“Something magical happened. That moment is as significant in met history as any. You cannot hit a bigger home run. In fact, no one ever has. He is the first player in baseball history to hit a lead-changing home run in the ninth inning or later in a winner-take-all game in the history of the sport. That is a moment that no other fanbase has.”
So while I instantly thought of Gibson and Carter in the World Series, those weren't winner-take-all games.
OK, Mr. McGonigle.
We're good.
For the past few months, I have been thinking that the Mets had a better chance than the Yankees to win the World Series. If the Mets make the playoffs. If the Mets get past the first round.
The Mets barely cleared those hurdles, but they cleared those hurdles.
I'm not emotionally hedging, it's just my analysis of the teams.
I don't think the Yankees are getting past the Royals.
A typical take is Andy Martino's, where he acknowledges some of the team's glaring and persistent shortcomings, but minimizes them.
I, on the other hand, predict these shortcomings be amplified in the postseason, and it will be exceedingly frustrating to see a team lose because of unforced errors:
"The Yanks must also squash some of the mistakes that popped up a little too frequently during the season. They’ve blundered on the bases – can’t run into dopey outs with this much firepower in the lineup – and they made 93 errors, the seventh-most in MLB. Of the six teams with more, only one made the playoffs – the Mets, who had 94."
I also specifically predict, while rooting desperately for the opposite, is that the crucible of the playoffs will crush deer-in-the-headlights Volpe. I expect horrible performances at the bat, on the basepaths (assuming he gets on base), and in the field.
The Yankees will not play small ball. I don't even know what Suzyn is talking about. It's whether or not they can homer their way out of sloppy play. It's how many people are on base when they hit their home runs.
No comments:
Post a Comment