Can the 2014 Mets experience some 1969 magic?

The 1969 Mets are one of the most beloved teams in baseball history. The classic rags to riches story of a team who had never eclipsed a positive winning percentage from 1962 to 1968 rising to the top of the baseball world in 1969 was drama at its best. Mets fans know the main players on the club and how it seemed, for one year, nearly everything Gil Hodges orchestrated for those players worked. The interesting thing is that the team wasn’t all that different from 1968 where the club won 73 games, only one less than the Mets won in 2013. So, will there be 1969 magic in 2014?

To start, let’s look at the makeup of the 1969 club in comparison to that 1968 club. Donn Clendenon, acquired by the Mets on June 15th of 1969 from the Expos for a package of prospects (of which only pitcher Steve Renko would have any career of note), is known as being the offensive catalyst the Mets needed to solidify their order. Clendenon’s 12 home runs over the 72 games he’d play during the regular season after the trade tied for third on the team and his 37 RBI over those contests ranked seventh. Those don’t appear to be big numbers, but when you consider that they were accumulated over only 226 plate appearances, the impact can be seen. Clendenon’s presence as a power hitter was the balance the lineup needed in 1969 to help support an elite pitching staff. However, outside of Clendenon, the major players in the order, Tommie Agee, Cleon Jones, Bud Harrelson, Ed Kranepool, Jerry Grote, Ken Boswell, Ron Swoboda and Art Shamsky, all had been on the roster in 1968. Wayne Garrett also received over 400 plate appearances in 1969, but put up paltry numbers and was, by no means, a major player in the lineup. Garrett had been a Rule 5 selection from the Braves during the offseason and was thrust into the lineup due to a lack of options at third base and injuries in the middle of the infield. The bench had been changed slightly, with rookies Bobby Pfeil, Rod Gaspar and Amos Otis all receiving over 100 plate appearances, joining 1968 incumbents Al Weis, J.C. Martin, Ed Charles and whoever wasn’t starting from the various platoons as a part of the bench.

So, on the surface of things, the only major offensive change was Clendenon. However, there are several other offensive factors that were prominent in changing a 73-win team to a championship club in one year. In fact, one could argue that an even greater factor than Clendenon in the offensive side of the Mets season was Agee.

Agee had been terrible in 1968, his first season with the Mets after being acquired in an offseason trade from the White Sox. Many have ascribed this to being beaned by Bob Gibson during spring training of 1968, but Agee had also struggled in 1967, during his final season with the White Sox. After being named rookie of the year in 1966, a season in which he batted .273 with 22 home runs, 86 RBI and 44 stolen bases, Agee hit the sophomore slump, batting .234 with eight fewer home runs, 34 fewer RBI and a 101 point drop in his OPS (from 773 in 1966 to 672 in 1967). Even Agee’s fielding deteriorated, as in 125 fewer innings and 27 fewer chances, Agee committed four more errors in center field. So the appearance was, heading into 1969 that Agee was a one-year wonder who the league had caught up to in 1967 and 1968. However, Agee had a massive turn around in 1969, eclipsing most of his numbers from his Rookie of the Year campaign. Agee led the Mets in runs scored, home runs and RBI in 1969 and was third on the club in OPS with a career-high .806 mark. More importantly, Agee did this while batting leadoff and playing a brilliant center field, both solidifying the top of the order and the team’s outfield defense.

Along with Agee, Jones had the best season of his career. Jones hit .340 with a 904 OPS. Jones lead the Mets in hits, OPS, stolen bases and doubles, while finishing second on the club (behind Agee) in runs scored and RBI. Jones had also been excellent in 1968, but his 1969 improvement further solidified the club’s offense. Regular members of the batting order, Kranepool and Harrelson, also had improved seasons after dreadful 1968 campaigns. All of this added to the consistency of Grote and Boswell, as well as the punch of the Swoboda-Shamsky platoon , helped make a bad offensive team in 1968 into a team that provided enough offense to support a high quality pitching staff.

The staff itself hadn’t seen much change. Dick Selma had been exposed in the 1968 expansion draft and had been taken early by the San Diego Padres after reportedly having surgery in the offseason without telling the club. The Mets could afford to lose Selma due to having three young pitchers that would compete for Selma’s starts and innings in 1969 (23 starts, 170 innings pitched). Two of those pitchers, Nolan Ryan and Jim McAndrew, had been members of the 1968 staff, combining to start 30 games and throw 213 innings. Another was top prospect Gary Gentry, a fastball specialist who had an excellent season at Triple-A in 1968, posting a 2.91 ERA and 156 strikeouts in 198 innings of work. Outside of these three pitchers, the remainder of the starting rotation would stay intact, lead by future Hall of Famer Tom Seaver, top lefty Jerry Koosman and veteran right hander Don Cardwell. The two primary bullpen guys from 1968, Ron Taylor and Cal Koonce, would remain, but they would be bolstered by changing prospect Tug McGraw (a pitcher the Mets had tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to make into a starting pitcher) into a reliever and using Ryan in a swing man role.

Basically, the 1969 Mets had a 27-game improvement and won a championship, by adding one outside player, promoting one prospect, shuffling a few players into different roles and getting a few players who had down years to step up. How does this compare to the 2013-2014 Mets? There are actually a number of remarkable similarities.

To start, the 2014 Mets will also have a rotation made up of young, strong arms, balanced by a few veterans. Bartolo Colon takes on the Cardwell role. Niese is our version of Koosman (admittedly with much less success then Koosman had going into 1969, after very nearly being the rookie of the year in 1968). Zack Wheeler is the young stud, much like Gentry and Dillon Gee represents a young, quality rotation arm, very similar to Jim McAndrew. Bobby Parnell is the 2014 version of Taylor, a relief pitcher in his prime who has proven to be a solid member of the back of the bullpen. Going into 1969, no one knew what the Mets had in McGraw, much like how we don’t know what to expect of Vic Black and Ryan’s power pitching wildness even has a minor comparison in the power wild arm of Jeurys Familia. Yes, we don’t have a Seaver, but let’s also be real about the fact that if this was 1969, Rafael Montero and Noah Syndergaard would be legitimate pitchers the Mets would be talking about coming out of spring training instead of a midseason call up.

The 2013 lineup also had some interesting comparisons to 1968. Ruben Tejada had an abysmally bad year, but so did Harrelson in 1968 (.219 AVG, 524 OPS). In fact, these two shortstops are fairly comparable as players. Power was not Harrelson’s strength, but neither is it Tejada’s and they both are similar in terms of on-base skills and fielding. Harrelson was better in the field and Tejada is marginally better at the plate. Harrelson also had more speed than Tejada and was a switch hitter. Hopefully, the Mets will see a resurgent Tejada, just like they did from Harrelson in 1969 (.248 AVG, 647 OPS). Those numbers aren’t that difficult to duplicate, and Tejada could easily exceed them.

Lucas Duda also struggled, but his numbers also had similar connections to Kranepool’s struggles in 1968. Duda hit with much more power than Kranepool did, but they were both considered disappointments in their respective seasons, and both were made available to move the following offseason. Duda has been shopped, along with Ike Davis, all offseason and Kranepool was exposed to the 1968 expansion draft. Kranepool didn’t have a great 1969, but he was productive as a part-time player (11 home runs, 49 RBI in 396 plate appearances) after being totally non-productive in 1968 (three home runs and 20 RBI in 405 plate appearances). If Duda shows a similar upgrade in production, the Mets will have a solid part-time player on their hands.

They also will most likely have something similar to the Swoboda-Shamsky platoon in the outfield with Chris Young, Juan Lagares, Eric Young Jr. and possibly Duda getting time in the outfield. Add in the fact that they have at least three solid bats in the lineup in David Wright, Daniel Murphy and Curtis Granderson around which the other lesser players will revolve, you have another remarkably similar situation to the 1969 Mets lineup that built a bunch of platoons around Agee, Jones and after June 15th, Clendenon.

Finally, we get to one of the most intriguing similarities. The Mets have their own Agee in Davis. Davis and Agee are different players, but only in really two contexts. Agee was a fleet footed center fielder, while Davis is a slow first baseman. However, they are very similar outside of that. Both had power, struck out way too much, had decent abilities to draw walks and were slump prone. They also had two of the worst seasons for Mets regulars in the history of the franchise. We all know how bad Davis was in 2013, but take a close look at Agee’s 1968. In 391 plate appearances, Agee hit 5 home runs, knocked in 17 runs, batted .217 and had a 562 OPS, numbers that are extremely similar to Davis’ terrible 2013.

So, where is the 1969 magic? Not as far away as you think. Tejada having a slightly better than Harrelson year would help and there’s no reason to think he can’t. Harrelson only had one good year under his belt too when he had his horrible 1968 campaign and he went on to a solid career as the starting Mets shortstop, so why can’t a similar player like Tejada? Jones had a great year in 1969, but Wright is a much better player, so what makes us think he can’t have a similarly excellent year in 2014? Murphy is a much better bat than Grote, Boswell or anyone else on that team not named Agee or Jones, and Granderson is totally comparable to Clendenon. Let’s be honest, Lagares is better than Garrett and Young, mixing with other players, can put up numbers that will be a match for the Swoboda-Shamsky combo. The pitching staff isn’t as good, but isn’t all that bad either, so if you take it as a whole, you’d stack the 2014 offense as better than 1969, and label the 2013 pitching staff as inferior to the 1969 version, creating a nice balance for comparison.

So, in the end, it comes down to Davis, just like it came down to Agee in 1969. If Agee doesn’t play like he did in 1969, we don’t celebrate the 1969 Mets like we do today, just like, any success we’ll have this year could come down to Davis’ improvement. Look, I’m not saying we’re going to be celebrating a miracle in October of 2014 like we did in 1969, but it’s cool to dream and think magic could be in the air. Why not? What else should we be doing as we look forward to the first smack of pitches into catcher’s mitts and wait to hear that first crack of the bat in April, when our hopes are at our highest and the previous year is all but forgotten? That’s what the Mets fan did in 1969 and look what happened.