Master Index of Archived Threads


The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

1973

1 votes

1988

3 votes

1999

5 votes

2000

11 votes

2006

4 votes

G-Fafif Feb 11 2014 01:36 PM

You can turn one near-miss postseason disappointment into an all-the-way postseason triumph. By doing so, you have made the Mets three-time world champions. Which one do you choose? Full exploration of the topic here.

seawolf17 Feb 11 2014 01:42 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

My gut says 1988, because everything would have been so different, but it has to be 2000.

Edgy MD Feb 11 2014 01:45 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

My gut says 2000, because the city would have been won back. In 1973 and 1988, that wasn't an issue. In 2006, well, it wouldn't have been an issue had they won in 2000.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 11 2014 01:46 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

There's a strong argument for all of them. (Naturally.) I ruled out 1973, because I wouldn't have been old enough to appreciate it. I went with 1988 because at that point I was still young enough that it meant the world to me. The appeal of 2000, of course, is that it would snatch a championship from the Yankees. My mouse pointer did linger over that season.

Edgy MD Feb 11 2014 01:51 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

It would snatch a... CRIMINALLY REPUGNANT championship from the Yankees. Dawn of a new century and sunset on the cheating-assed Yankees and sunrise on the Mets? Where do I sign?

Frayed Knot Feb 11 2014 01:54 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Without yet reading the linked arguments, my guy reaction is that 1988 & 2006 were the most frustrating as we clearly had the better team in both those seasons. '73 to me, despite my youth, was probably the least frustrating, and '99 was a helluva ride where you felt like the underdog the whole time making each round and each individual win a joy in itself. But the 2000 post-season has a frustration all its own due, of course, to the opponent. Add to that that we were probably the better team there too despite the lopsided previous half-decade, that all the losses (and the lone win for that matter) were 1 or 2 run games, and mainly to the fact that the team just played so shitty in those five games.

G-Fafif Feb 11 2014 01:55 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Worth pointing out (and it's expanded upon in the FAFIF post from which this question is extracted) is the parameters of this exercise have the Mets doing all it takes to win the WS in whichever postseason it took place. So to win the Series in 1988, they'd not only beat the Dodgers, but the A's. In 2006, they'd not only beat the Cardinals, but the Tigers. And in 1999, just to be clear, they'd not only beat the Braves, but the Yankees. I mention that just in case that's an overriding motivator in your deciding.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 11 2014 01:58 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Of those choices I probably go 99 since that whole season was such a crazy thing to begin with. Just hang on to that Game 6. Game 1 in the '00 WS killed everything. Eff that whole world series. But I think the poll might be unkind to deserving and just as close teams of 84 and 85. Eighty five especially. I think if we play that season 100 times the Mets win the WS 70 times prolly (just pulling that out of my ass, but, right?)

Lefty Specialist Feb 11 2014 02:00 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

2000, because it was the goddam Yankees. Think of how easy it would be to shut down obnoxious Yankee fans forever if only they had beaten them the one time they met. It was there for the taking, they just didn't take it. This would have worked for 1999 as well, but there would have been an extra layer of playoffs to undo.

Ceetar Feb 11 2014 02:04 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

'99. The parameters say the Mets won't win those other years, but it doesn't say the way it doesn't happen remains the same. So in my fantasy, the Yankees losing in '99 makes them make different moves that don't work out the same way and the Mets lose to the Mariners, not the Yankees, in '00.

G-Fafif Feb 11 2014 02:07 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

I thought about including 1985 in this exercise because, well, it's 1985 and that team was that team. But for the purposes of speculative history, three games behind the Cardinals plus seven more wins in postseason series they never entered is too many to neatly adjust for (if I could work magic, give me a better August and September of 1980 while we're at it and high school's a blast). The playoff teams came within one, five, six, five and three games, respectively, of winning it all. More manageable set of possibilities. Impetus behind the blog post from which this comes was, after recently banging my head against a Mets executive-shaped wall, wondering how much better 1973 would be treated organizationally in the 21st century if they'd won one more game...and how differently would the other years be looked at (by fans and franchise alike) had they had just a little more of a closing kick to them.

Nymr83 Feb 11 2014 02:10 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

2000. Fuck the yankees.

themetfairy Feb 11 2014 02:13 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

1999 - The Mets beat the Braves and the MFYs and Dolphin Face never becomes a Met.

cooby Feb 11 2014 02:18 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

1973. Those guys worked hard and almost got it. I will never ever forget that team, and I have forgotten most of all the other seasons.

Edgy MD Feb 11 2014 02:26 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: But I think the poll might be unkind to deserving and just as close teams of 84 and 85. I thought so too. You know, 2001, too.

dinosaur jesus Feb 11 2014 02:39 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

G-Fafif wrote: I thought about including 1985 in this exercise because, well, it's 1985 and that team was that team. But for the purposes of speculative history, three games behind the Cardinals plus seven more wins in postseason series they never entered is too many to neatly adjust for (if I could work magic, give me a better August and September of 1980 while we're at it and high school's a blast). The playoff teams came within one, five, six, five and three games, respectively, of winning it all. More manageable set of possibilities. True enough, but it's not that big an adjustment. The Mets pull out that third game in St. Louis to tie the Cardinals with three to go, they're still tied after 162 games, Gooden (after Davey gutsily goes with Darling in a must-win game 162) beats Andujar in a one-game playoff, and the exhausted Mets scrape by the Dodgers and Royals. Gooden, at 25-4, is the MVP (none of that Willie McGee bullshit). Otherwise I'll go with 1988, because it's the one that made me the most unhappy. Actually, I guess 1973 did (I was ten, and they sent me to the guidance counselor to find out what the hell was wrong with me. Smart lady, she figured it out.) But that's mitigated by how lucky they were to be there.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 11 2014 02:45 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Yes and course as long as we are retroactive the Wild card gives us those few extras we would need in 85. 84, 87, 89 and 90 even. I think.

Vic Sage Feb 11 2014 02:47 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 11 2014 02:56 PM

how can anyone not vote for the Mets to retroactively beat the MFYs in '00? I don't know how any other year is even a consideration. Even the `99 season didn't end with us actually losing a WS to the MFYs, so it doesn't present us with the opportunity to reverse that very real loss, just a theoretical loss that never happened, because we never made it the series to begin with.

dinosaur jesus Feb 11 2014 02:55 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Vic Sage wrote: how can anyone not vote for the Mets to retroactively beat the MFYs in '00? That Series filled me with such overwhelming dread that I couldn't even watch after game 1. I would almost have preferred it if the Mets weren't there. That's why I can't vote for 2000.

Vic Sage Feb 11 2014 02:59 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 11 2014 03:03 PM

dinosaur jesus wrote: Vic Sage wrote: how can anyone not vote for the Mets to retroactively beat the MFYs in '00? That Series filled me with such overwhelming dread that I couldn't even watch after game 1. I would almost have preferred it if the Mets weren't there. That's why I can't vote for 2000. but that's exactly why YOU HAVE TO vote for that 2000 team... to purge yourself forever of that dread by blinking that series away and replacing it with a ride down the canyon of heroes, while Jeter holds up in penthouse somewhere, watching the parade on his bigass flatscreen while he smokes crack and runs whores to wash away the pain and gets his pal A-Rod to shoot steroids into his ass to make sure it doesn't happen again.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 11 2014 03:00 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Because if it happens in 1999, the same thing happens, only the Braves are upended as well. One collateral effect of a 2006 win? The 2007 hangover isn't as bad, and we probably never get No-Han.

Vic Sage Feb 11 2014 03:03 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Because if it happens in 1999, the same thing happens, only the Braves are upended as well. The same thing does NOT happen. In `99, you're only overturning a theoretical loss to the MFYs that never happened (and so has left no scar), not wiping away the emotional pain we actually had to endure in `00. i don't get you people sometimes.

Vic Sage Feb 11 2014 03:07 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

FAFIF: "...if you were around in 2000, would erasing the loss and replacing it with a win have meant everything? Would it have continued to mean everything? Would your life as a Mets fan be substantially better if you could point back to the 2000 world champion Mets?..." Answer: Yes. Next question. The pain you knew and have carried around with you from coming so close would be, now and forever, unadulterated pleasure. see, you already knew the answer, so the question is moot.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 11 2014 03:23 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Yes, but then the Grand Slam Single isn't just important-to-Met-fans weirdness, it's the nationally-famous keystone of a Met comeback, Kirk Gibson and Dave Roberts in '04 wrapped into one. Fonzie's slam in NLDS Game 1, Pratt's in Game 4... these are Moments now. And, more to the point: who's to say '00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on '99? Who's to say the MFYs don't make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who's to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who's to say 1999 isn't a magic bullet for BOTH years?

Mets Guy in Michigan Feb 11 2014 03:40 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Had to go for 2000. In fact, given the roided-up nature of those cheating MYF bastards, I want it awarded retroactively. So many moments in that series just hurt. RUN, TIMO!!!

Gwreck Feb 11 2014 03:42 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

For the record, I accidentally voted 2006 when I meant to vote 2000. This entire topic makes me sick to my stomach. Not that it's not a valid topic of discussion (it is).

Mets – Willets Point Feb 11 2014 03:53 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Beat the Braves and the Yankees in 1999 and the whole world of baseball changes.

Edgy MD Feb 11 2014 04:16 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Yes, but then the Grand Slam Single isn't just important-to-Met-fans weirdness, it's the nationally-famous keystone of a Met comeback, Kirk Gibson and Dave Roberts in '04 wrapped into one. Fonzie's slam in NLDS Game 1, Pratt's in Game 4... these are Moments now. And, more to the point: who's to say '00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on '99? Who's to say the MFYs don't make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who's to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who's to say 1999 isn't a magic bullet for BOTH years? This of course, speaks to any year, but yes, winning in 1999 perhaps means Olerud and Phillips find enough common ground for him to return. It perhaps means the Mets' purse swells to the point where they sign A-Rod after 2000. It might mean they not only trade for Hampton in 2000, but foolishly retain him afterwits. Maybe Rickey gets an extension. And maybe they ride out Bonilla's contract to the bitter end rather than jumping in on that foolhardy bailout. It's so hard to unscramble the eggs. Maybe at the private owner's party after the win, Bernie Madoff gets drunk and comes clean, but it is safe to assume that winning in 1999 puts the team in a better position to win in 2000. Whether they'd take advantage of that better position or go all stupid, it's hard to say.

TransMonk Feb 11 2014 04:18 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Of those choices I probably go 99 since that whole season was such a crazy thing to begin with. Just hang on to that Game 6. This. 1999 is still my favorite season since 1986.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 11 2014 04:56 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Vic Sage wrote: how can anyone not vote for the Mets to retroactively beat the MFYs in '00? I voted for 1988 because the Mets were more important to me then than they were in 2000.

Zvon Feb 11 2014 05:47 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

I saw this at F&FiF and I'm glad you shared it here, because what I want to say would be too long a reply. To choose between those years......they all were important to me. 1973: I was so tight with the team. Went to so many games. Went to the playoffs. I really felt, right up until the last out, that they would and could make '73 as big a Cinderella story as '69. But I was there this time, for this one. They had to win it all. It was their destiny. Nope. Valuable lesson though. We fell short but in my thinking we excelled far. I was very happy and proud that the '73 Mets played 176 games. Bonus baseball! But if they won this one....might have changed my whole outlook on a number of things at such a young age. I learned that no matter how hard you want to win (very badly in this case) you have to take losing in stride and still hold your head high. 1988: Even though I moved hundreds of miles away I went to a bunch of games at Shea. Went to the playoffs. Was big into baseball cards again after many years away from the hobby. This was the second 80's championship that never came to be. This was gonna be a shoe in. Nope. Don't feel as strongly about this one but I felt we had the best Met team of the 80s there, and shows how baseball is so interesting in that there's what you expect to happen, and what happens. 1999: Another big dry spell for us. But so far we had won one championship every decade, so this was gonna be our one. I had no doubt. It had to happen. I even told friends at the time (none Met fans) that the Mets went all the way one time every decade and they were just gonna get this one in the nick of time. Nope. This was important. The Mets broke their spiritual promise to me to go all the way once every ten years. 2000: So I tried to lie and tell everyone that this was still part of the last decade and the Mets would get their due. No one called me a lair. Ignoring me was easier. But on top of that, this was the bout of the century for us Met fans. It was the ultimate face-off, Mets vs. Yankees in the big show. A subway series!. We were gonna make history by beating the Yanks in the World Series! Met history, Yankee history, baseball history, New York City history, etc,etc. Nope. I blame Timo, who I thought was there to be our savior. 2006: At this point I changed my story to say that the Mets made the post season once a decade, not making winning it all a factor. So for this decade (2010-2019..or 2010 to 2020 if they wanna stretch it) we still have 6 years to get back there. I've learned to give the Mets a wide berth when it comes to demanding or expecting anything from them. Like Jon Stewart said the other night, or his guest, when Endy made that catch it was one of those things where the script was already in, the story set, the Mets would win it all after a fantasic show of game saving leather. It was so Met-hodical. Nope: Fat Ass. ___________________________ So I can't pick one and that's why. I wanted em all! And they all shudda been!

batmagadanleadoff Feb 11 2014 06:32 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: And, more to the point: who's to say '00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on '99? Who's to say the MFYs don't make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who's to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who's to say 1999 isn't a magic bullet for BOTH years? Because the rules say you only get one more World Series in this fantasy scenario, not two. Therefore, wishing that 1999 WS trophy on the Mets guarantees that the Yanks beat the Mets in the 2000 fantasy rematch. Plus, you know, if the Mets had won it all in '99, they'd still be wearing those hideous black drop-shadow things. The attraction to wishing for a '99 crown here, as far as the MFY's are concerned, is that the Mets and MFY's are now tied in WS series wins against each other and that the MFY's WS edge against our Mets is erased, if not the 2000 series loss itself. I've given thought to this one extra World Series fantasy in the past. My fantasy, though, has one wrinkle not included in G-Fafif's premise, which I'll reveal and elaborate on later. I'm having trouble deciding this one. I agree strongly with what Vic already wrote about the need to reverse the outcome of the 2000 WS, mainly because of who the Mets lost to. Also, it'd be an added bonus to be able to say that the Mets won the crown during the interregnum in that fucking fraud Ordonez's reign of terror. But then, like Grimm wrote, I'm not so sure that a 2000 WS crown would have mattered to me as much as, say, a '73 or '88 crown would have, when I was younger and much more obsessed. I just don't know.

metsmarathon Feb 11 2014 07:12 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

i was strongly considering '06. despite my greater age, i was much more into that team than i was the 88 squad. but there's no way to turn down '00.

Nymr83 Feb 11 2014 09:44 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Edgy MD wrote: Yes, but then the Grand Slam Single isn't just important-to-Met-fans weirdness, it's the nationally-famous keystone of a Met comeback, Kirk Gibson and Dave Roberts in '04 wrapped into one. Fonzie's slam in NLDS Game 1, Pratt's in Game 4... these are Moments now. And, more to the point: who's to say '00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on '99? Who's to say the MFYs don't make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who's to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who's to say 1999 isn't a magic bullet for BOTH years? This of course, speaks to any year, but yes, winning in 1999 perhaps means Olerud and Phillips find enough common ground for him to return. It perhaps means the Mets' purse swells to the point where they sign A-Rod after 2000. It might mean they not only trade for Hampton in 2000, but foolishly retain him afterwits. Maybe Rickey gets an extension. And maybe they ride out Bonilla's contract to the bitter end rather than jumping in on that foolhardy bailout. It's so hard to unscramble the eggs. Maybe at the private owner's party after the win, Bernie Madoff gets drunk and comes clean, but it is safe to assume that winning in 1999 puts the team in a better position to win in 2000. Whether they'd take advantage of that better position or go all stupid, it's hard to say. Using the dynasty in the making argument, i think the 1987 1988 teams had the biggest chance if things went right, beacuse instead of asking about hypothetical signings and yankee money down yhe drain after 1999, ask what could have been if the late 80s Mets had all suddenly decided to behave like adults

MFS62 Feb 11 2014 10:19 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Nymr83 wrote: 2000. Fuck the yankees. I couldn't have said it any better. Later

batmagadanleadoff Feb 11 2014 10:39 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And, more to the point: who's to say '00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on '99? Who's to say the MFYs don't make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who's to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who's to say 1999 isn't a magic bullet for BOTH years? Because the rules say you only get one more World Series in this fantasy scenario, not two. Therefore, wishing that 1999 WS trophy on the Mets guarantees that the Yanks beat the Mets in the 2000 fantasy rematch. Plus, you know, if the Mets had won it all in '99, they'd still be wearing those hideous black drop-shadow things. The attraction to wishing for a '99 crown here, as far as the MFY's are concerned, is that the Mets and MFY's are now tied in WS series wins against each other and that the MFY's WS edge against our Mets is erased, if not the 2000 series loss itself. I've given thought to this one extra World Series fantasy in the past. My fantasy, though, has one wrinkle not included in G-Fafif's premise, which I'll reveal and elaborate on later. I'm having trouble deciding this one. I agree strongly with what Vic already wrote about the need to reverse the outcome of the 2000 WS, mainly because of who the Mets lost to. Also, it'd be an added bonus to be able to say that the Mets won the crown during the interregnum in that fucking fraud Ordonez's reign of terror. But then, like Grimm wrote, I'm not so sure that a 2000 WS crown would have mattered to me as much as, say, a '73 or '88 crown would have, when I was younger and much more obsessed. I just don't know. I stand corrected. The premise does allow for a ripple effect... Just to be clear, none of this dislodges 1969 or 1986. Everything you know about those two championship seasons stays exactly as is. It’s just that they now have a brother. And none of this necessarily affects 2014 and beyond.... [But] [y]ou’re welcome to your ripple effect in that you can speculate as to how the Mets winning in this other year altered history, that perhaps winning that one time led to a string of successes…or somehow backfired and brought on dark times. Or you could decide that everything is as it’s always been…except now instead of the franchise narrative reading, “The Mets won the World Series twice,” it will be thrice. - ... albeit an unusual ripple of butterfly effect in that you can rewrite history all you want so long as the '69 and '86 WS crowns are preserved. Which I don't get because, for example, a '73 Mets WS crown, among other things, enhances the already legendary reputation of its undisputed star and leader, Tom Seaver, who has now twice led his very imperfect Mets to WS victories over two superior and heavily favored opponents. The Mets --- Tom Seaver's Mets -- are now their own dynasty, having won two World Series in five seasons. So maybe the Mets aren't so willing to trade him away four years later. Maybe the FO reaches some sort of compromise with its superstar, thus avoiding the acrimony of 1977. Of course, Seaver alone, won't be enough to transform the de Roulet Mets into contenders. But perhaps those alternate Mets, with Tom Seaver, aren't as bad as they actually were. And maybe the Mets don't get to draft the most coveted prospect of the 1980 amateur draft, Darryl Strawberry. And maybe the de Roulets get to hold on to the team a little bit longer. And Team Doubleday, including his crack GM Frank Cashen, doesn't come on board after the 1980 season, if ever at all. And maybe the Mets don't get to draft Dwight Gooden either, or the numerous other amateurs that would rapidly transform the Mets farm and ultimately, the Major League team, into baseball's best. So maybe, just maybe, a '73 WS crown means the Mets suck throughout the 1980's. I don't like the ripple effect. Be careful what you wish for,

Ceetar Feb 12 2014 07:58 AM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Edgy MD wrote: Yes, but then the Grand Slam Single isn't just important-to-Met-fans weirdness, it's the nationally-famous keystone of a Met comeback, Kirk Gibson and Dave Roberts in '04 wrapped into one. Fonzie's slam in NLDS Game 1, Pratt's in Game 4... these are Moments now. And, more to the point: who's to say '00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on '99? Who's to say the MFYs don't make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who's to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who's to say 1999 isn't a magic bullet for BOTH years? This of course, speaks to any year, but yes, winning in 1999 perhaps means Olerud and Phillips find enough common ground for him to return. It perhaps means the Mets' purse swells to the point where they sign A-Rod after 2000. It might mean they not only trade for Hampton in 2000, but foolishly retain him afterwits. Maybe Rickey gets an extension. And maybe they ride out Bonilla's contract to the bitter end rather than jumping in on that foolhardy bailout. It's so hard to unscramble the eggs. Maybe at the private owner's party after the win, Bernie Madoff gets drunk and comes clean, but it is safe to assume that winning in 1999 puts the team in a better position to win in 2000. Whether they'd take advantage of that better position or go all stupid, it's hard to say. I see Olerud staying but perhaps they figure they don't need the boost from A-Rod as much and don't even persue him as hard. I'm sure they still make the same deal to Bonilla, probably even more willing to get him off the team with that win-win-win deal. (off the team, both parties make money) Per this exercise they won't actually win again, but being in the playoffs a couple more times from say 2000-2002 after already winning one would still be very nice.

G-Fafif Feb 12 2014 08:45 AM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Just to be clear, none of this dislodges 1969 or 1986. Everything you know about those two championship seasons stays exactly as is. It’s just that they now have a brother. And none of this necessarily affects 2014 and beyond.... [But] [y]ou’re welcome to your ripple effect in that you can speculate as to how the Mets winning in this other year altered history, that perhaps winning that one time led to a string of successes…or somehow backfired and brought on dark times. Or you could decide that everything is as it’s always been…except now instead of the franchise narrative reading, “The Mets won the World Series twice,” it will be thrice. ... albeit an unusual ripple of butterfly effect in that you can rewrite history all you want so long as the '69 and '86 WS crowns are preserved. Which I don't get because, for example, a '73 Mets WS crown, among other things, enhances the already legendary reputation of its undisputed star and leader, Tom Seaver, who has now twice led his very imperfect Mets to WS victories over two superior and heavily favored opponents. The Mets --- Tom Seaver's Mets -- are now their own dynasty, having won two World Series in five seasons. So maybe the Mets aren't so willing to trade him away four years later. Maybe the FO reaches some sort of compromise with its superstar, thus avoiding the acrimony of 1977. Of course, Seaver alone, won't be enough to transform the de Roulet Mets into contenders. But perhaps those alternate Mets, with Tom Seaver, aren't as bad as they actually were. And maybe the Mets don't get to draft the most coveted prospect of the 1980 amateur draft, Darryl Strawberry. And maybe the de Roulets get to hold on to the team a little bit longer. And Team Doubleday, including his crack GM Frank Cashen, doesn't come on board after the 1980 season, if ever at all. And maybe the Mets don't get to draft Dwight Gooden either, or the numerous other amateurs that would rapidly transform the Mets farm and ultimately, the Major League team, into baseball's best. So maybe, just maybe, a '73 WS crown means the Mets suck throughout the 1980's. I don't like the ripple effect. Be careful what you wish for, I cop to conscious inconsistency on preempting butterflies flapping wings in 1973 affecting the air currents in 1986. I took it into consideration but decided the 13-year gap was sufficient in Met terms to allow the exception to the rule in the name of clarity. My goal was to add a theoretical third championship, not mess with the second actual title. Also, deep down, though I laid out some "what if" scenarios, I don't think the one extra win in October 1973 would've rippled a whole lot differently in terms of later competitive outcomes. The Mets were rotting from within even then and the corrosive helmsmanship of M. Donald Grant was going to be in effect at the dawn of the less-encumbered player-movement era, ticker-tape or not. There are great reasons to want the 1973 Mets to be the "third" world champion, but my sense is changing the course of Metropolitan events isn't paramount among them

Vic Sage Feb 12 2014 09:04 AM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

i was 12 in 1973, and that was very much my team (more so than even `69, when i was not quite so absorbed by my Metdom). But the 73 team was a mediocre .500 team that overachieved by beating the big red machine in the playoffs. I had no expectation of winning against the As in the series, and have no great need to right that "wrong", where the better team won. any of you who lived through 2000 and yet are still willing to pick any other year to change the result of, are dead to me... dead to me, i tell you. That's 10 of you so far... i'm keeping track. oh wait, Gweck said he meant to vote 2000 but accidentally voted 2006. So he's alive again. But the other 9 of you... dead to me.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 12 2014 09:15 AM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Vic Sage wrote: i was 12 in 1973, and that was very much my team (more so than even `69, when i was not quite so absorbed by my Metdom). But the 73 team was a mediocre .500 team that overachieved by beating the big red machine in the playoffs. I had no expectation of winning against the As in the series, and have no great need to right that "wrong", where the better team won. any of you who lived through 2000 and yet are still willing to pick any other year to change the result of, are dead to me... dead to me, i tell you. That's 10 of you so far... i'm keeping track. oh wait, Gweck said he meant to vote 2000 but accidentally voted 2006. So he's alive again. But the other 9 of you... dead to me. I'm leaning towards picking 2000 for the Mets 3d WS. In doing so, I'm sacrificing my personal needs for the greater good of the Mets community. I sure as hell wasn't no wide-eyed and still mostly innocent elementary schooler in 2000 -- like I was in 1973 -- but many other Met fans were. I disagree passionately with your idea about the '73 Mets being a mediocre team. I still see them as a solid pennant contender ravaged by injuries, 82 wins notwithstanding. Though I enjoyed Prince's article immensely, I wish he didn't include the possibility of ripple effects. I would've preferred the sole option of addding one extra WS, without changing the outcomes of any of the other seasons. Because as it is with the ripple effect, I feel as if I'm now in one of those who would win a fight between Aquaman and Wonder Woman discussions.

d'Kong76 Feb 12 2014 09:30 AM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

I took 2000, probably because I remember it the best and it was the MFY's who won so lopsidedly. And this: [youtube:3fnkho9s]Slf380uxU0s[/youtube:3fnkho9s]

Mets – Willets Point Feb 12 2014 03:30 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

I'm sticking with 1999 cuz I loved that team, and it means the Mets will play in back to back World Series for the first and only time, and even though it means losing to the Yankees in 2000, the Mets will still have won the first postseason meeting between the two teams.

Zvon Feb 12 2014 03:42 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Vic Sage wrote: i was 12 in 1973, and that was very much my team (more so than even `69, when i was not quite so absorbed by my Metdom). But the 73 team was a mediocre .500 team that overachieved by beating the big red machine in the playoffs. I had no expectation of winning against the As in the series, and have no great need to right that "wrong", where the better team won. any of you who lived through 2000 and yet are still willing to pick any other year to change the result of, are dead to me... dead to me, i tell you. That's 10 of you so far... i'm keeping track. oh wait, Gweck said he meant to vote 2000 but accidentally voted 2006. So he's alive again. But the other 9 of you... dead to me. I didn't count so I don't know if you're counting me. I said earlier I made no choice. I amend that to say I choose em all. Undead?

Fman99 Feb 12 2014 07:40 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

I picked 2006. Beltran just sitting on that big dumb curveball and then punching that thing into outer fucking space.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 12 2014 09:39 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

G-Fafif wrote: I cop to conscious inconsistency on preempting butterflies flapping wings in 1973 affecting the air currents in 1986. I took it into consideration but decided the 13-year gap was sufficient in Met terms to allow the exception to the rule in the name of clarity.... Also, deep down, though I laid out some "what if" scenarios, I don't think the one extra win in October 1973 would've rippled a whole lot differently in terms of later competitive outcomes.... The 13 year gap is a red herring. If the Mets win just four more games in 1979, they drop down two slots in the 1980 June amateur draft, and almost certainly miss out on Strawberry. That alone, could alter the fortunes of the 1986 Mets. Plus without the budding and precocious Strawberry on board, who knows if Keith even bothers to stick around after the 1983 season? I tell ya, this is the Devil's work, here.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 13 2014 05:08 AM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Well, if the Mets had missed out on Strawberry, they still would have been okay. They would have instead drafted someone like Garry Harris, or Ken Dayley, or Mike King. Or maybe even Jeff Pyburn. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/1980draft.shtml

Edgy MD Feb 13 2014 08:22 AM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

As much as his name and height and back story garnered him attention, Strawberry wasn't an obvious consensus number one overall pick among MLB cognescenti. The Mets actually had Billy Beane (among others) in consideration as well and were delighted (d'oh) when he was still around with the number-23 overall pick. The same argument would maybe get the team Andy Van Slyke or Tim Wallach instead of Tim Leary in 1979. (Or maybe they get Jay Schroeder and win a Super Bowl.) Even Sherlock couldn't figure out all the angles, but in general, believing losing is healthier for an organization than winning is a logical morass. It leads to a suicidal logical death spiral.

G-Fafif Feb 13 2014 09:40 AM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Jon Weber of The Ballclub blogged his choice. Shea Stadium is a madhouse on Saturday night, October 30th, as the Mets, behind Al Leiter, close out the Yankees, who come out in a stupor, not having recovered from the shock of Piazza's blast. Robin Ventura hits a pair of Home Runs off Cone and John Olerud adds another, while Alfonzo knocks out 4 hits as the Mets roll to an 8-0 victory, winning the final game of the 20th Century and bringing home their 3rd World Series Championship. Afterward, Bobby Valentine proclaims the 1999 Mets "The Greatest Mets team ever assembled." Reserve Outfielder Shawon Dunston, tears streaming down his cheeks, gives his now-legendary "I am so proud to be a Met" speech. The quote is posted above the doors to the Mets Hall of Fame and Museum at Citi Field. Piazza, who played the entire month on fumes, is jubilant, saying "This is why I stayed here! Winning a World Series outdistances anything I've ever accomplished in my career." Many Mets fans agree with Valentine. The 1999 team lives forever in the hearts of Mets fans. Players like Turk Wendell and Dennis Cook are treated like folk heroes and Wendell continues to serve as a club ambassador. Melvin Mora goes on to take over as the starting Shortstop after Rey Ordonez's injury in 2000 and ultimately ends up Wally Pipp-ing him. The keystone combination of Mora and Edgardo Alfonzo becomes one of the league's best DP combos. Bobby Valentine is forever remembered as a master motivator who got the most out of his entire roster. Mike Piazza gets elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot in 2013, and the Mets retire his number 31 in celebration. The ceremony concludes with Piazza throwing out the game's first pitch to 1999's World Series MVP Edgardo Alfonzo, then announcing that the Mets will retire Fonzie's number 13 the following season as part of the celebration of the '99 Miracle Mets' 15th Anniversary. And in the Winter of 2007, I write a 14-part epic masterpiece detailing the '99 Mets magnificent October journey, "30 Days In October." Sound good? I like it too.

Vic Sage Feb 14 2014 09:22 AM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Yeah, and just about everything he conjures up as a future consequence of a `99 victory could just as well have happened after a `00 victory, except that we'd ALSO have the benefit of wiping the 2000 loss to the MFYs completely out of existence. Tell Mr. Weber he's dead to me.

Ceetar Feb 14 2014 09:32 AM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Not meaning to derail here, but if Piazza does win that championship and the Mets of that era are exulted that much more, do you think he's in the Hall of Fame right now?

Vic Sage Feb 14 2014 01:53 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Piazza's absence from the HOF isn't due to his lack of credentials. He's the greatest HR-hitting catcher in the history of baseball; a ROY, 12-time All-star, 10-time silver slugger, 7 times in the MVP top-10 voting. That should be sufficient credentials for a 1st-ballot HOFer. His lack of sufficient votes is based purely on the fact that a cabal of old-school voters thinks he may possibly be rumored to have maybe done steroids because they heard from somebody somewhere that he had pimples on his back. A `99 (or `00) championship wouldn't have changed a thing.

Frayed Knot Feb 14 2014 02:07 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Plus the standards for baseball greatness--unlike those discussions involving basketball players and quarterbacks--don't seem nearly as obsessed with counting the number of titles as a starting point.

Ashie62 Feb 15 2014 04:55 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

99 was special.. a Pratt and Ventura walk off...

G-Fafif Feb 16 2014 03:52 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

I answer my own question here. My thanks for all your thoughts on the matter, which helped me work through my own. They are reflected in the above post as well as this one.

metirish Feb 16 2014 08:24 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

No, thanks to you, this made for some great comments here and on your blog, and of course those two great posts linked above.

Vic Sage Feb 16 2014 08:49 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

G-Fafif wrote: I answer my own question here. My thanks for all your thoughts on the matter, which helped me work through my own. They are reflected in the above post as well as this one. Your little blog didn't even bother to discuss the impact on the psyche of Metdom of unlosing to the MFYs in `00. Dead. you are dead to me.

Zvon Feb 16 2014 10:54 PM Re: The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

Vic Sage wrote: G-Fafif wrote: I answer my own question here. My thanks for all your thoughts on the matter, which helped me work through my own. They are reflected in the above post as well as this one. Your little blog didn't even bother to discuss the impact on the psyche of Metdom of unlosing to the MFYs in `00. Dead. you are dead to me. lol