batmagadanleadoff

Chad ochoseis wrote: Bench famously beat out Kooz by one vote in '68. I have the odd random fact in my brain that Jim Lefebvre was a ROY, and I think he did it as a Red. (after checking...he was indeed an ROY who spent his entire career as a Dodger) And Rose infamously beat out Met Ron Hunt for the '63 ROY award -- and by a lot more than one vote (17-2) But compare their stats. slash lines; Rose .273/.334/.371 Hunt .272/.334/.396 OPS+ Rose - 101; Hunt - 110 HR/RBI Rose - 6/41; Hunt - 10/42 bWAR Rose - 2.4; Hunt - 2.5 Rose, however, had the edge in PA's - 696 to 600. But Hunt indisputably played at a higher rate than Rose did in '63.

Edgy MD wrote: And Gosuke Katoh. He was already mentioned.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I love this Typewriter Chewing Gum Rock n Roll set and would literally buy the entire set for real money and frame it and hang it my office, for real. It's the best thing since sliced (Wonder) bread, and a pity we had to wait 12 years to see it. Signed, Roger Kaputnik Dear Roger: The 2022 TCG set is finally under development. It will be code named Rock and Roll, Part 2. Because you have been such a loyal fan of our trading cards over the years, we are sending you some advance cards for your pleasure and to show off to your friends. These cards will not be available to the general public for a few months. So go ahead and brag about that. Yours truly, TCG [FIMG=500]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52233146222_182bc68af2_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=500]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52229064379_3457f580c7_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=500]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52194012140_338553fcf5_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm pretty sure G-Fafif, without checking notes, can rattle off a list of what you call "ghost" Mets (aka "paper Mets") who made it to the big league roster, but didn't get into a game. Thus far, 2022 has given us Gosuke Katoh. Some years back, we had a thread about a blog post in which Keith Olberman declares Wilbur Huckle to have been a big leaguer on paper, an assertion that researchers in this group couldn't support. Here are your ghost Mets, which I am rattling off from memory. I got stuck for a while on Anderson Garcia. He's always the last one to come to mind. It took me about 45 seconds to come up with his name after I recalled all of the others. If you want some documentation -- because you know, memories fade -- you can ask Brian Ostrosser. The last time Ostrosser came over to my house for dinner, I gave him a notarized affirmation, sworn to under oath and under the penalties of perjury, listing and documenting the Mets ghosts. They are: Terrel Hansen, Jim Bibby, , Al Reyes, Ruddy Lugo, Jerry (or is it Gerry? or both?) Moses, Randy Bobb, Billy Cotton, Mac Suzuki and the aforementioned Anderson Garcia.

Edgy MD wrote: Eddie Milner, of course, is John's cousin. Catching errors is important. Yes. And I'm happy to report your error free post. Although, if you were writing about the errors a catcher makes on the field, It would be: "Catching errors are important."

neglects to mention that Cardwell arguably might have deserved the NL's Cy Young Award that year, if the NL had had one.... I came across this information in an article about an even weirder fact, that the AL WAR crown in 1961 was (retrospectively, of course) won by Jack (who?) Kralick, another Cardwell-level type of pitcher, mainly as I recall with the Twins and Indians, pitching in the rotation most years but with substantial relief work, but never thought of as a star pitcher. The actual CYA went to Whitey Ford, a far better pitcher than either Cardwell or Kralick, but maybe not in 1961. The voters were way more often, wrong than right when awarding the baseball hardware back then. And when the voters got it right, it was either because the award winner had a thoroughly dominant season, leading in virtually all of the important statistical categories - or because the voters, from sheer luck, blundered into the right answer. And to tie all of this into the theme of this thread, Tom Seaver didn't deserve his 1969 Cy Young award. He wasn't better than Bob Gibson that season. But Seaver led the NL in Wins, and Wins meant everything to the voters back then. A pitcher who led his league in Wins was probably the favorite to win the CYA back then. And if that pitcher also happened to pitch for a first place team, like Seaver did, he was a virtual lock for the award. Plus, Seaver had the better back story, the leader, not just on the field but spiritually as well, of the team that captured the imagination of the whole wide world with their fairy-tale climb to the top of the baseball world. Gibson should have won the CYA in three straight seasons. But instead, Seaver was awarded the 1969 CYA, essentially because in that season, Seaver's teammates played better than Gibson's teammates. But decide for yourselves. Click on the link and expand the leaderboards. https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/1969-pitching-leaders.shtmlhttps://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/1969-pitching-leaders.shtml

Or it could be that they simply don't know how to spell "Koosman" over there. You do, though, obviously. Keep up the good work. This is riveting stuff. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can chip in by unearthing other spelling errors for our fascination, even though I'm fairly certain that you'll beat me to finding more spelling errors. Happy Hominen.

More Waco! Murph loved to point out that Pat Zachry was from Waco, too. =roger_that post_id=98014 time=1656790499 user_id=128] A huge change in pitching staff management that applied to both Hamilton and McAndrew was the dual starter/reliever roles both of them filled (and Ryan, too, with the Mets). For the past few decades you're either one or the other, but these two guys switched roles like you switch TV channels. Whenever you thought they were starters, they'd spend a month in the bullpen, and vice versa.

Edgy MD wrote: Also a high-achieving motorsports enthusiast. https://metsrostercentral.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/casey-whitey.jppg_.jpg> Wow! Is that the back cover of the Whitey Herzog book? If so, I think I'm gonna buy that one. That pic of Casey on the motorbike, alone, is worth the price of the book. You know, Herzog had a big hand in both of the Mets World Series titles. He was instrumental in scouting and developing the young talent that would be key to their first championship in 1969. And then, some 15 years later, he practically singlehandedly traded --no -- traded isn't the right word here-- Herzog gifted Keith Hernandez to the Mets. Gifted. In a fancy box with giftwrapping.

Edgy MD wrote: Also a high-achieving motorsports enthusiast. https://metsrostercentral.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/casey-whitey.jppg_.jpg> Wow! Is that the back cover of the Whitey Herzog book? If so, I think I'm gonna buy that one. That pic of Casey on the motorbike, alone, is worth the price of the book.

=Fman99 post_id=97899 time=1656704176 user_id=86] Never knew that Whitey Herzog was a Mets front office type prior to his time in St. Louis. I just assumed his mother birthed him and he popped out wearing a red StL cap

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Yes I know who scheffing is, and that he was thrust into position, but in a sense Johnny Murphy was as well, and it would seem the need for executive bench strength heightened given the fact that was so old. History gives Murphy a lot of credit, but he was basically in the right place at the right time to benefit from the moves Devine made and the halo around the 69 club. I'm not suggesting he was incompetent, in fact it could be argued that he was wise to leave well enough alone until taking advantage of an opportunity in the Clendonon trade. But not hiring his own successor was a mistake that doubled down on the fact that he too was an unexpected appointee due to Devine's sudden departure. In my mind, the Mets ought to have done more to make Devine happy inasmuch as he would prove to have a very long and successful career ahead of him... and came from a point of view that the GMs job was to improve the club not just be sure the players don't get paid well. Instead they seemed to say let's give this important job to whoever the senior guy who happens to be around is, and the problem with that was Murphy didn't seem to have his successor in mind either, as the next man up, Scheffing, also wasn't destinted for success. Consequential decisions post 69 were nearly all pretty bad. Berra hiring, drafting and scouting deteriorated, one bad trade trade after another, wrong posture and behavior once the player union made progress, wrong GM, wrong manager, and it sorta all points to there not really being an overarching guiding philosophy that was imaginative and forward looking, and that wasted of the potential of a young World Series winner that should have plowed their momentum into getting better all around. This same kind of pattern would repeat itself often in the Wilpon era. Great history, there. As usual. One of the biggest hits the Mets absorbed from all of this was the eventual defection of Whitey Herzog, who harbored many resentments towards the Mets organization over what Herzog rightfully perceived as a lack of recognition of his accomplishments. Herzog was instrumental in developing the Mets awesome stable of young talent during the second half of the 60s, that was key to the Mets claiming the WS title in '69. Herzog was regarded as a baseball genius by many in the Mets org. Which he was, of course. The last straw for Herzog was getting skipped over for the managerial position that opened up after Gil Hodges's untimely death. Herzog, as we all know, would go on to not only manage, but build and develop powerhouse teams with two different franchises -- the two teams that call Missouri their home. My favorite Herzog story involves the Mets hunting down an MIA Herzog, who was on a fishing winter vacation at some remote location in the middle of nowhere. I think that Herzog was needed so that the Mets could finalize their trade for Jim Fregosi. Herzog immediately flew into a mini-rage after learning that the Mets had traded Leroy Stanton, a young outfielder recognized by many in the organization as having enormous potential. Herzog didn't think that Fregosi was the solution to the Mets third base problem and certainly wouldn't have given up Stanton for Fregosi. Herzog had yet to find out that Nolan Ryan, of whom Herzog also thought highly of, was also included in the trade. The saying went that the main purpose of Mets GM's during that post '69 era was not necesarily to acquire good baseball talent, but to ensure that their players weren't paid as much as they ought to have been paid. Who knows what the Mets post '69 future might have been if Herzog and not Yogi was named Mets manage and Herzog was also given an important say in Mets development. But that'll be for another thread, some day. I'm so happy that you "passed the audition". The Bob Scheffing audition. I'm so happy that he's now satisfied that you've heard of Scheffing. You must be happy, too, or at least relieved. Having had the pleasure of reading your thoroughly knowledgeable Mets posts over a span of close to 20 years, I couldn't imagine ever asking you or even suggesting that you hadn't heard of Scheffing. And if I'd only joined up here 15 minutes ago, I'd know my place to keep quiet and to not suggest that you were ignorant of Scheffing. It's basic common etiquette. It's how reasonable people behave. At least you got an apology (again). At least he didn't then double down and advance the absurd point that him naming Scheffing first means that you'd never heard of Scheffing. Or that you then faked it and looked up Scheffing only in response to his post to then save face.

This should be an eye-opening series: -The Mets are a good but not elite team. -An upgrade to 2 bullpen arms should a priority -Some reallocation of Davis/Escobar's playing time needs to be considered; they're not getting it done. Another bat should be considered. -Mets have beat no elite teams. 2-2 against LA; 0-4 against Houston. 1-2 against SD. Results against Giants/Cardinals/Brewers more encouraging but suggest the Mets are a pretty good team that likely could Make the playoffs, not a very good team that would be expected to go far in the playoffs. I agree with this post for the most part, but not with the characterization of the Mets as a "good but not elite team". I think that the Mets are, at the very minimum, a very good team, if not even better than that. I wouldn't put too much stock in their lesser showing against the top teams listed in GWrecks post: the sample size of those games is tiny, and thus, not so reliable. I do agree that the team could use some improvement. That's what the elite teams are always striving for. The Dodgers, for example, wouldn't be content with their awesome stable of MVP's and all-stars, and will stay up nights figuring out how to upgrade their 4th starter slot or their 7th best bat in the lineup, even if those are already solid players. And the Mets are now poised to get deGrom and Scherzer back, two of baseball's best pitchers before their injuries. Getting an elite pitcher is almost always, the biggest and most significant upgrade any team could make because an ace, or top of the rotation pitcher always replaces the last pitcher in the rotation and so the upgrade from one pitcher to the other is tremendous. Times two. Because there's two aces on the way. I think that if deGrom and Scherzer return as the aces they were just before their injuries, or anywhere reasonably close, the Mets are instantly transformed into a powerhouse. Plus there'd be domino effect benefits to their returns, such as less dependence on the bullpen and less need to score runs.

=whippoorwill post_id=97585 time=1656424490 user_id=79] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=97581 time=1656423137 user_id=68] =whippoorwill post_id=97579 time=1656422570 user_id=79] My dad had back surgery in1969. He spent his recovery watching the WS. He got me hooked on the Mets in 1972 and the rest is history

=roger_that post_id=97605 time=1656429502 user_id=128] it is kind of amazin' that solid official evidence [of Dilauro's post-season eligibility] is so hard to come by, isn't it?

I collected the 1970 Topps set when I was a kid and had many doubles of Met Bobby Pfeil's Mets card pictured below. Pfeil's baseball card photo had to have been taken in 1969 because that was his lone season with the Mets. To this day, I'm still very familiar with Pfeil's card, his only Topps Mets card, because I had many copies of it and because Pfeil's card came out in the 1st series, and so I would have looked at it, held it, handled it and played with it more than with other cards from that set that were released later in the calendar year. The Mets traded Pfeil to Philadelphia early in the '70 season so, logically, Pfeil's '70 Mets stint would've been brief anyways. That is, if Pfeil even had a Mets stint in 1970. He didn't. At least not with the big club. Pfeil's entire '70 Met stint was spent in the minors. So me and my fellow Mets fan friends (not that there were many Yankees fans my age in NYC in 1970) never got to see Pfeil live and in real time in a Mets uni in 1970. Eventually, an urban legend began to spread in my neighborhood and at the school I attended that the reason Pfeil was no longer on the Mets was that during the wild 1969 World Series celebration, some fan stole Pfeil's batting helmet and so the Mets, suddenly unable to properly clothe Pfeil, were forced to trade him, an absurd tale, but maybe one that a grade schooler might fall for. Anybody else ever heard this tale?

=seawolf17 post_id=97598 time=1656427198 user_id=91] DiLauro didn't appear in the playoff games vs. Atlanta, nor the World Series vs. the Orioles. Not because he was in the doghouse. The Mets starters mostly dominated ....

The 1969 Mets are one the most beloved teams in baseball history. Still are even though it's likely that the majority of fans who saw this squad play in real time, live, are no longer with us. And here's some proof of their still-lasting popularity. I snapped a shot of this street graffiti a few months ago and have been meaning to post the photo on this forum ever since. I just couldn't figure out where to post it and I wasn't in the mood to start a new thread. But this thread presents the perfect opportunity. [FIMG=333]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52180019465_44f8d565db_k.jpg[/FIMG]

=roger_that post_id=97591 time=1656426240 user_id=128] Does anyone have anything resembling evidence of DiLauro's place on the 1969 World Series roster? Memories are pretty unreliable, mine as well as everyone's else, so what I'm looking for is documentation.

Jack DiLauro was on the post-season roster. 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt. I had to get this post in here as quick as possible before somebody else beat me to it, so that the thread-starter wouildn't go off on a rant, declaring that I'd never heard of Dilauro because I wasn't the first to set the record straight on his '69 post-season eligibility.

=whippoorwill post_id=97579 time=1656422570 user_id=79] My dad had back surgery in1969. He spent his recovery watching the WS. He got me hooked on the Mets in 1972 and the rest is history

Great. I cant wait for the part where you start insulting everybody that joins in. You counted every thread, almost 2,000 of them? (No comment, thread. Make your own assumptions. )

I always believed that the best part of the MLB All-Star Game was the spectacle and pageantry of the players wearing their own team's uniforms, and seeing all of the different MLB uniforms together in one game.

=kcmets post_id=97516 time=1656340322 user_id=53] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=97508 time=1656338760 user_id=68]On the same day that the Mets won the last game of the 1969 World Series.

=Fman99 post_id=97507 time=1656338665 user_id=86] Yeah man another good one. I love that album.