Aren't the Mets the biggest fluke franchise in the history of sports?

Question

Think about it. The Mets have only won 2 championships. 69 had to be as much of a fluke as physically possible, as the year before they finished 9th and the year after they finished 3rd in the NL East. Then, in 86, the years before and after they finished out of the playoffs. Ever since then, they have been a flash-in-the-pan franchise that does good about every 5 years. Now you expect me to believe they are going to win the NL this year? Come on. The NL is the JV of MLB. If you put the Mets in the AL Central, and switch them with the Indians, Mets finish 4th and the Indians would win the East. This team will win the division and expect the Dodgers or Cardinals to burn them to the ground. Enough about the Mets being the future of baseball, because the future will come the day soccer's "future" comes here in the US, and MLS becomes a major sport. Just because you say the future will come, doesn't mean it actually will.

The Metropolitans are still the Mets. And they play JV baseball.

Answer 1

The Mets have been a team for 44 years, and have won 4 pennants (69, 73, 86 and 2000). They've also won two world series during that time (69 and 86).

They also won the NL East in 1988 but lost a 7 game NLCS to the Dodgers (for the same reason they beat the 69 Orioles...great pitching from their opponent). The Dodgers that year were every bit the fluke than the Mets were in 69 or 73...not in terms of making the postseason, but in terms of beating not only the Mets, but a powerhouse Oakland A's team in the World Series.

The 86 Mets were the equal of any team of the last 30 years, except for the '98 Yankees. With the balance of hitting and pitching that they had that year, they were every bit as good as the Big Red Machine of the mid 70s, who were all hitting and zero pitching. They just didn't sustain their greatness as long as the Reds did.

Also, the Mets have done a hell of a lot better than the Indians over the last 40 years, including this year. The only reason the Indians have ever won ANYTHING is because they split the AL into 3 divisions... think the Indians would have ever made the playoffs if they were still stuck in the AL East with the Yanks and the Sox??


For cryin' out loud, the Braves won 14 straight division titles, but have only won ONE World Series during that time...they're practically the all time bridesmaids of baseball...but who did they beat for their only world championship during their 14 year run? Yeah, you guess it...The INDIANS!! That year the Indians won 100 games and the Braves only 90...

The Indians also lost a World Series in 1997 to the FLORIDA MARLINS, a 4th year expansion team.

In 1954, the Indians won 111 games, then an American League record, and got swept in the World Series in 4 straight, by the Giants (who won 97 games that year).

The AL is far from a "JV" league , but Cleveland sure as hell is a JV team...and they always will be....because they're from Cleveland!

Answer 2

How could you say switching the Mets with the Indians? The Indians had a 6 year run about 5 years ago when they were good before that it was a good 40 years before they made the playoffs and it’s been almost 60 years since they’ve won the World Series.
In the 44 years they’ve been playing baseball they have won 4 pennants (2 more then the Indians) 2 world series 2 more then the Indians in and been to the playoffs 6 times 1 more then the Indians in that same time span. I hate the Mets but you have to give them props they are having a great year this year. and to call the NL JV is juvenile, just cause the AL has been winning the last couple of World Series doesn’t prove too much I’ll tell you this Joe Torrie the Manager of the Yankees in the last 10 years has won almost 1000 games in the American League. In the National League 894 in over 1900 games that a 568 winning percentage I think it’s easier to manage in the American League.

Answer 3

Did you have a question, or did you just need a place to rant?

As for 1969 being a "fluke," I think it was less a fluke than an outstanding example of winning with pitching, since they had the league's second-lowest ERA and a staff led by Seaver and Koosman, with a great bullpen.

As for being good "every 5 years," maybe you should check facts instead of showing off your ignorance. Since 1986, they have had eleven winning seasons, and will have been to the playoffs four times once they clinch this year. They're not the Yankees, but who is?

You don't like them - we get it. But your rant is nonsense.

Answer 4

Granted, if you switch the mets with the indians, give the mets an extra 4 meaningful ABs per game played for the DH they would get. Subtract 4 meaningful ABs per game for the DH the indians lose. NOW see where the mets would be in the AL central

Answer 5

No. The Mets are for real. The only real team in NY. The other one is a bunch of over paid superstars who find themselves on the same baseball field every day doing their own thing but never really together.

Answer 6

you can't say fluke the mets have been to 3 world series at least i n 27 years how long was it between world series for the red sox?what about the astros ?to take this even further, the damn braves win the division every year how many world series have they won i would be more inclined to say the braves are the real flukes

Answer 7

Anything in NY can be overrated included the Yankees.

Answer 8

so was ur question the one u answered. well anyways the marlins is goin to win the NL. (yeah i said it)

Answer 9

No.

Socceer is the real fluke.

Answer 10

Dumb question. Terrible analogy.