The Willis Reed thing

That's why those announcers say "shades" of Willie Mays. It wasn't the exact replica of the Willie Mays catch, but it looked a little bit like it, which any over-the-shoulder catch in the outfield does. So more often than not, they're not forgetting the context of the great play by Willie Mays.

 

don't know if it's been mentioned but 40 years ago they were playing the finals now - we're not even out of the conference semis.

 

As it turned out, no one will remember it, but Austin Jackson's catch for the second out in Armando Galarraga's imperfect game. If Jim Joyce gets the next call right, that catch is on highlight reels for years.

As for upsets, US-USSR in 1980 is miles beyond the Jets and/or Mets.

 

I'm not a New York hater, but Devon White's catch in the 1992 World Series was better. Even Vin Scully said so.



http://www.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=5352947

And if the second base umpire had made the correct call, the catch would have been the first out in a triple play.

 

One of most dramatic moments to me in NY sports history was when Roger Clemens showed up at Yankee Stadium and announced that he was coming out of retirement.

 

Well, that's a subjective determination. But there certainly have been PLENTY who measure up based upon objective grounds.

The 69 "Miracle Mets" get this specially annointed spot in the history books because... why? Because they went from awful expansion team to World Series champ in only their eighth year? Well, you know what, the Florida Marlins accomplished the same feat even FASTER, in only five years of existence, and so did the 71 Milwaukee Bucks, who won a world championship after only three years of existence, and so did the Arizona D-Backs, who did it in only four years. Why not the "miracle" Marlins, D-Backs and Bucks?

Or is it because of the way the Mets unexpectedly jumped from a sub .500 bottom feeder to world champs in only one year? I mean, who else has ever done such a thing? Well, except of course for the 87 Twins, 81 49ers, 77 Trailblazers, 82 Redskins, 91 Twins, 97 Marlins, 90 Reds, 99 Rams, 01 D-backs, 02 Angels, 01 Patriots, 03 Marlins, etc. Guess those teams' timeless "miracle" label must've gotten lost in the mail. Sorry but, other than having had the hype machine turned on a higher volume, I'm not sure why the 69 Mets title is all that much more astonishing than what some other improbable cindarella champs have done.

As for the Namath/Jets, this whole revisionist history theme about the crucial importance and greater significance of the game--how it helped save the AFL, legitimized the League, changed the sport, etc.--is utter hogwash. The leagues had already agreed to merge and, even if the "legitimizing" AFL victory hadn't come on that date, it would've the very next year when the Chiefs kicked the Vikings' ass, not to mention right after that when Miami took two straight. It didn't change the big picture at all. It wasn't the "most important game in league history", as I've absurdly heard it called on occasions, it was a big SB upset over a heavily favored Colts team (you know, sorta like the the Saints did a couple years ago), that's all.

As for "The Catch", I don't feel like sorting through the competiton. But I'll just say that catch never struck me as being the "greatest ever" that I've seen, despite a lifetime of hearing the national media tell me that's what I'm supposed to believe. And, yes, I know about the distance he covered and when it happened. But, after years of seeing over the wall, diving, wall-busting catches, I must say I've seen plenty that struck me as being a higher degree of difficulty, and some in equally big games. Not sure why it's such gospel that Mays' catch gets this greatest ever designation.

 

Oh my goodness gracious.

 

Swoboda catch was better than Mays catch. Sorry for another NY centric moment.

 

boom, this just made me lol. and cranberry's post right above it was spot on, too...

 

I would more or less agree with you, but will offer some clarifying points
RE: 69 Mets

You brought up teams post 69 mets that leaped from worst to first. Now, yes, there were teams prior, but not quite like the Mets in 69. They were terrible for the seven years before that. People had longer sports memories then (ie, not the next episode of Sports Center changes the world) so people remembered how bad the 62 Mets were. epic bad.

And baseball was still America's top sport then. So all eyes were on them and frankly no team had done what they did in about 50 years...ie magically win the world series our of nowhere. The 67 Red Sox came close, but lost in the Series. The 60 Pirates won after being bad for a decade, but had contended in 58, so it was not quite out of nowhere. Before that there were World Series upsets of course, but usually the upsetting team was pretty good in its own right.

Finally, the mets won the NL east with an amazing stretch run and then won the first NCLS (a new fangled idea in 1969)...that is why they are remembered more than say the 87 Twins or the 2001 Diamondbacks.

Flame Away.

 

first, the mets -- to that point -- had not just been an expansion team, but a momentously bad one. then, outta nowhere, they became the 'miracle mets,' winning 100 freakin' games and upsetting the orioles in the middle of their mini-dynastic run. immediately thereafter, the mets again were reduced to being a .500 club, at best, even in their flukish run to the '73 series (they won, what, 83 games to win the division?).

all of the teams listed above came AFTER the mets, who -- yes, because they're a n.y. team -- were much more of a national laughstocking and butt of jokes than those others. it rubs both ways -- n.y. teams get more attention when they win big but also when they lose big. again, i'm a HUGE mets-hater but it's ridiculous to hear folks try to minimilize what they accomplished in '69.

the '71 bucks? they went from expansion to championship in a nano second in a sport -- especially at the time -- in which going from zero-to-60 can be made possible by the addition of one superstar goliath named kareem abdul-jabbar. and, sorry, neither baseball's expansion eams post-1990 nor any of the other sad sack-to-championship teams started where those '62 mutts did. apples-oranges.

 

Amazing how 96 percent of this board was not even alive for the game and about that same percentage have a vivid recollection of it as if they were there.