Miracle Teams

[Iron Jaw]

We know them as teams who came from nowhere to win the big one.....or at least, get to the big one after years of futility.

The following list is off the top of my head - nothing scientific.....a null hypothesis at best.

1- 1969 Mets World Champions. 100-62 Beat Atlanta 3-0 in first ever NLCS. Beat Baltimore 4-1 in World Series....perhaps the greatest upset in baseball history. The Mets were a 1962 NL expansion team. in their prior 7 years, they finished 10th (last) 5 times and 9th twice. They lost 100 games or more five times. Their best record from 1962-68 was 73-89. They were 40-120 in their maiden season. Manager Gil Hodges had terrific pitching, and employed a lineup that included mostly platoon players. Only Tommie Agee and Cleon Jones were everyday players.

2- 1967 Red Sox American League Champion. The BoSox had not won the pennant since 1946, and lingered near the bottom of the AL through the 60's, and had not had a season over .500 since 1958. The last time they were in a pennant race was 1950. The team had only one reliable starter through the entire 1967 season (Lonborg) and the rotation had a lot of patchwork. Their homerun leader of the previous two seasons was sidelined when a fastball hit him in the eye in August (Tony Conigliaro). A good hitter and former batting champion, with moderate power, suddenly wins the AL League triple crown (Yastrezmski) and MVP. Lonborg is the Cy Young winner. They win the pennant in a dramatic five team race on the last day of the season.

3- 1989 Orioles - 2d Place, AL East. In 1988, the Baltimore Orioles, the winningest team overall in baseball from 1960-85, finished in last place with a record of 54-107. The dismal season included an 0-21 record at the beginning of the season. In 1989, Manager Frank Robinson unloaded some veteran players, went with some youngsters, marginal players, inexperienced starting rotation and a core of relievers that included a couple of decent vets and a rookie.....the rookie (Olsen) had an outstanding season out of the pen and won the Rookie of the Year award. The Orioles posted an 87-75 record, 2 games behind the Blue Jays and took the race to the last series of the season.

4- 1962 Angels - 3rd Place, AL. The Los Angeles Angels were an expansion team in 1961. In their maiden season, they were 71-90, 8th place, but showed a penchant for power. In 1962 they shot out of the gates. With batting stars named Leon Wagner, Lee Thomas, Billy Moran and Albie Pearson, they had steady hitting and power. The starting rotation was young, with potential, but average. Belinsky, Grba, Don Lee, McBride and Bowsfield. Amongst them, only 17 complete games and a record of 46-41. Their spot starter/long relief man, Dean Chance, was outstanding, appearing in 50 games, starting 24, and winning 14 games. Tom Morgan. Art Fowler, and Danny Osisnsky provided excellent relief along with Ryne Duren and Jack Spring. The Angels led the league during parts of the season. They finished 86-76, 10 games out, which was absolutely amazing for a second year expansion team. Many attribute the Angel success to the problems traditonally tough AL teams were having with injuries. But, Rigney's boys did a heck of a job.

[538280]

The 2008 Rays come to mind. The fascinating thing to me about that team was that while they surprised everyone, IMO they really shouldn't have because no one on that team really was having a career year. It was for the most part just each player doing what he had done in the past. Going through the lineup, Carlos Pena had a significantly worse year than he had in 2007, Iwamura did about the same as he did in '07, Bartlett did not hit well, Crawford had overall his worst year since he was first a regular, Upton did worse than he did in '07, and their RF/DH guys in Gross, Floyd, and Hinske weren't doing better than they had in the past either. They did have Evan Longoria and Dioner Navarro was doing better than he had, but my point is that they simply had built one of the best teams in the league, it wasn't a bunch of guys just having career years.

[Iron Jaw]

Yes, last season's Rays are a good choice.

[Eastvanmungo]

1914 Braves... although I have heard speculation that this series, like the 1919 series, was fixed.

[STLCards2]

The 2008 Rays come to mind. The fascinating thing to me about that team was that while they surprised everyone, IMO they really shouldn't have because no one on that team really was having a career year. It was for the most part just each player doing what he had done in the past. Going through the lineup, Carlos Pena had a significantly worse year than he had in 2007, Iwamura did about the same as he did in '07, Bartlett did not hit well, Crawford had overall his worst year since he was first a regular, Upton did worse than he did in '07, and their RF/DH guys in Gross, Floyd, and Hinske weren't doing better than they had in the past either. They did have Evan Longoria and Dioner Navarro was doing better than he had, but my point is that they simply had built one of the best teams in the league, it wasn't a bunch of guys just having career years.

Right - their offense is way better this year. If Kasmir was his normal self instead of awful, they might be the W.C. leaders right now. Heck, they are only a couple back anyway. They are provong that last year was no miracle. This is a good team with tons and tons of talent. The 1993 Philies were a miracle team - everybody having a career year at the exact same time.

[Victory Faust]

Two of the more celebrated "miracle teams" are, of course, the 1951 Giants and the 1978 Yankees, who both made up large deficits, although to my knowledge only the Braves of '14 and the '69 Mets have ever been formally awarded the title "Miracle."

The 1942 Cardinals is a miracle team you don't hear so much about. They trailed the Brooklyn Dodgers by 10 full games on Aug. 10, but went on to win 45 of the next 56 games to cop the pennant.

[EdTarbusz]

1- 1969 Mets World Champions. 100-62 Beat Atlanta 3-0 in first ever NLCS. Beat Baltimore 4-1 in World Series....perhaps the greatest upset in baseball history.

I think the whole Miracle Mets thing is over-rated. I don't think the 1969 Series was the biggest Series upset of the 1960s, let alone of all time.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

I think the whole Miracle Mets thing is over-rated. I don't think the 1969 Series was the biggest Series upset of the 1960s, let alone of all time.

prior to 1969, the Mets had never finished higher than 9th place and were
10th place all but 2 seasons

the 1969 Mets were 9th in the league in runs scored and 11th in slugging average

the Orioles were second in their league in runs scored and 2nd in slugging and had a huge 1st place lead in ERA, their ERA was better than the Mets who were 2nd in their league in ERA

the Mets outscored their opponents by 91 runs
the Orioles outscored their opponents by 262 runs
(for comparison purposes, the 1961 Yankees outscored their opponents by 215 runs)

the Mets had no gold glove winners
the Orioles had 4 gold glove winners including 3/4 of their infield

the Mets had 4 players place in the top 23 in the league MVP voting
the Orioles had 5 players in the top 13 in the league MVP voting

it was a tremendous upset

[Seattle1]

'95 Mariners

[STLCards2]

'95 Mariners

E. Martinez, Griffey (well that was Griffey's big -injury year), R. Johnson, Buhner, and Tino all in their primes. Why is that a Miracle? That is a heck-of-a-lot of talent. Just because they beat the Yankees in the playoffs? They had the same regular season record.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

E. Martinez, Griffey (well that was Griffey's big -injury year), R. Johnson, Buhner, and Tino all in their primes. Why is that a Miracle? That is a heck-of-a-lot of talent. Just because they beat the Yankees in the playoffs? They had the same regular season record.

he only votes for Mariners teams or players

[STLCards2]

he only votes for Mariners teams or players

Yes, I know- I have been around a while.:D

[JPS]

The 1973 Mets were another shocker. They were in last place most of the summer, as far as 11 games out. On September 1st they were still last place but from August 26 to the end of the season they went 24-9 and clinched the pennant at Wrigley Field the day after the official end of the regular season was rained out and left them tied with Pittsburgh. The Mets then upset the Cincinnati Reds in the NLCS (in spite of Pete Rose beating up Bud Harrelson), and they led the Oakland A's 3-2 in the World Series before the A's pulled it out in Oakland.

Note: It was sometime between the last week in August and the first week in September when Mets manager Yogi Berra came out with his legendary "It ain't over til it's over." However, I'm convinced that he didn't say it quite that way. I remember reading it in the old Long Island Press back then and when a reporter asked, "Do you think the Mets are out of it?" Yogi said, "You're not out of it until you're out of it."

I might be wrong (Might be), but I'm pretty sure that's how and when he said it.

When the Mets pulled to within four games of first place a funny headline in one of the NY papers, referring to the '69 Miracle Mets, read, "No way this can happen again. Right? Right?? Right???"

[Paul Wendt]

I think the whole Miracle Mets thing is over-rated. I don't think the 1969 Series was the biggest Series upset of the 1960s, let alone of all time.
I agree. Furthermore, no baseball series provides big favorites and underdogs on the scale of marquee matches in other sports. Only the baseball season does that.

The "miracle" 1969 Mets and 1914 Braves are mainly about winning the pennant race from positions that seemed hopeless because they had been very weak teams in recent seasons (the April perspective) and they trailed at least one rival badly at mid-season (the August perspective). Both are more important than a World Series upset (the October perspective) in making a miracle --as the "impossible dream" 1967 Red Sox clearly show by example. If the Mets lost the Series in 1969 and won it in 1973, the miracle team would nevertheless be 1969.

Further, the April perspective is more important than the August. April generates the long odds that define a betting upset. The whole season is inevitably a credit to the underdog while what happens in late summer may be remembered as a black mark against the rival. See the 1969 Cubs, 1914 Giants, 1951 Dodgers, 1978 Red Sox.

[ItsOnlyGil]

1924 Senators.

[EdTarbusz]

I agree.

I think the Miracle Mets is more New York hype than anything else. I think the 1966 World Series was a bigger upset than 1969, but you never hear any talk about the Miracle Orioles.

[538280]

The 2002 Angels never get mentioned but I remember that season and no one really expected anything much from that team. They were perpetually mediocre before that, almost always right around .500. In '02 they got a lot of good players having good years and they just took the league by surprise, got hot in the playoffs and took home a championship. With the exception of a not so great '03 they've been great ever since. The 2003 Marlins also were a group of very young players who seemed to mature at once, playing much better, and also got hot in the playoffs and won the WS.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

I dont get the miracal mets were just a New York hype thing.

The Orioles outscored their opponenets by 262 runs and won 109 mgames, one of the greatest regular season performances in history. They also swept a very good Twins team in the playoffs.

The Mets were a one dimensional team, while the Orioles were a very good hitting team, and excellent fielding team and had an even lower team ERA than the Mets

It was a tremendous upset

[9RoyHobbsRF]

The 2002 Angels never get mentioned but I remember that season and no one really expected anything much from that team. They were perpetually mediocre before that, almost always right around .500. In '02 they got a lot of good players having good years and they just took the league by surprise, got hot in the playoffs and took home a championship. With the exception of a not so great '03 they've been great ever since. The 2003 Marlins also were a group of very young players who seemed to mature at once, playing much better, and also got hot in the playoffs and won the WS.

the 2002 Angels like the 1987 Twins and 1991 Twins probably won the WS mainly because they had the home field advantage

[EdTarbusz]

The 2002 Angels never get mentioned but I remember that season and no one really expected anything much from that team. They were perpetually mediocre before that, almost always right around .500. In '02 they got a lot of good players having good years and they just took the league by surprise, got hot in the playoffs and took home a championship. With the exception of a not so great '03 they've been great ever since. The 2003 Marlins also were a group of very young players who seemed to mature at once, playing much better, and also got hot in the playoffs and won the WS.

Neither of these miracle teams couldn't even win their division. In my opinion, that makes each more than a little underwhelming.

[Seattle1]

E. Martinez, Griffey (well that was Griffey's big -injury year), R. Johnson, Buhner, and Tino all in their primes. Why is that a Miracle? That is a heck-of-a-lot of talent. Just because they beat the Yankees in the playoffs? They had the same regular season record.

Because at this time in 1995 they were only .500 and well back of the Angles. It was a miraculous September for them.

[nerfan]

The '61 Reds also come to mind.

[Iron Jaw]

I think the Miracle Mets is more New York hype than anything else. I think the 1966 World Series was a bigger upset than 1969, but you never hear any talk about the Miracle Orioles.

The Orioles were a very good team from 1960-66, except for one season (1962) when they were overloaded with injuries. They just missed winning the pennant in 1964. They were on the verge of breaking out just about every season.

The addition of Frank Robinson to the lineup in 1966 was just what was needed - and he won the triple crown.

The Mets were the doormat of baseball from 1962-68. They lost 100+ games five times, and lost over 111 three times. They had five 10th (last) finishes and two 9th finishes. Their best record was 73-89 in 1968. Their worst was 40-120. There was absolutely no expectation of the Mets winning the 1969 pennant. For the Orioles in 1966, the expectation of a pennant had been in the making since 1960. The Orioles had an excellent franchise in the 60's. The Mets, did not.

I don't think anyone was surprised that the Orioles finally won the pennant in 1966. Perhaps the sweep in the World Series was a surprise, because the Dodgers had such good pitching. But the Orioles had terrific bats with power, and the Dodgers had a lineup of timely hitters with very little power.
The Oriole starting staff had injury problems but was healthy (except for Barber) at World Series time. The O's had the best bullpen in baseball in 1966, with Stu Miller, Moe Drabowsky, Eddie Fisher and Dick Hall leading the way, which made up for the injuries to the starting staff. The three straight shutouts in the World Series were a surprise, no doubt, but the Dodgers were a low scoring team for the most part.

If the Mets had gone 81-81 in 1969, it would have been a shocker considering the history of the franchise to that point. In fact, 81-81 would have been a MAJOR accomplishment. Nobody in his right mind picked the Mets in the NL East in 1969 (1969 was the first year of divisional play). Teams like the Cardinals, Pirates were decent - the Cubbies were the favorite. Not the Mets. And going 100-62 was unbelievable.

[Iron Jaw]

I think the whole Miracle Mets thing is over-rated. I don't think the 1969 Series was the biggest Series upset of the 1960s, let alone of all time.

Ed, we are talking about the entire season. Nobody expected the Mets to contend for their division, let alone win 100 games and the World Series.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

Teams like the Cardinals, Pirates were decent - the Cubbies were the favorite. Not the Mets. And going 100-62 was unbelievable.

Why would the Cubs be favored over the 2 time defending NL champions?

[Iron Jaw]

Teams like the Cardinals, Pirates were decent - the Cubbies were the favorite. Not the Mets. And going 100-62 was unbelievable.

Why would the Cubs be favored over the 2 time defending NL champions?

The Cubbies had two straight 3rd place finishes (in a 10 team league) and were a rising team, with good hitting and pitching. It was supposed to be, their time I guess.

The Cardinals started slow in 1969, but came on after mid-season and won 87 games.

[wu-tang clan]

In recent years, the 07 Rockies come to mind as the biggest miracle as they won 13 of their last 14 games and then made it all the way to the World Series.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

The Cubbies had two straight 3rd place finishes (in a 10 team league) and were a rising team, with good hitting and pitching. It was supposed to be, their time I guess.

The Cardinals started slow in 1969, but came on after mid-season and won 87 games.

I guess I will go have to dig out my 1969 S&S

[JPS]

The Orioles were a very good team from 1960-66, except for one season (1962) when they were overloaded with injuries. They just missed winning the pennant in 1964. They were on the verge of breaking out just about every season.

The addition of Frank Robinson to the lineup in 1966 was just what was needed - and he won the triple crown.

The Mets were the doormat of baseball from 1962-68. They lost 100+ games five times, and lost over 111 three times. They had five 10th (last) finishes and two 9th finishes. Their best record was 73-89 in 1968. Their worst was 40-120. There was absolutely no expectation of the Mets winning the 1969 pennant. For the Orioles in 1966, the expectation of a pennant had been in the making since 1960. The Orioles had an excellent franchise in the 60's. The Mets, did not.

I don't think anyone was surprised that the Orioles finally won the pennant in 1966. Perhaps the sweep in the World Series was a surprise, because the Dodgers had such good pitching. But the Orioles had terrific bats with power, and the Dodgers had a lineup of timely hitters with very little power.
The Oriole starting staff had injury problems but was healthy (except for Barber) at World Series time. The O's had the best bullpen in baseball in 1966, with Stu Miller, Moe Drabowsky, Eddie Fisher and Dick Hall leading the way, which made up for the injuries to the starting staff. The three straight shutouts in the World Series were a surprise, no doubt, but the Dodgers were a low scoring team for the most part.

If the Mets had gone 81-81 in 1969, it would have been a shocker considering the history of the franchise to that point. In fact, 81-81 would have been a MAJOR accomplishment. Nobody in his right mind picked the Mets in the NL East in 1969 (1969 was the first year of divisional play). Teams like the Cardinals, Pirates were decent - the Cubbies were the favorite. Not the Mets. And going 100-62 was unbelievable.:nod: What he said.

The Mets were literally 100-1 shots before the season started. The only teams with worse odds were the expansion San Diego Padres, Seattle Pilots, Kansas City Royals and Montreal Expos. In fact, Opening Day saw the Expos win their very first game by beating the Mets 11-10 at Shea.

To demonstrate just how bad the Mets had been over the years to that point, on May 21st they were 18-18. Other than starting 2-1, it was the first time the Mets ever reached .500 in their history. It was a major achievement for the franchise all by itself. They only got better from there. It was remarkable enough that the Mets were in a pennant race, but starting on August 14, after they had fallen to third place, 9.5 games back, they went 38-11 the rest of the way, swept the Braves of Aaron, Cepeda, Carty and Niekro, and whipped the Orioles in the World Series. It was the Mets' pitching that did it. 28 shutouts (28!) speaks volumes.

The Miracle Mets "thing" is not overrated. They were a national phenomenon. Even the vaunted NY media hype machine couldn't have created that.

[64Cards]

Teams like the Cardinals, Pirates were decent - the Cubbies were the favorite. Not the Mets. And going 100-62 was unbelievable.

Why would the Cubs be favored over the 2 time defending NL champions?

Yeah, I believe the Cards were heavily favored to win again in 69. Maris had retired, but the Cards had traded Bobby Tolan and Wayne Granger for Vada Pinson, who everyone thought would fit perfectly into the Cards lineup, in RF and as #3 hitter. For whatever reason, Pinson would never be the player he had been for the Reds. The Cards also traded Cepeda for Torre in spring training. Cepeda had been the leader of the Cards in the clubhouse and the big bat in the lineup, although he had gone from MVP in 67 to a terrible season in 68. The word later was that he owed money to banks, department stores and various people that were going to Anheuser-Busch to garnish Cepeda's wages, to get paid back. In the long run the trade worked very well, Torre was MVP in 1971, but in 69 the Cards were shocked that the team had traded Cha-Cha. Also after the trade, Gussie Busch showed up in the Cards clubhouse in spring training and did a celebrated chewing-out of the ballclub, with the press invited to take notes. Needless to say, this didn't help the team morale.

The Mets winning it in 69 was a complete shocker. I'm sure when the Cubs had built a big lead, the Cardinals were the team that they were looking back at, waiting for them to make a run. They did make a bit of a run in July and August, but the Mets just kept coming and didn't stop.