Talk:New York Mets

Rivalries

Hello, I have recently been working on sports rivalries sections, starting with baseball. While some of the rivalry sections suffer from too much emphasis on historical rivalries that are no longer relevant, I think that the Mets section actually suffers from the reverse. There is an overemphasis on the rivalry with the Phillies, which had almost NO significance until 2006 (attempts to trace the rivalry back to supposed prejudice against Jackie Robinson, before the Mets even existed, is specious at best). Likewise, the rivalry with the Braves, while intense for a short period between 1998-2001, has almost no significance outside of that time period with the exception of the 1969 NLCS.

Unlike the other articles, I come to this one as a lifelong Mets' fan. Having followed the team for some time, I would actually argue that their most consistent rivals have been the Yankess and the St. Louis Cardinals. The Yankees are obvious because, even when the teams were not playing each other in interleague play, there was the Mayor's Trophy and intense periods where the teams switched places between mediocrity and greatness, battling for the hearts of New York fans, until the Yankees regained their dynasty and the Mets become competitors in 1999, 2000, and 2006.

The St. Louis Cardinals only receive a footnote, but anyone growing up in the 1980's will tell you that rivalry was as intense, if not moreso, than either the Phillies or the Braves. The Cardinals' sports commentators even came up with the name "Pond Scum" for the Mets' 1980's squad, and the two teams often traded places atop the NL East. More importantly, this rivalry is NOT limited a particular period in time, but has been revived with the two teams' recent match-ups in the 2000 and 2006 NLCS. By contrast, the Braves rivalry has died out, and the Phillies rivalry, while hot right now, has no historical context (despite attempts at the contrary to make it appear like it does). Perhaps the only reason these are getting more attention is because the Internet wasn't around in the 1980's.

Just some thoughts from this Mets' fan. TempDog123 (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Biggest Rival

Somebody objected to my trimming down of the section entitled "Biggest Rivalry." However, this sub-section is based entirely on one reference, a Bleacher Report article. The articles was originally cited as a "study," but it's nothing of the sort. There was no statistical survey. It's just the opinion of one guy writing on an open-source website. That hardly merits enough notability for its own sub-section.

Furthermore, I also question the reliability of the source. It seems to contain internal contradictions. The author cites Mets-Yankees and Mets-Braves as lacking the "historical significance" of Mets-Phillies. However, the rest of the article speaks at length about how the Mets and Phillies were never really good at the same time until the end of the last decade, therefore there wasn't much of a rivalry(?). The "historical significance" comment also seems to overlook that the Mets-Braves met in the 1969 NLCS, and Mets-Yankees has the entire history of the Subway Series (Mets colors from NY Giants/Brooklyn Dodgers), the Mayor's Cup, Interleague Play, and the 2000 World Series.

Regardless, the article is cited properly as a secondary source, inasmuch as it does claim the Mets biggest rivalry is with the Phillies. Therefore, I'm OK with keeping it. However, at most it warrants a sentence in the Mets-Phillies subsection. I've placed it there as such. But no way does one guy's opinion on the matter warrant an entire section of its own. If this had been a genuine statistical "study" as was originally represented, then maybe it would merit such attention. But it's not, so it doesn't. IMHO. TempDog123 (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If Bleacher Report isn't considered reliable, then remove the content entirely, IMHO. Wknight94 ^talk 12:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider Bleacher Report reliable. They are hacks who speculate and pass it off as fact. If a section is wholly based on a BR "article", it should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Bleacher Report has never struck me a credible source for information. NYCRuss ☎ 15:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That was my feeling as well. With such consensus, I will remove the reference. I believe User:SNIyer12 added it back in and has been writing that the Phillies and Mets were primary rivals into related articles. I'm sure it's well-intentioned and maybe he can explain his reasoning, because I would dispute this contention. The Phillies may be the Mets' biggest rival right now, but I challenge someone to find a source that says the Mets' biggest rival were the Phillies pre-2006. Even the Bleacher Report article says the teams were seldom good at the same time prior to 2006. In my lifetime, the Mets rivalries have changed throughout the 80s (Cards), late 90s-early 00s (Braves), and late 00s (Phillies), with the cross-town rivalry with the Yanks being the only ever-present rivalry, and only really gaining significance after Interleague Play and the 2000 World Series. Rivalries are fun, but we shouldn't take something occuring in the present out of context and pretend that it's always been around. TempDog123 (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The rivalry between the Mets and Phillies dates back to when the Mets entered play in 1962. The two teams have a geographic rivalry, as New York City and Philadelphia are approximately two hours apart by car. The rivalry is because of the long-standing bitter rivalry between sports fans from both cities, seen also between the New York Giants and the Philadelphia Eagles in the National Football League and the New York Rangers and the Philadelphia Flyers in the National Hockey League. Yes, whenever the Mets and Phillies play each other, games between them are often very intense, hard-hitting affairs. – SNIyer12, (talk), 11:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you discussing this, but much of what you wrote strikes me as irrelevant, and I notice that other editors have deleted the same from other articles. This is not about inter-city rivalries, but specific rivalries between specific teams. I'm not calling into question that the Mets & Phillies have a rivalry right now but where is the evidence that it was intense before 2006? Here is the lead from the Mets-Phillies article itself:

"Aside from several brawls in the 1980s, the rivalry remained relatively low-key before the 2006 season,[6] as the teams had seldom been equally good at the same time"

That even has a citation that the rivalry was "low-key" prior to 2006. I've yet to see any similar citation from pre-2006 asserting that the Phillies were the Mets biggest rival, and I certainly don't remember that as a Mets fan. My problem is not with the article itself or asserting that the two teams are now rivals, but it reeks of Wikipedia:Recentism when I look at other articles and see random sentences asserting that the Mets biggest rival has always been the Phillies, such as Mets-Braves rivalry, when the Phillies were a non-factor during the Mets intense rivalry with the Braves between 1998-2001. And, really, the Phillies were not intense rivals of the Mets going back to the 1980s as far as I can remember. It's possible that the rivalry was more intense between 1969-1979 when only three teams sat atop the NL East during that period - Mets, Phillies, Pirates. But really, all the citations I've seen indicate that had more to do with the Phillies-Pirates rivalry since the Mets only won the dvision two of those years: 1969 and 1973.

Long story short, if we want to talk about how much Mets-Phillies has become an intense rivalry in recent years, go for it. But let's not rewrite history to say it has always been that way, when many older Mets fans such as myself will remember that was not the case, no references have been cited that stand for that assertion, and even Mets-Phillies rivalry article says in the lead that the rivlary was low-key until 2006. TempDog123 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

TempDog123, you're going to have to discuss with Killervogel5 (talk) about the Mets-Phillies rivalry, as the article on the rivalry is a GA. I want to keep the section of it intact, as it is in the main rivalry article. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you want to edit the section on the Mets' rivalry with the Phillies, Killervogel5 posted this at Talk:Philadelphia Phillies page: "Well, the fact that Wikipedia's article on the rivalry is a GA heartily supports the fact that the rivalry exists; that being said, this is still one of the few holdovers left from the original article before its overhaul. I'd support rewording rather than removal, as long as concurrent changes are made in the main rivalry article." You can discuss changes on the user's talk page if you want to. – SNIyer12, (talk), 22:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have spoken with Killervogel5 regarding the Phillies-Pirates rivalry. If you check his talk page, you'll see we reached consensus in an exchange of about four posts without much nonsense involved. From my one interaction with him, he strikes me as a standup editor. But why exactly am I talking to him? You made the recent edits and that is why I was addressing you. Furthermore, I have never stated that the rivalry doesn't exist. I have stated that I fear Wikipedia:Recentism in attempts to make the rivalry seem ever-present, as if it's always been that intense. Again,even the lead from the Mets-Phillies rivalry itself seems to assert the contrary. If you know KV5 and think he'd have some good input, why don't you invite him to come to this talk page and speak for himself? TempDog123 (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Rivalries

I'm thinking of deleting this section. The Mets are a team that have only been around since 1962. These so-called "historical rivalries" that they had with the Cardinals and Pirates occurred over the span of maybe one decade each, that's it. "Historical Rivalries" was first used by myself and Killervogel5 as a compromise for including the Phillies-Pirates rivalry as a subsection for Philadelphia Phillies, the idea being that it was a storied, but not currently relevant, rivalry.

Even as the editor who inserted some of the Cardinals info, I don't think it really fits the bill of what we had in mind when we said historical. I think it's also bloating the rivalry section, which already includes major subsections for three teams (that is more than most teams and, again, the Mets have not been around very long). TempDog123 (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting this on the Mets page and on related team pages since no one has commented in over two months. TempDog123 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

New Book

Does anyone have any information on the new 50th anniversary Mets book?

Allen 16:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

History Section

The history section is really unorganized. It should probably be reorganized to look more like the history sections in New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox. The Mets are not as old as either of those franchises, but the chronological structure of the section (and broken into subsections) of those pages looks much more encyclopedic than what currently exists on this page. History of the New York Mets would be a good place to look to expand what is currently a pretty paltry history section. TempDog123 (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that article was created to shorten this article, as the history section had gotten too long and overwhelming the rest of the article.oknazevad (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Understandable, but surely there must be a good middle ground because the current history recap in this article is way too short and disjointed and, IMHO, sucks. TempDog123 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1962 season

Their actual record was 40 wins, 120 losses, 1 tied, and 1 rainout not made up. The tie (7-7) came on September 9 at Houston, called after 8 innings due to a curfew.[1] The rainout also came against Houston, though I haven't isolated the specific game yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The original schedule called for 9 games at New York and 9 at Houston:

at New York

Apr 16,17

Jun 22,23,24,24

Sep 18/19/20

Apr 16 rained out, made up as part of doubleheader on Jun 22.

Jun 24 doubleheader rained out, 1 made up as part of doubleheader on Sep 18, other presumably scheduled as part of doubleheader on Sep 19.

Sep 19 rained out, 1 made up as part of doubleheader on Sep 20, other game not made up.

at Houston

May 21,22

Jun 11,12,13,14

Sep 7,8,9

Jun 13 rained out, made up as part of doubleheader on Sep 8.

Sep 9 game ended in a tie.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool! I thought that 1962 was a 162-game season but couldn't reconcile it with their record. Thanks for clearing that up. TempDog123 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

no hitter

blurb on no hitter in franchise history now outdated!