The Mets Golden Age

[Benjamin Grimm]

I saw a brief clip today while watching Mets Hot Stove, of Ron Darling saying, "I was lucky to play on some great teams in the 80s, but this is the Mets' Golden Age".



I think it's too soon to say that. Maybe if they had played deep into October in 2023 instead of posting a losing record.



For me, the Golden Age would still be 1984 through 1989, roughly.



Thoughts?

[metirish]

Unfathomable for Ron to say that about a team/org that hasn't won shit in years ,let's see them win the NL East yearly and a few World Series first

Edited February 12, 2025 by Guest

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Yeah that's a very Met thing to say. Have half a good season (even a hell of a half) and walk around like kings. This could so easily blow up and might

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: For me, the Golden Age would still be 1984 through 1989, roughly. Thoughts?

I agree.

Later

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: For me, the Golden Age would still be 1984 through 1989, roughly.

I would extend that from 1984 through 1990- they finished either 1st or 2nd in their division each year.

Later

[Gwreck]

They also won 101 games in 2022. Things are trending upwards.



That said, of course it's incorrect to say that now. If they reel off the 10 straight winning seasons we all expect…sure. Not yet though.

[Centerfield]

It certainly can be the golden age. It is not the golden age, yet.



1984 through 1990. It ended when Darryl left. Though we knew that they weren't as good in '89 and '90 as they had been.

[Methead]

Maybe he meant to say Gilded Age, because that's probably more accurate.

[MFS62]

=Methead post_id=185137 time=1739410390 user_id=61]
Maybe he meant to say Gilded Age, because that's probably more accurate.

[metirish]

I bet Ron talks about this is the first SNY ST game, he will try and walk it back and explain it away ...he seems that type of guy

[Frayed Knot]

=metirish post_id=185268 time=1739554520 user_id=72]
I bet Ron talks about this is the first SNY ST game, he will try and walk it back and explain it away ...he seems that type of guy

[roger_that]

No one else thinks maybe 1969-1976 (Seaver's prime) was the Mets' Golden Age? They lacked the gaudy W/L records of the late 1980s, but the Hodges/Berra Mets were pretty glittery to me. Even including 1968 in there, Hodges' first (9th place) team, was exciting.

[metirish]

Frayed Knot wrote: =metirish post_id=185268 time=1739554520 user_id=72] I bet Ron talks about this is the first SNY ST game, he will try and walk it back and explain it away ...he seems that type of guy

He'll bring it up right after Gary slyly drops the phrase 'Golden Age' into a conversation.

[Fman99]

Any Mets "golden age" has to include 1969 or 1986 because the other 60+ teams all failed to win the big prize.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The Mets had too many mediocre years between 1970 and 1976 for that to be a "golden age" compared to 1984-1990, when they contended every year.



1969 may very well be their most golden year, but nobody was considering the Mets to be among the very best teams during the early to mid 1970s.

[roger_that]

The privilege of watching Seaver pitch (and for me, personally, Koosman was more exciting) and Matlack and McGraw, and watching Cleon and Rusty and Grote will never be equaled. 1969 inspired me to root no matter how poorly they were playing at the moment. Almost every day, I thought "There's a good chance I'll see a shutout today," which is very rare in my experience, to have that heightened level of extreme optimism. I was being unrealistic, but 1969 virtually demanded that we abandon being realistic and root for the impossible.