2000 Revisited (Split from Thanks, Roger)

[soupcan]

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.

[Guest AG/DC]

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]

] ]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.

[Guest AG/DC]

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]

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.

[Guest AG/DC]

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

[soupcan]

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]

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.

[Guest AG/DC]

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.

[Guest KC]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest 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.

[stevejrogers]

="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]

="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]

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

[Guest AG/DC]

="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]

="AG/DC"]Well, I was kind of joking.

Oh. Sorry.

I was a bit confused. That wasn't really your typical logic there.

[Gwreck]

Oops.

[Elster88]

This is a great fuckin thread.