ESPN's The 49 Greatest Mets of All TIme - Ranked

[batmagadanleadoff]

http://espn.go.com/newyork/photos/gallery/_/id/7802337/49-greatest-mets

Let the debates begin.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

They could only come up with 49 - yet leave off Frank Viola, Bobby Jones, Nolan Ryan, Felix Millan, Mike Hampton...

[metsmarathon]

piazza over wright? no.

i wonder how this list compares to out more thoughtfully-created listing...

[Ceetar]

metsmarathon wrote: piazza over wright? no. i wonder how this list compares to out more thoughtfully-created listing...

I'm assume it had.. well, no thought.

[MFS62]

Consider the source - ESPN.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

It's not a bad list. Its main flaw is the same one most of these lists make (and what our project tried to steer around) in that it bumps up some of the shorter-run "name" players often on the basis of a few big moments.
- They have Carter at #9 for essentially 2-1/2 good years compared to our #37
- Olerud at 25 to our 41
- Backman at 31 (57)
- Clendenon at 40 (73)
- Knight at 44 (146)
- and they naturally cede the final spot to Throneberry based totally on legend where he sits at #350 on the CPF list

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Yeah, I stopped reading when I saw "The Mouth of the South" at 46.

[Edgy MD]

I have ESPN blocked at work, so I think this list sucks.

[Guest attgig]

Frayed Knot wrote: It's not a bad list. Its main flaw is the same one most of these lists make (and what our project tried to steer around) in that it bumps up some of the shorter-run "name" players often on the basis of a few big moments. - They have Carter at #9 for essentially 2-1/2 good years compared to our #37 - Olerud at 25 to our 41 - Backman at 31 (57) - Clendenon at 40 (73) - Knight at 44 (146) - and they naturally cede the final spot to Throneberry based totally on legend where he sits at #350 on the CPF list

I was thinking the same thing. kranepool right behind the few years of Olerud. ranking players for ONLY their work in that said franchise is just really tricky, and I'm not sure if there will ever be a GOOD list.

[Edgy MD]

There's something to be said for post-season performance (and certainly a World Series MVP) that's not really.

From one perspective, the entire 162-game 1969 season was about the Mets winning a division and triumphing over the other five teams in that division.

In winning the playoff series over the Braves, they defeated the champion of another division of six. So they are no longer atop a pile of six, but a pile of 12. From that perspective, the three-game series accomplished just as much as the 162-game season (or more, as 6 > 5), and so accomplishments by players in that series could reasonably be argued to be as weighted with importance as a any season's worth of performance.

Similarly, the defeat of the Orioles would be worth as much as the 162-game season and the NLCS series put together.

We weight the seasons for their post-season success, but certainly not at that level. And we don't weight the players by their performance in those post-seasons. I'm not sure my logic floats, but doing so would certainly take a step toward reconciling our rankings of Clendennon and Knight with ESPN's.

[metirish]

On a quick glance I didn't see Baltran?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

#10, just behind Carter. He's probably more like my 8.

[soupcan]

Here's a game - try and figure out who each guy is just by looking at the (sometimes iconic, sometimes not) thumbnail photos representing each guy.

I didn't count as I did it but I'm thinking I got maybe 75%. Bud Harrelson threw me.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Any Mets top 49 list that includes Armando and the Reeder, but not Ordonez, is on the right track, if you ask me, even with the. Wagner headscratcher.

[Gwreck]

Where is the current CPF list?

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Gwreck wrote: Where is the current CPF list?

I think FK keeps it tattooed on his body like that guy in Memento.

[seawolf17]

The first rule of the CPF List is that nobody sees the CPF list.

[Ceetar]

simply comment 10000 times and track it over there
<---


that's what I'm doing.

[G-Fafif]

I like Throneberry's place as the humble-beginnings floor for all "Greatest Met" discussions. (I like it so much I think I'll copy it seven years ago.)

When ESPN first released this, they announced they were doing a reader poll to determine No. 50. Did they just give up because it's so much funnier to say "we could only find 49"?

[Guest attgig]

Ceetar wrote: simply comment 10000 times and track it over there <--- that's what I'm doing.

missing a few numbers, but here's an incomplete list if you're going by Ceetar's method:
memberlist.php?sk=m&sd=a

(sort by rank on the bottom, doesn't seem to work with the url)

[Benjamin Grimm]

We do have a Rankings Forum you know.

However, that forum doesn't seem to include the rankings.

Oh well.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: We do have a Rankings Forum you know.

That would be exactly where you'd expect people to look.

[seawolf17]

I never came up with a customized superlevel for breaking the Seaver barrier. I should do that.

[Valadius]

Piazza vs. Wright is debatable at this point, I personally give Piazza the edge at this moment on the basis of a pennant and 9/21/01.