Ootie

It is a bit convenient of you to call Mets' comeback as "incredibly clutch" and then characterize DBack's comeback as the result of the Yanks' "choke".

Baseball can rarely be explained by "clutch" or "choke" (in fact, if you ever read any of sabermetric works like Bill James', "clutch" hitters do not exist). Baseball is also dictated by an element of luck. Hard-hit balls getting caught by fielders and bloopers finding holes are facts of life.

In that bottom of 9th, Rivera was hit hard only once (by Tony Womack's double). Sure, the Yanks misplayed Jay Bell's bunt, but that one misplay is not responsible for the two runs. When it mattered, Rivera appeared to have made a good enough pitch to retire Luis Gonzalez. That the blooper flew beyond Jeter who was drawn in had nothing to do with "choke". It was simply baseball being baseball.

If anything, the Mets won in 1986 not because of their "clutch", but because of the "curse of Bambino".

That, I believe .

Superman, you've shown marvelous restraint not to lose your temper despite all of my attempts to fluster you and poke fun at your teams. I tip my hat to you.

Question: I assume you live in California, so how did you become a Yankee and Cowboy fan? You're going to have to convince me that you're not a front-running bandwagon fan.

Byron, recently I saw a T-shirt that says that the "curse of the Bambino" is over now because it only existed in the previous millennium (which ended with the 2000 World Series). It also portrayed the New Millenium World Series standings:

Arizona 1-0
All other teams (except the Yankees) 0-0
Yankees 0-1

Thus, the Mets and the Red Sox are both ahead of the cellar-dwelling Yankees. So now there's no reason for the Red Sox to worry; they may very well win it all this year with no curse to worry about.

A Rooting for the Red Sox (and Cubs) almost as much as the Mets kind of guy,

Out-of-Towner

I hope you are right about the curse, Ootie.

However, Yankee fans claim that "the curse is Y2K compliant".

Sad but true, I was rooting for Reggie Jackson and the California Angels in 1986. I had been following the Angels for years. Whatever curse afflicts that loser team is just as bad as the curse of the Bambino for the Red Sox. In 1986, the Angels won their third Western Division championship (the second having come in 1982), but lost one of the most heartbreaking League Championship Series in history to the Red Sox. Ahead three games to one, the Angels were one strike away from their first ever World Series, but two two-run homers by the Red Sox in the top of the ninth brought Boston back from a three run deficit. The Angels rallied to tie, but eventually lost in 11 innings, then went on to lose two more in Boston to complete one of the most monumental collapses in baseball history. AGONY!!! Few people remember this, but of course everybody remembers Boston’s monumental collapse.

My girlfriend at the time was from Boston. This was difficult enough during the NBA finals, considering that I’m originally from L.A. But that Angels-Red Sox series made for some cold nights. Despite everything, I decided to pull for her Red Sox in the world series. As Boston closed in on the world series title, I started cheering wildly for the Mets. I couldn’t help it. The Red Sox collapse was perfect. They had already named a pitcher for Boston as the MVP, but of course that got reversed. They interviewed him at the end of the series, and he made a comment about “what goes around comes around.”

Anyway, I barely even follow Baseball these days. As I said before, I think the game has been corrupted.

Dogster:

I DO remember that Angel collapse. One of the most major fan ouches of all time.

Keep the faith. They look pretty good this year so far.

A Sports kind of guy,

Out-of-Towner

That was more than fan ouches.

The Angele pitcher Donnie Moore who served the 2-run homer to Dave Henderson never recovered from the pitch, and committed suicide several years later.

There was A LOT OF memory I carry from that year. I was at Fenway in Game 1 of the ALCS and then in Game 3 of the WS.

Another story was, it was customary during the regular season that the Red Sox manager John MacNamara substituted Bill Buckner for a defensive replacement in late innings. For a long time, it was a mystery why MacNamara decided not to follow his routine in Game 6 of the WS, and he was criticized for his non move.

Peter Gammons recently revealed that Don Baylor (who was the team capatain at the time) told MacNamara that "Buckner belongs to the field when this team wins the World Championship", and MacNamara apparently obliged.

DUH!

Needless to say, Don Baylor now manages the Cubs (for who knows how many more days).

Maybe he is THE CURSE.

Ootie, I'm hardly a front runner. I live in California now but I grew up in Connecticut, 45 minutes from NYC.

Where I lived, you were either a Yankee or Red Sox fan, with the very occasional Mets fan thrown in. My best friends at 9 & 10 years old were Yankee fans, thus I gravitated to the Yanks as well. Also, my first game in person was Yanks-Red Sox at the Stadium. Yanks won, pretty much cementing my loyalty.

In basketball there were almost exclusively Celtic fans in my area. Not much love at all for the Knicks. The Sixer - Celtic rivalry was HUGE in the early 80's, and I adopted the Sixers as my team of choice ... mostly because I loved Dr. J, but also to have constant arguments with Celtic fans (I distinctly remember being grabbed and choked by a drunk, fat, slob at a Celtics game in the Hartford Civic Center because I had the audacity to carry my Sixers banner around at a Celtics game ... I was 13). One of my first basketball memories is the mighty '82-'83 Sixers dismantling every team in the playoffs, culminating in an oh-so-sweet sweep of the hated Lakers. That's still the best team in history in my opinion.

In the early 80's, the Dallas Cowboys were on TV virtually every week in Connecticut. Chalk that up to being America's Team. The Giants, Jets, and Patriots were almost never on, and all happened to suck at the time. The bigger factor was that my dad was a Cowboys fan, and since I had Cowboys gear since as long as I can remember I went with them. I was a Dallas Cowboy on Halloween every year from 5 to 11.

I guess I am just fortunate to have chosen well when I was a kid. I have the Yanks ... the premier team in baseball history (or any sport, really). The Cowboys are the greatest team of the Super Bowl era ... 8 NFC Championships and 5 World Titles. The Sixers have not won since '82-'83 and caused me much suffering for most of the late 80's and all of the 90's, but they are finally back.

I shudder to think I could have chosen the Knicks, Jets, and Red Sox ... I'd still be waiting to see my first World Championship team! Luckily, Dallas and the Yanks cleaned up in the 90's ... and all indications are they will clean up in this decade as well.

Re: The Curse -- Of course it lives. It will always live as long as people talk about it or until the Sox win the Series. The curse is in the minds of the fans ... and that trickles down to the players. Boston has the best record in baseball right now. Think any Yankee fans are even the least bit concerned? It's not will the Sox collapse ... it's when!

-Superman-

OH, come on. Do you think Pedro or Manny gives a damn about the curse?

The concept of the curse is an excuse for the past failures. And you can thank Globe writers for that.

*If* the Red Sox collapse this year, then it's because they don't have the same pitching depth that the Yanks have. And this has more to do with the YES money than the curse.

Of course they think about it. When all the media and fans in Boston talk about it all the time, they are bound to think about it ... even if only to deny its validity. A couple of years ago when the Yanks were playing the Sox in the playoffs, a number of Sox players got upset when they were asked by reporters about the curse. If it did not bother them, they would have just said "nope" and moved on.

I recently heard Jim Rome and Sportscenter mock the Sox for being in first and their pending collapse ... both mentioned the curse. As big as the curse is nationally, it's 100 times so in Boston. Fact is, the longer the Sox stay in first with the Yankees in second, the more it will come into play.

I said before that the Mets' had an inferiority complex. Well, that's nothing compared to Boston's. It's only magnified by the fact that one of the Red Sox all-timers is now winning World Series' with the Mighty Yankees.

Q: What cap will you wear in your Hall of Fame induction ceremony, Roger?

A: Yankees.

-Superman-

How utterly galling must it be for Red Sox fans to have to watch Roger Clemens pitch and win Championships with the Yankees? I've never really paid it too much thought, but it must be horrible. It would be like me having to watch Troy Aikman playing for the Redskins, or Dr. J wearing Celtic green ... ughhh!

-Superman-

So what if they think about it? The curse makes no guarantee.

Even YOU needed to make a qualification "It will always live as long as people talk about it or until the Sox win the Series."

Jim Rome is smarter than you, so he knows the curse is a pure myth. He just exploits it for fun. As soon as the Sox win, it will be laughed at. It has about the same basis as "no dome team has never won a Super Bowl". That was, until the Rams won.

Of course I know it's nothing tangible. I don't believe in supernatural crap like that. I'm saying it has been talked about so much and for so long, that it can put doubt in the players minds. At the very least, it's a built in excuse.

You think the idea of the curse can't influence the mindset of the players? Did you ever play sports, Byron? Even the slightest bit of doubt can have a negative result on your performance. Why does Shaq suck at free throw shooting when, by all accounts, he hits them consistently in practice? You don't think the fact that everyone talks about his poor shooting all the time has a lot to do with it? Why did Chuck Knoblauch go from a gold-glove second baseman to plunking fans in the stands with his errant throws? The media talked about it constantly, and it got into Chuck's head.

Only a complete moron really believes in curses, voodoo, and the like. Rational people understand how ridiculous it is. Ironically, the only people who actually believe the Sox are jinxed are Red Sox fans themselves.

-Superman-

If you played sports, you wouldn't say things you are saying.

Shaq and Knoblauch have doubts, because of THEIR OWN inability to excuse certain things.

Nomar, Pedro, and Manny had NO part of what might have created the myth of the "curse", i.e. a bonehead owner selling Babe for financing the "No No Nannette". Or, they have little to do with the collective failures of the team during last 84 years. Why should their performance be affected by them?

Now, there are certain issues inherent to playing in Boston. The fan pressure is immense. The media is zealous. The ballpark could be detrimental to pitchers. Their budget, while bigger than most other clubs, still falls short of the Yanks'. The curse is not the main concern, however.

If there is any curse on the current Red Sox, then I'd say it has been spelled by Dan Duquette who dried up the farm system while making the team stuck with players like Jose Offerman. I am also concerned about the lack of depth in pitching which forced the Red Sox to start Darren Olivers of the world.

Yes I played sports. I played football, basketball, baseball and tennis in high school, and one of the 4 in college. I also graduated with a Psychology degree. I'm pretty confident I know what I'm talking about.

What I don't know is what you believe. You posted just yesterday that you believed in the curse, and now you are dismissing it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Byron on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 09:05 pm:

If anything, the Mets won in 1986 not because of their "clutch", but because of the "curse of Bambino".

That, I believe .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You also seem to be saying fans accept the curse, but it does not affect the players. Major-League baseball players are some of the most blatantly superstitious athletes on the planet ... why would the fans superstition not trickle down to at least some of the players?

-Superman-

I've played sports, football, boxing, hockey and martial arts.

I say sometimes and can't resist the urge to say again that IMHO professional sports suck.

Sorry,the devil made me do it...

I believe in the curse’ value as a strict humor. It is entertaining to attribute Red Sox’ misfortunes to a supernatural power. Mind you, their misfortunes come from everywhere. The umps make miscalls (like those with Knoblauch’s dropped ball and missed tag in the NYY-BOS ALCS) "because of the curse". That makes a fun tale.

I don’t believe in the curse’ value in predicting the future. "The Sox sold Babe, so that they will never win". Believing in this, like you do, is as dumb as believing in Psychic Network.

Nor do I believe in your amateur theory of the curse affecting Sox players’ psyche. Did Bill Lee throw a 60 mph gopher to Tony Perez because the curse affected him? Unlikely. That’s the way how he pitched all through his career. Did Jason Varitek hit his long flyball that missed clearing the wall by several inches because he was affected by the curse? No way. He hit the ball as well as he could have.

Even Bill Buckner, who probably choked when the grounder was hit to him. Was he choked because of the curse? Nobody, except for Buckner himself, knows for sure. But, if I am to bet, the ghost of Babe was the last thing he had in his mind as the grounder approached him. Buckner’s legs were in a horrible shape at the time, and he was a shaky fielder all season long. He knew he had made errors on grounders like that before. The bottom line is, the players’ psyches are affected by their own abilities (or lack thereof), not by what dead people did in the same uniform 60 years ago.

Now, I pointed out that there is an extra pressure playing in Boston. This is partly because of the team’s past failures. Some players may take it as a burden that negatively affects their psyche. Others use it as a motivation. Derek Lowe, for example, acknowledged that he turned fans’ boos from last year as a motivation so that he would not fail again.

When Pedro signed a long-term deal with the Sox (weeks after he was traded), he said, he chose to stay in Boston because he thought this was the town which he could "turn upside down" if he could lead the team to the championship. He is absolutely right. Boston fans cheer madly when he succeeds. Empty seats in Motreal do not.

In any case, the pressure Boston fans place on their players could not be much different from those you see in other East Coast cities, be it in Bronx, Queens or Philadelphia.

The fan pressure should work both ways, anyway, as Boston fans can preliminarly select against players who cannot perform under clutch circumstances. The guys who cannot perform in Boston (like Carl Everett) would be useless in postseason anyway. On the other hand, the guys who come knowing the situation, like Manny and Pedro, are self selecting for playing under the pressure.

In any case, your theory that the curse exists to the extent that it affects players' performance is a pure hypothesis which nobody can prove or disprove. So, there is no merit for discussing it further.

I guess you are not seeing my point. I don't believe in the curse in any way, shape or form. I don't believe in any supernatural BS, nor do I have any superstitions whatsoever.

Even with no curse, playing for a team that's an all-time loser can weigh on the players minds ... everyone saying "you won't win, you can't win" can have a huge impact. The longer it lasts, the worse it will get. Psychology is a powerful thing.

OBTW, has Pedro gotten injured yet? He's about due for his annual July injury, no?

-Superman-

The Mets are starting to talk the smack again ... their latest theory is Roger plunked Bonds so he would get suspended and miss the series at Shea this weekend! LOL.

Truth is, the Mets don't want Roger at the plate, because they know they are afraid to back up their talk. How weak is it to talk for 2 years and then back down when it matters?

It's to the point where the Mets have to throw at Roger or they are going to be branded all-time pussies. I'm a firm believer in an eye for an eye myself ... I still say they won't do shit.

-Superman-

Coming from One big Mets fan they have to hit Roger!

Roger has always been a headhunter his whole career.
Piazza got beaned during sping training one too many times and took it out on a poor rookie.

This time they have Tough guy Moe Vaughn to back them up.
Although it will take him a few minutes to run to the pitchers mound he and Armando Benitez are pretty big tough guys along with Tony Tuff guy Tarasco.
So if any mound orgies was to happen i am sure these guys will be able to hold their own !!

I have no idea what is going on with the Mets this year.
Perhaps a second half hitting parade is on the way !!

LETS GO METS !!!
Milkmet

That's a presumptious assertion from somebody who has never been in a position to play for the Red Sox (nor have I).

Pedro and Manny are saying, on record, that their team's past futility gives them a powerful powerful motivation. If the Yanks win another series this season, most of the world, including many New Yorkers, would yawn.

If the Red Sox win, Boston would go banana. Nomar, Pedro and Manny know that.

Milk

Shut up. You traitor.

SP

The reality is likely opposite to what you are painting. For example, among GM candidates, the Boston job is considered the most covetted. This is because, thanks to the past futility, if a new-coming GM can win only once, he will retire as the king in New England.

The same is true for Pedro, Nomar, and Manny. And why could this NOT be a motivation?

I've played and coached in various men's league's since 1986. N.B.C., National Baseball Congress, Mexican League and now M.A.B.L. Men's Adult Baseball League the last 8 years. Coached High School as well.

It gets crazy, we play some teams for fun others for blood, we hate them so much.

A couple of years ago my third basemen got thrown at while he was in the on-deck circle..... between innings. The pitcher from the other team, college kid, thought he was standing to close and trying to read his warm up pitches. He told him to move.

My guy was talking to the ump, the ump told the pitcher my guy was fine. THE NEXT WARM -UP PITCH SAILED BY HIS EAR. The ump told him, if you hit him when he gets up, you're gone.

Not only did he hit him on the first pitch, but the ball bounced off my third basemens forearm, {he is 5'8" 215 pounds, looks like Barney Rubble,}but as the ball rolled toward the pitcher, he picked it up and threw it at the ump as he was being ejected. BALL hit the ump in the chest protector. Then he cursed at him.

We dogpiled the pitcher and beat the shit out of him. There is nothing worse than being at the bottom of one of those piles, can't move, can't breath, helpless.

The Mets HAVE to hit Clemens, period. Trust me, it's the law. Also, people like GRIFFEY AND BONDS NEED drilling. In our league, you stand there and watch a home run like they do, you get drilled in the ribs next at-bat.

I don't understand Major league pitchers who can't or won't pitch inside. I think Clemens is a nut job, but at least he did what everyone in the National League seems afraid to do.

Superman,

I've enjoyed most of the content in your posts, but you've begun to stray away from objectivity into an obvious "Mets hate zone". I'm curious; why such animosity? You seem to be obsessed with it. Is it the "sybling attention" issue that I addressed in a previous post? It certainly seems like it, because the obvious fact that the Yankees are better than the Mets this year doesn't seem to be enough for you.

You wrote: "The Mets are starting to talk the smack again ... their latest theory is Roger plunked Bonds so he would get suspended and miss the series at Shea this weekend! LOL."

What Mets players? Maybe one or two, if any at all? And if so, does that mean the whole team is "talking smack", as your words imply? C'mon now, let's have an intelligent thread here. Do you actually know how many different Mets players are on the team now versus when the Clemens / Piazza situation began who have no personal emotional investment in this situation (other than to protect teammates or respond to any future incident)?

You wrote: "Truth is, the Mets don't want Roger at the plate, because they know they are afraid to back up their talk. How weak is it to talk for 2 years and then back down when it matters?"

So who's been specifically talking for two years on the Mets? Maybe the fans, but certainly not ANY of the Mets players. Didn't you hear the recent interviews with Mets players concerning this subject? They downplayed the issue completely.

Your words are much in the same vein as that of what a bully would say to his target when trying to coerce him to do something dangerous or wrong, knowing full well that the consequences of the action will potentially put the target in peril or in a position of more ridicule. A classic no-win situation.

You wrote: "It's to the point where the Mets have to throw at Roger or they are going to be branded all-time pussies. I'm a firm believer in an eye for an eye myself ... I still say they won't do shit."

More bully-type words.

But let's just say that a brawl did occur between the Mets and the Yanks. My money would be on the Mets (i.e. Mo Vaughn). And because the Yankees have more playoff potential than the Mets this year, the Yankees would be risking a lot more (i.e. possible injuries to players). But using your logic, if the Yankees don't respond, then THEY will be the all-time pussies, right? Absolute nonsense.

It's the people who can control their emotions and use fine judgment that have the most success in life. Physically, I happen to be a big guy who could probably kick the crap out of most people, but I still do my best to avoid being drawn into any needless physical confrontations.

And in sports, it's the players who can control their emotions that have the most chance to become champions (i.e., the latest example occurred in the Laker / King Game Seven: Webber loses his temper and gets hit with a technical + Kobe makes the free throw + regulation game ends in tie = if Webber doesn't lose his temper the Kings might be world champions now instead of the Lakers).

By the way, I happen to agree with the psychological impact that a city's history can have on a sports team. I saw it first-hand with the NY Rangers hockey team before they won the Stanley Cup.

A Trying to be objective kind of guy,

Out-of-Towner

I'd compare the joys of being a Red Sox fan vs a Yanks fan to the joys of adult sex vs teenager sex. Yanks fans cum often and quickly. They think cumming is the object of sex, but there is nothing special in each cum (sorta like Athos' cums, ha ha ha).

Red Sox fans have been holding their cum for the last 85 years. In a sense, it's the process that counts, just like in sex. It would be a huge load, when they finally let it go, though.

Very interesting point, Byron. And I happen to agree with it.

Case in point: although the Mets have only won two World Championships, each one involved an incredible level of excitement (i.e., the '69 Mets fans enjoyed one of the most memorable teams of all time, and the '86 Mets played what many consider to be the greatest game of all time against the Astros and also made the greatest World Series comeback of all time against the Red Sox).

So although the Yankees have had 26 Championships (most of which were never enjoyed by their current fans), the aggregate enjoyment of Mets fans has actually been greater than that of Yankee fans over the same period of time. Plus, the Mets never choked away a World Series, the pain of which offsets the joy of at least five Yankee Championships (not to mention that some of the Yankee Championships were significantly the result of ex-Met performances).

A Byron has some of the most thought-provoking posts kind of guy,

Out-of-Towner

I don't hate the Mets at all. I'm quite ambivalent towards their team. The Mets only cross my thought process when they happen to be playing the Yanks. I do hate the Red Sox though.

That said, I'm obviously not going to just sit back and let someone trash one of my favorite players like you did to open this can of worms. If that gets under your skin, that's neither my problem nor concern.

The Mets problem is Bobby Valentine ... his is the name I see popping up all the time in relation to Clemens, and as long as he keeps opening his mouth, some of the players will chime in as well. The guy is a virtual moron. Remember when he got booted from a game a couple of years ago and tried to come back with a fake mustache disguise? LOL. That led to some of the funniest SportsCenters of all time.

I really don't know what you are so hot and bothered about anyway ... MLB announced Clemens will not be suspended or fined for hitting Bonds. You and the rest of Mets nation will get what you've wanted for two years when Clemens comes up to bat this weekend in Shea.

It's a cliche, but men who talk the talk need to walk the walk ... those guys simply can't talk for two years and then back off when the opportunity presents itself. I don't think the Mets have the stones. We'll see.

-Superman-

That's a good rationalization guys. You keep telling yourselves that. LOL.

What you guys have is a lot of built up frustration and then "relief" when your teams finally win. In the case of the Red Sox, that is a team suffering eternal blue-balls, and the release might feel good, but it's still just a moment.

The first time I saw the Yankees win a WS was '96. Was that moment diminished because they had won 20 + series prior to that? Not a chance.

Damn, 85 years? How many fans were born, lived their lives and died as old men ... never once having seen their beloved Beantown boys win a Series? Sad. If only Buckner had fielded that grounder, errr, I mean if only the Sox had not traded the Babe.

Ootie, you are also missing the point with your bully characterization ... in this case Clemens is the bully (even though I seriously doubt he hit Piazza on purpose, but that's another can of worms). I'm saying the Met's have to retaliate to that. It's no different than a guy getting bullied in school ... you can either take it or you can punch him in the face. What you don't do is talk about punching him in the face and then not follow up.

In regards to the Met's talking about it all the time, I read an article on ESPN.com at the beginning of the year where Valentine talked about getting Clemens back ... and the article I referenced above regarding the Mets saying Clemens is trying to get suspended was on there just yesterday. Yes the players are talking about it (even though some of the cowards "prefer to remain anonymous").

Additionally, I would bet my left nut that the #1 topic on sports-talk radio right now in NYC is Clemens V. The Mets this weekend. For the record, I hope the Mets don't throw at Clemens. I don't want him to get hurt, and then face a suspension after he retaliates with a 98 MPH fastball at one of the Mets fragile pitching core. It will also help cement the Mets as the Yankees bitches. LOL.

Boy, this really takes me back to my childhood when I battled the Red Sox and Mets fans all the time ... only then the Yanks sucked and the Mets and Sox were good ... after all that, they still only got one Title between them during that time ...

-Superman-

Man, I wish I was able to get in here more often these days. This is some good reading. I'm a Phillies fan (yeah, I'll admit to that...LOL) but I attended college in North Jersey so I'm familiar with Mets-Yankees animosity and how the Red Sox fit into all that. And as a result, I generally don't have the hatred for NY sports teams that most Philly fans have.

Okay, question for the day... who was the better team, the flair-for-the-dramatic '86 Mets or the 114-win '98 Yankees? I believe that record-wise, they were the two best teams of the last 20 years. (correct me if I'm wrong)

I'll step aside and let you guys go at it.

Superman:

You wrote "I really don't know what you are so hot and bothered about anyway..."

and

"What you guys have is a lot of built up frustration"

For the record, I am NOT hot and bothered at all (you already forgot about my stated light-hearted demeanor towards this thread). And I happen to have NO sports frustration in my life at all (all of my favorite teams have won world Championships).

Further, my self-worth is not tied directly to my favorite teams performances, as it is with so many Yankee and Cowboy fans. What I DO have is a knack for pushing the hot buttons of Yankee and Cowboy fans (which I have a lot of experience with), and therefore I've had a lot of good chuckles with the posts in this thread.

There is one observation however that I will make a serious comment about. Many of your statements include the entire population of a group when the real truth is that few (if any) of that group are effected (i.e., all the Mets are talking smack, all the Mets are pussies, etc). Any professional debater will tell you that your argument (and you as a person) is weakened considerably by such a verbal tactic (which borders on stereotyping).

You also manifested your dislike of gays when you mentioned Piazza's "nature". Are you homophobic or do you just disapprove of homosexuals? Very interesting, because no one has any proof of Piazza's "nature", so for you to be certain of his "nature" can only mean that you yourself personally must have "first-hand" evidence of his "nature". Uh oh, are you going to have to change your handle from Superman to Supercan?

Just curious: have you ever met any other CH members in TJ, or are you a solo monger?

A Having a lot of fun with this thread kind of guy,

Out-of-Towner

Farsider wrote: "who was the better team, the flair-for-the-dramatic '86 Mets or the 114-win '98 Yankees?"

Easy answer. The Mets destiny was so unstoppable in 1986 that there is only one team in baseball history that could have beaten them: the '69 Mets.

A Give me magic over manpower any day of the week kind of guy,

Out-of-Towner

Ootie, I think it's fairly obvious who has had their buttons pushed in this thread. I laid that Piazza dig 5 days ago and thought it slipped by ... I guess not. LOL. At this point, I am pretty much toying with you at will. It's funny ... I lay the same type digs at Byron, but he does not bite. You just walk right into them. I like you though, and I'm starting to feel bad. But hey, it's all in fun.

Speaking of fun, did you see Dave Letterman's Top-10 list last night? "Things overheard by people coming out of the movie Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood." #1 answer -- "Hey, what's Mike Piazza doing here." LOL. Dave kills me.

I don't really know what you're getting at, but yes I've met and shared beers with a few CHers ... though not using my handle. There are definitely a few I'm still looking forward to meeting one of these days ... Explorer and Dogster, errr, Sam come to mind, perhaps Lakers. I occasionally bring friends down who don't know about the board, so I don't always fly solo.

I do have to thank you guys ... I usually don't even start paying attention to baseball until after the all-star break, but this year I'm all fired up.

-Superman-

Farsider, that Met's team won only one series ... and even that one they tried to give away. Most call it a fluke win. They had some good talent though ... unfortunately they snorted their potential away (yes, I'm generalizing).

Gooden and Straw picked up some more hardware as part of the Yank's latest dynasty though, so all was not lost. Now that I think about it, it's crazy how many ex-Mets have contributed to the Yanks lastest dynasty ... Gooden, Strawberry, Cone, and this year Robin Ventura. Damn, that kind of crap must only reinforce the Mets position as "red-headed stepchild" of New York. It's like the Mets are just another Yankee AAA club. Sad.

Obviously the 114 win Yankees were one of the best of all time ... I would have a hard time saying "greatest ever" because of expansion and dilution of the league. Most consider the 1927 Yankees (110-44) the greatest team of all time, but that was a little before my time. Ironically, there are some Red Sox fans born in '27 who have yet to see their team win the series! Have I mentioned how sad that is?

The 1998 Yanks swept the World Series 4-0 and won 125 games. It was the first of 3 straight championships, and the 2nd title of the team that won 4 WS in 5 years.

-Superman-

Superman:

I just read the current basketball thread and I now understand what's happening here. I didn't realize that you're still hurting because of the Kings loss to the Lakers (not to mention the heart-wrenching Yankee loss to the D'Backs last Fall). I don't believe in kicking a man when he's down (even in jest, unlike your continuous attack on the Red Sox century of futility), so I'll discontinue the good-natured ribbing directed at you. My apologies.

I will say that the Letterman comment about Piazza is actually hilarious, but then I think about how I would feel if someone launched an untrue personal attack on me without any proof. But I guess that's the price one pays for being in the public eye.

You're toying with me at will? Geesh, I thought I was toying with you. So it's only fair that we call it draw (these kind of debates are too tedious for writing; they're much better over a brewski). I was actually enjoying this thread because there IS something likeable about you (although God knows what it is - LOL), and I certainly have not typed a single word here without a smile; I hope you can say the same thing.

A Sports kind of guy,

Out-of-Towner

On Roger Clemens and the Red Sox.

The cover story in Boston is, Duquette did not want to spend money on the pitcher who was getting old, so he let him go (to Toronto, not to NY). A year later, Duquette supposedly used the money he saved on Clemens to sign Pedro. So Boston fans were repeately asked, "would you rather have Pedro or Clemens?". And this is a no brainer.

But, obviously, there were more. First, Duquette's budget would have allowed him to sign both Pedro and Clemens, if he had tried. Second, it became (later) apparent that Duquette's primary motive was to fill the team's entire roster with the players he himself signed, while purging all players he inherited. This happened to Clemens, and then Mo Vaughn and other veterans.

Also, during the process of purging Clemens and Vaughn, Duquette and the Boston media (most notably Globe columnist Will McDonough) started a publicity campaign painting these players as "money-hungry" free agents who had shown no loyalty to the Red Sox. This is an absurd assertion, as both Clemens and Mo clearly wanted to stay in Boston (probably for less money), but most fans bought the story. So, this is how Clemens and Mo became the biggest villains and traitors for the Red Sox. What is funny is, these things are cyclical. The new ownership purged Duquette early this year, and he is now (justifiably) painted as the newest villain.

Personally, I don't hate Clemens as most Red Sox fans do. At the same time, I don't really cheer for his "accomplishments" with the Jays and Yanks. I just feel indifferent. Especially with the Yanks, he has been reduced to being a piece of the puzzle within the huge money machine. Jeter is the man. Not Clemens.

If anything, I have some sympathy for Clemens. If he had stayed in Boston, he could have remained as the man, Pedro or not. And that was clearly what he wanted.

Ootie, of course it's in fun. Baseball actually ranks pretty low on my list of favorite sports. I also have no love for the Kings, just Laker hatred. Rooting against a team is no where in the same stratosphere as rooting for your favorite, so I'm not too broken up about it.

Byron, Pedro or Clemens was a no brainer? Since Clemens left Boston, Pedro and Clemens have each won 3 Cy Youngs (including Clemens last year). It's a close call, but no-brainer it's not.

Clemens is older, but the x-factor is Pedro breaks down every year round about ... now. If he breaks down again this year, they might have to consider moving him to the pen. LOL. He's really similar in stature to Mariano Rivera ... maybe that's why he gets hurt every year trying to throw so many innings.

-Superman-

S

It shows baseball is low on your list, if you don't understand this was a no brainer four years ago.

Look at their numbers. It's not even close. Pedro flatly dominates. Clemens was lucky last year, as the Yanks gave him so much run support. Writers base their CY votings only on the W-L record. It does not mean he was the best. Even among Yankee pitchers, Mussina pitched better than Clemens.

Besides, as of today, Pedro still has another 10 years left in his career, while Clemens will retire in 2-3 years

We'll see if Pedro has 10 years left. Clemens is a big, powerful guy. Pedro weighs as much as I weighed in 8th grade. Pedro has broken down each of the last two years. If it happens again this year, you have to wonder about his future.

Yeah, Pedro has been better ... but how many WS have the Red Sox won since they got him? Oh yeah, Clemens has two with the Yanks. If Pedro does stay healthy, he'll probably be a Yank one day anyway. LOL.

-Superman-

I don't know if you are dumb or playing dumb.

Pedro has been better than Clemens for the last four years. If the Red Sox did not win with Pedro, then they would not have won with Clemens, either. Other factors beyond their controls.

Obviously.

My post from last night about the '98 Yankees and '86 Mets got me to thinking, and I decided to have a little fun with it. Here's a position-by-position breakdown of those two teams. Granted, this is not the most scientific means of comparison, and any attempt at evaluating teams across eras will have its flaws. This is only my opinion (I'm about as unbiased as could be here), and feel free to shoot holes in my analysis.

My source for the statistics I cite is "Baseball Dynasties" by Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein. An excellent book, though it goes pretty heavily into statistics, but a great read nonetheless.

Without further ado:

CATCHER
'98 Yankees: Jorge Posada
'86 Mets: Gary Carter
Carter should be in the Hall of Fame. Posada is a good player, but he was just starting to get his act together in '98 and platooned with Joe Girardi. Edge: METS

FIRST BASE
Yankees: Tino Martinez
Mets: Keith Hernandez
Martinez has more power, but Hernandez hit for a higher average and was one of the best defensive first basemen ever. The "coke factor" is irrelevant here. Edge: METS

SECOND BASE
Yankees: Chuck Knoblauch
Mets: Wally Backman/Tim Teufel
Teufel played against lefties. Backman was a pesky little player. But Knoblauch was a better offensive player than either and, despite his throwing problems and occasional brain freezes... Edge: YANKEES

SHORTSTOP
Yankees: Derek Jeter
Mets: Rafael "You've Got to Change Your Evil Ways" Santana
Jeter is this generation's Mr. October. Santana couldn't hit himself in the face with a fly swatter. This one, folks, is a serious mismatch. Edge: YANKEES

THIRD BASE
Yankees: Scott Brosius
Mets: Ray Knight
Two very similar players. Both these guys picked it up a notch in the postseason, and each was the World Series MVP in the year in question. Red Sox fans no doubt recall Knight's go-ahead homer in Game 7. And Padre fans had their hearts broken by Brosius' three-run bomb off Trevor Hoffman which shut down the last Padre attempt at making a series out of it. Edge: EVEN

LEFT FIELD
Yankees: Chad Curtis et al.
Mets: Mookie Wilson
The Yankees always seem to man this position by committee. Curtis, Shane Spencer, Ricky Ledee and a few others all saw action here. There are better left fielders than Mookie Wilson, but there are worse ones also. Edge: METS

CENTER FIELD
Yankees: Bernie Williams
Mets: Lenny Dykstra
Here's where my rooting bias might rear its ugly head, as Dykstra went on to become a Phillies hero. However, Williams did win the batting title in '98 (.339) so... Edge: YANKEES by a slim margin. But... am I the only one out there who thinks Bernie Williams is overrated?

RIGHT FIELD
Yankees: Paul O'Neill
Mets: Darryl Strawberry
At first glance, I was all set to give the edge here to an in-his-prime Strawberry. But his numbers for '86 were surprisingly mediocre: .259, 27 HR, 93 RBI. O'Neill, meanwhile, had a fine year in '98: .317, 24 HR, 116 RBI. True, '98 was more of a hitters' year than '86. But when you figure in intangibles, I'm gonna say... Edge: YANKEES. BTW... (I'm half kidding here) Strawberry also played for the '98 Yankees. Since the '86 Strawberry was superior to the '98 Strawberry, should that be an edge in the Mets' column?

STARTING PITCHING
Yankees: David Wells, David Cone, Andy Pettitte, Orlando Hernandez
Mets: Dwight Gooden, Ron Darling, Bob Ojeda, Sid Fernandez
No, Roger Clemens was not a Yankee in '98... if he was, it would make the analysis look quite different. But what jumps out at me here is the won-loss records of the four Mets' starters in '86: 17-6, 15-6, 18-5, and 16-6 respectively. And all but Fernandez had ERA's under 3. That's consistency. The Yankees' numbers weren't too shabby either, but I'll say Edge: METS by a hair.

BULLPEN
Yankees: Mariano Rivera, Ramiro Mendoza, Mike Stanton, Jeff Nelson
Mets: Roger McDowell, Jesse Orosco, Rick Aguilera, Doug Sisk
The Mets may have been a tad deeper, but the Yankees have the hammer, Rivera. And for that reason... Edge: YANKEES

BENCH
I'm not going to list all the names here, but looking at the rosters, I have to say Edge: METS. However... bear in mind that the Yankees play in the American League, where a good bench is less of a necessity. This comparison is of limited validity.

MANAGER
Yankees: Joe Torre
Mets: Davey Johnson
Torre gets the nod here, if for no other reason besides having the most demanding boss in the world. Johnson did a great job handling that ego-laden '86 team, but I've always gotten the sense that that Mets team SHOULD have won more than just one championship.

Bottom line... well, you can total them up for yourself, it looks like I've given the '98 Yankees a slight edge. But like I said before, how valid is it to compare teams from different eras? True, the Yankees toyed with the AL during the '98 regular season, and sliced through the postseason like a hot knife through butter. And the entire '86 postseason was an adventure for the Mets, but the bottom line was, they made it through.

Byron, there's no need for name calling ... I've never called you names. Then again, you know you're kicking someone's ass in a debate when they resort to personal attacks instead of sticking to the subject at hand. Either that, or they do like Dogster and make up new ID's so someone will agree with them. LOL.

I said in my last post Pedro has been better than Clemens. Since it's a team game, what does it matter? Clemens is a Yank, and there is a good chance Pedro will be a Yank one day as well. Your team is one of the all-time losers in the sport, and you are obviously bitter about that. Not my problem, bro, but don't take it out on me. Go kick your wife's ass or something like the rest of those crazy Red Sox fans who can't accept defeat.

-Superman-

Farsider, good analysis. You have to factor in team chemistry, which that Yanks team had in droves ... I remember Joe Morgan saying during the '98 Series that even though his Big Red Machine teams had the edge at seemingly every position, that Yanks team would have given them trouble because of they way they played together.

I'll give you your bias with Dykstra, but he really was not a great player with the Mets. He only had a few great years with the Phillies ... many say Steroid induced, but I digress.

-Superman-

You can not compare the raw numbers between 1986 and 1998, not to mention the use of DH in the AL (which adds 0.5 runs per team per game). For whatever reasons (expansion, smaller parks, juiced balls, steroid...), offense numbers are way much higher in 1998 than in 1986 for the entire league.

What matters is how these players fared against the league average (at each position). 1986 Mets might have given dramatic impressions to their fans, but they do not usually belong to the conversation of "the greatest team ever", while 1998 Yanks might.

Also, if I remember right, Dykstra platooned for most of the '86 season with Mookie Wilson in Center. George Foster was their left fielder for most of that year.

-Superman-