The Mets' Retroactive Third World Championship

[G-Fafif]

You can turn one near-miss postseason disappointment into an all-the-way postseason triumph. By doing so, you have made the Mets three-time world champions. Which one do you choose?

Full exploration of the topic here.

[seawolf17]

My gut says 1988, because everything would have been so different, but it has to be 2000.

[Edgy MD]

My gut says 2000, because the city would have been won back. In 1973 and 1988, that wasn't an issue. In 2006, well, it wouldn't have been an issue had they won in 2000.

[Benjamin Grimm]

There's a strong argument for all of them. (Naturally.)

I ruled out 1973, because I wouldn't have been old enough to appreciate it. I went with 1988 because at that point I was still young enough that it meant the world to me.

The appeal of 2000, of course, is that it would snatch a championship from the Yankees. My mouse pointer did linger over that season.

[Edgy MD]

It would snatch a... CRIMINALLY REPUGNANT championship from the Yankees.

Dawn of a new century and sunset on the cheating-assed Yankees and sunrise on the Mets? Where do I sign?

[Frayed Knot]

Without yet reading the linked arguments, my guy reaction is that 1988 & 2006 were the most frustrating as we clearly had the better team in both those seasons.

'73 to me, despite my youth, was probably the least frustrating, and '99 was a helluva ride where you felt like the underdog the whole time making each round and each individual win a joy in itself.

But the 2000 post-season has a frustration all its own due, of course, to the opponent. Add to that that we were probably the better team there too despite the lopsided previous half-decade, that all the losses (and the lone win for that matter) were 1 or 2 run games, and mainly to the fact that the team just played so shitty in those five games.

[G-Fafif]

Worth pointing out (and it's expanded upon in the FAFIF post from which this question is extracted) is the parameters of this exercise have the Mets doing all it takes to win the WS in whichever postseason it took place. So to win the Series in 1988, they'd not only beat the Dodgers, but the A's. In 2006, they'd not only beat the Cardinals, but the Tigers.

And in 1999, just to be clear, they'd not only beat the Braves, but the Yankees. I mention that just in case that's an overriding motivator in your deciding.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Of those choices I probably go 99 since that whole season was such a crazy thing to begin with. Just hang on to that Game 6.

Game 1 in the '00 WS killed everything. Eff that whole world series.

But I think the poll might be unkind to deserving and just as close teams of 84 and 85.

Eighty five especially. I think if we play that season 100 times the Mets win the WS 70 times prolly (just pulling that out of my ass, but, right?)

[Lefty Specialist]

2000, because it was the goddam Yankees. Think of how easy it would be to shut down obnoxious Yankee fans forever if only they had beaten them the one time they met. It was there for the taking, they just didn't take it.

This would have worked for 1999 as well, but there would have been an extra layer of playoffs to undo.

[Ceetar]

'99. The parameters say the Mets won't win those other years, but it doesn't say the way it doesn't happen remains the same. So in my fantasy, the Yankees losing in '99 makes them make different moves that don't work out the same way and the Mets lose to the Mariners, not the Yankees, in '00.

[G-Fafif]

I thought about including 1985 in this exercise because, well, it's 1985 and that team was that team. But for the purposes of speculative history, three games behind the Cardinals plus seven more wins in postseason series they never entered is too many to neatly adjust for (if I could work magic, give me a better August and September of 1980 while we're at it and high school's a blast). The playoff teams came within one, five, six, five and three games, respectively, of winning it all. More manageable set of possibilities.

Impetus behind the blog post from which this comes was, after recently banging my head against a Mets executive-shaped wall, wondering how much better 1973 would be treated organizationally in the 21st century if they'd won one more game...and how differently would the other years be looked at (by fans and franchise alike) had they had just a little more of a closing kick to them.

[nymr83]

2000. Fuck the yankees.

[Guest themetfairy]

1999 - The Mets beat the Braves and the MFYs and Dolphin Face never becomes a Met.

[Guest cooby]

1973. Those guys worked hard and almost got it.

I will never ever forget that team, and I have forgotten most of all the other seasons.

[Edgy MD]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: But I think the poll might be unkind to deserving and just as close teams of 84 and 85.

I thought so too.

You know, 2001, too.

[dinosaur jesus]

G-Fafif wrote: I thought about including 1985 in this exercise because, well, it's 1985 and that team was that team. But for the purposes of speculative history, three games behind the Cardinals plus seven more wins in postseason series they never entered is too many to neatly adjust for (if I could work magic, give me a better August and September of 1980 while we're at it and high school's a blast). The playoff teams came within one, five, six, five and three games, respectively, of winning it all. More manageable set of possibilities.

True enough, but it's not that big an adjustment. The Mets pull out that third game in St. Louis to tie the Cardinals with three to go, they're still tied after 162 games, Gooden (after Davey gutsily goes with Darling in a must-win game 162) beats Andujar in a one-game playoff, and the exhausted Mets scrape by the Dodgers and Royals. Gooden, at 25-4, is the MVP (none of that Willie McGee bullshit).

Otherwise I'll go with 1988, because it's the one that made me the most unhappy. Actually, I guess 1973 did (I was ten, and they sent me to the guidance counselor to find out what the hell was wrong with me. Smart lady, she figured it out.) But that's mitigated by how lucky they were to be there.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yes and course as long as we are retroactive the Wild card gives us those few extras we would need in 85. 84, 87, 89 and 90 even. I think.

[Vic Sage]

how can anyone not vote for the Mets to retroactively beat the MFYs in '00? I don't know how any other year is even a consideration. Even the `99 season didn't end with us actually losing a WS to the MFYs, so it doesn't present us with the opportunity to reverse that very real loss, just a theoretical loss that never happened, because we never made it the series to begin with.

[dinosaur jesus]

Vic Sage wrote: how can anyone not vote for the Mets to retroactively beat the MFYs in '00?

That Series filled me with such overwhelming dread that I couldn't even watch after game 1. I would almost have preferred it if the Mets weren't there. That's why I can't vote for 2000.

[Vic Sage]

dinosaur jesus wrote: Vic Sage wrote: how can anyone not vote for the Mets to retroactively beat the MFYs in '00? That Series filled me with such overwhelming dread that I couldn't even watch after game 1. I would almost have preferred it if the Mets weren't there. That's why I can't vote for 2000.

but that's exactly why YOU HAVE TO vote for that 2000 team... to purge yourself forever of that dread by blinking that series away and replacing it with a ride down the canyon of heroes, while Jeter holds up in penthouse somewhere, watching the parade on his bigass flatscreen while he smokes crack and runs whores to wash away the pain and gets his pal A-Rod to shoot steroids into his ass to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Because if it happens in 1999, the same thing happens, only the Braves are upended as well.

One collateral effect of a 2006 win? The 2007 hangover isn't as bad, and we probably never get No-Han.

[Vic Sage]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Because if it happens in 1999, the same thing happens, only the Braves are upended as well.

The same thing does NOT happen. In `99, you're only overturning a theoretical loss to the MFYs that never happened (and so has left no scar), not wiping away the emotional pain we actually had to endure in `00.

i don't get you people sometimes.

[Vic Sage]

FAFIF:

"...if you were around in 2000, would erasing the loss and replacing it with a win have meant everything? Would it have continued to mean everything? Would your life as a Mets fan be substantially better if you could point back to the 2000 world champion Mets?..."

Answer: Yes. Next question.

The pain you knew and have carried around with you from coming so close would be, now and forever, unadulterated pleasure.

see, you already knew the answer, so the question is moot.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Yes, but then the Grand Slam Single isn't just important-to-Met-fans weirdness, it's the nationally-famous keystone of a Met comeback, Kirk Gibson and Dave Roberts in '04 wrapped into one. Fonzie's slam in NLDS Game 1, Pratt's in Game 4... these are Moments now.

And, more to the point: who's to say '00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on '99? Who's to say the MFYs don't make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who's to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who's to say 1999 isn't a magic bullet for BOTH years?

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Had to go for 2000. In fact, given the roided-up nature of those cheating MYF bastards, I want it awarded retroactively.

So many moments in that series just hurt. RUN, TIMO!!!

[Gwreck]

For the record, I accidentally voted 2006 when I meant to vote 2000.

This entire topic makes me sick to my stomach. Not that it's not a valid topic of discussion (it is).

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Beat the Braves and the Yankees in 1999 and the whole world of baseball changes.

[Edgy MD]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Yes, but then the Grand Slam Single isn't just important-to-Met-fans weirdness, it's the nationally-famous keystone of a Met comeback, Kirk Gibson and Dave Roberts in '04 wrapped into one. Fonzie's slam in NLDS Game 1, Pratt's in Game 4... these are Moments now. And, more to the point: who's to say '00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on '99? Who's to say the MFYs don't make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who's to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who's to say 1999 isn't a magic bullet for BOTH years?

This of course, speaks to any year, but yes, winning in 1999 perhaps means Olerud and Phillips find enough common ground for him to return. It perhaps means the Mets' purse swells to the point where they sign A-Rod after 2000.

It might mean they not only trade for Hampton in 2000, but foolishly retain him afterwits. Maybe Rickey gets an extension.

And maybe they ride out Bonilla's contract to the bitter end rather than jumping in on that foolhardy bailout.

It's so hard to unscramble the eggs. Maybe at the private owner's party after the win, Bernie Madoff gets drunk and comes clean, but it is safe to assume that winning in 1999 puts the team in a better position to win in 2000. Whether they'd take advantage of that better position or go all stupid, it's hard to say.

[TransMonk]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Of those choices I probably go 99 since that whole season was such a crazy thing to begin with. Just hang on to that Game 6.

This. 1999 is still my favorite season since 1986.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Vic Sage wrote: how can anyone not vote for the Mets to retroactively beat the MFYs in '00?

I voted for 1988 because the Mets were more important to me then than they were in 2000.