Suspension of Disbelief: 1986 Mets v. 1998 Yankees
I was listening to the regularly idiotic ramblings of Michael Kay this evening while driving home from work, and he and his crew were actually debating which team was greater- the 1986 Mets or the 1998 Yankees.I know the knee-jerk reaction is to choose the 114 game-winning Yanks (and I'm not disagreeing with you here) but both teams were grinders, b
oth had solid pitching and both had moderate power-hitting. Tony makes fun of me for constantly bitching about how the current Yanks are not good run-producers, but small-ball was a key to both of these teams winning the World Series.Since stats matter: The numbers for the 1986 Mets... and for the 1998 Yankees Debate away!
posted by TheJackSack at 8:54 PM
4 Comments:
The Yankees were a better regular season team, but Gooden was the only real ace on either team, so in a short series the Mets could have beaten the Yankees. But who knows. I have always really liked the 1986 Mets team, though. A cocky bunch, unlike the 1998 Yankees, which may have been the most boring of all the Torre squads.
The 1998 Yanks were a better team because I think they were balanced a bit better than the 1986 Mets. However, they did not have nearly as much cocaine or Mookie . . .that may be the deciding figure.
The only drug used by any Yankee in 1998 was Irabu's addiction to fat. And Wells dabbled in that poison too. Fat people deserve to be ridiculed. Fatties!
Like michael kay, I don't have any stats to back me up, only anecdote. My key argument: was there ever any real doubt that the yanks were going to take the series that year. No. As far as the mets go, there certainly was. In fact, I'd compare that team to the reggie yankee teams in the late 70s. Excellent, but always hanging on by a thread as far as chemistry goes. And none of the other met pitchers caused me any fear: darling, sid fernandez, roger mcdowell. I'd take our fatty anyday.
Post a Comment
<< Home