Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 4  Next >

Which was worse? Late 70s or now?

Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 9:13 AM

Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


I've been alive since '87 and a Mets fan since '98 so I really have no idea... But '07-'13 has to be one of the two most painful stretches in team history. I'm not considering the early '60s since they were an expansion team/the "lovable losers". So I ask you veteran Mets fans, which was worse, the post-Seaver era or now? Which was more painful/unbearable?

Last edited 6/11/2013 9:21 AM by KevinMets99

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 9:21 AM

Re: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


I would say the '70s for a few reasons:

1.  It really is not 07-13.  It is 09-13.  07 & 08 hurst becasue the team crapped the bed two years in a row where they had control of their destiny heading into September.

2.  From 77-83 (yes 81 was a short year), the team did not win more than 70 games ones.  Or better put, their winning percentage never got above 41.4%.  During the period of 09-12 (not counting 13 since it is not over yet), the lowest winning percentage was 43.2% in 09, when everyone was hurt.

3.  Due to the evil empires extended success, the Mets issues are simply compounded.  Yes there was 77,78,81 for the Yanks, but in this period, the Yanks have been dominante for 16-17 years.
“Every day is a new opportunity.  You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again.” - Bob Feller
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 9:26 AM

Re: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 



nevets72 wrote: I would say the '70s for a few reasons:

1.  It really is not 07-13.  It is 09-13.  07 & 08 hurst becasue the team crapped the bed two years in a row where they had control of their destiny heading into September.

I was really just considering overall painfulness from a fan's perspective.  The worst collapse ever, almost an exact repeat, and now this stretch all back-to-back.  '07 and '08 have to be considered because they made '09-present all that much worse.

By the same token, I suppose you should consider the year they traded Seaver and not just the "post Seaver era" like I had said.

Last edited 6/11/2013 9:42 AM by KevinMets99

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 10:16 AM

Re: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 



KevinMets99 wrote:
nevets72 wrote: I would say the '70s for a few reasons:

1.  It really is not 07-13.  It is 09-13.  07 & 08 hurst becasue the team crapped the bed two years in a row where they had control of their destiny heading into September.

I was really just considering overall painfulness from a fan's perspective.  The worst collapse ever, almost an exact repeat, and now this stretch all back-to-back.  '07 and '08 have to be considered because they made '09-present all that much worse.

By the same token, I suppose you should consider the year they traded Seaver and not just the "post Seaver era" like I had said.
I am not sure how to quantify or compare the collapse to trading Seaver (77)....
“Every day is a new opportunity.  You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again.” - Bob Feller
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 10:24 AM

Re: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 



KevinMets99 wrote:
nevets72 wrote: I would say the '70s for a few reasons:

1.  It really is not 07-13.  It is 09-13.  07 & 08 hurst becasue the team crapped the bed two years in a row where they had control of their destiny heading into September.

I was really just considering overall painfulness from a fan's perspective.  The worst collapse ever, almost an exact repeat, and now this stretch all back-to-back.  '07 and '08 have to be considered because they made '09-present all that much worse.

By the same token, I suppose you should consider the year they traded Seaver and not just the "post Seaver era" like I had said.
Yeah but I think most of us would take '07 and '08 rosters (heck even '09) any day of the week...they were the best team on paper in the NL both years and just fell apart due to injuries and were RIDICULOUSLY unlucky...
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 10:29 AM

Re: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


I'm old enough to remember the late 70's (I was 10 when Seaver was traded) and I'd have to say the current period is not quite as bad as that era. The team did not exceed 70 wins for 7 consecutive seasons and traded away the two best players (up to that point) in team history. Absolutely brutal.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 10:32 AM

RE: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


those late 70's were BRUTAL..........Grant's Tomb they called Shea. You couldn't even see the hope until Doubleday bought them and you still had to wait. There is a sound baseball man in charge now with talent on the horizon. There was no Matt Harvey in 1978+.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/11/2013 11:03 AM

Re: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


Now.
In the late 70's, you could tune in to watch Maz, Kingman, Stearns or Foster hit a bases empty homer, then turn off the set until they came up again.
These days there are only two hitters in the lineup (neither of them home run hitters) after whom you can turn off the set.

Later
"You spend a good part of your life gripping the baseball, and in the end it turns out it was the other way around all the time." Jim Bouton
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 11:48 AM

RE: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


yeah but Kingman was gone in 77'....not back until 81.........Foster in 82.....Maz was the only consistent player there and quite frankly, he wasn't must see tv
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 11:54 AM

RE: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


I have to go with the Late 70s as well.  I remember the upper deck of stadium being closed and general admission was in the OF.  I watched many a game sitting next to a pigeon.  Also with 5 teams making the post season now, you do not have to improve as much to have hope.

"Ninety percent I'll spend on good times, women and Irish Whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste." - Tug McGraw

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 11:55 AM

Re: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


Oh come on, Swan, Zachary, Falcone, Trevino, Flynn, Taveras, Henderson, and Leach did not get you going?

My favorite player of those times, and it was towards the end, was Brooks.
“Every day is a new opportunity.  You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again.” - Bob Feller
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 12:02 PM

RE: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


The late 70's was worse, but not by a lot. There was no David Wright in the late 70's and no Harvey but the expectations were a lot less.   There was a lot less information back then and a lot less player movement. 

It was also a lot less expensive so as a fan you didnt feel like you were being cheated.   A trip to a game for 4 people might cost $50-60 if you had good seats.   My wife asked me if I wanted to go on Sunday for Father's Day, but after all expenses, it would probably run me $350-400 to Josh Satin bat cleanup.  The heck with that.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 12:07 PM

RE: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 



oct271986 wrote: The late 70's was worse, but not by a lot. There was no David Wright in the late 70's and no Harvey but the expectations were a lot less.   There was a lot less information back then and a lot less player movement. 

It was also a lot less expensive so as a fan you didnt feel like you were being cheated.   A trip to a game for 4 people might cost $50-60 if you had good seats.   My wife asked me if I wanted to go on Sunday for Father's Day, but after all expenses, it would probably run me $350-400 to Josh Satin bat cleanup.  The heck with that.
I would say it was worse by more since that lack of player movement made improvement that much tougher to accomplish. 

I was a big fan of Craig Swan.......damn guy never could stay healthy.  Hendu can do.  78-82 were tougher than any stretch seen so far outside of the expansion years.  This current stretch is a white collar minimum security prison compared to the post-Seaver era.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 12:12 PM

RE: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 



Seaver wrote:
oct271986 wrote: The late 70's was worse, but not by a lot. There was no David Wright in the late 70's and no Harvey but the expectations were a lot less.   There was a lot less information back then and a lot less player movement. 

It was also a lot less expensive so as a fan you didnt feel like you were being cheated.   A trip to a game for 4 people might cost $50-60 if you had good seats.   My wife asked me if I wanted to go on Sunday for Father's Day, but after all expenses, it would probably run me $350-400 to Josh Satin bat cleanup.  The heck with that.
I would say it was worse by more since that lack of player movement made improvement that much tougher to accomplish. 

I was a big fan of Craig Swan.......damn guy never could stay healthy.  Hendu can do.  78-82 were tougher than any stretch seen so far outside of the expansion years.  This current stretch is a white collar minimum security prison compared to the post-Seaver era.
Were your expectations as high?  Maybe, it was because I was a kid, but it didnt bother me nearly as much, but nowadays, it pisses me off that we arent better.   

In those days I just felt those otehr teams had better players and because I was naive I assumed every young player we had was going to be great.  I think everyone is more informed now.  No one is foolish enough to believe in the John Pacella, Juan Beniquez types.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 12:22 PM

RE: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


I think you need to take "Mettle the Mule" into account when weighing these choices.

"Ninety percent I'll spend on good times, women and Irish Whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste." - Tug McGraw

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 12:24 PM

Re: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


I think the combination of Media approach, information availability, and the fact the Yankees have been dominant for 16 years adds to the negative baggage this team carries.  Compound that with how we exited in 2007 and 2008 plus the crap with Madoff leaves such a negative aura aroud the team.  In the late 70's and early 80's, we sumply did not have much exposure and the tangental mess was not as pervasive.
“Every day is a new opportunity.  You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again.” - Bob Feller
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 12:28 PM

RE: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


doesn't matter.....it was a worse situation based on futility.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 12:33 PM

RE: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


the fact we are more informed now relieves some of the angst. We can get therapy on these boards posting and commiserating with fellow sufferers. You can watch a 100 different channels on tv.......back then you had limited choices to escape the mess. We were dealing with Yankee success back then as well, albeit as a kid....but if you use the viewpoint of a kid then to an adult now, you can never fairly assess it.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 12:37 PM

RE: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


My point was there is more perception issues with this club than actual sucking.  From 77 to 83 the team sucked a lot more.
“Every day is a new opportunity.  You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again.” - Bob Feller
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/11/2013 12:55 PM

RE: Which was worse? Late 70s or now? 


I was just looking at the 1979 Mets.   They stole 135 bases but were caught 79 times!   63% success.   That's awful.   A lot was made those days about John Stearns' base stealing ability.  I believe he set a record for SB's as a catcher in one of the later years, but in 79 he was 15 for 30!   15 times caught stealing!

Joel Youngblood was 18 for 31.
Frank Taveras was 42 for 61.

What was Torre thinking?


This is the type of thing that I dont think anyone paid attention to in 1979.   As a 9 yr old, I certainly didnt, but I doubt many people were aware of how damaging that type of baseruning was.   Bob Murphy certainly want criticizing that type of stuff.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 4  Next >