Author Topic: The Race for the #1 Pick (2009) (Read 22587 times)

PatsNats28 · « **Reply #150 on:** July 01, 2009, 11:31:32 pm »

Quote from: The Chief on July 01, 2009, 10:14:47 pm

For the last time, the two-centuries-ago owned-and-used-as-a-farm-by-another-team cleveland spiders do not friggin count.

Basketball ball was barely invented in America by a Canadian implant back then

I know, just trying to raise some spirits

sportsfan882 · « **Reply #151 on:** July 07, 2009, 11:33:00 am »

After Monday, July 6th's games:

1962 Mets after 80 games: 23-57 (.288) (Streak: 2 W; Last 10: 4-6)
2008 Nats after 80 games: 31-49 (.388) (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 3-7)

The Race for the 2010 1st Overall Pick:
Washington 24-56 (.300) ---- (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 3-7)
Cleveland 33-50 (.398) 7.5 GB (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 3-7)
Arizona 34-49 (.410) 8.5 GB (Streak: 3 W; Last 10: 4-6)
Oakland 35-46 (.432) 10.5 GB (Streak: 2 W; Last 10: 4-6)
Baltimore 36-47 (.434) 10.5 GB (Streak: 3 L; Last 10: 3-7)

On Pace to finish: 49-113

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #152 on:** July 07, 2009, 11:43:29 am »

We could totally have Bryce Harper locked up by the All-Star break.

sportsfan882 · « **Reply #153 on:** July 09, 2009, 12:31:39 am »

After Wednesday, July 8th's games:

1962 Mets after 82 games: 23-59 (.280) (Streak: 2 L; Last 10: 3-7)
2008 Nats after 82 games: 32-50 (.400) (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 3-7)

The Race for the 2010 1st Overall Pick:
Washington 24-58 (.293) ---- (Streak: 3 L; Last 10: 3-7)
Cleveland 33-52 (.388) 7.5 GB (Streak: 3 L; Last 10: 2-8)
San Diego 35-49 (.417) 10.0 GB (Streak: 4 L; Last 10: 2-8)
Oakland 35-48 (.422) 10.5 GB (Streak: 2 L; Last 10: 4-6)
Arizona 36-49 (.424) 10.5 GB (Streak: 5 W; Last 10: 6-4)

On Pace to finish: 48-114

The Nats have the worst "luck" in the league with a Pythagorean record 7 games better than what their actual record is. We should be 31-51 right now. Still bad but not historically bad.

houston-nat · « **Reply #154 on:** July 09, 2009, 12:39:21 am »

Quote from: sportsfan882 on July 09, 2009, 12:31:39 am

The Nats have the worst "luck" in the league with a Pythagorean record 7 games better than what their actual record is. We should be 31-51 right now. Still bad but not historically bad.

That would put us on pace for last year's record.

DCFan · « **Reply #155 on:** July 09, 2009, 06:30:50 am »

Quote from: sportsfan882 on July 09, 2009, 12:31:39 am

On Pace to finish: 48-114

GED-boy, here we come.

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #156 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:39:04 am »

Quote from: sportsfan882 on July 09, 2009, 12:31:39 am

After Wednesday, July 8th's games:

1962 Mets after 82 games: 23-59 (.280) (Streak: 2 L; Last 10: 3-7)
2008 Nats after 82 games: 32-50 (.400) (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 3-7)

The Race for the 2010 1st Overall Pick:
Washington 24-58 (.293) ---- (Streak: 3 L; Last 10: 3-7)
Cleveland 33-52 (.388) 7.5 GB (Streak: 3 L; Last 10: 2-8)
San Diego 35-49 (.417) 10.0 GB (Streak: 4 L; Last 10: 2-8)
Oakland 35-48 (.422) 10.5 GB (Streak: 2 L; Last 10: 4-6)
Arizona 36-49 (.424) 10.5 GB (Streak: 5 W; Last 10: 6-4)

We took care of those nages in Arizona - wusses. So what's wrong with Cleveland, San Diego and Oakland?

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #157 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:47:20 am »

Once we start our fire sale, we should be able to really pull away.

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #158 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:53:14 am »

First in war, first in peace, last in the MAJOR leagues.

xposbrad · « **Reply #159 on:** July 09, 2009, 10:38:44 am »

Cleveland is really being stubborn here, we've started to pull from the rest, but the Indians need to get a win or two sometime this month!!

sportsfan882 · « **Reply #160 on:** July 12, 2009, 09:58:51 pm »

At the All-Star Break:

1962 Mets after 87 games: 24-63 (.276) (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 3-7)
2008 Nats after 87 games: 34-53 (.391) (Streak: 2 L; Last 10: 4-6)

The Race for the 2010 1st Overall Pick:
Washington 26-61 (.299) ---- (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 4-6)
Cleveland 35-54 (.393) 8.0 GB (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 4-6)
San Diego 36-52 (.409) 9.5 GB (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 2-8)
Kansas City 37-51 (.420) 10.5 GB (Streak: 3 L; Last 10: 4-6)
Arizona 38-51 (.427) 11.0 GB (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 7-3)
Oakland 37-49 (.430) 11.5 GB (Streak: 2 W; Last 10: 5-5)

On Pace to finish: 48-114

We are on pace to be the only team to finish with at least 100 losses. Cleveland is on pace to finish 64-98.

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #161 on:** July 13, 2009, 08:42:09 am »

Eight games clear of the next worst team. There's just nothing funny about that.

sportsfan882 · « **Reply #162 on:** July 19, 2009, 08:09:49 pm »

After Sunday, July 19th's Games:

1962 Mets after 91 games: 24-67 (.264) (Streak: 5 L; Last 10: 1-9)
2008 Nats after 91 games: 34-57 (.374) (Streak: 6 L; Last 10: 2-8)

The Race for the 2010 1st Overall Pick:
Washington 26-65 (.286) ---- (Streak: 5 L; Last 10: 1-9)
Cleveland 36-57 (.387) 9.0 GB (Streak: 3 L; Last 10: 3-7)
San Diego 37-55 (.402) 10.5 GB (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 2-8)
Kansas City 37-54 (.407) 11.0 GB (Streak: 6 L; Last 10: 2-8)
Oakland 38-52 (.422) 12.5 GB (Streak: 2 L; Last 10: 4-6)
Arizona 39-53 (.424) 12.5 GB (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 6-4)

On Pace to finish: 46-116

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #163 on:** July 19, 2009, 09:23:59 pm »

I'll feel more comfortably when we're ten games up on the next most crappy team. On another note, how is cleveland, a team that was just in the WS and that has last year's cy young winner this bad?

spidernat · « **Reply #164 on:** July 19, 2009, 10:27:49 pm »

I don't recall Cleveland being the WS since the late 90's.

DPMOmaha · « **Reply #165 on:** July 20, 2009, 12:04:14 am »

Quote from: spidernat on July 19, 2009, 10:27:49 pm

I don't recall Cleveland being the WS since the late 90's.

1997 to be exact. Had a freak blizzard roll through Omaha. The leaves were still on the trees and it was a wet thick snow so it really did a lot of damage to a lot of areas, knocking out power, phones and cable in about half of the city. The mayor even cancelled Halloween. Got out of school for a whole week though.

All that being said, I'm suprised the Indians are hanging around this long. KC is making a charge too. How pissed would you be if you were a Cleveland fan. Not only were they thinking playoffs in Spring Training but in any other year, they'd be right there in the running for Bryce Harper. But the Nats suck on such a different level of sucking this year, they'll miss out on that too!

Cleveland Rocks!

big dizzy · « **Reply #166 on:** July 20, 2009, 12:09:27 am »

you think they'll have enough cash for stasburg AND harper? wake up my friend wake up!

cmdterps44 · « **Reply #167 on:** July 20, 2009, 01:16:39 am »

Quote from: HalfSmokes on July 19, 2009, 09:23:59 pm

I'll feel more comfortably when we're ten games up on the next most crappy team. On another note, how is cleveland, a team that was just in the WS and that has last year's cy young winner this bad?

They were in the playoffs a couple years ago, lost to the Yankees.

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #168 on:** July 20, 2009, 07:02:49 am »

Quote from: cmdterps44 on July 20, 2009, 01:16:39 am

They were in the playoffs a couple years ago, lost to the Yankees.

Minty Fresh · « **Reply #169 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:58:16 am »

We've lost five in a row and didn't maek up any ground on the 1962 Mets? Man they must've really sucked.

sportsfan: We need that .gif of the woman punching the other woman in the face again.

DPMOmaha · « **Reply #170 on:** July 20, 2009, 10:25:57 am »

Quote from: Minty Fresh on July 20, 2009, 09:58:16 am

We've lost five in a row and didn't maek up any ground on the 1962 Mets? Man they must've really sucked.

sportsfan: We need that .gif of the woman punching the other woman in the face again.

Chico addressed this this morning:

Quote

The Nats have 71 games remaining. To hit 120 losses, they'd have to go 16-55 -- a .225 pace. So I tremble and ask: Can this year's team actually hit a lower level? That's what happened to the '62 Mets, who were 24-67 at the 91-game mark. What this team looks like after the trading deadline, and how it responds under Riggleman, will determine the course. Remember, the Nats' rookie pitchers might not last deep into September, so the rotation for the final weeks probably won't get much help from Jordan Zimmermann, Craig Stammen, etc.

KnorrForYourMoney · « **Reply #171 on:** July 20, 2009, 10:47:12 am »

Quote from: cmdterps44 on July 20, 2009, 01:16:39 am

They were in the playoffs a couple years ago, lost to the Yankees.

Nope. It was 2007 IIRC, but they beat the Yankees 3-1 in the DS and lost game 7 of the ALCS to Boston after leading 3-1.

sportsfan882 · « **Reply #172 on:** July 26, 2009, 07:43:34 pm »

After Sunday, July 26th's Games:

1962 Mets after 98 games: 25-73 (.255) (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 1-9)
2008 Nats after 98 games: 37-61 (.378) (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 3-7)

The Race for the 2010 1st Overall Pick:
Washington 30-68 (.306) ---- (Streak: 2 W; Last 10: 4-6)
San Diego 38-61 (.384) 7.5 GB (Streak: 2 L; Last 10: 2-8)
Kansas City 38-59 (.407) 8.5 GB (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 1-9)
Cleveland 41-58 (.414) 10.5 GB (Streak: 4 L; Last 10: 5-5)
Oakland 41-56 (.423) 11.5 GB (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 4-6)
Baltimore 42-55 (.433) 12.5 GB (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 3-7)

On Pace to finish: 50-112

natsfan4evr · « **Reply #173 on:** July 26, 2009, 07:47:09 pm »

Quote from: sportsfan882 on July 26, 2009, 07:43:34 pm

After Sunday, July 26th's Games:

1962 Mets after 98 games: 25-73 (.255) (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 1-9)
2008 Nats after 98 games: 37-61 (.378) (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 3-7)

The Race for the 2010 1st Overall Pick:
Washington 30-68 (.306) ---- (Streak: 2 W; Last 10: 4-6)
San Diego 38-61 (.384) 7.5 GB (Streak: 2 L; Last 10: 2-8)
Kansas City 38-59 (.407) 8.5 GB (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 1-9)
Cleveland 41-58 (.414) 10.5 GB (Streak: 4 L; Last 10: 5-5)
Oakland 41-56 (.423) 11.5 GB (Streak: 1 L; Last 10: 4-6)
Baltimore 42-55 (.433) 12.5 GB (Streak: 1 W; Last 10: 3-7)

On Pace to finish: 50-112

I see no way that we beat the '62 Mets record
It would be nice to lose under 110 games.

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #174 on:** July 26, 2009, 08:26:48 pm »

Quote from: natsfan4evr on July 26, 2009, 07:47:09 pm

I see no way that we beat the '62 Mets record
It would be nice to lose under 110 games.

I think the trade deadline will decide that. If we dump Dunn, Johnson, Willingham and Beimel I think we have a shot.

Author Topic: The Race for the #1 Pick (2009) (Read 22587 times)

big dizzy