ing their own memorable seasons. In order to truly match the '69 Mets however, the Rays need to beat the Philadelphia Phillies in the World Series. Facing elimination tonight against Cole Hamels in Philadelphia, the Rays have a tough hill to climb if they wish to escape their 3-1 series hole, but as this year has emphasized, the Rays cannot be counted out until the final out is made. While the comparisons between the two teams are stunning, many people forget this relationship when they mention the possibility of a Rays' dynasty. If the 2008 Rays are like the '69 Mets, then next year will present the Rays with anything but the makings of a dynasty. While most people are focusing on this season, and rightfully so because the Rays are still vying for a championship, I am going to jump ahead and look at the 2009 Rays to see if they will suffer the same fate as the 1970 Mets.After finishing the 1969 season with 100 wins against 62 losses and a World Series title, the 1970 Mets regressed in the pitching department. While pitching that included young flamethrowers Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan remained the teams strength, the overall staff was not as good as the '69 team. After allowing 541 runs to opponents in 1969, the 1970 Mets gave up 630 runs - a huge difference for a team whose offense was not built to out-slug opposing pitchers. Consequently, the team suffered. Rather than build on their success together as a young team from the year before, the Mets struggled with consistency both offensively and defensively and finished the season in third place in the N.L. East with a record of 83-79. The Pittsburgh Pirates won the division that season, and the Mets would not see another postseason appearance until 1973, when they would fall at the hands of the Oakland Athletics in game seven of the World Series.
What happened to the 1970 Mets? They were an established, young unit with the bulk of the team returning from 1969, but the end result was anything but the same as the year before. The young pitchers couldn't string together another stellar season. The 2008 Rays may suffer a similar setback after the team's 97-win campaign. While the Rays offense is not nearly as terrible as the Mets was - the Rays did score 774 runs this season - the team still relies heavily on its young pitching. After all, the Rays have had a fairly strong offense for the last three seasons, but not one season has amounted to a playoff birth because of the team's poor pitching. But this season, with the acquisition of SP Matt Garza and the emergence of SP James Shields behind ace Scott Kazmir, the team boasted its best starting rotation in the franchise's 10-year history. Garza, Shields and Kazmir anchored a staff that had a collective 3.82 ERA and allowed only 618 earned runs. The question is, can these young pitchers do it again? One of the hardest things to predict in Major League Baseball is how a young pitcher will perform from one year to the next. If Garza, Shields or Kazmir regress next season, the Rays would be put into a very difficult position while trying to fend off their A.L. East foes. In all likelihood, another A.L. East crown would not happen. Another main asset to this year's team has been its bullpen. Once looked at as the team's biggest weakness, the Rays bullpen pieced together a strong season in large part due to the acquisitions of closer Troy Percival and set-up man Dan Wheeler. But a big question mark surrounds Percival next season. After already suffering through injury problems in 2
008, Percival will be approaching 40 years old midway through next season, and its rare 40-year-old closers can stay healthy and dominate a league. Losing Percival or another piece to that bullpen could greatly hinder the Rays run at another postseason appearance in 2009.While question marks will always surround young pitchers, I firmly believe this team's hitting will remain a strength and continue to improve. With young phenoms such as 3B Evan Longoria, CF B.J. Upton, LF Carl Crawford and C Dioneer Navarro, the Rays' offense can be a force to be reckoned with in the years to come. However, these young players will have to make adjustments as opposing pitchers change their approaches when facing Tampa. Also, the biggest factor for me is whether or not Longoria can avoid the troublesome sophomore slump. Many hitters burst onto the scene during their rookie season, then fall off the map the next because they cannot adjust to pitchers' adjustments. But that is what baseball is: It's a game of adjustments. If Longoria fails to remain consistent at the plate, the team will lose a cog in its lineup and will not come close to making the playoffs next season.
Lastly, and this point goes beyond 2009, is that in order for the Rays to form a dynasty and have more success than the Mets of the '70s, they will need to resign their young studs - a major hurdle for the organization. The 2008 Rays' payroll is the second lowest in the majors at just over $43 million. That kind of payroll will not cut it when the Rays' young stars enter free agency. In order to truly build a dynasty, management needs to keep this team's core intact, but with high-spending teams like the Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, New York Mets and Detroit Tigers, it will be difficult for the Rays to sign their players unless they fork up the big bucks. A lot of the blame for the lack of a team budget can fall on the fans who never filled Tropicana Field this year while the Rays were enjoying their wild ride to the top. Fan attendance averaged at just over 21,000, barely half the capacity in Tampa. Then again, fans can blame a management that fails to go after any big-name stars to bolster their squad. All I know is one thing is certain. The Rays in 2009, 2010 and 2011 will not be nearly as successful as the magical 2008 club unless they lock up some players. If they fail to perform that task, they'll be back in the A.L. East cellar for another possible 10 years.
1 comment:
I have to start out by saying that this post is extremely interesting and insightful, especially with such a current topic being expanded to encompass the future years of the Rays. The links provided in the post were very helpful in linking the posts topic to others opinions about the similarities and differences between the teams. The Tampa Bay Rays are an extremely interesting subject and your idea to explore the team by going more in depth then many annalists, makes it a joy to read. The breakdown of the 1969 Mets is very interesting when you compared there type of team to that of the present day Rays. I also have to say that the way you explored the future of the Rays, focusing on pitching and the heart of their lineup, was fun to read because it used a combination of stats and theory when dissecting their potential. I really enjoyed the fact that you dived deep into what makes the Rays and Mets succesfull in their respective runs as well as the possiblities for the Rays in the future.
In the third paragraph you stated, "Once looked at as the team's biggest weakness, the Rays bullpen pieced together a strong season in large part due to the acquisitions of closer Troy Percival and set-up man Dan Wheeler". This quote was extremely interesting because it showed that you were knowledgeable on the subject and that you researched the team and talked about what made them successful. Overall it is very difficult to find an area to critique but if I were forced to choose, you may want to consider comparing the Rays potential to the outcome of the 1969 Mets team and add additional comparisons between the coach's or maybe even the management styles. This post was insightful and interesting to both avid sports fans and occasional fans, and you did a great job of comparing two teams that continue to be linked together.
Post a Comment