Oct 27

Today In Mets’ History: Knight Named MVP To Complete Series Win Over Boston

While we all remember the ball that got by Bill Buckner in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, but sometimes we forget Game 7 also produced a memorable comeback.

Ray Knight's Homer Wins World Ser

                 Ray Knight’s Homer Lead Mets

Perhaps it is because after Game 6 winning the title seemed a foregone conclusion. The Mets steamrolled through the regular season – coming out of spring training manager Davey Johnson said they would dominate – much the way the Cubs did this year.

The Red Sox hardly seemed devastated from their meltdown as they took a 3-0 lead in the second against Ron Darling on back-to-back homers to lead off the inning by Dwight Evans and Rich Gedman, and Wade Boggs’ RBI single.

Meanwhile, Red Sox left-hander Bruce Hurst was on his way to being named Series MVP until the sixth, when the Mets pulled within 3-2 on Keith Hernandez’s RBI single and Gary Carter’s run-producing groundout.

Ray Knight tied the game, 3-3, when he lead off the seventh with a homer off Calvin Schiraldi. The Mets increased their lead to 6-3 later that inning on Rafael Santana’s RBI single and Hernandez’s sacrifice fly.

However, the Red Sox pecked away for two runs in the eighth, but the Mets responded in their half of the inning on Darryl Strawberry’s homer and Jesse Orosco’s RBI single.

While the Mets were tormenting Boston’s bullpen, one question hung over Shea Stadium, and that was why the Red Sox didn’t go to their Game 6 starter, Roger Clemens, for an inning or two?

It might have been pushing things, but Schiraldi spit the bit in Game 6, as did Bob Stanley. Boston used five relievers in the last two innings, so it really never had a chance.

Knight, who drove in five runs and hit .391 (9-for-23), was named Series MVP.

Please follow me on Twitter

Oct 25

Not On Cubs’ Bandwagon; I Want Indians To Win

While most of the free world wants the Cubs to win the World Series, my feeling is I hope they keep waiting. Maybe not for another 100 years or so, but at least until the Indians win this year.

The essence of the Cubs’ story of frustration is the angst doesn’t seem to end. What will happen if it does? You can make the case Cubs’ fans are identified by all those years of losing. Sometimes their season was over by May. Other times they lost in excruciating fashion. Mets’ fans cheered the collapse in 1969.

Chief Wahoo hasn't smiled since 1948.

Chief Wahoo hasn’t smiled since 1948.

The Steve Bartman game was simply cruel, but after learning of the viciousness of Cubs fans, my sympathy for them faded quickly. ESPN did a wonderful documentary of that incident, that included somebody from their public relations department smuggling him out of Wrigley Field in disguise. For you into trivia: Future Met Moises Alou had a play on the ball hit by another future Met, Luis Castillo.

My heart in this World Series goes to another frustrated franchise – the Indians. They were the team of my youth – Chief Wahoo and all – and their failures weren’t gut wrenching but quite simply they were victims of bad baseball.

When I was 10, I didn’t know anything about political correctness. I only cared about Rocky Colavito, Sam McDowell, Larry Brown and Sonny Siebert. A half-century later, I still wish I didn’t know about political correctness. As if we don’t have other things to be interested in, The New York Times sprawled the tired issue of team nicknames across its sports pages today. Leave it to The Times to take a political stance on the day of the World Series.

My first Indians’ memory was watching them in April of 1965 on a black-and-white Motorola with the rabbit ears placed just right so I could see them beat the Angels on a Leon Wagner homer. “Daddy Wags” they called him. He always had a chaw of chewing tobacco in his cheek. Another thing not politically correct.

My mother saw how thrilled I was and told my dad, “Jim, you need to take John to a game.” He did later that summer, taking me to cavernous Cleveland Municipal Stadium, which was originally built to host an Olympics than never came.

It was July 19, when Lee Stange beat the Orioles, 5-0, and Chuck Hinton homered. Years later, when I was covering the Orioles, I got a photocopy of the box score and gave it to my father.

One of my overriding memories was sitting next to my dad in the middle of a long row. Back then the vendors didn’t throw their food, but simply passed it down the aisle and the money was sent back the same way. When my dad handed me the hot dog I had no idea I was supposed to pass it along, so I started eating it.

Look, I was nine years old at the time. How was I supposed to know?

And, how was I supposed to know the Indians would always lose? They won their first ten games to start the 1966 season, then went to Baltimore and lost a doubleheader, 8-2, 8-3. I listened to both games on the radio – the Indians weren’t on local TV often – and I started crying after the second game.

In an effort to console me, my father said, “you know, some boy your age in Baltimore is very happy.’’

That didn’t make sense to me then and it doesn’t make sense all these years later.

They played a lot of doubleheaders back then, including twi-nighters that started at 5 and usually ended at 11.

On July 25, 1967, they played two in Chicago. I listened to both games and kept score at the kitchen table. The Indians lost the first game, 3-1, when future Met J.C. Martin hit a two-run homer off McDowell, scoring another future Met, Tommie Agee, ahead of him.

I wasn’t happy but decided to stick it out for the second game – all 16 innings.

I thought my patience was going to be rewarded with Duke Sims’ RBI double in the top of the inning. When Ken Berry hit a two-run homer to win, 6-5, in the bottom of the inning off Steve Bailey, whom I completely forgot about until now, I threw my pencil across the room to the background sound of fireworks going off at Comiskey Park.

If I gave it any thought, I wouldn’t have cared about some kid in Chicago being happy. And, sometime next week, I will be very happy if some kid in Chicago cries into his deep-dish pizza.

Please follow me on Twitter

Oct 24

Should Injuries Shelve Long-Term Talks With Mets Pitchers?

For the past two years, signing the Mets’ young pitchers to long-term contracts seemed a paramount issue. Whom should they sign first, and for how much? Could they afford to sign two? In their wildest dreams, could they keep them all?

HARVEY: What's his market value now? (Getty)

HARVEY: What’s his market value now? (Getty)

With four pitchers coming off surgery, such talk now is but a whisper. We’re not hearing too much these days about Matt Harvey – who had shoulder surgery to treat thoracic outlet syndrome – leaving after the 2018 season for the Yankees or anybody else for that matter.

Steven Matz had surgery to repair bone spurs in his left elbow and Jacob deGrom, who had Tommy John surgery, is recovering from a second surgery to treat a nerve issue in his elbow. Then there is Zack Wheeler, who had Tommy John surgery and was supposed to ready by July but we didn’t see him all summer and nobody can say for sure when we will.

We won’t know for sure how they are until the spring, but the recovery forecast is looking good for the Mets’ surgically-repaired pitchers as doctors are telling the team they should be ready for the season. Even so, the Mets are likely to handle them all with kid gloves which is why they are interested in bringing back Bartolo Colon and draw relief with Seth Lugo and Robert Gsellman.

The Mets have seven young arms – plus Colon – but we’re no longer hearing talk about contract extensions. Whom should they sign first? Can they afford to sign two or three at a time? Who should they trade to plug holes elsewhere?

However, with Harvey, Matz, deGrom and Wheeler, what’s their trade value? Will teams risk dealing high-level prospects for damaged goods? Certainly, the Mets can’t command as much should they explore trading.

Conventional wisdom has the Mets backing off long-term contract talks as to avoid signing somebody who might not win, or even pitch for them. While their potential might be high, their proven production is not.

Then again, it wouldn’t hurt for the Mets to explore extensions now when their market value might not be as high as it could be in two or three years. It’s a gamble worth considering.

Please follow me on Twitter

Oct 22

Mets Should Pick Up Smaller Pieces First

Like most teams, the Mets usually focus on big-ticket items at the start of their offseason shopping. For the Mets, that’s Yoenis Cespedes, but even if they do bring him back, he shouldn’t be their first order of business.

The Mets should start with the smaller pieces and that’s what they appeared to do with the decision of exercising their option on Jose Reyes.

REYES: Bringing him back. (Getty)

REYES: Bringing him back. (Getty)

With the uncertainty of David Wright, plus Colorado responsible for paying Reyes $41 million over the next three years – including $22 million for 2017 – it was a no-brainer. The 33-year-old Reyes hit .267 with eight homers, 24 RBI and nine stolen bases in 60 games. That production is definitely worth the major league minimum $507,500 the Mets will pay him.

It was an obvious decision, as was the one not to pick up Jon Niese’s $10-million option. While it would have been good to have Niese as a fallback considering the health issues of their starting rotation, there’s no way they would have gambled being stuck carrying his $10-million contract.

They haven’t done it yet, but bringing back Bartolo Colon – who made $7.25 million last year – is another no-brainer. Colon, at 43, lead the Mets in games started (33), innings pitched (191.2) and victories (15).

There’s no guarantee how the four Mets starters coming off surgery – Matt Harvey, Jacob deGrom, Steven Matz and Zack Wheeler – will respond from surgery, so Colon is essential. They should have given him a contract as he was cleaning out his locker.

Another imperative decision is bringing back Addison Reed, who had 40 holds to set up closer Jeurys Familia.

Other lower-profile decisions should be made on utility infielder Kelly Johnson and catcher Rene Rivera.

Cespedes, Jay Bruce and Neil Walker represent more costly choices, but they are just three of 25 players on the team. The Mets will need these other less expensive pieces, so they might as well take care of them now.

Please follow me on Twitter

Oct 21

Kershaw For Dodgers in Game 6 Reminiscent Of Seaver In ’73 – Sort Of

One of the great things about the playoffs is its ability to remind you of great moments past, and Clayton Kershaw going for the Dodgers tomorrow brings to mind the Mets’ decision to start Tom Seaver in Game 6 of the 1973 World Series.

But, that was 43 years ago, and time has a way of blurring details.

SEAVER: Yogi's Waterloo in '73.

SEAVER: Yogi’s Waterloo in ’73.

While the headline of the Dodgers and Mets each going with their aces in Game 6 is the same, there are substantial differences in the situations. The subplots are different.

The first being a sense of urgency. There was none for Yogi Berra’s Mets. Berra started Seaver on short rest to start the game that would have given the Mets the championship. They were ahead 3-2 in the Series and Berra had George Stone, who was 12-3 during the season, for a Game 7. Berra wanted to finish off the Athletics and figured Seaver was his best chance.

However, the Dodgers trail 3-2 after losing twice at home and need the rested Kershaw to keep alive their season. If he does, the Dodgers will attempt to advance with Rich Hill, who, like Stone, is a 12-game winner.

While the situations differ other than each team playing its ace, a Game 6 gets the mind racing and it brought back the memory of Berra’s most difficult and controversial decision.

Visiting the past is one of baseball’s greatest gifts. Too bad it was a lump of coal for the Mets.

Please follow me on Twitter