Friday, October 20, 2006

It Wasn't "Met" To Be

1-1 going into the ninth. Heilman still in there instead of the not always steady Billy Wagner. Boom, bam, 3-1. The bottom of the ninth for the Mets...two hits, and hope. Yes hope. After being stymied by MVP of the Series Jeff Suppon for seven innings, there was hope. All too quickly those brief but bright hopes were dashed, and the St. Louis Cardinals are on their way to Detroit for games one and two of the World series. Some say the Mets peaked too soon, that this team was built to take it all next year in 2007. But for all the Mets fans out there, and the Cardinal haters, which I have been since the World Series 1967, this was a tough one to take. These 2006 Cardinals are not talented enough to hold the '67 team's jock straps, but their pitching, starters and the bullpen, are good enough not to embarass themselves. I pick the Tigers in 6. And there will be a more detailed prediction post later today. But for the Met's fans out there, keep your heads high. Your team had a great season. Losing game seven at home is always tough. Stay strong. And root for the Tigers. I know I will.


At 10/20/2006 11:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn the Cardinals ! URGH !

- What's done is done. -

Well, let's cheer on the Tigers - today is the first day one of our local radio hosts didn't say Detroi-let ... LOL !

Have a good day Peter !

At 10/20/2006 11:50 AM, Blogger Peter N said...

I too am a Cardinal hater, since the days of Bob Gibson, Mr. Unhittable...Novy, enjoy the Tigers rule!!! And have a great weekend. Such a great name! Peter, such an ordinary name. Oh well! Be happy.

At 10/20/2006 12:51 PM, Blogger FartShake said...

so happy thosedirty mets lost last nihgt! my ron and i were so happywe had a truly MAGICAL night!!hehheee!

ibet the cards sweep thosetigers TOO!!my husband ronals says that this is the bestcardinal team he's ever seen (he's seena lot) and hes be shocked if theylost!

oh how i wishthesox were still nit it.

At 10/20/2006 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you hate the Cardinals because they beat the Red Sox in 1967, why don't you hate the Mets for beating them in 1986? That makes no sense whatsoever.

At 10/20/2006 2:06 PM, Blogger Peter N said...

The Cardinals are doomed...thanks for your comment C&S. But we never know! It would be a huge upset, though.
And now for you, anonymous. It makes total sense. At the time, before the summer of Pepper started, the Sox were a last place team...and then the season of "67," in which the St. Louis Cardinal team was THE TEAM to beat. I guess you had to be there...and the '86 Mets..they were a good team, but far from the best. And it was the Red Sox's fault for losing that one....heartbreaking though it was.. But the Red Sox were NOT the underdogs, as they were in '67 and '75. Bone up on your baseball history. And maybe, just maybe, sign your name. Your negative tone reminds me of BSM. If I'm wrong, sorry. And I don't know why BSM always has something negative to say, although it's been a while. Study the three opposing teams in '67, '75 and '86. Clearly the first two were by far the best teams in baseball at the time... Maybe you'll learn. And I meant that nicely. It makes perfect sense. Take care. Anon, if you want a more detailed answer, sign your name, or leave another comment. I'll be happy to teach you...promise. And oh! What I said makes perfect sense. Have a nice weekend, both of you, and thanks for reading. I really appreciate it!!!!

At 10/20/2006 3:04 PM, Blogger Michael Leggett said...

With the Addition of Lord Albert of The Pool Halls, a CLASSLESS Jerk, who I suspect of some Giambi Action, as he was injured earlier this year, under mysterious circumstances, he will be seeing a Full Team instead of The Patchworked One:

Let's make it 12 WS Game Losses in a row, S'r Sunglasses.

At 10/20/2006 3:18 PM, Blogger Peter N said...

Well said, ML....

At 10/20/2006 4:32 PM, Anonymous NewEnglander42 said...

You guys think Pujols is "classless"? Why? He's considered around the league as one of the great guys in the league, and is well known off the field for his charitable endeavors.

Seriously, if Albert Pujols is a classless jerk, there's not much hope for the rest of us.

Also, fwiw-

"and the '86 Mets..they were a good team, but far from the best."

That Met team had won 108 games, while the Sox 95. The Mets were clear favorites and one of the better teams of all time, actually. You're actually really way off on that one. In comparison to the 67, team the 86 Mets had a better team OPS+ and a better team ERA+. So...

"Bone up on your baseball history"

... was probably pretty unfair to that person. :) The Sox were underdogs in 67, 75, and 86 (I remember, cos I bet on all of em!) and took each team to the brink. I don't get how you can be OK with the Mets and not the Cards/ Reds, but hey, to each his own. I can't stand em all! :)

Have a great day!


At 10/20/2006 4:42 PM, Blogger laura said...

I didn't think the Cards were good enough to beat the Mets, and I'm still not sure that they are a better team, but at least now I can cheer for the Tigers all the way.

At 10/20/2006 4:56 PM, Blogger Bosox Fan in Wichita said...

WOW! What a great game last night. Congrats to the Cards, but the Mets deserve props too for fighting to stay in it & the season they had.

GO TIGERS! I think Nate said he will pitch the 1st game in St. Louis - I guess they like him facing adversity better. Probably Verlander & Rogers this weekend? Should be fun.

Have good day Peter.

At 10/21/2006 6:42 AM, Blogger Peter N said...

Thank you Steve, for your comment, and everyone else too. I still think the '86 Mets can't hold a candle to the '67 Redbirds or the '75 Big Red Machine. But your point is well taken, and I thank you. It was anon's negative tone that got me a little. too. You are civilised. Thanks for reading, everybody.

At 10/22/2006 12:37 PM, Anonymous newnglander42 said...

1986 Mets:
W/L- 108-54
Pyth W/L- 103-59
783 RS
578 RA
Runs per game- 4.83 (1st in NL | league average 4.18)
Runs allowed per game- 3.57 (1st in NL | league average- 4.18)
ERA- 3.11 (1st in NL | league average- 3.72)
4th in NL Defensive Efficiency

1967 Cardinals
W/L- 101-60
Pyth W/L- 97-64
RS- 695
RA- 557
Runs per game- 4.32 (2nd in NL | league average- 3.84)
Runs allowed per game- 3.46 (3rd in NL | league average 3.84)
ERA- 3.05 (t2nd in NL | league average 3.37)
3rd in NL Defensive Efficiency

Let's see where they rank against the league in some other categories-

Mets (1st | 116)
Cardinals (1st | 109)

Mets (3rd | 138)
Cardinals (4th | 115)

Mets (1st | .338)
Cardinals (2nd | .317)

Mets (1st | .401)
Cardinals (2nd | .380)

Mets (2nd | 1083)
Cardinals (6th | 956)

Mets (t2nd | 3.1)
Cardinals (3rd | 2.7)

HR allowed
Mets (1st | 103)
Cardinals (3rd | 97)

Morever- the Mets had 7 of their regulars with an OPS+ over 110, not including their super-sub off the bench, Kevin Mitchell, who also was well over 10% better than league average. The Cardinals had only 5, and none off the bench. The Mets had three over 130, the Cardinals only two.

The Mets had three of their starters with ERA+ over 120- the Cardinals only one. The Met bullpen was more dominant as well.

There's really no good argument to be made that the 1967 Cardinals were as good as the 1986 Mets. The Cards were a very good team that outlasted the competition. The 86 Mets were absolute juggernauts that slaughtered the competition without much effort. They dominated almost every worthwhile statistical category we have.

I mean, if you want to like the Mets, that's fine- no one cares either way, I'm sure. But saying you hate the Cardinals and agreeing with calling Pujols classless because of 1967, but not caring about 1986- I mean no offense, but that doesn't seem to make any sense. The Mets were a better team and, as I said, both teams were favorites in their Series against Boston.

At 10/22/2006 1:07 PM, Blogger Peter N said...

Great comment..but I never called Pujols "classless,"...that was someone else. He is an offensive force. I was a kid, with my Dad, when the Cardinals stole my heart in 1967. The emotions come from there. And in no way am I belittling the 1986 Mets....they were good. Wait...better than good. As were the 1975 Reds. Thank you for your invaluable comments. Please don't be a stranger here. I love that you stop by......everyday, I hope! Enjoy these games of mid-October. I sure will. And with someone like you leaving clasicc comments, that makes my blog soo much better. Thanks! Peter

At 10/22/2006 1:14 PM, Blogger Peter N said...

And NE42, the difference maker MIGHT be, and I said might, Bob Gibson. Printed stats do not come near telling about his dominance....Again, thank you so much. Some of the best comments I've ever seen here. And I'm happy because of that...Peter..I mean that.

At 10/23/2006 12:13 PM, Anonymous newenglander42 said...

"Great comment..but I never called Pujols "classless,"...that was someone else."

I took your response of "well said" to mean you agreed.

"I was a kid, with my Dad, when the Cardinals stole my heart in 1967"

See now this I get. My son was justa boy when the Mets finished of Boston, and he is indifferent to St Louis, but loathes the Mets.

"Printed stats do not come near telling about his dominance...."

Well, two things- one is that they do tell of his dominance- and that is, he was historically great. No one is underestimating that.

But consider two things- one, the rest of his pitching staff was not much better than league average, and two- Gibby could only pitch every 4th day. So while he was dominant, certainly, I was talking about the respective teams as a whole. The Mets were deeper and likely better, even considering Gibby.

At 10/23/2006 12:20 PM, Blogger Peter N said...

NE42..another great comment. How did you enjoy the Kenny Rogers' show last night??....and again, thanks for being, and everyone, have made my day....

At 10/23/2006 12:21 PM, Blogger Peter N said...

Intentional caps...I MEAN THAT!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home