Most unlikely World Series Champion

[Mitchell]

For those of us who know baseball, which of the teams listed above, based on opponent and talent, was the most unlikely World Champion?

 

[Mitchell]

My choice for this question was the '69 Mets. Essentially, it was a miracle that this team beat the Orioles. Oriole manager Earl Weaver at the time dismissed them as a team with "Two pitchers" (Tom Seaver and Jerry Koosman) "Some slap hitters, and a bit of speed". Matching them up on paper with the Orioles, a powerhouse with excellent pitching and hitting, Baltimore should have won that series easily. This again goes to show that baseball is not played on paper, and many times, the underdogs in baseball playoff and World Series come out ahead.

Mitch

 

[milagros317]

IMHO:
Given that the Mets finished in either 10th place or 9th place every single year from 1962 to 1968, inclusive, the 1969 Mets were the most unlikely World Series Champions ever.

 

[TicklingIsLife]

'69 Mets, they got lucky..😛

 

[Limeoutsider]

I pick '02 Angels

 

[pseudonym]

I'd have to say "none of the above."

The 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates are my choice.

 

[milagros317]

1960 was quite a World Series. The Yankees scored 55 runs and won three games; the Pirates scored 27 runs and won four games and the Series.

Game 1: Pirates 6, Yankees 4
Game 2: Yankees 16, Pirates 3
Game 3: Yankees 10, Pirates 0
Game 4: Pirates 3, Yankees 2
Game 5: Pirates 5, Yankees 2
Game 6: Yankees 12, Pirates 0
Game 7: Pirates 10, Yankees 9

Line score of Game 7:

Yankees 000 014 022 - 9
Pirates.. 220 000 051 - 10

Very few people remember that Hal Smith hit a 3-run HR in the bottom of the 8th to give the Pirates the lead. Lots of people remember that Bill Mazeroski hit a solo HR in the bottom of the 9th to end the World Series.

But I'll stick with my choice of the 1969 Mets. 😀

 

[TicklingIsLife]

How about the Boston Red Sox...they are very UNLIKELY!
😛

 

[Mitchell]

Upon thinking about it, Milagros presents a very valid argument. The Yankees did in fact bludegon the Pirates in the games they won in the 1960 WS, yet lost the series anyway, so it is possible that some would consider the 1960 Pirates as the choice for this question. Good point, Milagros, and thanks for your opinion.

Mitch

 

[leafstk]

1985 Kansas City Royals 🙁

First, they came back from down 3-1 to beat a powerhouse Toronto Blue Jays team, then did the exact same thing in the WS to defeat the St. Louis Cardinals. Bret Saberhagen and George Brett were the heartbreakers of both those series.

 

[proud2tickle]

the angles

my life consist of baseball i was on the best fielders in the game only problem was i coudlnt hit for nothing i ahd a arm amlost as a good as any major leaguer i play some single A ball but ntohin to serouis yet i would ahve to say the angles where a big surpise they had alot of no namers that became big talent players but looing back you could say the 95 braves or the 1991 twins where a bigger surpise because tehn they had no talent ethier until a few years later there palyers became superstars itsa ll in prespective

 

[Mitchell]

I have to disagree with you proud. While you mentioned the 91 Twins, and they were a little short. The 95 Braves had one of the Game's best pitching staffs ever with Maddux, 19-2 1.63 Glavine, 16-7 3.08, Smoltz, 12-7, and a more than adequate offense. While some of the other teams listed may not have been up to snuff, the 95 Braves were a legitimate champion, as evidenced by their 90 wins in 144 games, and league leading ERA, plus a decent lineup, and solid bullpen.

Mitch