A Note to Readers: New Feature at Y2K
Hey everyone, we just wanted to give a heads up to everyone about a new feature here at Y2K. From here on out, we're going to be keeping track of games the Mets win that we feel they should have lost, as well as games the Mets lose that we feel they should have won.
What kind of game qualifies?
A decision of either sort depends only on the way a given game unfolds. It doesn't matter if Pedro is up against some rookie pitcher with a 3-10 record. If the Mets fall behind by 5 runs, tack on 2 in the 8th and lose 5-2, that's a game we deserved to lose and will not count. If the Mets are up 8-0 against the Yankees and lose 9-8, that's a game we deserved to win and will count.
How do you determine which games count?
The only games that count are the ones on which Sip and I reach unanimous decision. If there's a disagreement, one of us can argue the case to the other if we feel that strongly about it.
We encourage readers to get involved as well. If a reader makes a compelling case saying we won a game we should have lost but Sip and I didn't see it that way originally, we may change our minds.
What's the point?
The point is that we see the Mets looking at a dogfight for the National League East crown or, failing that, the Wild Card spot. At the end of the season, the games we piss away or undeservedly win figure to loom especially large.
So where do we stand right now?
As of now, Sip and I have the Mets down 1 in the lost-but-should-have-won column. Having led the Nationals 4-0 in the 6th inning and then 4-3 in the 9th, we believe that was a game we should have won.
Do you disagree? Do you think the opener, given Paul Lo Duca's theatrics, was a game we won but deserved to lose? We want to hear about it you do.
With any luck we'll figure out how to create a running counter to place in the sidebar, but for now just look for the counter at the beginning of each game recap as appropriate. Deserving wins and losses will not make mention of the counter.
- Sip and A.F.O.M.G.
What kind of game qualifies?
A decision of either sort depends only on the way a given game unfolds. It doesn't matter if Pedro is up against some rookie pitcher with a 3-10 record. If the Mets fall behind by 5 runs, tack on 2 in the 8th and lose 5-2, that's a game we deserved to lose and will not count. If the Mets are up 8-0 against the Yankees and lose 9-8, that's a game we deserved to win and will count.
How do you determine which games count?
The only games that count are the ones on which Sip and I reach unanimous decision. If there's a disagreement, one of us can argue the case to the other if we feel that strongly about it.
We encourage readers to get involved as well. If a reader makes a compelling case saying we won a game we should have lost but Sip and I didn't see it that way originally, we may change our minds.
What's the point?
The point is that we see the Mets looking at a dogfight for the National League East crown or, failing that, the Wild Card spot. At the end of the season, the games we piss away or undeservedly win figure to loom especially large.
So where do we stand right now?
As of now, Sip and I have the Mets down 1 in the lost-but-should-have-won column. Having led the Nationals 4-0 in the 6th inning and then 4-3 in the 9th, we believe that was a game we should have won.
Do you disagree? Do you think the opener, given Paul Lo Duca's theatrics, was a game we won but deserved to lose? We want to hear about it you do.
With any luck we'll figure out how to create a running counter to place in the sidebar, but for now just look for the counter at the beginning of each game recap as appropriate. Deserving wins and losses will not make mention of the counter.
- Sip and A.F.O.M.G.
posted by A Friend of Mr. Glass' at 10:47 AM
3 Comments:
opening day was a game we deserved to lose... if the umpire opens his eyes and sorianos called safe, the game's tied in the 8th and the nats have a runner on 2nd with nobody out.
you dont know how thats gonna play out but it doesnt look too good for the mets... i say game 1 is a win we deserved to lose... ill take it, but lets be fair
The thing with Opening Day is that there were just too many ifs involved. You really have no idea how that game would have unfolded if he'd been called safe, and accepting it as a given that he was called out, the Mets deserved to win the game.
Me and Sip haven't quite talked about this yet, but the way I see it is you have to accept the aspect of human error in every result. You can't look at those 90s Braves teams and say they wouldn't have won if only the umpires hadn't called all those Maddux and Glavine pitches strikes; the fact is that they were called strikes and that's just the way it is.
Nor, for that matter, can you look at the Jeffrey Maier homerun against the Yankees and say that's a game the Yankees deserved to lose. It was a horrible call, yes, but that's the call that was made, and it wasn't anyone's fault but the umpires'. That's how the game is sometimes, and as far as I'm concerned, winners don't blame it on the ump.
But that's just the way I see it. Sip might have a completely different view on it, and other readers might as well. I'm actually quite curious to hear if any readers have an opinion on the issue of umpire error and whether that should figure into our thinking about deserved wins and losses, so pipe up if you've got an opinion.
im with afomg. a game you deserved to lose isn't one where the ump has to make a different call and then the opposing team get a basehit. it seems the idea here is to look for games that one team had in the bag and then the outcome is different. nats definitely could have won on opening day, but syaing they should have is a big stretch
Post a Comment
<< Home