Thanks to Joe Dubin's New Breed-bred eagle eye for such things (though discounting the Odd Couple game we won only in fiction), it appears the Mets' winning ways date back further than originally thought, all the way to June 13, 1967, a full 44 games before the juncture initially calculated (when I was either too sleepy or too timid to wade through what loomed as a full and daunting pallet of L's on baseball-reference).
Commencing with that evening's doubleheader split against the Reds at Shea, specifically rookie Tom Seaver's eight-hit complete game 7-3 victory over Cincinnati in the nightcap (the fifth win of the young man's career), the Mets were 22-22 up to and including the aforementioned July 28 loss in Los Angeles…meaning that since the middle of play 6/13/67, the Mets are 3,308-3,307 (winning percentage: .50007559), marking the furthest you can go back in time and call the Mets cumulative winners. Before the second game of that June 13 twinighter, up to and including the 6-0 shellacking the Reds pasted on Bill Denehy in the opener, the Mets were 277-582 (winning percentage: .32246799).
The larger points stand as previously reported:
• The Mets were very bad well into their sixth season, covering a period of their first 859 games.
• They've been intermittently almost as bad since then but sometimes they've been pretty good and once in a while magnificent. Thus, for more than four decades, they've been the slightest shade over middling in a span that covers 6,615 games, right through last September 28's 4-2 defeat at the fins of the Marlins.
• They still need to win 82 games this season to have as many yearly winning records as losing records in their checkered 48-year history.
• They will still have an all-time losing record even if they go thirty games over .500 every year for the next ten years.
• Buy my book please.
In my lifetime, they're 2261-2145. Looks like great numbers.
The reality, unfortunately, is that this translates to a .512 team, or 83 wins. That feels about right.
Hi Greg,
Sorry for the extra work….
Another thing about the Met “double-header” win that day: though not appearing in the movie, the entire scoreboard was set-up to represent an actual game in progress, complete with batting orders, out-of-town scores, etc. Problem was, nobody bothered to advise the crowd and, of course, as soon as filming ended the batting orders disappeared. Can't begin to tell you how angry I was having little room left to fill in the correct information in my scorecard.
But I wasn't nearly as angry as Harry Walker since Gene Alley and Jose Pagan might have been more confused by the mock batting order than I was and batted out of turn. Twice Alley incorrectly hit in front of Pagan and in the third Pagan's two-run double was negated for batting out of order. Could have cost Pittsburgh the game and Walker his job. Not only was the “cat” not paying attention but Pittsburgh was just barely above .500 at the time. He was soon replaced by Danny Murtaugh.
No problem, Joe. Accuracy demands it. And the Mets owe you a fresh scorecard.
What I'd really like to see, Greg, is if they had Alley hitting ahead of Pagan in that mock lineup.
Next time you watch the film, wait for the part that pans the stands from the outfield parking lot, freeze frame it and zoom into the upper deck behind home plate – you might see me a day after I turned 16, obviously much younger, much thinner and with much more acne (also didn't have to pay for my ticket since I got in for free with between 10 and 15 Bordens milk coupons).
My book came in the mail two days ago. I've only gotten a chance to read Jason's introduction and the first chapter so far (what with all the reading I've got for school and whatnot), but everything I've read so far has been wonderful. Outstanding work.
Thanks Aaron. Hope the reading continues to your satisfaction.