"Who ya takin' out?" - Don La Greca

Idk if I agree or disagree but that’s why it’s not the daily Daniel

Who you takin out

@Beau Lijah wow a reasonable Mets fan

I rate the 1969 Mets ahead of 86. First Mets team to actually have a winning record, a team that was better than the sum of its parts, outstanding pitching & defense, character players like Clendennon & Agee, just a better overall team that lost only one game in the postseason, swept the Henry Aaron led Braves, Tom Seaver winning a 10 inning complete game in the WS.

Yes

You shouldn’t be. This list is about the totality of the season, regular season, postseason, great individual performances, etc. 07 Giants had a remarkable postseason run but they were 10-6 in the regular season and they are in the category of the biggest upset taking down the Pats. The 86 Giants are in this I believe.

@Beau Lijah They didn't dominate the playoffs, but they won 108 games, which is a really high number for baseball. 10-6 is usually good enough to win a bad division or get a Wild Card spot. The lore of that Giants team is that they beat an undefeated Patriots team. But for body of work, I'd take the 90 Giants over them. If you're looking to displace the 86 Mets because of their postseason, I'd go with the 69 Mets (won 100 games, then went 7-1 in the playoffs).

The lists count as the totality of success, great performance, playoffs, regular season, everything. '07 Giants cannot be on the list because of the regular. If Don does the list of top 5 playoff runs in the future, they will be in the list. But not this list.

The merger was put in place in 1966, SB 3 had no affect on it. It was happening either way but SB 4 was the one that cemented it. 3 was looked at as a fluke, 4 made everyone take notice

@@TL2354 lol. I love how old people assume because they’re old they remember things correctly / they can’t be wrong 😆

Even if what u said was true jetsgo (which it isn’t) the significance of the SB doesn’t mean it should be on the list. It’s BEST teams

You should't be.

What did they do in ‘93 and ‘95? This really wasn’t about one season as it was about sustained success. You could argue the ‘86 Mets were a one shot wonder, but that team played in a no wild card format and got edged out a lot from 84-90. That Rags team couldn’t even make it “Heave hoe two in a row” so they can’t even be mentioned with the Isles dynasty teams.

@@johnbuckley8724 I don’t see how that’s relevant. How is it about multiple seasons when a champion is one year? They’re one of the few teams to win both the presidents trophy and the cup

@@johnbuckley8724 the Mets were not a one hit wonder lol they were great in 1988

This list seems about dominant performance regular season and playoffs. The '94 Rangers won the Presidents' Trophy but grinded their way to the Stanley Cup in the playoffs. Went 7 games against the Devils in the conference finals and then 7 games against the Canucks in the finals.

@@bryguy4446 you’re probably right. Devils were amazing that year too though and Canucks earned their respect after that final. It’s so hard to cruise to a title without any speed bumps

Cry

Shouldn’t penalize the players for something that wasn’t their choice