Master Index of Archived Threads


Would Mets have beaten the Sox?

metsguyinmichigan Oct 28 2007 10:40 PM

Eduardo Perez was just asked on SportsCenter if there was another National League team that would have done better against the Sox. Without blinking, he said the Mets. He said the injuries to El Duque and Beltran down the stretch did them in, and that without the injuries they were the best team in baseball. I don't know if that made me feel better or worse.

Edgy DC Oct 28 2007 11:09 PM

If you want to blame the Mets failures on injuries, look to the series of injuries chewing up their outfield the first half. Down the stretch, the pitching just didn't come through. Injuries weren't the issue. Collective fatigue, maybe, but collective failure is more like it.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 29 2007 07:08 AM

They couldn't beat the Washington Nationals. I don't see how the could've beaten the Boston Red Sox.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 29 2007 07:14 AM

'zacly. That hype is powerful stuff.

metirish Oct 29 2007 07:26 AM

] He said the injuries to El Duque and Beltran down the stretch did them in, and that without the injuries they were the best team in baseball. I don't believe that to be true, at full strength I would take the Boston starting rotation and bull pen over the Mets.

soupcan Oct 29 2007 08:10 AM Re: Would Mets have beaten the Sox?

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Eduardo Perez was just asked on SportsCenter if there was another National League team that would have done better against the Sox. Without blinking, he said the Mets. He said the injuries to El Duque and Beltran down the stretch did them in, and that without the injuries they were the best team in baseball. I don't know if that made me feel better or worse. Eduardo Perez obviously wasn't watching the same team I was. Every pitcher on the staff forgot how to pitch and that's what did them in.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 29 2007 08:11 AM

Yeah, there was nothing wrong with Beltran's September. Perhaps Perez is unaware that Beltran was the Schaefer Mets Player of the Month in September.

Frayed Knot Oct 29 2007 08:41 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Perhaps Perez is unaware that Beltran was the Schaefer Mets Player of the Month in September. Well if that's the case then he has no business being on national television.

Centerfield Oct 29 2007 09:12 AM

Which Mets? The April Mets or the September Mets?

smg58 Oct 29 2007 11:26 AM

I don't see how the Mets would have gotten past the Rockies even if they did win the division, honestly.

Elster88 Oct 29 2007 06:13 PM

]Would Mets have beaten the Sox? No. This thread is strong evidence that there are no Koolaid drinkers here.

Iubitul Oct 29 2007 06:51 PM

Here's a question I haven't seen asked anywhere: What part does the ban on amphetamines have on the collapse of the bullpen?

SteveJRogers Oct 29 2007 07:20 PM

Just shows you how out of tune with the micro details these national show commentators are. Injuries are a big picture deal and generally are an easy answer when pressed with a question about why a team fell apart, as opposed to actually keeping informed, even a little bit, with what is going on with each team.

Rockin' Doc Oct 30 2007 06:08 AM

I don't see how any rational person could make a claim that the Mets would have likely defeated the Red Sox. The Red Sox proved themselves the best team by going out and earning the World Series on the field. The Mets, on the other hand, fell apart down the stretch and failed to win anything, other than the delusional respect of Eduardo Perez.

soupcan Oct 30 2007 07:18 AM

Iubitul wrote: Here's a question I haven't seen asked anywhere: What part does the ban on amphetamines have on the collapse of the bullpen? Well I didn't see any other teams complete an epic collapse so I'd have to say little to none.

G-Fafif Oct 30 2007 01:56 PM

I'm guessing Perez, whose comment shocked me, was thinking Carlos Delgado, who was hurt in September, but said Carlos Beltran, who was not.