Master Index of Archived Threads


Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

Chad Ochoseis Mar 01 2018 06:00 PM

I've never been clear on how the pundits predicted the 1969 season would play out. The received wisdom today is that the Mets were still a joke and that some writers picked them to finish last, behind Montreal (!). But that's never made much sense. Tom Seaver wasn't a secret; he'd won RoY in '67 and then got even better in '68. Koosman lost the 1968 RoY ballot by one vote. To Johnny F. Bench. Gary Gentry was considered to be one of the top prospects in baseball. And even without the benefit of the interwebs, people must have heard that Grote, Harrelson, and Agee could catch and throw. The only 1969 article my Google-fu has managed to find is the April 14 issue of Sports Illustrated, which picks the Cardinals to run away with the division, but has the Mets finishing second. Does anyone have other info?

batmagadanleadoff Mar 01 2018 06:39 PM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 01 2018 06:44 PM

Oddsamakers had the Mets at 50-1 to win the 1969 WS, the longest odds among teams that existed the year before, and maybe even among all 24 teams, so there's that. OT--How the hell does anyone type on a smartphone? You need Barbie doll fingers. It took me 10x as long as it should've to type this post.

d'Kong76 Mar 01 2018 06:40 PM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

I 'flipped' through the 3/29/69 Sporting News and didn't find any predictions. There was a Jack Lang column about Gil's expectations that I didn't entirely get through. I'll look at the surrounding weeks when I can. I don't remember if they actually did what we're looking for but it's fun to browse through. There was an article about Rusty threatening to quit the Astros that I want to go back and look at.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 01 2018 06:50 PM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

Does anyone have Street and Smith from that year?

Ceetar Mar 01 2018 06:57 PM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Oddsamakers had the Mets at 50-1 to win the 1969 WS, the longest odds among teams that existed the year before, and maybe even among all 24 teams, so there's that. OT--How the hell does anyone type on a smartphone? You need Barbie doll fingers. It took me 10x as long as it should've to type this post. bigger phone? swype? I always swype but it's not great. I know this makes me an 'old' but I hate typing on the phone. I'll frequently walk over to the computer if i want to reply to a tweet or email.

G-Fafif Mar 01 2018 08:08 PM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

Leonard Koppett addressed expectations in his 1970 franchise history The New York Mets: The Whole Story. As for the full season, well -- everyone knew that the Cardinals would run away and hide from the rest of the Eastern Division. Their only conceivable challenge would come from Durocher's Cubs. Montreal, of course, would be last. So the Mets had to fight it out with Pittsburgh and Philadelphia for third place. They should certainly beat Philadelphia, since the Mets looked stronger and Philadelphia weaker than in 1968, when the margin between them was only three games. And Pittsburgh, which had finished only seven games ahead of the Mets, had injury, age, and other problems. Fourth place, therefore, could be called the legitimate expectation and third place a reasonable aspiration for the Mets. Fifth would be a bitter disappointment and sixth a disaster.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 01 2018 08:13 PM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

I wonder, though, if "disappointment" and "disaster" would have been the words used before the 1969 season. I have a 1969 Sporting News baseball guide, and while that publication is about a review of the previous season rather than a preview of the upcoming one, Jack Lang's article about the 1968 Mets was in fact pretty upbeat.

G-Fafif Mar 01 2018 08:18 PM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

Koppett added Dick Young picked the Mets to finish second, and was "chided again for being carried away by loyalty to the Mets."

RealityChuck Mar 01 2018 11:12 PM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

I have a the season preview issue from Baseball Digest that year. In the capsule summary, the comment on the Mets was "Back in the cellar again." Yes, they thought they'd do worse than the Expos. The fuller summary seemed to say they would finish 5th if things broke right. They acknowledged Seaver and Koosman were going to give them good starting pitching and they had some promising young players. But if you look at the personnel in spring training, they were weak at first base (Clendenon was added in June), third base (of course), center field (Agee had been awful the previous year), and right (neither Swoboda nor Shamsky inspired confidence). Other than the big two, the rest of the starters were untried (Gentry, Ryan, McAndrew) or league average (Cardwell). They probably expected Al Jackson to be in the mix. Most of the starting lineup played better than they had the year before; the untried pitchers turned out to be good enough to carry the team, and Taylor and McGraw made an effective fireman duo. If you look at all the players, it's amazing how many had their best year in 1969.

Zvon Mar 01 2018 11:17 PM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

batmagadanleadoff wrote: OT--How the hell does anyone type on a smartphone? You need Barbie doll fingers. It took me 10x as long as it should've to type this post. lol. This drives me crazy. It's the screen type keyboards on the smaller phones that are difficult. I'm always hitting the wrong keys. The little, pull out keyboard types (not on screen, an actual keyboard) are the best if you are not gonna go I-Pad. I'm looking into getting one of those next.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 01 2018 11:27 PM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

I've taken to voicing my responses on using the Google keyboard. Explains the words I'm missing you case really. Faster than typing but a lot less accurate as if you can't tell I'm doing this now is a test

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 01 2018 11:32 PM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I've taken to voicing my responses on using the Google keyboard. Explains the words I'm missing you case really. Faster than typing but a lot less accurate as if you can't tell I'm doing this now is a test I've taken to voicing my responses [crossout]on[/crossout]using the Google keyboard. Explains the words I'm missing [crossout]you case really[/crossout] ocassionally. Faster than typing but a lot less accurate (period). [crossout]a[/crossout]As if you can't tell [insert comma] I'm doing this now [crossout]is[/crossout] as a test (insert period)

G-Fafif Mar 02 2018 01:53 AM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

One spring, late '80s, Maury Allen offered his predictions in the Post and in a bylined piece in a preview magazine of the Street & Smith's ilk. One had the Mets running away with the division, the other suggested they were in big trouble. I got the feeling that by then Maury Allen did not value consistency.

Edgy MD Mar 02 2018 02:05 AM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

I've bounced around on this. It's interesting. Among the big stories of expansion, division play, the raising of the mound to try and swing the pendulum away from the Year of the Pitcher, and the alleged 100th anniversary of professional baseball (if not league play), scribes seem to have gotten away with writing their season previews without making predictions as to who will be the pennant winners.

RealityChuck Mar 02 2018 02:45 AM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

Just read the full Baseball Digest summary. Even the main article had them last. They discuss the pitching; going by this their idea of a lineup was Starters: Seaver, Koosman, McAndrew, Cardwell, Gentry, Ryan are all mentioned RPs: Ron Taylor and Cal Koonce get the best comments, along with Al Jackson and Bill Short Catcher: "Jerry Grote is fine. But there's little quality help for Grote, although J.C. Martin is long on experience." "The infield is a puzzle, beginning with shortstop Bud Harrelson, who shouldn't be." "First base is nothing to brag about, although Ed Kranepool has been on the job, more or less, for five seasons. Kranepool has to provide more power or the Mets have to provide a replacement." They aren't sure Boswell will be able to handle the job at second, and pencil in Ed Charles at third, in competition with Kevin Collins, Bob Heise, Ted Martinez, and Wayne Garrett. As for the outfield, "Each year [Agee] has gotten worse. . . . Swoboda has been a continued disappointment." I also have a clipping of their opening day roster: Pitchers Cardwell Gentry Al Jackson Cal Koonce Koosman McAndrew McGraw Ryan Seaver Taylor Catchers Dyer Grote Martin Infielders Boswell Charles Kevin Collins Garrett Harrelson Kranepool Otis Weis Outfielders Agee "Who the hell is" Rod Gaspar Jones Shamsky Swoboda Note the change in roster construction: only ten pitchers, and 26 men on opening day (I think it went down to 25 on May 1).

RealityChuck Mar 02 2018 03:04 AM Re: Contemporaneous 1969 predictions

I've bounced around on this. It's interesting. Among the big stories of expansion, division play, the raising of the mound to try and swing the pendulum away from the Year of the Pitcher, and the alleged 100th anniversary of professional baseball (if not league play), scribes seem to have gotten away with writing their season previews without making predictions as to who will be the pennant winners. Baseball Digest picked the Tigers and Giants to go to the WS. Oakland and Chicago would win their divisions. As for the actual division champions. their predictions were: Mets -- 6th, Orioles -- 3rd, Braves --3rd, and Twins -- 2nd