Master Index of Archived Threads


2000 Revisited (Split from Thanks, Roger)

Valadius Feb 14 2008 07:47 PM

We should have won that damn series.

soupcan Feb 14 2008 08:18 PM

Valadius wrote: We should have won that damn series. 4 games to 1 Val. It wasn't even close.

SteveJRogers Feb 14 2008 08:42 PM

Close games though 4-3, 6-5, 4-2, 3-2, 4-2. Lucky break here or there (looking right AT YOU TIMO!) who knows. But the Mets weren't smoked or anything.

AG/DC Feb 14 2008 10:42 PM

Roger gets tossed like he deserved to and... LaRussa's greater culpability is the DWI roadshow he runs.

AG/DC Feb 15 2008 07:22 AM

A single break more and it's 3-2.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 15 2008 08:14 AM

I've been thinking a lot about that awful World Series lately. Objectively, it was one of the worst World Serieses ever. Emotionally, I hated every second of it. And I think that series was very winnable for the Mets but they fucked themselves out of it and also, had bad luck. If Timo runs the bases like he should have, we not only win Game 1, but we win it big, by knocking out Pettitte that very inning, getting to that wobbly MFY middle relief, which was the key to beating the MFYs all year long. It would also have provided the Mets with the lead that might have withstood whatever shenanigans Franco & Benitez had in store. I don't really beleve in momentum most of the time, but losing that game was the whole series, since everyone knew the Mets should have won it, and had to win one at MFY stadium. Knowing that was the one they could have had blanketed the whole series with doom for the Mets. They coughed up whatever momentum the gods had granted them. You knew it, I knew it, everyone knew it. Game 2 was a disgrace. Clemens should have been ejected. The only thing that kept him in the game, and kept him from getting his face beaten in, was the fact thast his behavior was so inappropriate it took everyone a moment to process it -- what the...? -- a monent that under normal circ umstances would have featured an umpire thumbing him and ballplayers tackling him to the ground. It was of zero help that Mike F. Hampton then went out there and Glavined his way into Met history with one of the wussiest performances I'd ever seen (2 outs, nobody on, he walks two guys and gives up 2 RBI hits. Disgusting). A less shitty performance from Hampton and we may have stolen this game given how shaky Mariano was in the 9th. At least when Leiter couldn't get the 3rd out in the 9th in Game 5 he had the excuse of having thrown 300 pitches and 8 strong innings before then. The MFYs should also have given a WS ring to Mike Fuckyoufucking James of the Cardinals, who beaned Mike F. Bordick back in Game 1 of the NLCS immediately after serving up 2 HRs. Bordick was hit in the thumb, and couldn't hit or play defense the rest of the season. This exposed the Mets' laughable Plan B at shortstop, Kurt F. Abbott, who of course was no match for the 15-fucking hopper by Luis Eatmeyoufuckingfatprick Sojo in Game 5. Game 3 we won. Reed was awesome. Benitez was given a 2-run lead and gave up a leadoff hit, but got through it scoreless. Anyone remember the alleged "postseason ace" we beat that day? Game 4 we deserved to lose. Nobody expected Bobby J. Jones was gonna pull another gem out of his jock, and he didn't. But the Mets failed themselves offensively: They had Denny Neagle to kick around and didn't. They had top of the order on the 5th inning, 3rd time around on him, and couldn't do shit. Then fucking David Fucking Fuck Fucking Cone retired Piazza and you knew once again our chance and come and gone. Game 5 we started Kurt Abbott. I suppose if Piazza got just toiny bit more of that last pitch we remember it as an alltime Met moment but instead it completely destroyed me. I hate hate hate hate hate hate the 2000 fucking world series.

AG/DC Feb 15 2008 08:20 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: At least when Leiter couldn't get the 3rd out in the 9th in Game 5 he had the excuse of having thrown 300 pitches and 8 strong innings before then. And it was a 17 hopper that ultimately beat him, wasn't it? OE: Mike James is a villian. Period. Oh, wait, that's the 17-hopper right there. Onward.

soupcan Feb 15 2008 08:29 AM

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]...that series was very winnable for the Mets but ... If Timo runs the bases like he should have... It would also have provided the Mets with the lead that might have withstood whatever shenanigans Franco & Benitez had in store. A less shitty performance from Hampton and we may have stolen this game... I suppose if Piazza got just a tiny bit more of that last pitch... But, if, might have, may have... Lunchy nails it. Too many of these to think that the Mets were even close to winning this.

AG/DC Feb 15 2008 08:39 AM

Yeah, I disagree. One more break turns around a game. Two turns around a series. The Yankees dominated nothing. I've got to take Valentitne to task just a little bit. 1) He was relying too much on hot hands, part I. He caught his NL opponents by surprise with Timo Perez, and the bloom was off just a little bit where a touch of Hamilton and Trammell might have given Torre a little more to think about over there. 2) He was relying too much on hot hands, part II. Game 4 should have been Glendon Rusch's start. Bobby Jones was unreal in the clincher against the Giants and Valentine was hoping he had some more magic. But the Giants, apart from Bonds, were stacked with righties, and the Yankees were stacked with lefties. Rusch was the guy to go to. 3) He was fearing too much the cold hand. He'd have been killed if he went to Benitez in Game 5 and lost after Leiter had pitched so well. Fuck it. He should have anyway. They lost and Benitez gets killed for being too unreliable to go to. 4) A much much stronger demand that Clemens be ejected would have been in order, and probably would have been tolerated given the circumstances. Frank Robinson was right there in the box seats; go over and make an appeal to him. It breaks all protocol, but what the hell. Why should Clemens be the only one bringing the game into a new paradigm? Maybe pull the team off the field. Even if he only puts on a nice show and gets ejected, at least he could embarrass the Yankees further and turn the game around emotionally for manager John Stearns or Tom Robson or whoever. Piazza did the right thing in not killing Clemens. Somebody in that dugout should have played the part of Piazza's pitbull lawyer, though.

soupcan Feb 15 2008 08:56 AM

="AG/DC"]Yeah, I disagree. One more break turns around a game. Two turns around a series. The Yankees dominated nothing. How many breaks do you want? If you needed more than one or two, that's too many to expect and/or ask for. 4 games to 1 is a dominating win. One break turns a game around maybe. It doesn't turn a series around. Valentine's decision-making is as much a strength or weakness of a team as their catcher's offense or shortstop's defense. If the Series was lost as a result of poor managerial moves you can't say that if he had done this and not that, blah, blah, blah.... Well you can say it but it doesn't carry a whole lot of weight. He consciously made the moves he made.

Farmer Ted Feb 15 2008 09:06 AM

Luis Eatmeyoufuckingfatprick Sojo Can I PLEASE get some of this vibrant and colorful commentary on SNY?

AG/DC Feb 15 2008 09:07 AM

="soupcan"]How many breaks do you want? Two. I'd gladly take one. ="soupcan"]If you needed more than one or two, that's too many to expect and/or ask for. Well, we're good then. I bring up Valentine as a seperate point related to that series.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 15 2008 09:17 AM

I think the 2000 World Series cured me of taking too much to heart. I mean, I was just devastated by Game 1. Tortured. When they blew it this September I was fine by comparison.

Frayed Knot Feb 15 2008 09:21 AM

I remember making a post (back in the old MoFo days) on all 11 games the Mets & Yanx played that season: 6 reg season + 5 WS - The first two were blow-outs (1 each way) but then the remaining 9 were all 1 & 2 run games with us coming out on the short end in 7 of them. - and as if that wasn't bad enough, we out-hit and/or out-baserunnered them in many of those 7 only to get out-scored as the MFYs managed to infuriatingly bunch theirs all in one inning It's not that we deserved to win, it's just that virtually everything that could go wrong did that whole fucking year.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 15 2008 09:28 AM

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]I think the 2000 World Series cured me of taking too much to heart. I mean, I was just devastated by Game 1. Tortured. When they blew it this September I was fine by comparison. I know how you feel. My cure came earlier, though, during the 1988 NLCS. 2000 didn't torture me, and neither did 2007.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 15 2008 09:32 AM

To be objective the MFYs did 4 outstanding things in that series, 3 of them in Game 1: 1) Jeter's relay throw on the Timo play. Hate to say it but if not executed well, we get away with it. 2) O'Neill's AB vs. Benitez in Game 1. Fouled off a million pitches and reached base. Small props to AB for losing him this way rather than a HR, tho he wound up scoring anyway. 3) Vizcainio's hit vs. Wendell in game 1. Again, 2 outs. 4) I forget the 4th.

Gwreck Feb 15 2008 09:42 AM

Jeter's leadoff homer in Game 4 was the 4th thing. Remember how we felt when Reyes did the same thing in NLCS Game 6 in 2006? Same deal.

metirish Feb 15 2008 10:43 AM

Great summary up top Bucket, just how I remember it going or should have went. I'd only been a fan a few years but that series loss was heartbreaking for me.

Gwreck Feb 15 2008 11:01 AM

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]I mean, I was just devastated by Game 1. Tortured. When they blew it this September I was fine by comparison. I could adopt this statement as my own. I still haven't fully recovered from that loss.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 15 2008 11:12 AM

Getting baack to Grimm's comments, yes, 1988 was bad too, but IMO, 1985 might have been worse. Plus, to me 88 and 99 were different eras. I'd briefly broken up with baseball in the inbetween, so it was like a whole different experience. And about Valentine: I remember being of the mind that Rusch was a good thing to have in the event that Jones went bad. But nobody thought Jones was going to be good. That of coyurse was the other reason we needed to win one of those early games -- we knew that we'd be giving away at least one matchup down the line. Trammell had a great series in limited appearances. And Zeile was the Man. I remember thinking when Piazza batted in Game 5 that if he wasn't gonna hit one out, the best he could do was extend the inning for Zeile, who just might. Zeile really caame to play.

themetfairy Feb 15 2008 11:16 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 15 2008 01:15 PM

The 2000 WS hurt, but I was so proud of those guys for getting that far that it wasn't devastating. The 2007 collapse was fugly, but I got over that (it helped that the MFYs and the Phillies lost quickly in their divisional series). But nothing compares to shit in my real life that I've had to deal with - I love the Mets dearly, but I can take a step back from them when necessary.

AG/DC Feb 15 2008 11:36 AM

1985 was awesome. 19 19 1985 is the reason baseball is better without multi-tiered playoff tournaments. In 1985, all of September was like the playoffs.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 15 2008 12:09 PM

I agree. 1985 was the most exciting season I've ever lived through. Even though it didn't have a happy ending, I have nothing but fond memories of that year.

Centerfield Feb 15 2008 12:23 PM

Who cares. They fucking lost.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 15 2008 12:31 PM

It's not about the destination, it's about the ride. Otherwise we could just ignore them all year and check next year's World Almanac and Book of Facts to see whether or not the Mets won the World Series.

Valadius Feb 15 2008 12:35 PM

I was at Game 1. Fucking Benitez ruined everything. I'm just wondering if we would've won had the 2000 Skankees not been all juiced up. Especially in the case of Clemens. I mean, think about it. The series was so close that a couple of runs going the other way would have resulted in our winning it.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 15 2008 12:36 PM

And you're assuming that none of our guys were juiced?

Valadius Feb 15 2008 12:37 PM

Less of them were. And none of them played particularly large roles.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 15 2008 12:48 PM

Which ones were and which ones weren't, and how do you know?

AG/DC Feb 15 2008 01:06 PM

Valadius wrote: I was at Game 1. Fucking Benitez ruined everything. Timo Perez went 0-6. Perez, Alfonzo, Piazza, and Ventura went 2-22 combined. Baseball is hard. Closer-baiting stnks.

soupcan Feb 15 2008 01:13 PM

No one person wins or loses a game, no one play determines the outcome, one break either way does not tip the scales. If I look at 5 games and they're all close but one team won 4 of them, that doesn't say 'close series' to me. It says close games but when one team is winning all the close games that team is the better one.

AG/DC Feb 15 2008 01:27 PM

soupcan wrote: No one person wins or loses a game Of course not. ]no one play determines the outcome Dozens do. But any one of those dozens can mean the difference. ]one break either way does not tip the scales. It happens all the time.

soupcan Feb 15 2008 01:48 PM

] ]no one play determines the outcome Dozens do. But any one of those dozens can mean the difference. Yes, dozens do but no ONE play in any ONE game by ITSELF. ] ]one break either way does not tip the scales. It happens all the time. For example - Mookie Wilson hits a dribbler to first base, the first basemen lets the ball go through his legs thereby allowing the runner on third base to score the winning run. It would appear that that play tipped the scales in favor of the Mets but in actuality had a wild pitch not been thrown on the prior pitch the runner would not have been at second base and the tying run would not have scored. Like you said before there are a baziliion variables involved and sometimes one stands out as the defining play of the game but its never just ONE play that turns it. They are all dependent on the plays before it. Benitez comes in with the Mets leading 3-1, gives up a run stranding the tying run on second. Yay, we win. Scrappy Mets hang on to edge Phillies, Benitez guts out the save. Benitez comes in with the Mets leading 2-1 and gives up a run. Game goes into extras, Mets lose. Fucking Benitez. Armando blows another one as punchless Mets go quietly.

AG/DC Feb 15 2008 01:59 PM

One play can make the difference in many games. Maybe all. Breaks are when one of those plays that could have made the difference has a very nuanced distinction between it working for one team and working for another. And I'm saying that games and series can be dramatically swung if one more very subtle break goes differently.

soupcan Feb 15 2008 02:11 PM

And I'm saying that one thing (play, break whatever) in and of itself does not determine the outcome. If my team is up 10-1 and my centerfielder drops a can of corn and a runner scores, that play doesn't matter because my cleanup hitter had 8 rbis in that game. If my team is up by 1 run and the other team has the bases loaded and my centerfielder drops that fly ball. That play still didn't lose the game by itself because my cleanup hitter shouldn't have struck out 4 times in the game with men in scoring position. That dropped fly ball in the second scenario facilitated the other team's winning but didn't cause it. It was a combination of things that caused my team to either win or lose that game.

AG/DC Feb 15 2008 02:18 PM

That second play would be the break play I want back. It would certainly be the easiest way to swing the outcome.

soupcan Feb 15 2008 02:30 PM

Right - but my point is that it alone didn't determine the outcome. The play of the team was such that they put themselves in a position to either take advantage of or be hurt by that play. It looks like that is the penultimate play of the game but really it was just one of many.

Frayed Knot Feb 15 2008 02:34 PM

AG/DC wrote: ="Valadius"]I was at Game 1. Fucking Benitez ruined everything. Timo Perez went 0-6. Perez, Alfonzo, Piazza, and Ventura went 2-22 combined. Baseball is hard. Closer-baiting stnks. Fonzie - coming off a .324/.425/.542 108 RBI season - was 3-fer-21 in that series, all singles and 1 RBI (on a groundout). Amazing that his poor series is almost never brought up as a factor and that he's almost unquestionly remembered as a "clutch" player by many fans.

AG/DC Feb 15 2008 02:59 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 15 2008 05:59 PM

soupcan wrote: Right - but my point is that it alone didn't determine the outcome. No, but changing that alone would have swung it. And a game that can be swung by such a subtle distiction as a ball that caught 995 times out of a thousand, is a close game. A series that can be swung on two such plays is worth looking at as close also. I'm not even 100% sure if Zeile's double in game one wasn't a homer deflected back into play by a fan.

KC Feb 15 2008 03:13 PM

I really don't remember much, I've blocked it out from the bat incident on ... FK: ++Fonzie - coming off a .324/.425/.542 108 RBI season - was 3-fer-21 in that series, all singles and 1 RBI (on a groundout)++ phwam AG: ++I'm not even 100% sure if Zeile's double in game one wasn't a homer deflected back into play by a fan++ But but but the deflector wasn't on any of the morning network news shows or on David Letterman so I doubt you remember correctly.

Willets Point Feb 15 2008 03:42 PM

I thought it was a great season/post-season and proud of the team for such a hard fought series. Yeah, they didn't win but they were the best team in the NL and you play that World Series ten times I wager the Mets would win it 7 times, but you can only play it once. People who think their team's a failure because they don't win the championship are losers (I'm looking at you Patriot's fans).

soupcan Feb 15 2008 05:05 PM

Willets Point wrote: ...and you play that World Series ten times I wager the Mets would win it 7 times I have no idea how you can say that a team that lost a 7 game series to another team 4 games to 1 would beat that same team 70% of the time if they played it 10 more times. The Mets won only 1 game. Not 3, not even 2. One. The Mets were not the better team, not nearly.

G-Fafif Feb 15 2008 05:11 PM

It just occurred to me that in 2000, a division title, a Wild Card, a Division Series, a League Championship and a World Series were all clinched at Shea Stadium. Putting aside the irksome fact that two of those honors went to the two mostly roundly hated teams in Metsdom, I'm thinking no other ballpark can lay claim to that much guzzling of Champagne in one year. From the moment that postseason ended, I've thought of 2000 as the year the Mets won the pennant. Everything thereafter, while not necessarily la-la-la-I-can't-hear you territory, doesn't get in the way of that. I liked being the first team to clinch a spot in the World Series. The next night, Bob Costas kept referring to the deciding game of the ALCS as a battle to determine who would earn the right to face the Mets. They probably should have canceled the postseason right there, because it never actually got any better.

AG/DC Feb 15 2008 06:05 PM

I like Willets idea. What do you say, Yankees? Are you yella? Keep in mind, the Yanks have played seven seasons since and have come up short every damn time. So Willets has a Point.

SteveJRogers Feb 15 2008 06:51 PM

="AG/DC"]I like Willets idea. What do you say, Yankees? Are you yella? Keep in mind, the Yanks have played seven seasons since and have come up short every damn time. So Willets has a Point. For laughs in 2001 I started calling the new millennium the Metlennium as a way of saying that the Yankee Century was over and the Mets were primed to have a period of time that they could call their own (note, it took the MFY until 1921 to get to their first World Series, and 1923 to get their first championship, still plenty of century left). Well, the fact of the matter is that since the Yankees beat us in 2000, they have yet to add a 27th title, therefore right now they are suffering: The Curse of The Metlennium!

soupcan Feb 16 2008 04:51 AM

="AG/DC"]I like Willets idea. What do you say, Yankees? Are you yella? Keep in mind, the Yanks have played seven seasons since and have come up short every damn time. So Willets has a Point. And the Mets have come up even shorter than than the Yankees. At least they've won a coupla pennants. As to Steve's 'Metlennium' - it's more like a Red Sox-ennium so far.

Frayed Knot Feb 16 2008 05:36 AM

The thumbnail summaries of the 6 regular season matchups from 2000 that I mentioned earlier were a sign of the frustration to come: [u:520823f497]June 9 (YS): Mets 12 - Yanx 2[/u:520823f497] Leiter goes 7 and Met bats torch Clemens (Piazza GS) [u:520823f497]June 10 (YS): Yanx 13 - Mets 5[/u:520823f497] Bobby Jones is bad and the pen (Mahomes & Cook) even worse [u:520823f497]July 7 (Shea): Yanx 2 - Mets 1[/u:520823f497] Leiter gives up only 6 baserunners thru 8, but 5 (and both NYY runs) are to [u:520823f497]the first 5 hitters in the game[/u:520823f497]. Yanx then go in order until an 8th inning single. [u:520823f497]July 8 (Shea):Yanx 4 - Mets 2[/u:520823f497] Bobby Jones gives up 4 hits & 3 BBs over 7 ... but 5 of those runners are to [u:520823f497]the first 6 hitters in the game[/u:520823f497]. He then gives up only 1 run on 1 hit over the next 6 [u:520823f497]July 8 (YS): Yanx 4 - Mets 2[/u:520823f497] (2nd game of home-and-home DH): Rusch yields 5 hits/0 walks over 8 innings but (stop me if you heard this one) 4 of those hits and all 4 runs come in a 5-batter span. Mets get 7 hits off Clemens and leave 7 on. [u:520823f497]July 9 (Shea): Mets 2 - Yanx 0[/u:520823f497] Hampton (7 IP) & Benitez (2) toss a 7 hit/3 BB shutout Zeile's 4th inning lead-off HR and Mora's 7th inning SF provide the runs

AG/DC Feb 16 2008 07:19 AM

="soupcan"] ="AG/DC"]I like Willets idea. What do you say, Yankees? Are you yella? Keep in mind, the Yanks have played seven seasons since and have come up short every damn time. So Willets has a Point. And the Mets have come up even shorter than than the Yankees. At least they've won a coupla pennants. As to Steve's 'Metlennium' - it's more like a Red Sox-ennium so far. Well, I was kind of joking.

soupcan Feb 16 2008 07:39 AM

="AG/DC"]Well, I was kind of joking. Oh. Sorry. I was a bit confused. That wasn't really your typical logic there.

Gwreck Feb 16 2008 09:50 AM

Oops.

Elster88 Feb 17 2008 02:00 AM

This is a great fuckin thread.