Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 1969 or the 1986 Mets?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The 1969 or the 1986 Mets?

    A recent flawed poll (text message only biased the sample) concluded that the 1986 Mets were better than the 1969 Mets.

    I am not a Mets' fan, but I have followed them since 1962. I saw almost every game in 1969.

    I heard or watched Seaver's first major league start, Koosman's first exhibition appearance, his first start in 1968, and Ryan's ups and downs, as well as those of McGraw.

    As one who had no reason to want them to succeed, I have some objectivity.

    The 1969 team was better because, despite a .242 BA, they stopped the opposition from scoring. The 1969 WS had close games, but it wasn't close.

    The 1986 team would have lost the WS if Boston had any of the 1969 Orioles relief pitchers.

    The 1969 Mets have become more and more underrated with the passage of time. You put out Seaver, Koosman, Gentry, Ryan, and McGraw, and you are not going to lose too often.
    Last edited by LouGehrig; 07-14-2009, 11:00 AM.
    Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

  • #2
    Originally posted by LouGehrig View Post
    A recent flawed poll (text message only biased the sample) concluded that the 1986 Mets were better than the 1969 Mets.

    I am not a Mets' fan, but I have followed them since 1962. I saw almost every game in 1969.

    I heard or watched Seaver's first major league start, Koosman's first exhibition appearance, his first start in 1968, and Ryan's ups and downs, as well as those of McGraw.

    As one who had no reason to want them to succeed, I have some objectivity.

    The 1969 team was better because, despite a .242 BA, they stopped the opposition from scoring. The 1969 WS had close games, but it wasn't close.

    The 1986 would have lost the WS if Boston had any of the 1969 Orioles relief pitchers.

    The 1969 Mets have become more and more underrated with the passage of time. You put out Seaver, Koosman, Gentry, Ryan, and McGraw, and you are not going to lose too often.
    Im sorry but the 86 mets were the better team. You CANNOT judge a team by a small sample size of 5 or 7 games in october. The 86 mets had the BEST offense in the league, and at worst, the 2nd best pitching (truthfully probably the best).
    "all the mets road wins against the dodgers this year have occured at Dodger Stadium"---Ralph Kiner

    "Blind people came to the park just to listen to him pitch"---Reggie Jackson, talking about Tom Seaver

    Comment


    • #3
      I'd say that 1986 was better collection of individuals, but 1969 was a better team effort.

      On paper I'd have to go with the '86 Mets having the stronger of the two clubs, but no team ever had as much heart as the '69 Mets.

      Have I equivocated enough? I refuse to answer this question.

      Comment


      • #4
        Also, the 1986 Mets won 108 games, while the 1969 Mets only won 100.

        Comment


        • #5
          The 86 team had a way better offense by far than the 69 team. I believe the 69 team had a better pitching staff, though not by a whole lot. You can't argue with two HOF on the 69 staff (although Ryan was yet to hit his prime) and a very, very good almost all-time great Koosman. They had an excellent bullpen, defense, and leadership just like the 86 team. I give the Manager edge to Gil however. While the 86 team was better it's not by a huge margin. The 69 team endures because they truely were a miracle team. They played better than the sum of their parts and rose to the occasion. The 86 team was expected to win, and did. In light of what has been seen lately thank God for both of them.
          unknown brooklyn cabbie " how are the brooks doin"
          unknown fan "good they got three men on base"
          unknown brooklyn cabbie "which one?"

          Comment


          • #6
            I defer to The Commissioner.

            ...even if I think it was a "better" team in '86 (perhaps the best assemblage of Mets ever).

            Can I still consider that deference?
            Put it in the books.

            Comment


            • #7
              The 1969 Mets had dominating pitching and they caught a team, the Cubs, who had almost dominating pitching.

              The Mets' play from August 9 through October was unbelievable. I saw the tail end of the Giants' 1951 run, and it was the same thing.

              The opponents couldn't score. The only time the Mets lost was usually by a blow out, which was rare, and then Seaver, Koosman, Gentry, etc. shut down the opposition.

              The most important, significant, revealing games are the 4-7 in October. If the Orioles, who won 109 games, were completely shut down by the 1969 Mets, and the Orioles had Boog, Frank, Brooks, Buford, and a still not injured Blair who could hit, there is no reason to believe that Seaver etc. couldn't stop Darryl, Hernandez, and Carter.
              Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

              Comment


              • #8
                i'm not trying to downgrade the 69 team at all. They were flat out fantastic. But as far as the better baseball team.....I can pretty much guarantee you that if both teams played a full season against each other....the 86 mets win more games.

                Both teams had the best pitching in the league.....with a slight edge to 69.
                Both teams had fantastic defense
                and the 86 team blows the 69 team's offense out of the water....over the course of a season that would be the difference.

                Excelling in 3 areas of the game is better than excelling in 2.
                "all the mets road wins against the dodgers this year have occured at Dodger Stadium"---Ralph Kiner

                "Blind people came to the park just to listen to him pitch"---Reggie Jackson, talking about Tom Seaver

                Comment


                • #9
                  The 1986 Mets were a better team. The 1969 Mets were a 1-hit wonder. They never won more than 83 games from 1970 to 1973. The 86 team was good from '85 to '88.
                  "I'm happy for [Edwin Encarnacion] because this guy bleeds internally, big-time" -Dusty Baker

                  "If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it on the scoreboard?" -Jeff Francoeur

                  "At the end of the day, the sun comes up and I still have a job" -Joba Chamberlain

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by LouGehrig View Post
                    The most important, significant, revealing games are the 4-7 in October. If the Orioles, who won 109 games, were completely shut down by the 1969 Mets, and the Orioles had Boog, Frank, Brooks, Buford, and a still not injured Blair who could hit, there is no reason to believe that Seaver etc. couldn't stop Darryl, Hernandez, and Carter.
                    There's also no reason to believe that Gooden, Darling, Ojeda, ect. couldn't stop a team with the 2nd worse offense in the NL in 1969.

                    Plus, the '86 Mets won 108 games without being able to beat up on two expansion teams (24-6 record against the Expos & Padres).

                    Though the '69 Mets of September and October would probably beat the '86 Mets. But that doesn't mean they were a better team.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I followed both teams, intensely and passionately.

                      There is no doubt in my mind that the 1986 team was better than the 1969 team, just as there is no doubt in my mind that the 1969 Baltimore Orioles were better than the 1969 Mets. The 1969 Baltimore Orioles and the 1986 New York Mets were among the best baseball teams of all time.

                      I also have little doubt that if it were somehow possible for the 1969 Mets to play the 1986 Mets in October of 1969 ... the 1969 Mets would have won. No team in history could have beaten what the Mets had magically become in September and October of 1969.
                      sigpic Please check out my book, Mets Fan
                      Please check out my blog, Mets Fan Blog
                      Read about my new book The Last Days of Shea

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I rooted for both and I think it's a decently tough call. Different times. I'll throw my lot in with the 1969 team - Seaver, Koosman, Ryan, and Gentry. The 86 lineup is better on paper, but you don't win on paper.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm not picking a favorite here.

                          Sure the 69 team was hard to beat in September and October of that year.

                          Let's not forget, though, that the 86 team had supernatural powers, as was seen in the many bizarre extra innings games of the era, culminating in game 6 of the playoffs and World Series.

                          No way they'd lose.

                          Perhaps they'd play to a tie like the rules allowed before lights in came into use in stadiums.


                          "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by m8644 View Post
                            Excelling in 3 areas of the game is better than excelling in 2.
                            Not when one of the two is pitching.
                            Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by NYMets523 View Post
                              The 1986 Mets were a better team. The 1969 Mets were a 1-hit wonder. They never won more than 83 games from 1970 to 1973. The 86 team was good from '85 to '88.
                              That is irrelevant. We are not talking about Yankees-type dynasties. We talking about one season of winning.
                              Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X