Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 1969 or the 1986 Mets?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by whoisonit View Post
    Such acute baseball knowledge . The Win Method lives. Yay.
    Then let's compare the two teams in terms of offense and defense. No one will argue the 1969 team had a better offense as the 86 team was the best in the league. And the opposite is true when it comes to pitching. However, the 69 team's advantage over pitching is not as great as the 86's over offense.

    The '69 pitching staff had an ERA+ of 122. The '86 team had an ERA+ of 115, a 7 point difference.

    The '86 lineup had an OPS+ of 106. The '69 team had an OPS+ of 82. A 24 point difference.

    Yes, good pitching beats good pitching but I'd bet that the '86 lineup would score more runs off the '69 staff.
    "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


    • #32
      Originally posted by NYMets523 View Post
      Then let's compare the two teams in terms of offense and defense. No one will argue the 1969 team had a better offense as the 86 team was the best in the league. And the opposite is true when it comes to pitching. However, the 69 team's advantage over pitching is not as great as the 86's over offense.

      The '69 pitching staff had an ERA+ of 122. The '86 team had an ERA+ of 115, a 7 point difference.

      The '86 lineup had an OPS+ of 106. The '69 team had an OPS+ of 82. A 24 point difference.

      Yes, good pitching beats good pitching but I'd bet that the '86 lineup would score more runs off the '69 staff.
      Video games are fun, huh ?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by whoisonit View Post
        Video games are fun, huh ?
        I am an avid video game fan but that is besides the point.

        It's very difficult to compare 2 teams of different eras. The best way to compare them is how good they were with respect to the rest of their league and the statistics which tell us this are ERA+ and OPS+. And going by these statistics, the '86 team was better. Their pitching was not as good as the '69 team but their offense has a greater advantage over that of the '69 team. I never saw either team play (other than the WS games and 86 NLCS) so this is all I have to go by.
        "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


        • #34
          Originally posted by nerfan View Post
          The '86 team.

          By the way, the '69 team wasn't the first exciting Mets team. The '68 Mets had a bunch of good players (Tom + Jerry, Cleon, etc.) and it didn't come as a TOTAL shock to me when the Mets did something.
          That's right. Regardless of where they finished in 1968, their new young team played real well that year, and were "in" just about every game. That's why 1969 did not surprise me.

          Also, they had a great manager in Gil Hodges!
          Last edited by Let's Go Mets!; 07-14-2009, 11:21 AM.
          Let's Go Mets!
          New York Mets fan since 1962

          Comment


          • #35
            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.
            It must be taken in context. The 1968 Mets finished ninth in a ten team league. Nineteen sixty eight was the year of the pitcher.

            Going into 1969, divisional play started, and there were only six teams in each division. No one expected the Mets to do anything, but Agee started off things with lead off home runs, the players started to think they could catch the Cubs, and the crowds went wild, unlike anything ever seen before.

            It was the "New Breed," and for the first time, they thought they could win.

            They were confident, not arrogant. The 1986 team was arrogant. Confidence would beat arrogance.
            Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by mwiggins View Post
              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.
              That's reasonable, but the 1969 would beat the 1986 team. Seaver, Koosman, and Gentry and McGraw really were that good, and McAndrew and Ryan did well. So did Cardwell.
              Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Mongoose View Post
                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,
                How do you think the 1969 team won?
                Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by MetsFanSince66 View Post
                  Maybe we can do a position break down of each starting (and a few bench) players plus pitching staff of each team. I can look it up.....but every time I try to copy and paste stats here it comes out all screwy.
                  If you've been a Mets fan since 1966, then just think back to how it was in 1969. There is no way that team would lose to the 1986 Mets.
                  Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by LouGehrig View Post
                    That's reasonable, but the 1969 would beat the 1986 team. Seaver, Koosman, and Gentry and McGraw really were that good, and McAndrew and Ryan did well. So did Cardwell.
                    Seaver said the Mets had the most feared pitching staff in the National League for the next six years.
                    Let's Go Mets!
                    New York Mets fan since 1962

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      86 mets were far more superior. Apart from pitching, the 69 Mets were possibly one of the worst teams to win the WS, and the 86 team were one of the best.
                      Koosman, Seaver, McGraw......
                      Wilson, Srawberry, Gooden, Carter, Knight, Hernandez...3 pitchers and a good few games don't even come close to the 86 triumph
                      MySpace Codes

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by LouGehrig View Post
                        How do you think the 1969 team won?
                        In 'Oh God' George Burns (God) said He did it.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I was born in 71 so I'm not even going to compare the 2 teams because that would be unfair. If you weren't around in 69 then IMO how the heck can you compare the 2 teams? Baseball is more than just stats.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by majorleads View Post
                            I was born in 71 so I'm not even going to compare the 2 teams because that would be unfair. If you weren't around in 69 then IMO how the heck can you compare the 2 teams? Baseball is more than just stats.
                            automation error 1672631- does not believe in stats.

                            repeat: does not believe in stats.

                            recourse: take boy to OPS+ room.

                            over and vorp.
                            Originally posted by Cougar
                            "Read at your own risk. Baseball Fever shall not be responsible if you become clinically insane trying to make sense of this post. People under 18 must read in the presence of a parent, guardian, licensed professional, or Dr. Phil."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by nerfan View Post
                              automation error 1672631- does not believe in stats.

                              repeat: does not believe in stats.

                              recourse: take boy to OPS+ room.

                              over and vorp.
                              Hold on, let me get a bat.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X