might have better records than the Mets, but they don't have the postseason experience.
I feel the Mets are coasting this season. Obviously, their main problem is they just aren't a great team, but I do feel there is an element of coasting here. It's probably a bad thing, but I think this team thinks it will turn on a switch when the postseason starts.

 

Well you said something to the effect of you don't care if the team wins 87 games or 111 games. That's quite a large disparty and I think you'd have to be crazy to think the 87 win team had just as good a chance as the 111 win team to win the World Series. There would have to be a sizeable gulf of talent between the two teams. Do you really think that if these two teams played say, 100 series between them the results would be more or less split? You don't think that the team with a .685 winning percentage over 162 games has a better chance then the team with a .537 winning percentage?

I do agree with you that there is little pratical advantage to being the higher ranked seed in the playoffs beyond a gauge of the talent on the roster. If you had said something like I don't care if they're a 96 win division winner or a 93 win WC winner then I don't think anyone would argue you on that point.

 

Lo Duca to the DL, Mike DeFelice to come up in his spot. Aggravated his hamstring.

 

LoDuca has not been doing anything any way

 

From Metsblog: SS Jose Reyes leads off, followed in order by 2B Ruben Gotay, CF Carlos Beltran, 3B David Wright, 1B Carlos Delgado, LF Moises Alou, RF Shawn Green, C Ramon Castro and starting pitcher Oliver Perez.

 

Yeah, why wouldn't he sit? He only had 2 hits last night. On the other hand Green is just someone you can't sit for 2 straight games. I mean his speed makes it tough for any ball to drop in RF and missing his bat from the lineup for 2 games in a row is something the Mets can't afford right now.

 

man this thing was taken way too far with glavine

i respect him and all but geesh, the man was a brave for 15 years

 

sigh......

 

and off we go