I'll never forget the year the Mets won the World Series in 1969. I'm originally from New Jersey, and for many years, the Mets were cellar dwellers. But in 1969, they put it all together, and went from chumps to champs. I followed the Mets all year long, and they won many games by one run. Toward the end of the season, I began to think this is the team of destiny. Like they were destined to win it all. They had great pitching, great defense, and timely hitting. They won the World Series in the fifth game, and in front of their fans at Shea Stadium. The Amazing Mets really were amazing in 1969.
This is the series that got me to watch baseball from that point on. I saw 3 of the series games but I will forever remember Swaboda's miraculous catch in left center.
I'm sure you had a good time. About Game 4, Swoboda's catch off Brooks Robinson's line drive is the greatest catch I've ever seen in the history of baseball. The term "Team of Destiny" has been used countless times in sports, but in no instance is it more appropriate and accurate than in the description of the 1969 Mets. To me it is still the most unexpected, improbable, remarkable and inspiring team victory in the history of Professional team sports.
The 1969 World Series was the ultimate David vs. Goliath matchup with David winning. Because they had outstanding pitching that season and only got enough hits and scored enough to win four games which is all that they needed.
I grew up in NY. I was 11 years old at the time. I remember my teacher stopping class and putting on the radio so we could listen to the games....such good memories
As a Baltimorian I don't know which loss was more devastating. Super Bowl III the Colts were clearly better but in a 1 game scenario anything could happen, and it did. But I would have to give the Orioles loss the nod as most devastating. It happened over a period of days. Same things, different days. It was torture to watch. In both instances for the Colts and Orioles Murphys Law or......Black Magic was definitely in effect. Not saying the Jets or Mets didn't deserve it, it was the bizarre fashion in which they won that made it so devastating. Especially the World Series.
In an interview, Ron Swoboda said when the pitch to Cleon Jones went into the Mets dugout, manager Gil Hodges told him to scuff the ball against his shoe. The shoe polish was his, not Jones'.
it took the phillies 77 years to win the world series. As they were around in 1903 when the first was held. Mets took 7 years. 77 to 7. Im going with the mets.
The catch by Swoboda is in my mind the greatest catch ever made in a WS game. You need to look at it over and over to convince yourself it's real. The catch Mays made in 54 was amazing too, but all he did was outrun a baseball. This was a gambling play. That is the greatest catch ever!!!
It’s funny! In 1969, a New York team was underdogs to a Baltimore team in a major championship and pulled off the upset. The Jets upset the Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III while the Mets upset the Orioles in the World Series. You would think that on a daily basis, Baltimore would be the underdog. But it just happened to be the other way around.
To this day, I still believe that if these 2 teams played 100 times, the Orioles would have won 60-65 times. Give the Mets credit! But the Orioles were the better team. Anything can happen in a 7 game series. If the Mets were so great, why didn't they repeat in 1970, 71, and 72? Let's face it, the 69 Mets were Destiny's Darlings.
There's no doubt that the 69 O's were better than the 69 Mets despite their losing to New York. But the Mets won something like 39 out of their last 49 and in the NLCS their pitching was actually sub par versus Atlanta, but they hit the crap out of the ball and won anyway. I wouldn't call the Mets a fluke. I think it's a perfect example of how a manager can impact his players and get them to reach higher levels. Gil Hodges was the BOSS, no ifs ands or buts.
Sadly, Mike Cuellar passed away recently in a hospital only a few miles from where I live. While I am from New York and was glad the Mets won, I would say this Oriole team was one of the ten best teams that didn't win the World Series. Where Tomnie Agee stole the defensive show in '69, Brooks Robinson did so in '70.
The O's won the 1970 WS , played in two others, and contended with the best for most of that decade, winning 5 Division Titles, and 3 pennants, so, not too bad. Anything can and often does happen in the postseason.
Statues of Cleon after making that catch along with Orosco two seconds after throwing his glove up should be the first thing you see when you walk into Citi Field.
It was interesting that NY Yankee Yogi Berra was a coach with Brooklyn Dodgers Gil Hodges as the Mets manager LOL I credit Gil Hodges as manager with the Mets having a fantastic season in 1969 and winning the World Series. I do like Yogi though and I am glad he was chosen to become manager of the Mets when Gil died of a sudden heart attack in 1972.
When Don Buford hit that lead off homer, as he went by met shortstop Bud Harrelson he quiped, "You guys ain't seen nothing yet!" Bud thought to himself, "Well, first inning, first game...you ain't seen nothing yet, either!"
@tishhead I was talking about since 1969, the 80 Phillies had HOF 3B Mike Schmidt as well as Power Hitter Greg Luzinski, Pete Rose. As well as HOF pitcher Steve Carlton, perhaps the best pitcher of his era. The 82 Cardinals hit for average, scored runs, great pitching and defense. And with their speed always put the pressure on the opposing pitcher and defense. You have a point about the Reds but they still had pitching starting and bullpen. And a better lineup then the 69 Mets.
If anything ; after losing the "Series"; Brooks showed what he as made of, by writing on his gear bag, "1970 World Champions" and dangd if he wasn't right!!!
@tishhead At least you've acknowledged my point about the Mets lineup, I'll give you credit for that. I as well as a lot of MLB Historians, judge World Series champions by how they stack up against other World Series champions. How they would do against them.
@tishhead You know what I meant after I explained it to you. Of course position players are just part of the team but so is the Pitching Staff. The Mets had one of the best records in 69 as well as beating a great Orioles team in the World Series. But they were hardly overwhelmingly, they needed great pitching to be successful.
@tishhead My comment was about the talent of their lineup as my comments have suggested. They weren't called the "Miracle Mets" for nothing. This wasn't considered a major upset for nothing. I know this might be hard for Mets fans to understand, but this is who they were.
@tishhead So the 69 Mets had excellent pitching and defense, I forgot to mention their defense. But the rest of my comment is true. Other then the pitching, they were a club of players that had career seasons. That didn't come to close to matching that production the rest of their career. I mean who's their best hitter, Tommy Agee? They didn't contend pre 69 and came back to earth in 1970.
@tjrxk7 Relax man.. I'm a Yankee fan...who doesn't hate the Mets.. and we're used to getting hated on by other cities. He's INSANELY jealous... all through out sports.. there's always been a NY team to break the hearts of another team... Baltimore.. New England.. Boston... LA... Enjoy being the underdog. Remember.. there were TWO Baltimore teams that year that got crushed by an underdog NY team. Can you blame them for being sore? LOL !!!
The Mets were a good team, a much better team than they ever get credit for, but in order to measure the dominace of a team one has to look at all-around stats. The Orioles 109 wins to Mets' 100 isn't such a big differential, & it's irrelevant because winning 100 games is a big accomplishment. But if you match up the players position by position, and also compare their stats from that regular season, the pitching was about even, but offensively their was no comparison. The O's were much better.
the orioles lost the '69 series simply because they were over confident. they thought they would surely win as long as they showed up. it was not quite that easy.
Hardly David vs Goliath. Mets won 100 games during the regular season, had Tom Seaver, Nolan Ryan, and Jerry Koosman and were on fire heading into the series. And beneficiaries of some controversial calls; the shoe polish phantom HBP, the non-called runner's interference, and the non-HBP strike call that hit Frank Robinson before his bat. Not that huge of an upset when you look back at it in retrospect. But great series overall for MLB, and of course for Mets fans
@tishhead Actually I was being nice, I have the 69 Mets over the 85 Royals and 88 Dodgers but thats about as far as I would go with them. As far as clubs that have won the World Series since.
JoJoGunn : Baltimore choked big time...Team was full of overrated players...Robinson wonderful fielder....mediocre hitter...Johnson had 1 hit...Weaver was such an ass big time...Looked good on them esp Gentry double off Palmer...Earl must have eaten pack of cigarettes after that....ha ha ha...
@@jojogunn7077 what a stupid comment. Full of perverted statements. You clearly show you don't know what you're talking about. You're just another trash-talker with too much time on your hands. For one thing, Gil Hodges was a family man with a beautiful wife. Why don't you back up your stupid statements with facts.
@blizzardwarning --they outplayed the Os, no question. They had the momentum, Os were overconfident, mets pitching was a little better, and they got all of the breaks and close calls (as well as that terrible noncall when Mets runner was out of baseline in extra inning gm and sturck by catchers throw
@fruticetum ------Pirates shouldnt have been as big underdogs. They had Clemente and Stargell, a lot of team speed, though thin on pitching. Prob give Orioles the nod, but in a 7 gm series......
@tishhead Your stating the obvious about who won the 69 World Series, by the way that Orioles team is still generally considered better. Remember the "Miracle Mets" of 69. "Beat them soundly", five close games, the Orioles had chances to win all of them.
@tishhead If your going to try to quote someone you should do it accurately. I said they were one of the worst teams to ever to win a World Series. With that lineup they were, not one HOF as a position player. Not many teams have pulled that off since. They were the "Miracle Mets" not the great Mets like the 86 club.
@tishhead Speak for yourself thats how you judge teams. MLB Historians have another system and its not just how they did in that season or seasons. But how they stack up against other clubs. I realize the "Miracle Mets" look bad under that. But take it up with the historians.
ok this is one year. im pretty sure that at 80-82 record(around what the mets usually get) is around .500 not .010. so go back to your 50-112 team like u always do except for a few good years
Baltimore park was so mickey mouse & the Orioles choked big time...Most of their hitters were home run hitters...Johnson/Robinson got 2 hits in 50 at bats..useless... 2nd catch by Agee was unreal...Ron S catch even better...
Mets had hands down the best pitching that year. Hell Tom Seaver finished the year with 25 wins and 18 complete games, pitched ALL 9 innings, and with a 2.21 ERA. That's god damn incredible, then you had Jerry Koosman and don't forget at the time the Mets had a young 22 year old named Nolan Ryan as well. You couldn't ask for better pitching.
The Orioles team E.R.A. was better. They had much better hitting than the Mets, more power, better defense and won 109 games. They had one of the best teams of the 20th century. Unfortunately, the Mets were red hot going into the post season and weren't going to be denied. Still shocking to this day.
@tishhead I realize your a Die Hard Mets fan and you feel the need to play hard for your club, especially the 69 team. That still doesn't get a lot of respect. And perhaps your offended by that. So I take your comments based on that even though objective people would probably disagree with you. The Mets won the 69 World Series and enough to win it in each game they won. The difference in that series was a handful of runs. If you want to call that winning soundly, your welcome to.
@FRSFreeState Care to back up that "worst teams" comment with stats. I sure would like to see how the facts stack up with what appears to be nothing more than an opinion stated like it's a fact.
Another thing: The Mets got that "gift" in game 4 when JC Martin ran outside the baseline. He should have been called out. There went the ball game for the Birds. A great example of home cooking.
@tishhead Your being repetitive, so I'll just repeat what I've been saying all along and give you a taste of your own medicine. I meant since 1969, if you want to keep repeating yourself. Fine but I'll just give you the same answer.
I can't believe the ignorant comments. It's 43 years ago. You're still bent? Man up & give credit when due. Who gives a damn about HOF players on the team, biggest underdogs & other 10 year kid comments here. The Mets were the better team in this series therefore crowned Champs that year. Saying better team on paper. Sure going down the lineup the O's had better lineup, evem more reason this team was called "Amazing" & won WS in their 8th year of existence! "AMAZING CHAMPIONS"
Just more New York hype. Nothing special about this series whatsoever. Hell, the Pirates were even bigger underdogs two years later, and that series was much better. You never hear about it.
ya, yeah, yeah.... say how the Yankees robbed the world series over 27 times? The O's got their first ring before the Mets, 3 years before the Mets. I do admit, the O's have horrible pitching (other then Wei-Yin Chen & Jason Hammel), and they rely on homers, they don't hit as much as they should. I also admit it was a dumb move on Baltimore's part not top get Jeter when they had the chance, nobody wanted Jeter at that time, even the Yankees, and took a risk, and turned into gold, obviously.
@tishhead LOL dude you can try to insult me all you want, I can always use a good laugh. But it does make it harder to take you seriously. I'll say this one more time, I said the "69 Miracle Mets" are one of the worst World Series champions and I meant since 1969. See if you can remember that.
I'm glad I wasn't old enough to see this great Orioles team lose to the 69 Mets. Perhaps the worst World Series champion of all time. The 69 Mets had great pitching but were average everywhere else.
@tishhead Your being repetitive, so I'll just repeat what I've been saying all along and give you a taste of your own medicine. I meant since 1969, if you want to keep repeating yourself. Fine but I'll give you the same answer.
