World Series

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Mr. Cole's comments on the recent World Series (October 29) are even more ungracious than what we have come to expect from Mets' fans. They are also self-defeating. What possible glory have the Mets won if, as Mr. Cole maintains, they have beaten a thoroughly unworthy opponent? Besides, it was not the Mets who decided the Series, but the gods of baseall, who will never forgive the Sox for the sin of selling Babe Ruth.

Mr. Cole praises the Mets for being "a great team." But this was even truer of the Red Sox than of the Mets. Everyone agrees that the Mets were vastly more talented than Boston. The Red Sox had no speed and no bullpen; New York was rich in both. The Mets should have won, and it would have been surprising if they had not. Boston was not even picked to win its own division, because the individual talent looked unpromising. But they almost won the Series because the sum was greater than the parts--in short they were a great team.

Two details deserve further comment. Mr. Cole points out that Roger Clemens did not beat the Mets and suggests that "he's used to anemic American League hitters." I won't accuse Mr. Cole of deliberately neglecting to mention that the demigod Dwight Gooden fared even more poorly against Boston than Clemens did against New York. Second, Mr. Cole suggests that the Red Sox "would trade their whole team" for Darryl Strawberry, adding to the chorus of praise that always greets the most overhyped player in the history of baseball. If Mr. Cole cares to check, he would discover that Dwight Evans had a year remarkably similar to Strawberry's--and Boston fans hardly noticed. Eric N. Lindquist