Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are your favorite Mets memories?

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

  • metfan13
    replied
    Looks to me like Carter pulled one of the combatants out of the file to break up the fight. Notice how Reds are running right by them not exactly worried about Carter beating up Davis. Carter did what he's supposed to do, he grabbed someone and pulled them off the pile.

    Leave a comment:


  • m8644
    replied
    Originally posted by Mongoose View Post
    Well... No.

    Pictured here is the June 22nd 1986 brawl:



    Note Gary Carter taking down Eric Davis in the lower right hand corner of the picture. For all the smiles and positiveness and God fearingness, Gary knew his way around a riot pretty well. The Mets didn't keep Knight and Mitchell on the roster as "goons". This wasn't the NHL. Gary wasn't afraid to get in the middle of things and mix it up.

    I will fit this into the Mets Memories theme of this thread by saying that after growing up with the Mets being a doormat; after having Pete Rose beating up Bud Harrelson as one of my formative baseball memories, it was great to finally have a Mets team that was the exact opposite of that. The brawls were probably an extension of an aggressiveness that also manifested itself in other ways - for example, the way every player seemed to wish they'd be in the middle of a key play so they could pick up their teammates and contribute to a win. You could feel that attitude back then.

    Would Piazza clouting Clemens with the broken bat have changed the momentum of the series? In itself, probably not. But not doing anything in that instance was about what you'd expect from a team that laid down meekly in 5 games. The 1986 Mets were the kind of team that would have fought back violently against Clemens, which correlates better to a team that mounted one of the greatest come-from-behind victories in World Series history.

    I think Paulypal is suggesting each team's attitude was a factor in these results. I think he's got a valid point.
    that was July 22, not June 22nd

    and I believe that was also the brawl where George Foster stayed on the bench instead of going out to help his teammates.......which pretty much cost him any shred of respect he had in that clubhouse (it wasnt much by that point anyway though)..........and about 2 weeks later he made his famous comments and was released

    Leave a comment:


  • Mongoose
    replied
    Originally posted by metfan13 View Post
    No, the role guys like Mitchell were ready to jump in to protect the stars. Keith and Gary could yap because they knew guys had their backs.

    Piazza should get himself ejected from a world series game? Ridiculous.
    Well... No.

    Pictured here is the June 22nd 1986 brawl:



    Note Gary Carter taking down Eric Davis in the lower right hand corner of the picture. For all the smiles and positiveness and God fearingness, Gary knew his way around a riot pretty well. The Mets didn't keep Knight and Mitchell on the roster as "goons". This wasn't the NHL. Gary wasn't afraid to get in the middle of things and mix it up.

    I will fit this into the Mets Memories theme of this thread by saying that after growing up with the Mets being a doormat; after having Pete Rose beating up Bud Harrelson as one of my formative baseball memories, it was great to finally have a Mets team that was the exact opposite of that. The brawls were probably an extension of an aggressiveness that also manifested itself in other ways - for example, the way every player seemed to wish they'd be in the middle of a key play so they could pick up their teammates and contribute to a win. You could feel that attitude back then.

    Would Piazza clouting Clemens with the broken bat have changed the momentum of the series? In itself, probably not. But not doing anything in that instance was about what you'd expect from a team that laid down meekly in 5 games. The 1986 Mets were the kind of team that would have fought back violently against Clemens, which correlates better to a team that mounted one of the greatest come-from-behind victories in World Series history.

    I think Paulypal is suggesting each team's attitude was a factor in these results. I think he's got a valid point.

    Leave a comment:


  • metfan13
    replied
    No, the role guys like Mitchell were ready to jump in to protect the stars. Keith and Gary could yap because they knew guys had their backs.

    Piazza should get himself ejected from a world series game? Ridiculous.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by metfan13
    Bringing up the Sam Champion nonsense. A low blow even for you. Piazza did what he had to do for his team as difficult as that may have been.

    The difference is if a pitcher in 86 did that to Carter, Kevin Mitchell would have detroyed the pitcher and half the other team and left Carter in the game. No one on that Mets team challenged Clemens. THAT was the problem.
    First of all the Sam Champion thing was a joke, making fun of how ridiculous it is. If you didnt like it..well thats ok.

    A low blow even for me? Awww I am insulted. Another Christmas card I wont be getting. If you have a problem with what I post or how I post it...dont respond.

    Really thats your answer? Someone had to jump in for Piazza? Thats funny. Last I checked Piazza was a grown man who was put in the hospital by Clemens. Clemens basically bitch slapped Piazza for a second time and got nothing for his troubles, and you think thats ok? How about leadership against a better team that tells his team we aint taking their crap anymore? No - I guess staying in the game was the smart play...it worked out well to.

    If that happened to Carter....I dont think Carter would have waited for a bodyguard to do something. Ridiculous.
    Last edited by Paulypal; 07-05-2011, 05:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • metfan13
    replied
    Seaver's 1971 season was as close to Guidry's as Gooden's was.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mongoose
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    I would have to go Pedro over anyone. Considering that he was pitching to an under 2.00 ERA when guys were hitting 50-70 homers on the regular. He was so much better than league average - moreso than Doc or Guidry.
    League quality fell way down after the 1980s. It's recovered a bit in the last few years, but lots of guys put up cartoon stats in the 90s-00s, both pitcher and hitters. All the hallmarks of bad overall league quality were there: ridiculous relative stats, teams winning 110-115 games. It wasn't just expansion: there had been a big drop in the U.S. birth rate after the middle 1960s and lots of the best athletes from the remaining pool of talent went into football, which was now the #1 sport and basketball, which might have been #2 for a while there. Because of major population shifts, lots of African-Americans were now raised in urban areas and played basketball more than baseball, so their numbers in MLB dropped. Overnight, with no expanded scouting (that came later), Latin America went from supplying a little over 10% of players to about 30%.

    Here's an article discussing the basic principles:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...eague-quality/

    It draws some faulty conclusions because it doesn't take into account macro-trends in demographics that decimated league quality in the 1990s. Unfortunately the best qualified people to study these things don't go into sabermetrics: they're in the universities or making money on Wall Street. The article's basic points are valid, though.

    Look at it this way: Gooden and Guidry were the only pitchers in a full season over a long span of time to have ERAs substantially under 2.00. In the 1990s-early 2000s, lots of sub 2.00 ERAs were recorded, in spite of the apparent increase in offense. Clemens, Johnson, Brown, Maddux, Martinez and a couple others put up crazy numbers in these years. Did a whole bunch of guys who were better than anyone in history suddenly appear all at once? No. They were just mowing down rotten hitters who wouldn't have been in the majors a generation earlier.

    That said, Gooden in 1985 was at least as good as peak Martinez if not better. I'd still take him in a one game playoff against anyone... Unless peak Koufax was starting for the other team.

    In a short series the mid 80s Mets would have been a threat to any team in history.

    By the way, as you noted before they also had great intangibles. I'd have liked to see Clemens pull the nonsense he did with Piazza in the 2000 WS against the 1986 team. He wouldn't have dared. It's hard to measure, but mental approach is surely a factor in why the team was so great.

    Leave a comment:


  • m8644
    replied
    that Expos-Cardinals series at Busch down the stretch in 85 absolutely killed the Mets chances.............The expos blew a late inning lead in ALL 3 games if I remember correctly......and to top if off, the expos closer Jeff Reardon was hurt for that series of course!

    Not to mention Cesar Cedeno hitting like Stan Musial the last 3 weeks for them

    Leave a comment:


  • Strawman
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    First of all you bit off a lot with the 27 Yanks. Cant we just be happy with having a great team at one point..no need to go attack the greatest team ever. LOL
    Well yeah the '27 Yankees did win 110 games and romped and their everyday lineup is hard to beat for its day - the '86 Mets would only claim catcher and third-base over the '27 Bombers.

    But for my money, the '86 Mets had better pitching. I think it'd be a close an interesting Series. The '86 Mets faced adversity than did Murderer's Row. It's not so far-fetched - call it near-fetched!

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by metfan13 View Post
    I'd add 99-00 Pedro to your list and agree.
    I would have to go Pedro over anyone. Considering that he was pitching to an under 2.00 ERA when guys were hitting 50-70 homers on the regular. He was so much better than league average - moreso than Doc or Guidry.

    Leave a comment:


  • metfan13
    replied
    Originally posted by PVNICK View Post
    The '85 team was one that shoulda won. Once they got Carter it took them from possible fluke to juggernaught. I think in 86 they had some knack for pulling out the improbable and were deeper even if Gooden and Carter were not as good. As far as your penultimate sentence 84/85 Gooden along with 78/79 Guidry best pitcher I ever saw regularly, nobody else was/is within miles.
    I'd add 99-00 Pedro to your list and agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Mongoose View Post
    Anyone else agree with me about just how good they were?
    First of all you bit off a lot with the 27 Yanks. Cant we just be happy with having a great team at one point..no need to go attack the greatest team ever. LOL

    Here is the way I see it:

    Right up until 1983 the Mets sucked. Straw came up and they traded for Keith later on so the groundwork was there.

    In 1984 Doc arrived, Knight arrived, the young pitching came around. Keith and Darryl were the middle of the order, but still I think we as fans and even maybe the team were surprised they went from sucking to competing in one year. I dont think anyone was ready for it. The Cubs managed to pull away.

    In 1985 Gooden was awesome. We got Carter, and we all felt this was it...finally. I think the team and the fans needed that year when we knew were good and werent going to sneak up on anyone this year like in 84. Sometimes great teams need to lose together before they know how to win together. I really think this was the case here.

    Going into 1986 the feeling was "ok now nothing is going to stop us". We had talent everywhere. We had a great lineup. We had a year or two of learning how to compete at a high level, and of course we had Doc. (My Lord I sound like Shea Knight. Only thing is Gooden really did have a million dollar smile...he had gold teeth back then. Sorry Shea Knight I had to.) Well nothing stopped them from game 6 on. LOL. If you remember they were 2-3 to start the year. Division over by June.

    I think the reason we had so many memorable games is because the team didnt quit ever. They caused great memories by putting pedal to the medal 162 times.

    I do not think the 1985 team was better because the 1986 team was hardened by 1984 and 1985. They learned how to win.

    Does anyone remember being called "pond scum"?

    Leave a comment:


  • PVNICK
    replied
    The '85 team was one that shoulda won. Once they got Carter it took them from possible fluke to juggernaught. I think in 86 they had some knack for pulling out the improbable and were deeper even if Gooden and Carter were not as good. As far as your penultimate sentence 84/85 Gooden along with 78/79 Guidry best pitcher I ever saw regularly, nobody else was/is within miles.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mongoose
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    Yep, although I didnt see the fireworks either.

    Funny thing about 1985 that was the first year where I went into the season "knowing" the Mets would win. Before that it was just years of hoping....sort of like some forum members do now, but 1985 you knew they were legit. It was the first year of Gary Carter. We all thought that was the last piece of the puzzle.

    I remember that September series against the Cards. That was some of the most intense baseball ever....for me. My favorite moment is listed somewhere in this thread and its still Strawberry's homer off of Ken Dayley in that late September Cardinal series. The Mets won that game 1-0 in extra innings. Darryl was/is by far my favorite Met ever.

    I just cheated and looked it up. It was Tuesday October 1st 1985 in 11 innings. I forgot the season started late that year so my late September comment was wrong.
    Those teams were epic on the field and off it. The 1998 Yankees had a bunch of reserve players who used to be great. The 1986 Mets were better in that they had a bunch of reserve players who were going to be great - and we all realized it at the time. Those Mets were also the last great MLB team with any real personality. I actually think the 1985 team was better. Carter was brought in to seal the deal and turned in the best season by a Mets catcher, offensively, defensively and adjusting for era, ever. Ojeda was the only real difference in 1986. Otherwise the difference in wins was probably some kind of standard statistical variation. I still wonder how the Cardinals won. The Mets beat them like a drum during the stretch.

    It was funny: Ozzie Smith was maybe the most arrogant player I ever saw. His phony smile and whole act annoyed me, yet he and the rest of the Cardinals called the Mets arrogant and acted like America’s defenders of small town humility and decency. They were a team of sour jerks. I’d later learn Whitey Herzog had a legitimate gripe against the M. Donald Grant regime and should have been running the Mets, but at the time I hated him. Game 7 of the 1985 WS was fun to watch; the best thing I could have hoped for short of the Mets being in the series. In those days the players fought and seemed to care as much about the rivalries as the fans. Since then the rivalries against the Pirates, Braves, Phillies, etc. have seemed contrived.

    In those days the Mets got into a lot of long, strange, extra inning games. The one against the Reds on June, 22nd 1986 was one. Games 6 of the NLCS and WS were another two, but they were pretty regular from 1983 to 1986. In those days closers pitched more than one inning and between Orosco, McDowell and Sisk (good except for 1985), the Mets seldom lost.

    I probably caught every Dwight Gooden start in 1985, either on TV or at the ballpark. This was his worst start on paper because he was pulled after the first long rain delays. The box score suggests he was knocked out, but he really wasn’t. Though the legend is different, Davey Johnson actually pampered him by the standards of the era. I can’t remember what they filled the rain delays with - Kiner was always great to listen to; not sure if they showed any films - but I watched the whole thing on WOR at the time.

    Hernandez hitting for the cycle was almost an afterthought. The extra innings were anything but boring. Both teams kept scoring - the Mets would break through and then the Braves would score exactly enough runs to tie it, but not to win. Camp did homer. I didn’t mind. The game was so awesome I didn’t want it to end. I think the Braves were down to their last strke, too. The freaky thing was after the Mets scored some more Camp was up with runners on and a chance to tie the game again with another home run. I was pulling for another homer but Darling was fresh and I guess everyone (but me) wanted him to just get Camp out.

    I didn’t want the Braves to win, of course, I just wanted to see more weird, great baseball, which the 1983-6 teams specialized in. You knew at the time you were watching something special - and not just the game but the team. I think most of us figured they’d be great for a long time, but even so subconsciously we suspected we were seeing a historic, once-in-a-lifetime awesomeness. I don’t think you can really appreciate those Mets teams unless you saw them. The talent ran deep, but there was something more: the team culture had been rebuilt before your eyes from one that expected to lose to one that refused to lose. Journeymen like Ray Knight would come to the Mets, step up their games, and become team leaders and Icons. Sure there were heralded picks like Strawberry and Gooden, but an endless supply of unheralded gemstones like Dykstra and Mitchell kept coming up, too. Think about it: future MVP Mitchell was a 5th outfielder, utility guy on that team: and he was awesome even then!

    In short those teams represented a complete opposite of Mets culture before and since. I often accuse Fred Wilpon of having no grasp of what traditional Mets culture is all about - but maybe I’m wrong. He might be clueless about the charm aspect, but he’s had the failure part down to a science in all the years since.

    I feel bad about the fans too young to have seen these teams. In terms of personality they were a colorful throwback to the Bronx Zoo Yankees (but better and crazier in every way), and the Durocher Dodgers of the early 1940s (but far more talented and more thoroughly winners). The 1985 team was as good as the 1986 team. In a one game playoff I’d take them over the 1927 Yankees. Gooden in 1985 > Ruth, Gehrig. Anyone else agree with me about just how good they were?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by metfan13 View Post
    Sure I remember that one. And then in Atlanta they shot off the fireworks at 4 am.
    Yep, although I didnt see the fireworks either.

    Funny thing about 1985 that was the first year where I went into the season "knowing" the Mets would win. Before that it was just years of hoping....sort of like some forum members do now, but 1985 you knew they were legit. It was the first year of Gary Carter. We all thought that was the last piece of the puzzle.

    I remember that September series against the Cards. That was some of the most intense baseball ever....for me. My favorite moment is listed somewhere in this thread and its still Strawberry's homer off of Ken Dayley in that late September Cardinal series. The Mets won that game 1-0 in extra innings. Darryl was/is by far my favorite Met ever.

    I just cheated and looked it up. It was Tuesday October 1st 1985 in 11 innings. I forgot the season started late that year so my late September comment was wrong.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X