Thursday, May 17, 2012

The NL East is ridiculously competitive

The Mets dropped to 4th place in the NL East last night after losing to the Reds despite being a usually competitive 20-17. They are 3 games ahead of the Sillies who are 19-19. Right now the NL East is the only division in baseball where every team is above .500.

Lets take a quick comparative look at the Mets record and those of the other five 4th place teams.

Blue Jays 20- 8
Mets 20-17
Brewers 16-21
Mariners 16-23
Royals 15-21
Rockies 15-21

Obviously the two eastern divisions are dominating this year. The Mets current record would put them in 2nd place in every other division besides the NL and AL East. Like most people I am very excited about this team but the current competitive level of the NL East is going to make things very tough.

9 comments:

  1. I'm going on record saying that the team to beat will be...

    The Marlins

    They have good pitching and Ozbourne Guillen has them playing hard.

    Reply
  2. I agree they are going to be good, their have a pretty high powered offense as well. Bullpen situation is scary for them though. I am also now starting to worry about the Nats.

    Reply
  3. Are you going to post a preview of the Jays series? Maybe discuss who the METS should us at DH...

    Reply
  4. Yes.. Jays preview please!

    Reply
  5. Jays preview is up, thanks for reading!

    Reply
  6. Getting back to the Nats for a second. They kind of remind me of the 2006 Tigers. No real stars on offense (the Tigers had Maglio Ordoñez, but Zimmerman may be comparable). What the two teams share is excellent starting pitching across the rotation. The Tigers that year had Verlander as their no 5 and while Detweiler isn't as good as that, I really like what I have seen.

    Reply
  7. They still lack a truly solid bullpen after losing Storen. On the offensive side I think LaRoche is playing elite level ball right now: .336/.424/.600 but his sustainability is questionable.

    Reply
  8. woof.

    Reply
  9. We are not so different, you and I.

    Reply