I'm doing a little study on the NL East and thought I'd share an interesting little tidbit. To all of the self-loathing Mets fans/lazy 'MLB insiders' and journalistic parrots who have 1) Condemned the entire Mets organization as a joke 2) Written off this core's impressive run to date and 3) Deified the Phillies as unstoppable juggernauts w/ no chance to lose this division:
Yes, those wins are weighted towards '06-'07 and yes, the Phillies' are more recent but the fact remains that no other team in that span can even come close to the Mets total of days in first place, which should be garnering a lot more respect than it has. If only because we still have nearly the same core in place that has clearly had a lot of success and health-willing can very easily do so again in 2010.
about 2 years ago
Rob Castellano
107 comments
7 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I think it's appropriate then
to declare ourselves the NL East champs of 06-09! Print out that cumulative banner dammit!
Travis Hafner is made of gold
by Super Mario on Feb 2, 2010 2:12 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
payrolls 2006-9
NYN $504.3M
PHI $389M
ATL $376.6M
WAS $215.7M
FLA $104.1
I’m just happy Atlanta underperformed so much, relative to what they spent. (Thanx, Andruw…)
Source: http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2009
if it were the Mets, Andruw would
still be on the team…
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 2, 2010 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
You should chart the number of times in first place on the last day of the season.
you know what I'm sayin' ?
by fxcarden on Feb 2, 2010 2:32 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Here you go
You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.
by Kevin H on Feb 2, 2010 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 8 recs
LOL .... great job
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
Wow
the Nationals were in first place at some point? Was it one or two days?
If there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
They must have been tied for first in the opening days of a season somewhere.
"Wait till Biggus Dickus hears about this!"
by scott from peekskill on Feb 2, 2010 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
They beat the Braves on the sunday night game toopen their new stadium 2 seasons ago and had the next day off.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 4, 2010 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
what you get for having the most days in first:
a nice graph.
by gbaked on Feb 2, 2010 2:56 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
honestly
I just find this more depressing. The Mets were the best team in the NL East for 3 years, and they have nothing to show for it.
2009 Did Not Happen
Is that true?
In 2006, they won the East. That’s something. So if you mean 2006-08, well, eh.
If you mean 2007-2009, I think it’s hard to say they were the best team, given that the Phillies won the pennant all three years.
Neither did we
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
definitely 2006-2008
obviously not 2009. They blew the Phillies away in ‘06, were better than the Phillies for about 99% of ’07, and went back and forth with them in ’08. The Phillies were probably the better team in ’08, though that’s almost solely because they had a much, much better bullpen. But in the aggregate of the three seasons, as the chart shows, the Mets were better.
2009 Did Not Happen
Eh i'm not completely sure I believe in 2007-2008
In 07 we got off to a quick start but the first two months and then pretty much fell off a cliff, we had a huge lead to cushion us but I’m not sure I’d agree we were definitely the better team that year, maybe for the first two months of the season. And in 08 it kind of swung back and forth didn’t, with the phillies loosing like 7 of 8 around the same time we finally broke above .500.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
i happen to agree with you
because really what it shows is how much talent was wasted
but what i was really hoping to illustrate was that despite being characterized as an organization full of nitwits and chimpanzees, the mets have been pretty successful in compiling a very competitive core, the same core that is still in place today.
by Rob Castellano on Feb 2, 2010 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, well
it’s not 2006 anymore….
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 2, 2010 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
Players like Beltran, and Santana who wasn't here in 06 but
is obviously still an important part of the core are on the wrong side of the aging curve and likely should be expected to be worse than they were in 06-08. Wright has mysteriously because half the player he was, which hopefully is rectified by a swing change, the work-out plan that kept Reyes healthy has mysteriously been abandoned and now his ability to play 150+ games is in doubt, and there’s no depth behind him. We aren’t going to be getting average 2nd base play or above average first base play like we did in 06/07, and somewhat in 08 from Delgado. And our rotation is in complete shambles compared to any rotation let alone compared to the rotation in 06-08, Maine and Perez have declined from league average to above average to league average pretty much being their absolute ceiling. And along with that our bench depth is almost nonexistent. We have the same core in name, but even ignoring all the other holes, we can’t even expect the core to be worth nearly as much as they were in 06-08 at this point, and it’s certainly not extremely likely.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
i know we're all supposed to be pessimistic and everything
but i’d say thats a bit much.
i mean i know first base will be a step back but we will have a far better LF than in any of those years which was always been a black hole. there’s no guarantee but the bullpen looks like it’s shaping up to be the strongest since ‘06. wright and reyes were both freak things this year so i don’t feel it’s too much to expect them to perform at or near pre-09 levels. castillo is castillo, i don’t like him but i don’t feel he’ll make or break the season. beltran is a real concern, i think his recovery will make or break this season. and the rotation is messy but other than ‘06, basically post-pedro, it’s not like our rotations have been 5 sure things going into ST anyway. i mean we got pretty serious contributions from jorge sosa, dave williams and brian lawrence between ‘06 and ’07. and considering that pelfrey is a pretty safe bet, just having santana at the top gives us a big leg up, 31 or not. we can also expect a significant contribution from a prospect for the first time since pelfrey in niese. and i disagree about bench depth; i feel pagan fills endy’s shoes very nicely, cora, while overpaid, fits the backup IF role fine and tatis has proven himself capable if unspectacular (especially if you consider the DP issue more fluke than anything)
i know there’s a lot to dislike but as an unabashed optimist i feel theres definitely a decent amount to feel ok about too. again, i’m not saying we’re going to go all ‘06 on this division but i think we’ll definitely compete.
by Rob Castellano on Feb 2, 2010 10:29 PM EST up reply actions
I don't really think LF was a black hole in 07-09
I imagine the combination of Endy/Alou was about as valuable as Murphy, and since Delgado was likely valuable as Bay will be it pretty much evens out. And I disagree with Reyes being a freak thing, he was injury prone when he came up until he adopted a work out program that kept him healthy, then this year that program was abandoned by the current medical staff, for reasons still unknown to anyone, and as far as anyone knows it hasn’t been readopted. And even though our rotations weren’t sure things we regularly got production that was around league average, which is more than we can expect from 3/5ths of our rotation now.
And I mean depth issues because Pagan likely will be starting for a few months, and arguably should be starting over Frenchy to begin with, so it’s not like we have a great 4th outfielder who call fill in for solid outfielders. We have a great fourth outfielders who could end up starting over Frenchy, if Pagan gets off to a hot start and Frenchy doesn’t once Beltran comes back. Easley wasn’t pretty but he was closer to league average than he was replacement level in 07, 1.3 WAR where as Cora was exactly replacement level, which is a pretty big different when you factor in the drop off in production we’re getting from second between 07 and now as well and the fact Reyes isn’t really a guarantee to play 159 games anymore. And I agree Tatis is a solid bench options but it’s kind of like putting really nice rims on a beat up car.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
again i understand
that the team has really brought all this negativity on itself, but i feel like this fine-toothed comb approach would uncover a few dozen flaws in just about any team in baseball.
by Rob Castellano on Feb 3, 2010 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah but I think we have well more than our fair share of flaws
the fact we only have like 5-6 players guaranteed to be average or better being the biggest.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
How dare you!
You have interrupted our daily musing of self-loathing by pointing out the fact that the Mets have been recently, by and large an enjoyable team to root for. This obnoxious dose of reality cannot be tolerated. I will remind you that other than fans of the Orioles, Blue Jays, Royals, Rangers, Mariners, Nationals, Braves, Marlins, Pirates, Reds, Astros, Giants, and Padres, no fans of have suffered through as a long a post-season dryspell. And sure the Cubs haven’t won a World Series since the the Teddy Roosevelt administration, and haven’t even been to a World Series since the year the other President Roosevelt died, but we have gone almost an entire decade without an appearance in the Fall Classic.
You sir are the most insufferable sort of fan – what with your attempt at trying to highlight the positive. Your implication that the Mets aren’t actually an awful team is demeaning to those of us who take pride in being fans of the worst team in all of sports. Except the Raiders. And Lions. And Redskins. And Bengals. And Rams. And Clippers. And Nets. And . . .
Oh forget it.
by dcmetsfan on Feb 2, 2010 3:07 PM EST reply actions 8 recs
Matthew Stafford is the second coming of Bobby Layne.
RESTORE THE ROAR!
by Jamesir Bensonmum on Feb 2, 2010 3:44 PM EST up reply actions
This is the kind of nonsense that plays right into the hands of jerks at Beerleaguer
and makes Met fans look really silly
true, but this notion of making yourself feel better is silly. It reminds me of the end of 08 when
some Met fans loved to cite stats like “we would have won the division by 24 games if we had a good closer” or “we were 100-2 after 7 innings”.
You can manipulate numbers anyway you wish. The only one that counts is 11, the number of playoff victories needed to win a WS.
We would have. We would have...
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 2, 2010 3:47 PM EST up reply actions
You're 100% right.
Mets fans shouldn’t try to make ourselves feel better. We should just continue to bitch, moan, and engage in self deprecating chatter.
by keithprime on Feb 2, 2010 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Speak for yourself
Bitching, moaning, and self-deprecation are simply an excuse for our rivals to laugh at us. There’s nothing wrong with complaining, but too much of it just makes you look pathetic.
Well I don't think anyone is arguing that they are a terrible team.
They have been a highly disappointing team and this pretty accurately captures that.
No, we're arguing
that they’re a terribl organization. THere IS a difference.
Oh, the butcher and the baker and the people on the street: wheredotheygo?!?!?
This is misleading
As good as it looks for the Mets, you need to show how much time each of the teams spent in 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.
Not only that, but weighting the differences in leads would help as well. As in, being in first place with a 5 game lead counts more than being in first place with a 1 game lead.
Then you’d really have something.
Not only that, but weighting the differences in leads would help as well. As in, being in first place with a 5 game lead counts more than being in first place with a 1 game lead.
Considering that the Mets had the division wrapped up in June of 2006, had a pretty decent lead for most of 2007, and that the Mets and Phils were back and forth for most of 2008, I’d wager that by this standard the Mets would look even better.
actually
I don’t know about that. Mets spent a lot of time in 4th place this year. Phillies spent most of their time in 06 and 07 in 2nd and rarely in 3rd, 4th and 5th between 06 and 09.
Let's see...
In 2009, until June 29th, we were going back and forth with the Phillies for first place (isn’t that hard to believe, in retrospect!), with most of our time being in second place. When July ended, that’s when we began that horrible, horrible fall. Doing a quick count, for the season, we were in first place for 11days, second place for 40 days , third place for 15 days, fourth place for 91 days, and in fifth place never. That doesn’t come out to 162, so I miscounted somewhere along the lines, but the data still shows we were in 4th for most of the season.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 2, 2010 11:22 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks
You really didn’t have to count, everyone knows the Mets were playing their hardest to stay above the Nationals in the second half.
My point about the weighted system is that it may or may not show that the Mets were better by weight between 06 and 09. This year and last the Phillies spent a lot of time in first.
It's not even close
The Mets had a 5+ game lead for the final four months of the 2006 season, and were in first place every day of the season past game three. In fact, the closest it got after mid-April was 2.5 games. In 2007 the Mets also again led for most of the season, with the lead fluctuating between 2-7 games throughout. In 2008 the Phillies took a big lead in June but only really held on to that lead for about a month. Most of the season was back and forth. As BDMF said, it was also back and forth for the first couple of months of 2009. And when the Mets went down, the Phillies had to fend off the Marlins and Braves. They didn’t really take a dominating lead until August.
So based on your own criteria : holding a sizable (about five games) lead in first place, the Mets would have met that standard for about 7 months of playing time while the Phillies would probably have had about 2-3 months of holding such a lead, if that. And of course none of the other teams would have ever met that criteria.
I'm crazy:
2006 Mets
161 games in first place
1 game in second place
2007 Mets
144 games in first place
18 games in second place
2008 Mets
41 games in first place
55 games in second place
45 games in third place
21 games in fourth place
2009 Mets
11 games in first place
40 games in second place
15 days in third place
91 days in fourth place
Mets Totals
357 games in first place
114 games in second place
60 days in third place
112 games in fourth place
0 games in fifth place
2006 Phillies
134 games in second place
16 games in third place
6 games in fourth place
6 games in fifth place
2007 Phillies
4 games in first place
57 games in second place
69 games in third place
28 games in fourth place
4 games in fifth place
2008 Phillies
78 games in first place
68 games in second
10 games in third place
4 games in fourth place
2 games in fifth place
2009 Phillies
128 games in first place
18 games in second place
8 games in third place
7 games in fourth place
1 game in fifth place
Phillies Totals
210 days in first place
277 games in second place
103 games in third place
45 games in fourth place
13 games in fifth place
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 3, 2010 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
On the bright side, never in the past four years have we been in 5th place.
That’s an weird little thing, right there. Not even early in the seasons, where everything gets all weird, because of how few games have been played.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 3, 2010 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
wow
sorry i didn’t chime in earlier because i probably could have told you a while back that even using a weighted method, the mets would crush the phillies et al in that our leads in ’06 were regularly double digit after the ASB (which no other team including the ’09 phillies ever held) and in much of ’07, ’08 and even up until june in ’09 we were usually either in 1st or 2nd.
by Rob Castellano on Feb 3, 2010 11:47 PM EST up reply actions
Yes. And I hear...
…they’re going to award the Vince Lombardi Trophy on Sunday to the team that records more 1st downs.
Oh, the butcher and the baker and the people on the street: wheredotheygo?!?!?
by CharlieH on Feb 2, 2010 3:59 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
Rec'd
This graph, if anything, makes me feel worse. They are so poorly run it’s mindboggling. But the FO’s complete and utter ineptitude does make you forget how much fun the runs from April ’06-August ’07 and even July-August 2008 were. And how much potential we squandered…
"F***ing shocker." -Billy Wagner
I refused to be unduly influenced by such chicanery ...
and slight of hand.
The results of the past 3 years are much too painful to be fooled by pie-charts and grids.
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
mmm pie.
If there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
GUYS ROBCAST IS RIGHT!
we should all go enjoy some delicious pie RIGHT NOW!
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
by kendynamo on Feb 2, 2010 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
winner
that is EXACTLY what i was going for…
by Rob Castellano on Feb 2, 2010 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
all this chart really shows is
just how much success the Mets really squandered…. damn shame.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 2, 2010 5:52 PM EST reply actions
Awesome news!!!
Somewhere Reyes is spraying Wright with Champagne! We won the pie graph!
ZOMG!!!! WE WINZ CHAMPTIONSHIP OF FOREVARRRR!!!11!
The 2010 New York Mets: Maybe it's the Phillies' turn to have 95% of its roster on the DL
The 2009 New England Patriots: At least we got our division title back
Nicklas Bergfors for the Calder Trophy!
Pie charts? We don't need no stinkin' pie charts.
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
Robcast, did you work for the Mets in the 80s?
Back then they had a logo and slogan: “Number One since 1984.” It was their way of saying “yeah we only one that one World Series, we won one other division title but couldn’t beat the Dodgers and we kept finishing second all the other years. But we had best record overall, so we were really # 1.” The more things change…
"I've been trying transcendental meditation, and that helps me be passive and wait on the curve. I've got to find something else to hit the slider." - George (The Stork) Theodore
yeah but the Phils have 2 NL pennants and one WS championship
look the Mets have been strong over the last 4 years but they have been a little behind the phils, falling out of 1st in Sept twice befor ethe injuries last season. we are now a few steps behind, we are not a horrible team but just not looking poised to win a title either.
Yeah and it's not like we looked like a championship team in 08 and fell apart
we were all over the place in 08, and really we didn’t even choke the Phillies technically choked away the lead to begin with.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Problem is this:
We may have peaked, in which case what happened the last four years is irrelevant. And if we haven’t peaked and are still contenders (work with me here), it’s still irrelevant. We’re not keeping cumulative records. If we did, wouldn’t we have to go back to 1962?
"I've been trying transcendental meditation, and that helps me be passive and wait on the curve. I've got to find something else to hit the slider." - George (The Stork) Theodore
What's with the hate for the pie graph?
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 2, 2010 11:23 PM EST reply actions
lol yeah it was kind of weird
there were a lot of positive comments, and then a string of mocking ones near the end.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Yeah. Just because, ultimatley, we didn't win any pennants or ringz! doesn't take away my satisaction that, statistically, our team sat in first place longer than any other team in our division for that time period.
Sure, it stinks that, despite that fact, we didn’t get any pennants or ringz!, but when there isn’t a lot to be positive about, there’s no reason to muddy what we do have with negativity.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 2, 2010 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
ditto
I just read through the thread and was surprised by all the negative comments. the chart merely serves to provide a little context to the Mets’ last four seasons. it’s not an excuse for the organization’s obvious shortcomings. I commend robcast on his efforts.
by englishgrey on Feb 2, 2010 11:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Need I say More?
President of the Ramses Barden Fan Club
by Hoyadestroya85 on Feb 3, 2010 8:43 AM EST reply actions 4 recs
Haha "15 seconds of working his skin with vaseline men." He is being called a wanker by his endorcer!
Haha “Yes, I’m Chase Utley and i masturbate,”
"Wait till Biggus Dickus hears about this!"
by scott from peekskill on Feb 3, 2010 9:41 AM EST up reply actions
Infielders have "soft hands", and all that...
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 3, 2010 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
and because someone had to do it,
here are the vaseline men Chase works his skin with:
I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself into trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya
Mmmm...pie
Pie chart, WS winners from the NL East, 2006-2009:
Pie chart: NL Championships won by NL East teams, 2006-2009:
by EastFallowfield on Feb 4, 2010 10:18 AM EST reply actions
harsh, but accurate
reinforces the point most of us have made here that being in first place the most doesn’t mean anything if we cant hold onto it.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 4, 2010 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
You forgot this one:
Pie chart: Team with the greatest amount of douchion from the NL Eact, 2006-2009:
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 4, 2010 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
don't forget the pie chart of professional sports teams with over 10,000 losses
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 4, 2010 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
To be fair...
Comparing number of losses, let’s compare the records since 1962, when the Mets came into existence.
Mets 3981
Phils 3814
Before you trot out the old ‘expansion’ excuse:
2000-2009 losses
Mets 803
Phils 769
by EastFallowfield on Feb 5, 2010 6:58 AM EST up reply actions
Total Losses in the Divisional era
so, factoring out the Mets post-expansion woes:
Mets: 3244
Phillies: 3272
I think the point, as it is, is that neither franchise is exactly the Yankees or even the Cardinals or Dodgers.
2009 Did Not Happen
Agreed
So the ol ‘10,000 losses’ bit is basically pointing one’s finger and saying “HA HA, your team has been around since 1880 whereas mine’s only been around since the JFK administration!”
by EastFallowfield on Feb 5, 2010 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
1883
Before someone jumps in to correct the record, Phils started in 1883.
“the Phillies are the oldest, continuous, one-name, one-city franchise in all of professional sports.”
by EastFallowfield on Feb 5, 2010 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
The Philladelphia Quakers beg to disagree.
The difference is only shaving ten years, or thereabouts, off, however. Fairly minor, and doesn’t change much.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 5, 2010 7:45 PM EST up reply actions
and saying "haha your team hasn't won in the last 3 years"
is any less cherry picking of stats for the sake of being offensive? Pretty sure I could find some 3 year stretches where the Phillies were absolutely horrible too.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 6, 2010 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
Yea, the Phillies have a real glorious history
As the Wolf says “let’s not start sucking each others dicks quite yet”
2009 Did Not Happen
by cjmulrain on Feb 4, 2010 9:35 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Derrr, I didn't know that one
The 2010 New York Mets: Maybe it's the Phillies' turn to have 95% of its roster on the DL
The 2009 New England Patriots: At least we got our division title back
The 2009-10 New Jersey Devils: It's Kovy Time!
Much Like We Didn't Know...
…that the 06 and 07 Mets spent a lot of days in first place?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
