Not Like Brooklyn Fans

[LouGehrig]

In 1951, the Brooklyn Dodgers lost a 13-½ game lead over the New York Giants and then lost a three run ninth inning lead and the pennant. It was certainly as gut wrenching as the Mets’ 2007 collapse, but Brooklyn fans didn’t turn on their team. They identified with their team, didn’t blame their team for losing, and even rooted harder for their team in 1952.

http://baseball.suite101.com/article...en_last_season

[DODGER DEB]

In 1951, the Brooklyn Dodgers lost a 13-½ game lead over the New York Giants and then lost a three run ninth inning lead and the pennant. It was certainly as gut wrenching as the Mets’ 2007 collapse, but Brooklyn fans didn’t turn on their team. They identified with their team, didn’t blame their team for losing, and even rooted harder for their team in 1952.

http://baseball.suite101.com/article...en_last_season

I've noticed that, too, Lou!

It is certainly so sad to see what is happening to all of this great game of BASEBALL, that WE all loved, especially OUR respective teams and players. WE would never turn on OUR teams! WE stood with them and behind them...win or lose!

c.

[Gary Dunaier]

I don't think you can compare the two. Back then, players were more likely to stay with one team for their entire career, and since they didn't make anywhere near the kind of money they do now fans could relate and identify with them more. I can't relate to multi-million-dollar players who get big endorsement deals and then go to card shows and charge for their autograph. So, yes, when the Mets let us down the way they did last year, I'm not going to let it slide with a "Good effort, guys" and a pat on the back.

One of the reasons I became a Mets fan is because I live relatively close to Shea Stadium. But I don't think I've ever felt they were "MY Mets" in the sense that you view the former Superbas as YOUR Dodgers. Back in those days you were rooting for PLAYERS. These days - as Jerry Seinfeld so aptly put it - we root not for players but for LAUNDRY. :dismay:

[NY16CATCHER]

In 1951, the Brooklyn Dodgers lost a 13-½ game lead over the New York Giants and then lost a three run ninth inning lead and the pennant. It was certainly as gut wrenching as the Mets’ 2007 collapse, but Brooklyn fans didn’t turn on their team. They identified with their team, didn’t blame their team for losing, and even rooted harder for their team in 1952.

http://baseball.suite101.com/article...en_last_season

A not so subtle shot at Mets fans, I see.

If I wanted to take the lowest shot...I'd mention the fact that the Mets fans still at least have a team to talk about, care about, debate the path forward of, go see, watch on TV, etc...but I won't

People discuss the events of the day with a fervor and passion, because they freakin' care. No different than you proclaim to have cared for the Brooklyn Dodgers. No 2 fans express their feelings or emotions the same way. Some are louder, some are quieter, some just say what they have to say. The fact that they (the Mets) spark such interest and emotion speaks to the passion of their fans and the size of their fan base, as well as to how good a team they have and the expectations of them.

I read with great interest the thread about where Dodger Deb had gone, and read her message regarding where she had been and why, and I find a great irony in the fact that she felt as though she was wrongly chastised for what she viewed as facts, that mods and others viewed as "bashing or flaming". I would think that she, of anybody, would display a certain sensitivity for threads where fans of a particular team could feel slighted, after all, she has historically been the first one to rail against anyone who dares step into this forum and remotely disagrees with the gospel preached here. Guess that was too much to expect...the double standard lives on I guess.

[shlevine42]

In 1951, the Brooklyn Dodgers lost a 13-½ game lead over the New York Giants and then lost a three run ninth inning lead and the pennant. It was certainly as gut wrenching as the Mets’ 2007 collapse, but Brooklyn fans didn’t turn on their team. They identified with their team, didn’t blame their team for losing, and even rooted harder for their team in 1952.

http://baseball.suite101.com/article...en_last_season

You shouldn't be surprised, Lou.

This Forum is a testament to the loyalty we had -- and still have -- to our team.

Perhaps it's because despite the heartbreak of losing the pennant on the last day of the season for two consecutive years, the Dodgers still came back to win the pennant in four of the next five years -- including their first world championship.

How could fans lose faith in a team with such strength of character?

[LouGehrig]

A not so subtle shot at Mets fans, I see.

People discuss the events of the day with a fervor and passion, because they freakin' care. No different than you proclaim to have cared for the Brooklyn Dodgers. No 2 fans express their feelings or emotions the same way. Some are louder, some are quieter, some just say what they have to say. The fact that they (the Mets) spark such interest and emotion speaks to the passion of their fans and the size of their fan base, as well as to how good a team they have and the expectations of them.

You see wrong. There is no intent at shooting Mets' fans.

You are right -- people care, but that is the point being made. They care about the uniform but very little about who wears it. The Brooklyn fans AND the Yankees fans of the 1950s cared about both.

I cared about the Brooklyn Dodgers the same way I care about the Mets. I am a Yankee. When Ralph Terry messed up, possibly worse than did Branca, most Yankees' fans didn't want to get rid of Terry, just as Brooklyn fans didn't want to get rid of Ralph. We wanted redemption for them.

The article merely used Willie as a take off point on the game today. It was NOT an attempt to knock the Mets or Mets fans. It was an attempt to point out that today's Yankees' fans or Red Sox fans etc., root for the team, which is fine, but there is little loyalty to players, and due to free agency, it is justified.

[dodger dynamo]

when the dodgers collapsed in 51, you knew it ate them up as much as it did us, extra, much needed money was on the line too. The pennant meant more to them than it does today. A lot of players finish with good numbers and that's all they care about. Back then it was more about the success of the team. Back when I was a kid the ball players who came out of the depression were so grateful not to have to work in factories or coal mines, or starve, they knew they were lucky. To day the players feel it's their divine right to be playing ball and making unbelievable money. I also think there should be a rule that requires players by contract to sign X number of autographs per year and that they can't charge while active. why ? why interrupt free enterprise? because they don't really need to. As for the mets collapse I don't really know the character make up of the team so I can't speak to individual players motivations. I feel for the met fan and I have for a long time. management I'm sure is a little responsible, perhaps relying to much on talent alone to hide their lack of manging skills. obviously something went wrong. perhaps they felt the pressure just as the dodgers did in 51 and the other teams just played a little better. I know though if I'm worried about making the mortgage payment, I'm going to be on time and ready to play every day. If it's not a worry, even the most saintly, true blue of us might occasionally be late, and take a longer lunch. If we have an Iron clad contract, then maybe just maybe once in a while we turn in the report late and the other companies with employees with a few more worries or better managers beat us out, even though we're the better company. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[LouGehrig]

You shouldn't be surprised, Lou.

This Forum is a testament to the loyalty we had -- and still have -- to our team.

Perhaps it's because despite the heartbreak of losing the pennant on the last day of the season for two consecutive years, the Dodgers still came back to win the pennant in four of the next five years -- including their first world championship.

How could fans lose faith in a team with such strength of character?

I couldn't agree more, and like you, lived through it, although from a different perspective. The sad thing is that many (most?) of today's fans COULD lose faith in even as great a group of players as the 1950s Brooklyn players.

[MATHA531]

The reality is that it's like comparing apples and oranges...times have changed. The fans now think they're part of the show...television cameras show the fans constantly....not true in the 1950's...the television cameras only showed the game....there was no WFAN for fans to be riled up by shlock jocks as we have today.

None of this was meant as a knock on Mets fans...it's also a fact that players just don't stay with teams their entire careers nor can you count your players today will be with your team a year or two down the line...if anything has ruined baseball (and all sports for that matter) it's free agency...you knew after the 1951 season that it was almost 100% certain that Hodges, Furillo, Campy, Snider et al would be with you the following year and the year after that unless the team of its own volition went out and did something...there are no such assurances today...example Delgado has been a Met for what...2 or 3 seasons and won't be there next year...who really cares if you antagonize him...here today gone tomorrow...

BTW it cuts all around baseball and all sports today...I was listening on the radio today and there were some who claimed some fans of the Imposters playing in lala land booed them yesterday when they feel badly behind the Mets and booed the pitcher at Chavez Ravine Stadium...it's just the way it is today not a morality play....I wish I could say with certainty that fans of the Brooklyn Dodgers, if they existed today, wouldn't boo......

[KCGHOST]

That was a different era. Fans identified intensely with their team and didn't have the attitude that they were smarter than the people running the team. Likewise players considered themselves part of the community. Now too many fans see the team as a public affirmation of their own superiority and if the team fails to deliver it is the team's fault not the fans misplaced sense of identity.

[jayzeeg]

finality

one reason it was different when the Mets blew the division last year as opposed to when the dodgers blew a 131/2 game lead in 1951, was the finality of it all. When the dodgers lost to the giants after the thomson homer was hit the pennant was lost. No world series. In 2007 the mets blew the division, which we all know was not a pennant, or even close. They still had to win a divisional playoff, and a "championship playoff". There were no guarantees of a world series. Look at 2006. No, losing on the last day of the season during the old 8 team leagues was alot more devestating.

[LouGehrig]

one reason it was different when the Mets blew the division last year as opposed to when the dodgers blew a 131/2 game lead in 1951, was the finality of it all. When the dodgers lost to the giants after the thomson homer was hit the pennant was lost. No world series. In 2007 the mets blew the division, which we all know was not a pennant, or even close. They still had to win a divisional playoff, and a "championship playoff". There were no guarantees of a world series. Look at 2006. No, losing on the last day of the season during the old 8 team leagues was alot more devestating.

Great points, especially the finality. I really like the perspective. We always hear "Let's just make the playoffs" today, but NOT making them is not as bad as losing the pennant on the last day of the season, as you state.