They should sell all their players at bargain prices and rebuild.

Are there actually baseball people so stupid they think the word "failure" can be attached to a team that won 111 games with a +334 run differential?

Are there actually baseball people so stupid they think the word "failure" can be attached to a team that won 111 games with a +334 run differential?

Do owners count as "baseball people?" As long as the narrative gets cemented that the postseason is a far different animal than the regular season, yes, a modicum of stupidity will exist.

Are there actually baseball people so stupid they think the word "failure" can be attached to a team that won 111 games with a +334 run differential?

If the 1998 Yankees had failed to win the World Series it would have been considered a failure. If you're really that good, losing to inferior teams is a form of failure. The team itself is not a "failure" but they failed, in losing when it was most important.

I think every fan in baseball would rather have their team win 90 and win the World Series than win 110 and fall short. So, there's got to be some sort of failure there.

If the 1998 Yankees had failed to win the World Series it would have been considered a failure. If you're really that good, losing to inferior teams is a form of failure. The team itself is not a "failure" but they failed, in losing when it was most important.

Exactly. If that 1998 team had failed to win the World Series, those 114 regular season wins would've been seen as a bittersweet consolation prize.

I think every fan in baseball would rather have their team win 90 and win the World Series than win 110 and fall short.

And every sane Dodgers fan would love to swap about 20 of those 111 wins for just 2 more against the Padres in the DS.

Exactly. If that 1998 team had failed to win the World Series, those 114 regular season wins would've been seen as a bittersweet consolation prize.

Oy. What's next, claiming Georgetown's 1984-85 season was a total failure because Villanova played a single, miraculously flawless game?

In a more sane world, MLB would do more to recognize regular season greatness. Instead, Manfred and friends continue to go out of their way to downgrade April to September.

Oy. What's next, claiming Georgetown's 1984-85 season was a total failure because Villanova played a single, miraculously flawless game?

Great example. Also, North Carolina State beating Houston in 1983. Fans may not like it, but a playoff series is just a tiny, random sample of games and there really are no upsets. And players don't perform differently just because we think it's more "important". It's still just baseball.

Hey, imma Mets fan.
We just won 101 games... 2nd most for The Mets ever.
A great, enjoyable season that came up a bit short.
Disappointed? Sure, but...
As all know, post season is a crapshoot.

Isn't it true that the best regular season records in the 4 major sports did not win the Championship?
Besides, it's just for A Stupid Trophy ( or whatever Manfred sez).

Oy. What's next, claiming Georgetown's 1984-85 season was a total failure because Villanova played a single, miraculously flawless game?

The entire season isn't a failure, just the Championship. Why is i hard to envision that a 7 month baseball season can include both success and failure?

Exactly. If that 1998 team had failed to win the World Series, those 114 regular season wins would've been seen as a bittersweet consolation prize.

Oy. What's next, claiming Georgetown's 1984-85 season was a total failure because Villanova played a single, miraculously flawless game?

I didn't say that the 1998 Yankees season would've been a "total failure" if they'd been knocked off in the postseason. But if they'd lost to the 88-74 Rangers in the DS, I'd cherish the memories of their 2000 87-74 World Series champions a lot more.

But since you're a Mets fan, ask yourself which season you look back upon with greater fondness, 1973 or 1988?** A team that came out of nowhere to beat the Big Red Machine in the LCS and push the defending champion A's to 7 games in the World Series; or a 100-win team that folded like an accordion in the LCS to a team they'd beaten 10 out of 11 times in the regular season?

** Assuming you know something about baseball history, and not just seasons you witnessed first hand

----------

Great example. Also, North Carolina State beating Houston in 1983. Fans may not like it, but a playoff series is just a tiny, random sample of games and there really are no upsets.

Just because it's a small sample doesn't mean that individual games or series can't be upsets. And since I assume you're a Houston fan, wouldn't you have traded the Cougars' 82-83 season for that of the Wolfpack's?

---------

Hey, imma Mets fan.
We just won 101 games... 2nd most for The Mets ever.
A great, enjoyable season that came up a bit short.
Disappointed? Sure, but...
As all know, post season is a crapshoot.

But wouldn't you have been a lot less disappointed if the Mets had been eliminated in the DS by the 111-win Dodgers than by the 89-win Padres? Maybe you wouldn't, but if I were a Mets fan I sure as hell would've been.

Less disappointed? Maybe...
The 1988 loss to the Dodgers still annoys me, but that's kinda the cool thing about the post season in Baseball, you got a chance if you get in.
Otherwise, just give the hunk of metal to the team with best regular season record.

Why ask about the 1998 yankees? The 2001 Mariners won more games than the '98 yankees. And they failed to win the World Series or even the league championship series. Doesn't that team feel like a bit of a failure?

Why ask about the 1998 yankees? The 2001 Mariners won more games than the '98 yankees.

I can only answer about teams I root for.

If you want to define 'failure' as literally just 'the team did not win the championship' then of course anything but winning the championship will count as failure. But that's a pretty unhelpful (and quite silly) way to define failure.

Just look at threaction at the series end. Dodgers players boisterously celebrating the fact that they still won 111 games and the Padres glumly saying, "WHo cares? It was all a crapshoot anyway."

And when's the last time anyone ever said that Dusty needs a championship to go into the hall?

Major League Baseball teams can demonstrate greatness in two ways: (1) winning a lot in the regular season; and (2) winning in the postseason. Most teams don’t do either, and some do only the first, but the greatest teams do both.

The Dodgers could decide their best chance for playoff success is to mostly stand pat, and give their current players another shot. That’s fine, but dismissing their loss because ‘postseason is a crap shot’ has a distinct sour grapes flavor.

Major League Baseball teams can demonstrate greatness in two ways: (1) winning a lot in the regular season; and (2) winning in the postseason. Most teams don’t do either, and some do only the first, but the greatest teams do both.

Your seconds sentence is only an opinion, albeit one I generally agree with. But lots of people disagree with one half or the other.

Also the concept of "winning in the postseason" itself is a disputed one. Some people think that postseason success is all or nothing. George Costanza had even a higher standard when he scoffed at the 1996 Yankees for taking 6 games to clinch the World Series. Other people think that there are gradients of postseason success.

Do owners count as "baseball people?"

If there's a lesson here for the Dodger owners, it's that they should cut payroll by $50-100 M, put that money in their pockets, still win 90 games, take their chances in the playoffs. Fans win big!

The 2001 Mariners

Also not a fan so can't judge the level of disappointment but there's a key difference here from my outsider's perspective. The 2001 Mariners were a good team that had a massive fluke and won a ton of games. They were never a great team. They won 91 the year before, 93 the two years after. That season was their Villanova moment -- akin to the Rox winning however many straight that was to come charging back; akin to the Sept Guardians.

The Dodgers are a great team. They prove it year after year. They might be the greatest team of my lifetime, a mix of the late 60s Os and the Big Red Machine. From a historical perspective, it's a "shame" they couldn't close off 1-2 more WS wins and more pennants to cement that stature.

The Ms were kinda amazing that year -- their worst monthly record was 18-9, they had a winning record against every single team they played (10-9 vs Oak). They also had almost no injuries despite an average age of around 32, even in the bullpen where they had 5 relievers with 65+ IP. They used only about 200 PA and 60 IP from outside their regular 25-man roster.

"but the greatest teams do both."- well yeah, by that self definition.

Many in the day wrote that Ted Williams wasn't all that great, because....

Do I think much of those who wrote that? Naah. Willie Mays, too, didn't do much (nor his teams) in October. What a bum.

If the 2001 Mariners are the case study here, I think it proves that over time people value incredible regular seasons pretty fairly. I see way more nostalgia for that team than the 2001 DBacks. Or more broadly, you hear a lot more about the 90s Braves than the 90s Blue Jays.

But since you're a Mets fan, ask yourself which season you look back upon with greater fondness, 1973 or 1988?** A team that came out of nowhere to beat the Big Red Machine in the LCS and push the defending champion A's to 7 games in the World Series; or a 100-win team that folded like an accordion in the LCS to a team they'd beaten 10 out of 11 times in the regular season?

** Assuming you know something about baseball history, and not just seasons you witnessed first hand

Your question is more intriguing than you know. For all of the "Ya Gotta Believe!" banter I've heard over years, pretty much all of the '73 nostalgia is boiled down to astonishment that the Amazins claimed the division with 82 victories and the Rose-Harrelson brawl in the NLCS. That's pretty much it. Even in the baseball-less spring of 2020, I don't recall SNY showing any games from the 1973 campaign, including the playoffs.

In contrast, the 1988 Mets were a fabulous 100-win team undone by a single swing of the bat by Mike ####### Scisocia. However, being majorly bummed by the NLCS loss to the Dodgers doesn't translate into calling the season a failure.

As for this year, the final month-plus of the regular season might be described as a failure but overall it was a great success -- and kudos to everyone in the organization, both on the field and off, for making it happen.

Many in the day wrote that Ted Williams wasn't all that great, because....

Do I think much of those who wrote that? Naah. Willie Mays, too, didn't do much (nor his teams) in October. What a bum.

But that's a sample size issue as much as anything. If Williams had 700+ post-season PAs like Derek Jeter and had a .533 OPS it would be a real knock on his career.

But since you're a Mets fan, ask yourself which season you look back upon with greater fondness, 1973 or 1988?** A team that came out of nowhere to beat the Big Red Machine in the LCS and push the defending champion A's to 7 games in the World Series; or a 100-win team that folded like an accordion in the LCS to a team they'd beaten 10 out of 11 times in the regular season?

** Assuming you know something about baseball history, and not just seasons you witnessed first hand

Your question is more intriguing than you know. For all of the "Ya Gotta Believe!" banter I've heard over years, pretty much all of the '73 nostalgia is boiled down to astonishment that the Amazins claimed the division with 82 victories and the Rose-Harrelson brawl in the NLCS. That's pretty much it. Even in the baseball-less spring of 2020, I don't recall SNY showing any games from the 1973 campaign, including the playoffs.

Oh, come on. Maybe that's simply because there's not that much video available from the '73 season, and because so much of today's fan base has no interest in anything that happened "before their time". But that '73 LCS had more than enough drama packed into it to sustain a show all by itself. If you don't know about that series, that's on you, not the series.

In contrast, the 1988 Mets were a fabulous 100-win team undone by a single swing of the bat by Mike ####### Scisocia. However, being majorly bummed by the NLCS loss to the Dodgers doesn't translate into calling the season a failure.

But again, I'm not calling the entire season a failure. But maybe you should take a review of what the NY media was saying about that collapse in real time. They weren't quite as sanguine about it then as you are in hindsight.

Or to put it in political terms, the '73 Mets were like Stacey Abrams' 2018 gubernatorial race---a loss at the end, but wildly exceeding initial expectations. Whereas this year's Mets (along with the Braves and Dodgers) are more like Hillary in 2016, who could only console herself with her popular vote win.

Oh, come on. Maybe that's simply because there's not that much video available from the '73 season, and because so much of today's fan base has no interest in anything that happened "before their time". But that '73 LCS had more than enough drama packed into it to sustain a show all by itself. If you don't know about that series, that's on you, not the series.

But again, I'm not calling the entire season a failure. But maybe you should take a review of what the NY media was saying about that collapse in real time. They weren't quite as sanguine about it then as you are in hindsight.

Yes, Andy, there was considerable "drama" and fans were treated with a September and October to remember. But in what universe is an 82-win season a great success? (Do you remember how the club fared in '74?)

As for 1988, I don't give a rat's ass what dopey sportswriters opined hours and days after Howard Johnson struck out. To me, 1988 was a successful season. What makes some folks mope to this day is that it was effectively the last postseason hurrah for both Hernandez and Carter.

Or to put it in political terms, the '73 Mets were like Stacey Abrams' 2018 gubernatorial race---a loss at the end, but wildly exceeding initial expectations.

Wait, she lost? Whoa if true. (smile)

Why is i hard to envision that a 7 month baseball season can include both success and failure?

Because people, and especially sports fans, prefer facile narratives.

Yes, Andy, there was considerable "drama" and fans were treated with a September and October to remember. But in what universe is an 82-win season a great success?

I'd say a season where a team goes from under .500 in late August to taking the World Series to game 7 counts as a memorable season, and ultimately more "successful" than a team that plays like a champion until the championship is actually on the line, and then reverts to a pumpkin. Your interpretation sounds more like a variant of the Fox and the Grapes.

Which team had the more successful season, the '87 Twins or the '93 Braves?

Which team had the more successful season, the '87 Twins or the '93 Braves?

I really don't care, Andy. The post is about "failure," not who has the "more successful season."

Then we're not really arguing, since I've never called the 88 Mets or the 22 Dodgers "failures". I don't see these things as binary.

For all of the "Ya Gotta Believe!" banter I've heard over years, pretty much all of the '73 nostalgia is boiled down to astonishment that the Amazins claimed the division with 82 victories and the Rose-Harrelson brawl in the NLCS. That's pretty much it.

I disagree with this quite a bit. For one thing as Andy mentioned, we are talking a huge stretch of time. 50 years. And not much video. But to drive home this point how many people talk about the Charley Finley As? Maybe even less than the 73 Mets. In the past 70 years, only the Jeter Yankees and the Finley As have won 3 consecutive world series.

IN a fair world, dont you think we would celebrate the 70s As as much as the 90s Yankees? And think about how great that team was. they won an epic 72 series in 7 games, as well as a very interesting 7 game series vs the Mets and the 74 Dodgers were an excellent team that looked overmatched. the 70s As were a huge juggernaut that no one had really seen since 50s Yanks or possible 60s Dodgers, I guess.

Perhaps it was because of the events of those days. the Yom Kippur war sort of overshadowed what was going on as well as Agnew's resignation. Nixon's slow watergate torture overshadowed the entire As dynasty. ANd America was in some odd transition from the violent 60s to the more liberal Jimmy Carter era. Both baseball and football were in transition. Baseball from the dead ball 60s, to the new improved DH game of the 70s. ANd football from the run/run/pass days of lombardi and george allen, to the upgraded passing game of the 70s when they moved in the hash marks and limited defensive bumping.

everyone remembers the 70s steelers and raiders, but we seem to forget the shula dolphins. Same with the 60s Orioles. But everyone still mentions the Big Red Machine and the Reggie Yanks but the As had more success and no one talks about. So there has to be something to that.

And despite how powerful the As were the outgunned Mets really came within a whisker of winning it all. They outplayed them in game 1, but lost because the As put together some timely hits. I cant recall exactly what the Seaver controversy was, I dont think I've gotten to that game on youtube yet.

I am a Pirate fan and these were great years for me and the Pirates. but now as an old man I been watching re runs of the 73 Mets and they are epic. Their entire outfield was decimated that's how Mays ended up in center field in game 1 and even he was epic, in all his faded glory. Cleon Jones throwing up in LF and Rusty Staub channeling Dick Allen with his underhand throw in RF. Yogi started Mays in CF for game 1 and he lost a ball in the sun...wotever Joe Rudi almost lost another one in the sun on the same day. Oak was notorious for the sun field.

5 of those games were great, going down to the 8th or 9th. Only two were lackluster including the finale. Wotever it was epic. It really was.

I disagree with this quite a bit. For one thing as Andy mentioned, we are talking a huge stretch of time. 50 years. And not much video. But to drive home this point how many people talk about the Charley Finley As? Maybe even less than the 73 Mets. In the past 70 years, only the Jeter Yankees and the Finley As have won 3 consecutive world series.

The passage of time erases memories, and the lack of video makes retroactive memories harder to create. But for consecutive years of postseason drama, it's literally impossible to top the 1972 and 1973 LCS and World Series, all of which went down to the final game, with 2 of them (the 72 ALCS and WS) going down to the last pitch. 6 of the 7 games of the 1972 WS were decided by just 1 run, the only exception being game 6.

From a historical perspective, it's a "shame" they couldn't close off 1-2 more WS wins and more pennants to cement that stature.

There's kind of an unspoken "yet" here; I don't see any reason to think the Dodgers won't be in the running for the Series next year, and moving forward if the team keeps operating like it has been. Obviously there's no guarantee of anything, but I'm not chiseling the epitaph just yet.

Even in the baseball-less spring of 2020, I don't recall SNY showing any games from the 1973 campaign, including the playoffs.

Because the games don't exist. They have mostly been all destroyed or erased, including the NLCS of which there are only a couple of games available.

1973 NLCS Game 1 (partial - ends in bottom of 8th inning, before Bench's walkoff homer)

There are radio broadcasts of games 3 and 5 available, along with a few highlight clips, but no complete TV versions of any games.

I'm a Mets fan born in 1979 -- so I wasn't alive for '73 and I'm old enough to remember '88. I would agree '73 really wasn't as prominent as it should have been in Mets lore when I was growing up. But I think that about a lot of also-ran Mets teams.

My favorite unsung Mets seasons were:
- 1997 -- even though they didn't make the playoffs, they came out of nowhere to have a good season with a core that would lead them to the pennant in 2000
- 1999 -- A great, fun team. Won 97 games but had to win a 1-game playoff against the Reds to make the postseason. The NLCS loss against the Braves was one of the best 6-game series I've ever watched.
- 2006 -- Not really unsung, but they led the division from the third day of the season and never looked back. It ended in heartbreak but the Endy Chavez catch still makes me smile. Plus I was young and in between jobs that summer, so I was able to go to a bunch of games, including during the playoffs.

I disagree with this quite a bit. For one thing as Andy mentioned, we are talking a huge stretch of time. 50 years. And not much video. But to drive home this point how many people talk about the Charley Finley As? Maybe even less than the 73 Mets. In the past 70 years, only the Jeter Yankees and the Finley As have won 3 consecutive world series.

Come on, who doesn't know about the A's three-peat? Now, if you'd to ##### and moan that Oakland doesn't receive nearly enough credit for winning the AL West five consecutive seasons or finishing either first or second for eight straight, I'm with you on the front lines.

WE know all about the As 3 peat because we are - um - into baseball history bigly yuge.

when announcers drone on about "dynasties" and "marquee franchises" they don't bring up the As. big red machine sometimes. besides early 70s was 50 yrs ago and like who cares. unless you talking about nyc teams i mean

besides

the supposed "any team can Go All The WAY" stuff don't work if it is always the pimpees winning. no point in spending money on your team if the pimpees gonna win anyhow

- 1999 -- A great, fun team. Won 97 games but had to win a 1-game playoff against the Reds to make the postseason. The NLCS loss against the Braves was one of the best 6-game series I've ever watched.

Don't say you weren't warned about Kenny Rogers.

Come on, who doesn't know about the A's three-peat? Now, if you'd to ##### and moan that Oakland doesn't receive nearly enough credit for winning the AL West five consecutive seasons or finishing either first or second for eight straight, I'm with you on the front lines.

I agree that the Mustachios were underrated, but one reason for that might've been that even in their threepeat, they never won more than 93 games, and in the two years that bracketed those championships, they were swept in the LCS. The A's great virtue was their ability to win close games during those championship postseasons. But they were never truly dominant in the way "dynasties" are supposed to be.

WE know all about the As 3 peat because we are - um - into baseball history bigly yuge.

Well, some of us actually remember it.

As for the 73 Mets -- does anyone recall how, in the middle of one of the games, they cut away to announce that Spiro Agnew had resigned? Pretty wild.

I was in my friend's dorm room when it happened, and I stuck my head out the window and shouted the news to everybody passing by.

In the Courtyard of my dorm, there was a banner hanging which said "Impeach Nixon". The next day, we added a tag below it:

1 Down
1 to Go

Don't say you weren't warned about Kenny Rogers.

I still think it was insane to intentionally walk the bases loaded with Rogers on the mound. I don't put that one on Rogers.

I agree that the Mustachios were underrated, but one reason for that might've been that even in their threepeat, they never won more than 93 games

Except for the year they won 94 games :)

Also worth noting that they won 93 in a strike-shortened 155-game season. And in the two years they got bounced in the LCS, they won 98 and 101 games.

Underrated? Naah, that were heralded for the 3-peat, and really, MANY tiny bounces going the other way could have changed that, as was posted previously. Has there EVER been a team that won 6 playoff series in a row (72-74) while basically playing no better than their opponents? Really, go look up the stats.

Plus Reggie! got undeservedly overrated partly because of that

Don't say you weren't warned about Kenny Rogers.

I still think it was insane to intentionally walk the bases loaded with Rogers on the mound. I don't put that one on Rogers.

Whether you want to blame Rogers for walking home the season-ending run, or the manager who ordered those two IWs, the fact remains that Rogers pitched to an 8.31 and 5.37 ERAs in the DS and the LCS. It was a continuation of his disastrous 1996 postseason for the Yankees, with respective ERAs of 9.00, 12.00 and 22.50 in the 3 series.

---------------------

Underrated? Naah, that were heralded for the 3-peat, and really, MANY tiny bounces going the other way could have changed that, as was posted previously. Has there EVER been a team that won 6 playoff series in a row (72-74) while basically playing no better than their opponents? Really, go look up the stats.

The response to that was always "We knew how to win". And it was hard to argue with the bottom line.

I disagree with this quite a bit. For one thing as Andy mentioned, we are talking a huge stretch of time. 50 years. And not much video. But to drive home this point how many people talk about the Charley Finley As? Maybe even less than the 73 Mets. In the past 70 years, only the Jeter Yankees and the Finley As have won 3 consecutive world series./quote]
Go on Amazon and see how many books have been written about the 1970s A's.....a lot. Reggie Jackson, Catfish Hunter and Vida Blue were the biggest stars in the game and the Charles Finley controversies were endless. They were THE story in baseball from 1971-1976. The 1973 Mets were a flukey blip in an otherwise pretty miserable decade for them.

If you're a fan of a team that has been great for awhile there is always going to be disappointment if they come up short at the end. Every year 29 teams "fail". Doesn't mean they all to clean house or their system doesn't work.


For me 2003 was tremendously exciting and nerve racking and the ending sucked but it was still a great season for a Cub fan. 2004 was one of the worst seasons I have experienced as a Cub fan despite the team winning more regular season games.

2015 was an exciting year and it sucked that they got swept by the Mets. 2016 was great and then afterwards there certainly was disappointment and let down but those seasons were certainly better than the alternative for Cub fans.