Q & A: Best Mets Team Never To Win A World Series
January 4, 2012In this video I answer the following viewer question:
Chris Aquino: Best Mets team not to win WS?
16 Responses to Q & A: Best Mets Team Never To Win A World Series
-
-
06 Mets only won three more games than 2000 team did and the 2000 team played through a much stronger NL. 2000 also had better starting pitching IMO.
-
-
Terrible List. The question wasnt who got the furthest without winning, it was who were the best teams the mets had not to win.
1988 and 2006 we had the best team in baseball.
1973- yes we got hot in the post season, but that team only won 83 games. definately not one of their best teams.
I think the 1999 Mets were a better team than the 2000 mets. You had Ventura having a carear year, you had olerud instead of zeile, ordonez was healthy and not on steroids yet, cedeno and ricky leading the way on the bases. That was a much better team than the 2000 team.-
Adam says:
Agreed. '73 and '00 were better teams than '06? Hell, even better than '99? I don't buy it. And it's pretty clear this question wasn't just "list the teams which got to the World Series but didn't win it."
-
Terrible list? Really? I'm not going to downplay the 2006 (even though the NL was terribly weak that year) team because I think they were good and exciting but just because the 73 team only won 83 games doesn't mean they were not one of the best teams. That team had a lot of injuries early on in the year and battled back from being in last place at the end of July. I'll take the years that Seaver, Koosman, Matlack and Stone had as starting pitchers over the rotation we had in 06. Especially the group of Glavine, Perez, Maine and Trachsel we had in the playoffs that year because of Pedro's injury.
-
-
Frak says:
I always thought that the 1999 Mets were much better than the 2000 mets. 1999 is the team that had the fantastic infield which was such a joy to behold. Losing Olerud hurt the 2000 mets.
-
That 99 team was fun to watch. To me this is all a very debatable topic. 99 can def be in the top three list of Mets teams that never won the WS
-
-
2006?
-
the 1999 mets were head and shoulders better than the 2006 mets. the 2006 mets played in an AWFUL national league.
remember the question is “best team not to win a world series”, and not “the team with the best chance to win the world series that didn’t”.
-
johnny says:
@cactus the 2006 mets played in a horrible national league, really?? Then why did the team the mets lost to in the NLCS in seven games without 2 of their starting pitchers (el duque and pedro) go on to sweep the tigers in the world series. The 2006 mets were one of the best overall teams we've seen in awhile
-
87 mets? 85 mets? Anyone?
-
While the 87 team was good I don't know if they were better than 88, 73, 2000, 2006, 1999 or 1985.
-
-
Erik says:
1985.
-
Philip says:
How old are you guy's? The 88 team was 2 years removed from a WS victory and the won 100 games. They had a 17,18 and 20 game winners in the rotation no one with a ERA over 3.25. 2 guys with 100 RBI.
-
I'm 35 and remember that 88 team really well hence the reason I said they are number one in my video.
-
-
Billy says:
The 1984 team also was a great team, led by Hubie Brooks and Mookie Wilson…By far the 1988 team was the one that should have won the WS……..
the 2006 mets def better than the 2000 mets no doubt