What team was more historical/legendary? 68 Tigers or 86 Mets?
yankeeno7
Posts: 9,248 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Having a discussion with a friend. He says 68 Tigers are more historical/legendary. I say not even close. 86 Mets by far more.
0
Comments
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
If your friend had said the 84 Tigers I might have voted for them. I recall very clearly that team started 35-5 and blew the Royals and everyone else away. They were one of the best teams of the last 30-40 years.
1968 was one of the greatest World Series in my lifetime
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Mention "1968 Tigers" and I think "..." "..." "Ummm, let me see, let me see..."
Game. Set. Match, 1986 Mets. (and I HATE the mets)
And Game 6 of the 1986 WS was voted one of the best 20 (I think in the top 5 or 6) games of all time. 1968 WS?
<< <i>If your friend had said the 84 Tigers I might have voted for them. I recall very clearly that team started 35-5 and blew the Royals and everyone else away. They were one of the best teams of the last 30-40 years. >>
Of the teams mentioned so far, the 1984 Tigers are the only one I would consider "historical" or "legendary"; and I hate to say that since they pissed me off in the World Series, and I hate everything about them to this day!
How many other teams stayed in first place every day from day 1 of the season. As mentioned above, they had the best start in history. Then add the fact that they had a no-hitter in the first week (Jack Morris) and their manager (Sparky Anderson) became the first manager ever, to win a World Series in both leagues (1976 Reds).
Nothing about the 1968 Tigers or 1986 Mets, to me anyways, was historical or legendary, except probably just Denny MacLain winning 30 games.
Steve
<< <i>In fact, give him an eggplant. >>
Make him eat it? lol
<< <i>Nothing about the 1968 Tigers or 1986 Mets, to me anyways, was historical or legendary, except probably just Denny MacLain winning 30 games.
Steve >>
That says it for me, too (including the name Steve). History will remember McLain for a very ling time. The only thing historic about the 1986 Mets was their drug abuse. Buckner earned a place in history; not sure that transfers to the recipient of his gift.
For those that don't remember 1968 too well, I'll provide the Reader's Digest condensed highlights:
Bob Gibson strikes out 17 Tigers in one game;
Tigers scored 10 runs in one inning;
Mickey Lolich wins 3 World Series games-
Tigers came back to win from a 3-1 deficit winning the last 3 games
And in a gutsy move by Tiger Manager Mayo Smith, he moves CF Mickey Stanley to SS to keep the bats of Horton, Kaline and Northrup in the starting lineup and in the outfield.
It was the last year before the expansion and divisions. Baseball was Baseball in 1968...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
historic - 1968 Tigers. Denny McLain, last guy to win 30. Last no-division League champion. Etc.
Legendary - 1986 Mets. They were a better team than the '68 Tigers and the stories around them are legendary. But the team itself? Nothing particularly "historic".
<< <i>I would say it this way:
historic - 1968 Tigers. Denny McLain, last guy to win 30. Last no-division League champion. Etc.
Legendary - 1986 Mets. They were a better team than the '68 Tigers and the stories around them are legendary. But the team itself? Nothing particularly "historic". >>
This is an accurate distinction, imo..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>They were a better team than the '68 Tigers ... >>
Maybe, maybe not. The '68 Tigers led the league in runs scored by almost 10%, AND led the league in fewest runs allowed. They led the league in homers by almost 40%. The '86 Mets have their own relative strengths, and I think overall the two teams are pretty close. If the Tigers had ever found a major league shortstop, I think they would win the comparison easily.
<< <i>
<< <i>They were a better team than the '68 Tigers ... >>
Maybe, maybe not. The '68 Tigers led the league in runs scored by almost 10%, AND led the league in fewest runs allowed. They led the league in homers by almost 40%. The '86 Mets have their own relative strengths, and I think overall the two teams are pretty close. If the Tigers had ever found a major league shortstop, I think they would win the comparison easily. >>
Wasn't just their SS. Their 3B was the worst offensive player of all-time (Ray Oyler). And their bench, beyond Gates Brown, was atrocious. The pitching staff was 3rd in ERA with only Denny McLain having anything resembling a great year among the starters (ERA+ of the other guys: 106, 95, 82).
<< <i>Wasn't just their SS. Their 3B was the worst offensive player of all-time (Ray Oyler). And their bench, beyond Gates Brown, was atrocious. The pitching staff was 3rd in ERA with only Denny McLain having anything resembling a great year among the starters (ERA+ of the other guys: 106, 95, 82). >>
Their 3B was Don Wert, who was at least passable as a major leaguer. Oyler, Matchik and Tracewski displayed their unfitness for the major leagues in a round-robin o' futility at SS. The Tigers shortstops combined for a batting average of .148 - .001 better than their top 4 starting pitchers.
Everything else you mention is certainly valid, but you're leaving out some balancing strengths. The Tigers led the league, comfortably, in fewest unearned runs allowed because their defense was outstanding and because their pitching staff struck out so many people there weren't as many opportunities to make errors in the field. And while the starters, other than McLain, were relatively weak, their bullpen was excellent. And technically, Kaline was a bench player that year (I don't know the story behind that), so he and Brown both stand out from the rest (which, no argument, were atrocious).
The Tigers beat my team that year, so I have no love for them, but they were very, very good.
<< <i>It can be argued that the 1968 Tigers winning the World Series helped bond the citizens of Detroit and kept the city from being burned to the ground. The assassination of MLK in April of 1968 had city leaders fearful that the city would erupt in rioting, as it had in 1965. The fantastic summer that the Tigers enjoyed kept baseball on the minds of people and gave them something to rally around. So when you talk about historical importance, it helps to think about the big picture and what was happening in the world outside of baseball. >>
Then in 1984, the Tigers winning the World Series led to "fans" nearly burning down the neighborhood around Tiger Stadium.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>Wasn't just their SS. Their 3B was the worst offensive player of all-time (Ray Oyler). And their bench, beyond Gates Brown, was atrocious. The pitching staff was 3rd in ERA with only Denny McLain having anything resembling a great year among the starters (ERA+ of the other guys: 106, 95, 82). >>
Their 3B was Don Wert, who was at least passable as a major leaguer. Oyler, Matchik and Tracewski displayed their unfitness for the major leagues in a round-robin o' futility at SS. The Tigers shortstops combined for a batting average of .148 - .001 better than their top 4 starting pitchers.
Everything else you mention is certainly valid, but you're leaving out some balancing strengths. The Tigers led the league, comfortably, in fewest unearned runs allowed because their defense was outstanding and because their pitching staff struck out so many people there weren't as many opportunities to make errors in the field. And while the starters, other than McLain, were relatively weak, their bullpen was excellent. And technically, Kaline was a bench player that year (I don't know the story behind that), so he and Brown both stand out from the rest (which, no argument, were atrocious).
The Tigers beat my team that year, so I have no love for them, but they were very, very good. >>
Kaline was hurt during much of 1968. He started the first 39 games then missed the next 37. Then he was playing every day again (basically) geo ore missing a week at a time on a couple more occasions.
And, yeah, I flipped Wert and Oyler defensively.
Also, the Detroit riots were in 1967. Watts was 1965. The team's great play absolutely helped keep the city calm, no question about it.
<< <i>
<< <i>It can be argued that the 1968 Tigers winning the World Series helped bond the citizens of Detroit and kept the city from being burned to the ground. The assassination of MLK in April of 1968 had city leaders fearful that the city would erupt in rioting, as it had in 1965. The fantastic summer that the Tigers enjoyed kept baseball on the minds of people and gave them something to rally around. So when you talk about historical importance, it helps to think about the big picture and what was happening in the world outside of baseball. >>
Then in 1984, the Tigers winning the World Series led to "fans" nearly burning down the neighborhood around Tiger Stadium.
Steve >>
What a difference a generation makes..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>At least I gave legitimate reasons for my choice. Seriously, aside from the 10th inning of Game 6, what was so memorable about the 1986 series?? Nobody has said anything! Ooooooh, the Curse of The Babe!! >>
Actually, the NLCS vs Houston was more dramatic on the whole than the World Series win that year~one of the best league championship series in history.
But everyone knows Game 6 in '86~even non-Mets fans understand how memorable a game that was. The error was a boneheaded play, but that 10th inning was so much more amazing than just that. Listen to Vin Scully describe it, if you can get the tape~he paints a better picture than I can...sometimes it just takes one game, or even one play on the biggest stage to emblazon an event or an occasion indeliby to memory. '68 Tigers? Impressive team, yes, and Tiger fans remember them fondly, right?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I'll probably get destroyed for saying this, but the 1986 WS is remembered for one bonehead play. The Mets took advantage of a miscue and Game 7 was anybody's. Of course you could say that Curt Flood misplaying a ball led to the Tiger runs in Game 7 (but who even knows about that, right?) Also, very few people have actually had the opportunity to see the 1968 WS, so that puts it at an unfair disadvantage. To me, not just because I am a Tiger fan, the 1968 WS is one of the best ever for so many reasons. You had two pitchers who had two of the best seasons any pitcher has ever had squaring off against each other! Lolich, a should-be HOFer wins three games and hits a homer, Tigers have a 10-run inning, Gibson's 17K shutout (35 for the series!), the Lou Brock "no-slide" breaking up STL rally in Game 5, Jim Northrup Grand Slam, Tigers claw back after falling down 3 games to 1 and beat the Cards and Gibson at Busch, and let's not forget Jose Feliciano's amazing rendition of The Star Spangled Banner before Game 5 (called by Harry Caray and George Kell)!!! Just a great time capsule of the good ole days of baseball and a country forgetting about Vietnam for a short while and great for the city of Detroit as it was still licking its wounds from the riots the previous year.... 1968 Tigers all the way!! This series needs to be on DVD. I have the kinescope feeds, but MLB needs this piece of history polished up and properred!! >>
If you are interested, you can go to Jose Felicianos' website and they offer a playback of his rendition of the Star Spangled Banner. I did visit the site a few years ago, and hearing it again is just as impressive now as when I first heard it before the start of the 68 game.