FV- And since we are hating on the Mets and Yanks, here is a little something I found today while checking out some of my favorite blogs. It is about Darryl Strawberry talking about who would win if the 86 Mets faced the 09 Yankees. Obviously he picked the 86 Mets, and here it goes.Veteran New York scribe Bob Klapisch filed one of the weekend's best stories with a look at how Darryl Strawberry's presence at Mets camp is proving to be a cautionary tale for today's ballplayers.
The Straw is at his honest best in the piece, owning up to all of the mistakes he made during his career.
But he also expresses a great deal of self confidence and it's that bravado that served up a fun debate when Strawberry was asked to pick a winner between the '86 Mets and '09 Yankees.
From the Bergen Record:
[Said Strawberry:] "'Doc would've destroyed them. We would've beaten them. They're a great team, but we wouldn't have been intimidated. We could hit, we could pitch and we could definitely fight.'
"Strawberry meant no disrespect toward the Bombers, to whom he owes the second half of his career. And to be technical about it, Darryl knows the '86 Gooden wasn't nearly as overpowering as the '85 edition, which skews his prediction. But it's all part of a harmless journey into the past. All you have to do is ask him."
My main impulse was to say that the '09 Yankees lineup would have too much power for the '86 Mets pitching staff to handle and the quick simulation I ran on WhatIfSports — giving the 108-win Mets homefield advantage and using the three-man rotations from their respective World Series — confirmed that. The Yankees took the imaginary series in five games, jumping to a 3-0 series lead with a 13-5 win in Game 3. Even Klapisch's point about a diminished Doc rang true, with Gooden taking the losses in Games 2 & 5.
This simulation isn't concrete proof, of course, but I do always enjoy queuing up a couple of teams and seeing what comes of it. Any Mets fans out there care to disagree with the result?
FV- So it made me think, who would win? and why?
Both the Mets & Yanks ran with the with their divisions, both knew how to win, but those Mets were just scrappier. I know what you guys are going to say, so let me here it.
29 comments:
Man thats a tough one because of all the variables. My quick response would be the Yankees because I followed this Yankee team day to day and more importantly it just happened. The 86 Mets were 24 years ago and not being a Met fan I didn't really follow them so I don't remember it all too well. I think it would have been fun to see, the computer simulation had the Yankees taking it in 5. I do remember that Mets team as being scrappy but when you look at that Yankee team, I'd be hard pressed to see them losing to the 86 Mets. In a 7 game series I'd go Yankees in 6.
In all seriousness and with all due respect, Yanks in five.
My reasoning?
Please please please let's not forget that the Mets were a grounball away from being done. A human error by one individual on a team of 25 does not constitute the Mets being a dominant WS winner.
All I'm asking is that you dont forget how thin that WS victory really was. My dad to this day thought it was bought. I laugh.
Did some research and numbers wise the Yankees have the edge. Lets look at some numbers:
86 Mets - .263 Avg, 783 runs, 148 HRs, 730 RBIs, 118 SBs.
09 Yankees - .283 Avg, 915 runs, 244 HRs, 881 RBIs, 111 SBs.
86 Mets - 108-54, 3.11 ERA, 46 Saves, 1484 IP, 1304 Hits, 1083 K's
09 Yanks - 103-59, 4.26 ERA, 51 Saves, 1450 IP, 1386 Hits, 1260 K's
Now if we were to look at the rosters you have to give the Yankees the edge;
Catcher - Carter - Posada, I'll give the edge to Carter.
1st Base - Hernandez - Tex. Tex
2nd Base - Backman - Cano - Cano
3rd Base - Knight - ARod - Arod
Short - Santana - Jeter - Jeter
LF - Foster - Damon - Damon
CF - Dykstra - Melky - Push
RF - Strawberry - Swisher - Straw
You can give the Mets a slight edge in starting pitching but the Yankee bullpen would more than make up for it.
So all that said, Yankees take the series in 6.
Good analysis Ray. I'd give roided Dykstra a slight edge over Melky. That guy back then always reminded of a crazy Pete Rose. IMHO.
Well you guys gave your input & I guess now it's time for mines to try & settle the score. Well for me what 1st came to mind when trying to break this down was how different baseball is today then in the 80's. Not only is it a different kind of baseball but back then it just seemed to me like teams just played harder & took it more too heart then today's players & everything just meant more like the allstar game which I remember was can't miss stuff.
Now I’m not saying that the 09 Yankees didn't play hard or took things as serious, that would be crazy, cause everyone that comes to the Yankees for the most part always plays hard, it don't matter if the guy is a career loafer but once he puts on those pinstripes he hustles, I don't know, all I'm saying is that Yankee teams always play hard. You guys may not remember the 86 Mets too well but since I'm a few years older, I do. And me being a Yankee fan back in those days all I remember was how I use to hate the 86 Mets for how much better they were then the 86 Yankees. The 86 Yankees were a good team, but the 86 Mets clearly ruled NY, Shea was packed and Yankee stadium was half emptied, & it was not like the Yankee didn't have a good team with the likes of Mattingly, Winfield, Rickey Henderson & Guidry. IMO the 86 Mets are one of the top 10 greatest teams of all time. Not only were they good but you just knew they were going to win, & by mid June of 86 I knew the Mets where going to be the team to win it all. They intimidated teams & they were scrappy as hell, I sure can’t think of a cockier team then the 86 Mets.
With that said, if you go by Ray's man to man chart, he was on point on all except for Dykstra, & Danny stop with your 2 cents, steroids or no steroids Dykstra was the better player, you want 2 cents, the Yanks could field a all star team of steriods user if you want to get technical. Ray also mentions that the Yanks had the better bullpen, but back in the 80’s bullpens were not as important as they are today, so again different times, different brand of baseball.
Danny's point of view is simply the ground ball that got pass Buckner, but that’s just part of baseball, it’s kind of like when Jeter hit that HR with the Maier dude reaching over the fence to make it official. You also forget that the Mets won more games then the Yankees and would have had home field advantage.
Again, it’s hard to pick a winner, & in this situation I think the choice is whatever you like, I like old school baseball & the way things use to be, I like the Mets over the Yankees but I am not going to say that the Yankees could not beat the Mets cause they too could had beaten the Mets even if they didn't have the home field edge, after all they are still the best team money can buy.
Right away your first paragraph premise is wrong. I guarantee you about 99% of players will disagree with your UNMEASURABLE assessment that they dont play as hard as anyone ever did. By they, I'm talking about every
player on every team. That's well over 700 players on any given night. I say 99% for shits and giggles.
OMG, no u didn't. You didn't say the Mets were one of the ten best teams of all time. No. No you didn't. I know that was a typo. I'm getting a hernia from laughing as I read. You do realize that Yogi Berra's ten rings/teams can trump the '86 Mets alone. Thank goodness you said in your opinion. If you said top ten teams of the last 25 yrs, then you have yourself an arguable point. How could the Mets be scrappy and intimidating at the same time? Cocky team? Try the '70's Reds. Or try the Red Sox for cocky. When that team won in '04 they seemed to think the world owed them something. BTW, 2004 is officially the biggest bandwagon year of all time for any sport.
Hey Freddy, with all due respect, go douche yourself. Dykstra was roided up just like Yankee players are/were/have been, just like any team or any player. Whatever the drug was for that era, no one was excluded. Every team I'm sure had their degenerates. Stop taking it personal. Your lack of bipartisan viewpoints is disturbing for someone who supposedly loves the sport. Next thing you'll say is that Roger Clemens was never a great pitcher cause he used roids in the trail end of his career.
"Back in the 80's bullpens weren't as important???" I'm sorry, I didn't realize that when you said the 80's you were actually referring to the '60's when relief pitching WAS NOT as important. Man will u ever get ur shit str8?
I'm glad u brought Jeffrey Maier into this equation. a healthy level of sarcasm is approaching. Because I'm sure he is the sole reason the Yanks won the WS. It's not cause they were better than the Orioles and Rangers. I pick one play? Hmmm, because that Buckner fiasco wasn't important at all. I think you just proved my point that you were never a Yankees fan to begin with. You were supposedly a fan in '96 and you bring up Maier?
Don't sell yourself short Freddy, I take exception to that last sentence. Not because it offends me, but because you don't include the Mets. I'm happy to say that the Mets are the worse team a lot of money can buy.
Fred, you said that the Mets were a real scrappy team. You know who else was scrappy? The 2009 Phillies. How did that turn out?
That's basically what I said when I wrote my first post, its really hard to say because even though it was only 24 years ago the game has changed so much. When I looked up the stats the Mets pitching staff had a bunch of complete games and in today's game you just don't see that anymore. I still give the edge to the Yankees.
Any given day, any team can beat any team. Over a series, things will level out.
Could the 1986 Mets beat the 2009 Yankees? Sure.
Vice versa? Sure.
Over time????
Yanks get the edge in my opinion
Everything I said is of my opinion.
It does not settle anything.
I like the Mets.
Ray sure the Phil’s were a scrappy tough team just like the Mets, but the Mets had better pitching & pitching is what really wins games.
Again different times, different kind of baseball.
"Back in the 80's bullpens weren't as important???" I'm sorry, I didn't realize that when you said the 80's you were actually referring to the '60's when relief pitching WAS NOT as important. Man will u ever get ur shit str8?
I suppose that in the 80's they had 8th inning specialist & guys ready to pitch from the 6th on, they were still expected to go the distance; Ray already said how the Mets had all kinds of complete games that year. Danny all I'm saying is that it was different, just like it was different in the 60's to the 80's.
The times are more alike then you think. It's the ballparks and replays that are different.
Yanks in five. Ok. Yanks in six.
And about the Jeff Maier shtick, I was making a point, so because of Buckner your saying the Mets don't desevre be to the champs or that it was fixed.
Right, like the NBA is fixed.
Yes I put the Mets right up there with the BIG RED Machine, the 86 Mets, yes.
Oh and pitching does win games but really good hitting can knock a pitcher out of a game earlier than expected. So really good and timely hitting CAN and mostly does win games. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric that most teams including the Yankees spew out about pitching. Good hitters work counts to get a great pitcher to work hard therefore making him retire or be ineffective sooner than they would like. The Yanks are masters at working a pitch count.
I take it back. Yanks in five.
Ballparks included is what makes baseball today different, like Astroturf & guys going to the DL more frequent, it is more pussyfied today.
The Yanks are the masters of working the count, but still in the long run pitching will come out on top.
And the point was...
I didn't say they didn't deserve it. It's just thin. Very very thin. You want to consider them one of the greatest teams of all time but everyone knows they won because OF THE BIGGEST WS ERROR COMMITTED BY A PLAYER OF ALL TIME. I'm not saying they aren't champions and I'M not saying it was bought. They are champions but it was thin at that. The greatest teams of all time win with dominance throughout. All the way THROUGH the WS. Look at the 2001 Mariners. They aren't even in the conversation of greatest teams of all time because they aren't.
Wait, I just want to make sure I got this right - so you think the NBA WAS NOT FIXED before?
"I suppose that in the 80's they had 8th inning specialist & guys ready to pitch from the 6th on, they were still expected to go the distance"
Yeah I suppose that too. What's your point? Things are not that dramatically different from '86. Pitch count has played a ridiculous role more now than then instead of going by how the pitcher feels.
"The Yanks are the masters of working the count, but still in the long run pitching will come out on top."
YOUR WRONG!
I talked to Pedro right after the 2003 Game 7 ALCS and he told me you were dead wrong. Great hitting CAN beat great pitching if done correctly. So no, pitching dies not ALWAYS come out on top
Pussyfied?
Can you please produce evidence that ballplayers go to the DL now more than any time in the past? Your opinion excluded, I need facts.
I talked to Pedro right after the 2003 Game 7 ALCS and he told me you were dead wrong. Great hitting CAN beat great pitching if done correctly. So no, pitching dies not ALWAYS come out on top
really, your serious, hitting is what wins.
Yeah I suppose that too. What's your point? Things are not that dramatically different from '86. Pitch count has played a ridiculous role more now than then instead of going by how the pitcher feels.
my point is that it is not the same, thx for adding the pitch count.
I talked to Pedro right after the 2003 Game 7 ALCS and he told me you were dead wrong. Great hitting CAN beat great pitching if done correctly. So no, pitching does not ALWAYS come out on top
really, your serious, hitting is what wins.
- See this is proof positive that you don't either read or you are selective of what you want to take from something.
I said great pitching doesn't ALWAYS win. You are foolishly attempting to make it seem like I said otherwise.
Hey, that's why I'm here us to give you facts like pitch count which you would superficially look. Different not dramatically.
I think your here to nit pick & make things dramatic.
I'm out.
It's your blog. I'm in.
What nit picking?
You say I said that hitting is what wins.
That's not what I said. If you call that nit picking then you need to work on being able to argue a point.
Why have this blog? You really have so much pride you can't say' "my bad that's not what u said.".
Really?
Ok, I'm going to set both of you fools straight here;
-The whole Buckner thing. That was the game winner, the game was already tied. If you think that the Red Sox were going to win after letting the Mets come back and tie the game like that then you're insane. The Sox were done before Mookie came up to the plate.
As for Maier, yeah it was a fluke but the Yankees were the much better team. They disposed of the Orioles in 5 games and the Orioles were lucky to get that 1 game. Crazy plays and blown calls are a part of baseball just ask the Cubs fans from 2003 or better yet Cardinal fans from 85.
- Fred, so you dont think that there were any players in the 70s or 80s who didn't always play hard?Your perception is becoming your reality. Are players more pampered today? Of course they are but you know what? If you ask players whol played in the 40s and 50s they would tell you that players from the 70s and 80s are a bunch of pussies. Players that are playing today will probably say that about guys who play in 2030s its the whole "in my day" syndrome.
-The 86 Mets among the 10 greatest teams of all time? Fred, you know I respect your opinion but are you out of your fucking mind? I'd give you top 10 of the last 30 years but of all time? I think not.
-Getting back to the "in my day" thing. Fred, you mentioned players going on the DL and astroturf. First, who still plays in astroturf? As for the DL thing, how would you know if players now go on the DL more? I mean maybe they do OR maybe we're flooded with so much information that we know all the details of any player getting hurt seconds after it happens. Again its all in perception.
-As for pitching, I have to go w/Fred great pitching will shut down hitters. You know what they say offense sells tickets but defense wins championships. Yes, good, smart hitters can help cancel out great pitching but I think overall great pitching will win out.
-As for differences between 86 and now I went back and looked at some stats and found something that shows how different things are now. In 1986 the Yankees pitching staff had 13 complete games, the Mets staff had 27. In 2009 both teams had 3.
First of all, who you calling a fool?
Fool
OK, so, Ill definitely give you the Cards of '85. The Cubs of '03? Not so much. Alou's reaction is what sells this in memory. That ball was in the stands and never his. Anything that happened afterwards is what it is. There was no guarantee he would have caught that ball. It's the reaction everyone remembers.
Next, again, I never said that great pitching won't shut down great pitching. What I said is that great hitting can wear out great pitchin. That will never change. The 2003 Pedro was dominating the Yanks in Game 7 until they wore him out and he stood out there defenseless. That's only one example in a HUGE STAGE. How many times are you watching a game when you say these exact words, "Blah blah should have pulled him last inning." Great hitting will sometimes beat great pitching. That's all I'm saying.
Yes, I know what they say. That's mostly a football quote about offense and tickets and defense and winning. We both know that a 1-0 game can be a much bigger thrill than a 15-14 score. That's what they say BUT we both know better that this doesn't fly in baseball. Any baseball purist would most likely feel the same. Does offense sell tickets, sure. But I also pay to see the best pitchers do their thing.
Post a Comment