So what was the worst collapse in baseball history

[stevejrogers]

=AG/DC]SteveJRogers wrote: This is a team that performed the worst regular season collapse in the history of baseball... Deba table. De batable. Highly debatab le.

Taking your highly debatable premise that blowing a 3-0 series lead trumps everything else aside since the fact that they were both postseason teams strengthens the argument that a regular season collapse is worse. Plus the fact that you could say that it was bound to happen eventually not to mention it can be tied, not surpassed and no one has ever lumped teams blowing 3-1 or 2-0 leads among the biggest chokes of all time.

Okay, Lets talk collapses that are bigger than the 2007 Mets? Sheer numbers would give 10+ leads such as the '51 Dodgers, '78 Red Sox and such an edge, but they had evolved into a neck-and-neck run by the end of the season that you can call it more of a run by the chaser as opposed to a collapse by the division/league leader.

1964? The 2007 Mets topped that by being up by such a large margin with two weeks to go that the phrase "No team has ever lost the league/division lead after being up by 7 with two weeks to go" was being tossed around. There was a reason the "Your Postseason Has Come" ads were being run. Not to mention the cherry on top being the Phillies spending only 2 days in first all year, the last two of the season!

Ergo, the 2007 Mets executed the worse collapse in the history of Major League Baseball.

[Guest AG/DC]

SteveJRogers wrote: Taking your highly debatable premise that blowing a 3-0 series lead trumps everything else aside since the fact that they were both postseason teams strengthens the argument that a regular season collapse is worse.

I not only didn't say this, I can't understand it.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Not a chance. Losing a 3-0 lead to your arch-rival then sending said rival to its first World Championship since Woodrow Wilson was in the White House absolutely trumps pissing away a mere division title.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't see the need for this debate.

The 2007 Mets collapse was awful. Whether it was the "worst" or not doesn't matter. It was bad enough to suit me.

[stevejrogers]

So if the 98 Braves or 99 Mets had pulled off the reverse sweep, you still would hold the 2004 Yankees as worse?

[Willets Point]

I don't really see it as a collapse. The fact is they were an 88-win team and being an 89-win team might of won the division but wouldn't have made them that much a different team (and probably one that would have fallen in 3 games in the NLDS like the Phillies did). The Mets pretty much were lucky to be at top of a weak division for most of the season, and player slumps and holes in the roster caught up with them. The team had a hot April, a cold September, and mediocre months in-between. Swap their April performance with their September performance and all the psychobabble about how "they gave up," "didn't have heart," "lazy loafers," and "playing with their heads up their asses" would be replaced with "valiantly fighting," "playing with heart," and "just missing a great comeback." And all of it is bullshit. Like I said before they were an 88-win, 2nd-place team and deserved to be an 88-win, 2nd-place team. 2007 wasn't their year. 2008 will be. It's time to move on.

[HahnSolo]

I shouldn't get involved, but:
What were the Phillies in 64 again? Was it 6 up with 10 to play? Isn't that worse than 7 up with 17 to play?

[Valadius]

Dammit Steve, there's no need to dredge this shit up again. We've put it behind us. I'd rather we not discuss it. Let's focus on the upcoming season and not on ranking how painful last September was.

[metirish]

Well it is a discussion board Val, it's the worst collapse I've ever seen, which isn't saying much. Hopefully that won't happen again.

[Benjamin Grimm]

And it certainly WAS a collapse. For that last miserable two or three weeks, they were playing like they were afraid to lose. It was awful, and it was ugly.

Saying that other collapses may have been worse is meaningless. As I said above, this one was plenty bad enough.

[Guest AG/DC]

Is saying it was the worst of all tme meaningful?

[Guest holychicken]

I think there is a debate as to whether or not it was the worst pennant race collapse, but, IMO, it is undeniably the worst regular season collapse of all time.

I read one article on it where they compared late season collapses. Considering, with 17 games left, our 7 game lead in the division and the fact that we had the wildcard to "fall back" on, the odds of us making the playoffs were a whopping 500-1. No other team even came CLOSE to those odds and blew it. I think the Philly collapse was only around a 60-1 chance. So even if their math was a bit questionable, (I had trouble figuring out what they did) I can't imagine the odds changing so much that the 2007 Mets would not be the team that had the best chance to make the playoffs but did not.

And I lived through it. . . every painful, booze-guzzling, and wall-smashing minute of it.

Why do we have to talk about this now? I was all happy that baseball season was coming up and that the Mets got Santana. . . now I am all depressed. Makes this Tuesday feel WAY too much like a Monday.

[Benjamin Grimm]

AG/DC wrote: Is saying it was the worst of all tme meaningful?

Not really.

It's subjective, anyway.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Worst ever, second worst ever, or bad but not even in the running for worst ever collapse. Who cares? I swear, sometimes I think Steve just likes to see himself type.

[RealityChuck]

Hey, if the '62 Mets can lay claim to worst team ever, the '07 Mets can lay claim to worst collapse.

[Fman99]

Valadius wrote: Dammit Steve, there's no need to dredge this shit up again. We've put it behind us. I'd rather we not discuss it. Let's focus on the upcoming season and not on ranking how painful last September was.

"F'in A, Cotton! F'in A!"