KICKING BUTT, BABY!
The Nats, much to almost everyone's surprise (but mine), came into the series having a legit chance of winning the World Series.
Then, taking the first 2 ON THE ROAD has to make them prohibitive favorites.
But it really should have been no surprise, for two reasons:
1) Over the past 120 games or so, including post-season, the Nats' record is a good as the Astros. Equals.
2) The Nats played in a much tougher league than the Astros. It was clear, for instance, that in inter-league competition, the NL completely dominated.
3) As good as the Astros are, their record was SIGNIFICANTLY INFLATED BY PLAYING SUCKY TEAMS. In fact, the Astros only played 63 of their 162 games (39%) against teams over .500. They went 35-28 (just .554) against those winning clubs, but 72-27 (a stunning .727) against sub-.500 teams.
The Nationals? NINETY SIX games against teams over .500 (59%), in which they went 48-48 (.500). Against teams under 500? 45-21 (.682).
Wipe away the first 50 struggling games for the Nats in 2019 (19-31) before they got their act together, and then factor in the MUCH easier schedule the Astros faced?
The picture becomes much clearer, doesn't it, as to WHY THE NATS ARE KICKING ASTROS BUTT.
Seeing it that way, why the heck, going in, couldn't the Nats have whipped the Astros?
And heck, 2 games into this thing, if the Astros only went .554 all season against .500+ teams, and now have to win 4 of 5 against one of the best .500+ teams, how likely is that?
Not at all likely, I'd say.
Bringing this article around to the Mets:
The Yanks and Astros, with their gaudy regular season records, played against much weaker competition - so much weaker, that I believe that if you moved the Yanks and Astros to the NL East, and the Mets and Nats to the AL before the 2019 season started, the Mets and Nats would have finished with BETTER RECORDS.
So don't think the Mets are 20 games worse than the best teams - they're not, Brodie - so do what it REALLY takes to get this team into the playoffs in 2020.
Maybe, if you do, the Mets can be the Nats in 2020, up 2-0 in the Series and heading back to Citifield.
Here's another example to drive the point home - Cleveland won 93 games, but only 64 of the 162 were against teams over .500, in which they went a horrible .390. In their other 98 games, against sub-.500's, they had a .694 win %.
ReplyDeleteSo were they a good team or a bad team, regardless of if they won 93? Good, but probably 87 wins good if they played 81 against teams over .500 and 81 against teams under .500, but they really were not 93 wins good.
Sorry Tom.
ReplyDeleteI can't add anything here. I have Mets tunnel vision abd watch no games other that ones that the Mets are in.
I hear ya, Mack.
ReplyDeleteBut I did circle this back around to ultimately being a Mets article:
"Bringing this article around to the Mets:
The Yanks and Astros, with their gaudy regular season records, played against much weaker competition - so much weaker, that I believe that if you moved the Yanks and Astros to the NL East, and the Mets and Nats to the AL before the 2019 season started, the Mets and Nats would have finished with BETTER RECORDS.
So don't think the Mets are 20 games worse than the best teams - they're not, Brodie - so do what it REALLY takes to get this team into the playoffs in 2020.
Maybe, if you do, the Mets can be the Nats in 2020, up 2-0 in the Series and heading back to Citifield."
Fans don't get that - put the Mets in the AL east this past season, they'd have won 95 or more games, not 86, and the fans would have looked at them a whole lot different. If they don't fight to get the players they need, 86 may be tough next year.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNow that the Nationals have won, and won 4 straight in Houston, where the Astros were 60-21 in the regular season, repeat after me: the Astros' record was greatly inflated by playing so many sub par AL teams.
ReplyDeleteThe Mets would have won 95 games if they were in the AL Central instead of the Astros - at a minimum.