Master Index of Archived Threads


'86 yo

Edgy DC Aug 19 2006 10:24 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 20 2006 09:46 AM

OlerudOwned Aug 19 2006 10:32 PM

Edgy DC Aug 19 2006 10:37 PM

I missed the ceremony. Who was missing? I've got Davey Johnson, Ray Knight, Roger McDowell, Lee Mazzilli and Dwight Gooden. How about coaches? I assume Vern Hoscheit's not travelling these days, but I read that Bill Robinson was there. Cuh-yule. Did Tim Corcoran get his moment?

G-Fafif Aug 19 2006 10:47 PM

< I've got Davey Johnson, Ray Knight, Roger McDowell, Lee Mazzilli and Dwight Gooden. How about coaches? I assume Vern Hoscheit's not travelling these days, but I read that Bill Robinson was there. Cuh-yule. Did Tim Corcoran get his moment?>> Only '86 postseason roster personnel plus Harrelson, Robinson and Cashen were there. The four players mentioned above and manager were the glaring omissions but too bad no love for the just-passing-throughs, just-coming-ups, just-saying-goodbyes. In other words, no That said, awesome ceremony to bear witness to. I will cherish it.

Edgy DC Aug 19 2006 11:11 PM

You know, maybe '86 is still '86 without Rick Anderson and Kevin Elster and and George Foster and Stanley Jefferson, but they are such an indelible part of the story, and certainly worth celebrating. (Or was Elster there?)

SteveJRogers Aug 19 2006 11:33 PM

Edgy DC wrote: You know, maybe '86 is still '86 without Rick Anderson and Kevin Elster and and George Foster and Stanley Jefferson, but they are such an indelible part of the story, and certainly worth celebrating. (Or was Elster there?) Elster, the Mets Elster, was there (he did play in the 1986 WS)

seawolf17 Aug 20 2006 06:38 AM

When they introduced Randy Niemann, you could very vaguely hear everyone's collective "he was on the roster?" thought.

Edgy DC Aug 20 2006 09:51 AM

SteveJRogers wrote: ="Edgy DC"]You know, maybe '86 is still '86 without Rick Anderson and Kevin Elster and and George Foster and Stanley Jefferson, but they are such an indelible part of the story, and certainly worth celebrating. (Or was Elster there?) Elster, the Mets Elster, was there (he did play in the 1986 WS) Believe me, if I live to 106, and my brain is so addled that I'm wearing flower pots on my head, I'll still remember the difference between affect and effect, that The Cult had the outstanding song of 1985, and that Kevin Elster played in the 1986 World Series.

Edgy DC Aug 20 2006 10:57 AM

That video is awful.

OlerudOwned Aug 20 2006 12:24 PM

YouTube has a 40 min, 4-part showing of the SNY [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FjekkR6U5M&mode=related&search=]1986 Reunion Special[/url].

ScarletKnight41 Aug 20 2006 12:29 PM

Very cool - thanks OO!

Frayed Knot Aug 20 2006 02:38 PM

At least the fans had enough class not to boo Sisk's introduction. I was surprised.

Edgy DC Aug 20 2006 02:54 PM

I also noticed he was one of the only ones (Mook was another) who had already made his way to the field before his introduction started, cutting into the dramatic setup for him and perhaps protecting him from any confrontation.

SteveJRogers Aug 20 2006 02:54 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: At least the fans had enough class not to boo Sisk's introduction. I was surprised. Me too. Doug Risk was the 1986 edition of Mel Rojas, Rich Rodriguez, Jorge Julio, ect, ect, ect...

Benjamin Grimm Aug 20 2006 03:09 PM

Sisk's worst year, I think, and the one that cemented his image in the minds of Mets fans, was 1984. I don't think he was nearly as bad in 1986. (I'm going from memory here; the stats may prove me wrong.)

metirish Aug 20 2006 03:19 PM

OO thanks for posting the "youtube", I only got to see a little bit last night, boy that was special to watch.

Edgy DC Aug 20 2006 03:21 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: ="Frayed Knot"]At least the fans had enough class not to boo Sisk's introduction. I was surprised. Me too. Doug Risk was the 1986 edition of Mel Rojas, Rich Rodriguez, Jorge Julio, ect, ect, ect... Complete disagreement coming out of my bedroom.

SteveJRogers Aug 20 2006 03:24 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Sisk's worst year, I think, and the one that cemented his image in the minds of Mets fans, was 1984. I don't think he was nearly as bad in 1986. (I'm going from memory here; the stats may prove me wrong.) You are going by memory, 1984 was Sisk's best year with 15 saves amd a 2.09 ERA! 1985 is when the wheels fell off with a 5.30 ERA, and he really wasn't all that effective in 1986 and 1987 either. I mean, Davey went to two full time starters for long relief and only used Sisk as a mop-up guy in the postseason! That says alot in terms of faith in a guy.

Edgy DC Aug 20 2006 03:28 PM

And how did he do in 1986?

Benjamin Grimm Aug 20 2006 03:29 PM

No, I was right, it was 1984. Look at how he did in July, when the Mets were fighting for first place: http://ultimatemets.com/profile.php?PlayerCode=0335&tabno=9&vMonth=ALL&vYear=1984 His 1986 ERA was 3.06. He had good months and bad, but he was used less often in key situations (as you said) so he really wasn't hurting the team at all. Calling him Mel Rojas isn't fair, at least to the 1986 Sisk. It was the summer of 1984 that gave him his reputation. And I'm glad he got cheered at Shea last night. I was fearing that he'd be booed, but I guess time heals many wounds.

Frayed Knot Aug 20 2006 03:30 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 20 2006 03:35 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: ="Frayed Knot"]At least the fans had enough class not to boo Sisk's introduction. I was surprised. Me too. Doug Risk was the 1986 edition of Mel Rojas, Rich Rodriguez, Jorge Julio, ect, ect, ect... I'm well aware of what Doug Sisk was but Met fans have got to do a few things here: 1) stop acting as if treating less-than-heroic players like they ran over your pets makes you some sort of discrimnating and knowledgable fan. That they managed to do this for one night is both encouraging and surprising. B) get this idea out of their heads that they've been a fan-base with a history of being tortured by bad bullpens. Just take your brief list for instance: Rojas was lousy for part of one season and was gone. Rodriguez barely lasted longer than that, and Julio was here barely a month and had about at least as many good outings as bad. Furthermore, NONE of them were the main option out of the pen and only with Rojas was that notion even a possibility. That fans then go lumping Franco, Benitez, Orosco and now Wagner into their pantheon of relievers who they believe to be worse than dime-a-dozen underachievers whose existance tortures their daily fandom is further proof that some need different hobbies.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 20 2006 03:31 PM

I agree, Knot. There's way too much angst in Metland.

SteveJRogers Aug 20 2006 03:33 PM

Edgy DC wrote: ="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]At least the fans had enough class not to boo Sisk's introduction. I was surprised. Me too. Doug Risk was the 1986 edition of Mel Rojas, Rich Rodriguez, Jorge Julio, ect, ect, ect... Complete disagreement coming out of my bedroom. I meant in terms of fan perception of the worst reliever to don a Met uni, not in terms of reality I.e. the Kevin McReynolds/Bobby Bonilla/Bret Saberhagen/Eddie Murray/ect effect, where a perception gets so drummed in that eventually the perception (McReynolds, Bonillia, Sabes, Murray, ect were absolute busts as Mets) becomes the reality (i.e. the notion that Beltran would become a Bonilla-esque bust as a Met) I'm not suggesting Sisk was good either, as Davey's usage of Sid and Aguliera as the long relievers in the postseason (rather than emergency, in a pinch situation starters-as-postseason-relievers generally are) suggests a lack of confidence in the big spot, I'm just saying Met Nation (if you will) sees Sisk on the level with guys that couldn't even get Al Leiter out!

SteveJRogers Aug 20 2006 03:35 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: No, I was right, it was 1984. Look at how he did in July, when the Mets were fighting for first place: http://ultimatemets.com/profile.php?PlayerCode=0335&tabno=9&vMonth=ALL&vYear=1984 His 1986 ERA was 3.06. He had good months and bad, but he was used less often in key situations (as you said) so he really wasn't hurting the team at all. Calling him Mel Rojas isn't fair, at least to the 1986 Sisk. It was the summer of 1984 that gave him his reputation. And I'm glad he got cheered at Shea last night. I was fearing that he'd be booed, but I guess time heals many wounds. Okay, thats fair. When did he develop the arm problems? I believe that was the source of the ineffectiveness of 84-85

Edgy DC Aug 20 2006 03:43 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: I meant in terms of fan perception of the worst reliever to don a Met uni, not in terms of reality Please let us know when you're not speaking for yourself.

SteveJRogers Aug 20 2006 03:47 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: B) get this idea out of their heads that they've been a fan-base with a history of being tortured by bad bullpens. Just take your brief list for instance: Rojas was lousy for part of one season and was gone. Rodriguez barely lasted longer than that, and Julio was here barely a month and had about at least as many good outings as bad. Furthermore, NONE of them were the main option out of the pen and only with Rojas was that notion even a possibility. That fans then go lumping Franco, Benitez, Orosco and now Wagner into their pantheon of relievers who they believe to be worse than dime-a-dozen underachievers whose existance tortures their daily fandom is further proof that some need different hobbies. I agree with those sentiments. I truely do not recall Jesse Orosco being a "choke artist" the way the aforementioned Franco and Benitez had (and still are) and Wagner is getting called? I mean how do you close out the two most important wins of the season and get labeled a bad reliever? If anything Roger McDowell "blew" the 1987 season with the homer to Pendelton (quotes for sarcasm) Heck, I don't think Twins fans were worried that Rick Augliera surrendered a Dave Henderson HR in Game 6 1986 when he was closing out big games for them in 1991! Anyway, yeah, the bullpen corps of the Mets through the years really have been treated as if it was just a bunch of gas cans and lighter fluids out there Mediots, and those that call them, chalk it up to "Rivera-Envy" but I don't think so, the Sisk-Orosco-McDowell hate goes back to the Dave Righetti years and no one is putting Rags in Cooperstown. Gossage belongs in the Hall and Sparky wasn't too bad himself, but the Yanks have had their share of clunkers in the pen, both as the Big Guy out there and the other specialists so its not like Met fans really can say that "The other side of town" has had a rich line of bullpen aces, up and down the bullpen Really is quite funny when you think of it

Iubitul Aug 20 2006 03:59 PM

Steve - you don't remember, "Messy Fiasco"?

ScarletKnight41 Aug 20 2006 04:01 PM

There was a smattering of Boos for Sisk last night (not from me - I behaved!), but it was an overall positive fan response, IMO.

SteveJRogers Aug 20 2006 05:14 PM

Iubitul wrote: Steve - you don't remember, "Messy Fiasco"? Heh, true, but then again I was 10 years old in Jesse's last season at Shea, so I'm really basing it on gusty performances in the 1986 postseason rather than the fact that 1987 really was his last season as a "big game" closer

HahnSolo Aug 21 2006 07:04 AM

Color me shocked that neither El Sid nor Mitchell clearly won the award for Fattest 86er. Ed Hearn and Doug Sisk are clearly giving them a run for their money.

Edgy DC Aug 21 2006 07:10 AM

Well, Hearn ballooned a long time ago after a broad range of serious health problems. Dykstra is packing a lot of ass for a little guy. Most unchanged is Teufel.

MFS62 Aug 21 2006 07:16 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Dykstra is packing a lot of ass for a little guy. That was funny. Later

Benjamin Grimm Aug 21 2006 07:25 AM

Rick Aguilera looked pretty much the same as I remembered him. And Danny Heep looked to be in good shape, too. Wally Backman was least recognizable, I thought, along with Kevin Elster. I think if you combined the features of Wally and Howard Johnson, you could make a pretty good John Ratzenberger.

ScarletKnight41 Aug 21 2006 07:32 AM

Ed Hearn was totally loving his moment of glory - he was fun to watch. Teufel looked the most like he did in his younger days, IMO.

RealityChuck Aug 21 2006 08:25 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 21 2006 09:25 AM

SteveJRogers wrote: I mean, Davey went to two full time starters for long relief and only used Sisk as a mop-up guy in the postseason! That says alot in terms of faith in a guy. Not really: you always have an extra starter or two in the postseason if you have a five-man rotation, and it makes sense to use him as long relief. In 1969, the team used Nolan Ryan in long relief for that reason. In '86, you also had Sid Fernandez -- a lefty who gave up a lot of fly balls to left, which meant there was no way you were going to start him in Fenway Park. So you start out with your two best (Gooden and Darling) at home, but then go to Ojeda (who, though lefty, had been succesful in Fenway). Since Ojeda pitched so well in game 3, it's sensible to go with him for game 6, with Sid ready in case of trouble. Looking at Sisk's record, 1985 was an anomaly: his worst year in as a regular. But he was at least average in '86, and if anyone seems to be at the bottom of Davy Johnson's list in '86, it was Randy Neimann, who never pitched in the postseason (Sisk did twice, even if it was for mop-up -- and his appearance in Game 4 of the NLCS was hardly that, since the team was only two runs down).

Edgy DC Aug 21 2006 09:18 AM

That the back end of the roation became a bullpen asset in the post-season is no reflection on Sisk. They didn't really need their eighth-best pitcher, because, among other reasons, the first seven were really good. Had game six gone on, Sisk would've been in the game, and the Mets would've been likely better off with him than the Sox were. I don't get the perspective of "Sure the tying run was already home, but it's a good thing that Buckner blew the grounder, because I saw Johnson on deck and Sisk warming up and I didn't have a good feeling." After tying the game having been down by two and down to the last out with nobody on, how could you not feel good about the 1986 Mets' chances?

Benjamin Grimm Aug 21 2006 09:43 AM

I certainly had a good feeling up there in the Upper Deck. But I was also aware of Hojo and Sisk, and that did add bit of a sense of greater urgency to getting Knight home that inning rather than going on to the 11th.

Edgy DC Aug 21 2006 09:58 AM

Man, I'd happily take 1986 Howard Johnson with a fresh count and the Sox a few pitches deeper into a bullpen that is floundering and shallower than the Mets, just as soon as --- or sooner than --- I'd take 1986 Mookie with two strikes. No reflection on Mookie, but two strikes is two strikes. He walks, or gets a hit that merely gets Knight to third, I'm one happy Met fan. If the prospect of HoJo was so underwhelming, should the Sox have walked Mookie there? Whether it's Johnson batting lefty against Stanley or righty against Sambito (with Stanley gone after one batter), I'm cool with it. The best argument for the Sox to walk him would be that --- if they get him --- the Mets are down to their third shortstop, with a groundball pitcher in the game.

HahnSolo Aug 21 2006 10:08 AM

Hojo was already in the game, though, wasn't he? Didn't he strike out for Elster in the 9th? So they were already down to their third shortstop (damn Davey hitting for Raffy in the fifth inning!).

Edgy DC Aug 21 2006 10:10 AM

OK, good point. So it's already a done deal, so why would HoJo on deck and Sisk in the pen make anybody particularly uneasy? (More uneasy than any other elimination game tied in extra innings.)