Author Topic: The Race for the #1 Pick (2009) (Read 19408 times)

The Chief · « **Reply #75:** June 01, 2009, 02:16:51 PM »

Hey sportsfan, can you start adding the '62 Mets into these updates?

NFA Brian · « **Reply #76:** June 01, 2009, 02:37:08 PM »

It's too early (depressing) for me to start posting this at NFA

Tragic Number
Nats -
Oakland 108
Colorado 107
Houston 107
Cleveland 105

sportsfan882 · « **Reply #77:** June 01, 2009, 05:07:15 PM »

Quote from: The Chief on June 01, 2009, 02:16:51 PM

Hey sportsfan, can you start adding the '62 Mets into these updates?

sure

sportsfan882 · « **Reply #78:** June 03, 2009, 12:19:42 AM »

After Tuesday, June 2nd's games:

1962 Mets after 50 games: 13-37 (.260) (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 1-9)

The Race for the 2010 1st Overall Pick:
Washington 14-36 (.280) 0.0 GB (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 2-8)
Colorado 20-31 (.392) 5.5 GB (Streak: 3 L; Last 10: 4-6)
Oakland 20-30 (.400) 6.0 GB (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 5-5)
Cleveland 22-32 (.407) 6.0 GB (Streak: 2 L; Last 10: 5-5)

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #79:** June 03, 2009, 09:56:23 AM »

freaking Rockies better start playing better.

sportsfan882 · « **Reply #80:** June 04, 2009, 11:15:20 PM »

After Thursday, June 4th's games:

1962 Mets after 52 games: 15-37 (.288) (Streak: 2 W; Last 10: 3-7)

The Race for the 2010 1st Overall Pick:
Washington 14-38 (.269) 0.0 GB (Streak: 2 L; Last 10: 2-8)
Colorado 21-32 (.396) 6.5 GB (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 3-7)
Cleveland 23-33 (.411) 7.0 GB (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 5-5)
Oakland 22-30 (.423) 8.0 GB (Streak: 3 W; Last 10: 5-5)
Arizona 23-31 (.426) 8.0 GB (Streak: 2 L; Last 10: 4-6)

PatsNats28 · « **Reply #81:** June 05, 2009, 02:26:39 AM »

can we get comparisons to the worst team ever (the cleveland spiders i think)

The Chief · « **Reply #82:** June 05, 2009, 09:00:11 AM »

Quote from: SoxNats08 on June 05, 2009, 02:26:39 AM

can we get comparisons to the worst team ever (the cleveland spiders i think)

They don't count, the '62 Mets are the official worst team ever.

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #83:** June 05, 2009, 09:42:50 AM »

Take THAT Colorado! We're now 6.5 games clear and PULLING AWAY.

PatsNats28 · « **Reply #84:** June 05, 2009, 11:59:58 AM »

Quote from: The Chief on June 05, 2009, 09:00:11 AM

They don't count, the '62 Mets are the official worst team ever.

really? why not?

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #85:** June 05, 2009, 12:50:55 PM »

Quote from: SoxNats08 on June 05, 2009, 11:59:58 AM

really? why not?

It wasn't the "modern era."

blue911 · « **Reply #86:** June 05, 2009, 12:54:28 PM »

Quote from: Minty Fresh on June 05, 2009, 12:50:55 PM

It wasn't the "modern era."

They were owned by the Cardinals.

PatsNats28 · « **Reply #87:** June 05, 2009, 04:12:59 PM »

Quote from: Minty Fresh on June 05, 2009, 12:50:55 PM

It wasn't the "modern era."

so? they played 154 games, mets played 160, we'll play 162. the #s are close enough.

The Chief · « **Reply #88:** June 05, 2009, 04:17:39 PM »

Quote from: SoxNats08 on June 05, 2009, 04:12:59 PM

so? they played 154 games, mets played 160, we'll play 162. the #s are close enough.

How can you possibly compare baseball from 1899 to baseball from 2009? It's barely even the same game. 1962 Mets are the modern standard for awfulness for a reason.

PatsNats28 · « **Reply #89:** June 05, 2009, 04:21:02 PM »

Quote from: The Chief on June 05, 2009, 04:17:39 PM

How can you possibly compare baseball from 1899 to baseball from 2009? It's barely even the same game. 1962 Mets are the modern standard for awfulness for a reason.

whatever... btw i looked up that team and they got legit raped. their owner owned another team, and he took all the good players off the team and moved them to the other team.

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #90:** June 05, 2009, 04:30:53 PM »

Quote from: SoxNats08 on June 05, 2009, 04:21:02 PM

whatever... btw i looked up that team and they got legit raped. their owner owned another team, and he took all the good players off the team and moved them to the other team.

The Cardinals (as blue pointed out eariler) who, by the way, are now widely regarded as a world class organization.

blue911 · « **Reply #91:** June 05, 2009, 04:35:22 PM »

Quote from: SoxNats08 on June 05, 2009, 04:21:02 PM

whatever... btw i looked up that team and they got legit raped. their owner owned another team, and he took all the good players off the team and moved them to the other team.

All the good players included 3 hall of famers, one who was Cy Young. In that era most teams relied on 3 or 4 pitchers for most of the innings.

sportsfan882 · « **Reply #92:** June 06, 2009, 12:26:44 AM »

After Friday, June 5th's games:

1962 Mets after 53 games: 15-38 (.283) (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 3-7)

The Race for the 2010 1st Overall Pick:
Washington 14-39 (.264)   ----   (Streak: 3 L; Last 10: 1-9)
Colorado 22-32 (.407) 7.5 GB (Streak: 2 W; Last 10: 4-6)
Cleveland    24-33 (.421) 8.0 GB (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 5-5)
Kansas City 23-31 (.426) 8.5 GB (Streak: 8 L; Last 10: 1-9)
Oakland    23-30 (.434) 9.0 GB (Streak: 4 W; Last 10: 5-5)
Arizona 24-31 (.436) 9.0 GB (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 5-5)
Baltimore    24-31 (.436) 9.0 GB (Streak: 3 L; Last 10: 5-5)

Obed_Marsh · « **Reply #93:** June 06, 2009, 02:00:54 AM »

Hey David er... sportsfan882.

Can we please include the Cleveland spiders too? Trailing the '62 Mets in a vacuum is too painful to read.

This should be the "thread of shame" or something more apocalyptic.

PatsNats28 · « **Reply #94:** June 06, 2009, 04:00:48 PM »

Quote from: Obed_Marsh on June 06, 2009, 02:00:54 AM

Hey David er... sportsfan882.

Can we please include the Cleveland spiders too? Trailing the '62 Mets in a vacuum is too painful to read.

This should be the "thread of shame" or something more apocalyptic.

through 53, they were 9-44, 1-9 in their last ten.

sportsfan882 · « **Reply #95:** June 07, 2009, 10:00:27 PM »

After Sunday, June 7th's games:

1962 Mets after 55 games: 16-39 (.291) (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 4-6)

The Race for the 2010 1st Overall Pick:
Washington 15-40 (.273) ---- (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 2-8)
Baltimore 24-33 (.421) 8.0 GB (Streak: 5 L; Last 10: 3-7)
Cleveland 25-34 (.424) 8.0 GB (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 4-6)
Colorado 24-32 (.429) 8.5 GB (Streak: 4 W; Last 10: 6-4)
Kansas City 24-32 (.429) 8.5 GB (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 1-9)

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #96:** June 08, 2009, 10:47:17 AM »

Quote from: sportsfan882 on June 07, 2009, 10:00:27 PM

After Sunday, June 7th's games:

1962 Mets after 55 games: 16-39 (.291) (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 4-6)

The Race for the 2010 1st Overall Pick:
Washington 15-40 (.273)   ---- (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 2-8)
Baltimore    24-33 (.421)   8.0 GB (Streak: 5 L; Last 10: 3-7)
Cleveland    25-34 (.424) 8.0 GB (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 4-6)
Colorado 24-32 (.429) 8.5 GB (Streak: 4 W; Last 10: 6-4)
Kansas City 24-32 (.429) 8.5 GB (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 1-9)

(Image removed from quote.)

It's June 8th and we are eight games clear of the next worse team. This is unbelievable. It's not even worth joking about any more.

The Chief · « **Reply #97:** June 08, 2009, 10:50:11 AM »

Quote from: Minty Fresh on June 08, 2009, 10:47:17 AM

It's June 8th and we are eight games clear of the next worse team. This is unbelievable. It's not even worth joking about any more.

+1

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #98:** June 08, 2009, 10:51:36 AM »

Quote from: Minty Fresh on June 08, 2009, 10:47:17 AM

It's June 8th and we are eight games clear of the next worse team. This is unbelievable. It's not even worth joking about any more.

the only question now is whether we'll clinch the number 1 pich before another team clinches a playoff berth.

xposbrad · « **Reply #99:** June 08, 2009, 10:59:41 AM »

Quote from: HalfSmokes on June 08, 2009, 10:51:36 AM

the only question now is whether we'll clinch the number 1 pich before another team clinches a playoff berth.

There is still plenty of baseball left. I know 8 games is a good cushion, but it's still way too early. I'd like a double digit lead to be safe.