Talk:Mets–Phillies rivalry

/Archive 1

1986 Section

I just would like your thoughts if this should be added about the sweep by the Phillies against the Mets to keep them from clinching:

"However, before the series, Phillies Manager John Felske and the players, including reliever Kent Tekulve, Mike Schmidt, and Von Hayes said that they wanted to keep the Mets from clinching in Philadelphia, because they got swept in a preceding series in Chicago against the Chicago Cubs. Sources: Cubs Hands Phils 3rd Loss in a Row, September 11, 1986, by Peter Pascarelli, Philadelphia Inquirer, page D1. Quote: The Phils now must shut the Mets down in three straight games to avoid watching a division-title celebration on their own turf. Also Mets Set to Clinch Vs. Phils, September 12, 1986, by Peter Pascarelli, Philadelphia Inquirer, page D1. Quote: "The Mets' magic number is down to 2...It would be the first division championship ever clinched at the Vet, and the Phillies would love to prevent it from happening. However, after losing three straight in Chicago...the Phils have to sweep the series...to prevent the Mets from clinching in Philadelphia...'To keep them from clinching at the Vet, we needed to do something in Chicago, and we didn't,' said reliever Kent Tekulve, who lost the third game at Wrigley Field." -- SNIyer12, (talk), 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what you are trying to add here. — KV5 • Talk • 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What I wanted to make clear was that although the Mets had gone into Philadelphia with a chance to clinch the NL East, Philadelphia did not want to see the Mets clinch on their own turf and tried to do this because they got swept in a series in Chicago. SNIyer12, (talk), 01:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what Chicago has to do with the rivalry, or why this is important to the subject of the article. — KV5 • Talk • 01:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1995-2000: On 1998

I know that the Mets took 8 of 12 games from the Phillies that season, but at this time, we don't plan to put in information that one of those wins was the longest scoreless Opening Day game in the National League. I think it's unnecessary at this time, even though it was a notable moment in the rivalry. I do have sources for it, but let's not put in the information at this time. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If I was to put in info on that, this is what it would have read about 1998: "The 1998 Mets finished in second place, with the Phillies right behind them in third. The Braves finished with the best record in the National League (106 wins), but were unable to make it to the World Series. The Mets finished over .500 for the second straight year, aided by winning 8 of 12 games against the Phillies, including a 1-0 win in the longest scoreless Opening Day game in the National League at Shea Stadium on March 31." [1] As I said, we're not going to add the information at this time. Anyone who wants information on that game can go to 1998 New York Mets season or 1998 Philadelphia Phillies season. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 14:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's official. Let's not add information that the two teams were involved in the longest scoreless season opener in the National League in 1998. After talking about this with KV5 in the talk page, it is decided that because it sounds trivial, it should not be added, though it was a notable moment in the rivalry. As I said, anyone who wants information about that game can go to 1998 New York Mets season or 1998 Philadelphia Phillies season. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 15:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

2005-2006: Rivalry Intensifies: On 2005

I know that both the Mets and the Phillies were eliminated from playoff contention during the final week of the 2005 season and I have sources for it, but let's not add that information in the article. I've asked that no one add that information, as it's unncessary. Anyone who wants information on that can go to 2005 New York Mets season or 2005 Philadelphia Phillies season. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 16:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

2011 season

Let's not add any information about the 2011 season and the 2010-11 offseason details, including the changes both teams made at this time. I know that there are some changes, but I don't feel it should be added at this time. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 19:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The information has already been added about the offseason on the signing of Cliff Lee and the comments by the manager and general manager of the Mets. – SNIyer12, (talk), 15:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

1986

I had to clarify the sources for the quotes about the planned clincher by the Mets, as both the Associated Press and The Philadelphia Inquirer had different quotes. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 15;17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

More clarification: I also had to add details to support the quote in The Philadelphia Inquirer. Sorry if I did add it. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 21:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob Murphy

I've requested that no one put details about the way Mets broadcaster Bob Murphy announcing the end of a game on July 25, 1990 becoming one of his memorable broadcasting moments as a notable moment in the rivalry. Please refer to the article on Bob Murphy to get more details about it: The Mets taking a 10–3 lead into the ninth inning, but the Phillies hitting seven straight singles, a walk, and six runs to cut the lead to one before the Mets got the three outs. The game ending saying: "A line drive caught. The game is over. The Mets win it. A line drive to Mario Diaz. And the Mets win the ballgame! They win the damn thing by a score of 10 to 9!" — SNIyer12, (talk), 18:09 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Racism and the Brooklyn Dodgers

How was this a cause of a rivalry between the Mets and Phillies? There are no sources that indicate this as a cause, so it seems to be original research. Plus, it doesn't even appear to be logical. Can someone please explain this to me?Ultimahero (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, I'm just going to delete it on the basis of it being unsourced and original research.Ultimahero (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is an element of the more general sports rivalry in New York specifically pertaining to baseball which contributes to the tensions already extant between baseball teams in the two cities once the Mets were established as an expansion team. And a deletion based on the section being unsourced and original research would be unfounded. The article makes no claims that this is directly related to the Mets and Phillies specifically, because the Mets weren't involved. It talks about the development of the situation between New York and Philadelphia, which is fully sourced. — KV5 • Talk • 11:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that to me. However, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. Your saying that it contributed to the general rivalry between Philadelphia and New York teams, correct? But I don't see that anywhere. How did Phillie players poor treatment of black prospects (and Jackie Robinson in particular) make all New York teams dislike them? Did the Giants get angry when the Phillies were instructed to "spike Robinson and pitch at his head"? (Considering they were big rivals with the Dodgers I would think they would be happy about this, but that's just me.) Did the Yankees dislike the way Philadelphia treated black players? The Yankees didn't integrate until 1955, only two years before the Phillies. So I don't see how they were affected by the Phillies. (I would think that for this theory to hold up then it would have to be established that all the New York teams expressly dislike this mentality, as opposed to just the Dodgers in particular.)

And as far as I can see the article doesn't discuss "the development of the situation between New York and Philadelphia", as you asserted. It discusses the dislike the Phillies had for Jackie Robinson, not the Dodgers in general and especially not the Yankees or Giants by extension. I don't have access to the sources, but if you do please show me the parts where it establishes this rivalry between all New York teams. Since no direct quotes show this bigger rivalry then it does seem like original research to me.Ultimahero (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Researching. — KV5 • Talk • 21:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.Ultimahero (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So it's been a week now and I was wondering if you found anything. I know we're all busy, so I certainly don't mean to rush you. I'm just curious if you've had a chance to check the sources and, if so, what you found. Thanks.Ultimahero (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Between two jobs and a life, no, I have not had a chance to even look for sources. Tomorrow is the weekend, so perhaps I will have time then. — KV5 • Talk • 11:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I completely understand that. So what do you think is a fair time limit to put on this section? I don't think it should stay indefinitely, so perhaps we can give another week and if nothing has shown up we can remove the info. Then, if you see anything in the sources after that we can always reinsert the information. Does that sound fair?Ultimahero (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am waiting for print resources which may be of help, but I can't put a timeframe on when they will arrive. So, as a compromise, I commented out the section so it's not currently shown with what are now being called poor sources, and will replace them when those sources arrive. — KV5 • Talk • 11:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Thanks.Ultimahero (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Heavy focus on recent years

It seems that the article focuses to heavily on the last few years. For example, the 1991-1994 has a nine line paragraph, while 2009 has 4 paragraphs totaling 29 lines. The 2010 section has 8 paragraphs totaling 35 lines. Doesn't this seem a bit out of proportion? Now, obviously some years will be more intense than others, but would anyone really call 2009 or 2010 highlights in the Mets-Phillies rivalry? This seems nonsensical when you consider that in 2009 the Phillies finished 23 games ahead of New York, and in 2010 the Phillies finished 18 games ahead of the Mets. Not exactly the most competitive season. Basically, these sections detail every single series throughout the course of the year when there's no need to. I propose drastically reducing the content there and even merging 2009-2011 into a single section.Ultimahero (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also more coverage of the last few years. As the article mentions, the rivalry was relatively low-key until the last few seasons when it became more intense. The more intense it is (and it still is regardless of the fact that the Mets finished many games back - that has little to no bearing on whether a rivalry actually exists), the more widely covered it is and the more information is readily available. — KV5 • Talk • 21:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The ability of one team to preform has immense bearing on whether or not a rivalry exists. If one team is terrible they cannot be engaging the other in meaningful games. (There certainly wouldn't be any playoff races.) Are you saying that every series of the last three years, even though they have not been all that meaningful in terms of playoff races, needs to be explicitly detailed?Ultimahero (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, there are certainly things that could be trimmed, cut down, or otherwise clarified, but I am saying that there is no reason to reduce three years into a single section which could not possibly been properly detailed. And for the record, the statement "If one team is terrible they cannot be engaging the other in meaningful games" is not true. If the Yankees were horrible and the Red Sox were kicking everyone's tails, their games against each other would still be important and meaningful. Same applies here. — KV5 • Talk • 03:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, sir, the same does not apply here. The Red Sox and Yankees have one of the biggest rivalries in all of sports. If one of those teams suddenly plays terrible the rivalry doesn't disappear because it's got so much history behind it. Mets/Phillies, on the other hand, does not have such an important history. They have only developed a rivalry in the past few years. Thus, if one team becomes terrible then we will look back on those few competitive years as simply being a period where the Mets and Phillies happened to be the best in their division, nothing more.Ultimahero (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet, this article covers the history of this rivalry, which negates your statement. You can see by reading this article, which is fully referenced in the earlier history sections, that a rivalry did exist prior to recent years. Also, please refrain from calling me "sir" (I have asked you this before, and regardless of your habit of calling everyone sir, to me it's disparaging and rude). — KV5 • Talk • 11:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, you did ask me to not call you sir. I apologize. It's just habit. Anyways, you are also correct the the article details the history of the rivalry. What I'm trying to say is that until 2006 there wasn't really a rivalry to speak of. At least not in any notable sense. For example, the first section is "Bunning's Perfect Game", and at one point the article says, "even the Mets fans were cheering Bunning's effort." How can this really be classified as an intense rivalry if one team is rooting for the other to succeed at its own expense? Can you imagine this being the case of the Red-Sox and Yankees, or Dodgers and Giants? I think a lot of the stuff that's currently in the article is the product of revisionist history. Fans have seen the current intensity of recent times and have gone back through Baseball history in an attempt to find anything that would pad out the "rivalry". So you cannot apply the history of New York/Philadelphia in the way you could New York/Boston or Los Angeles/San Francisco.

Sure, there is some level of rivalry to speak of between these two teams simply because they are in the same division. But the same can be said of Milwaukee/Pittsburgh. If at one point in MLB history those two teams had two or three seasons of being the best in their division, then they would be in the same spot as New York and Philadelphia are now: No real history to speak of expect a few close years. I think this article is the product of a heavy focus on recent-ism. So unless both teams remain really competitive then ten years down the line no one will remember this. So, in this case, whether they play close or not makes a big difference.Ultimahero (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Bunning's game, William A. Cook goes so far as to call even the Mets fans of 1964 "partisan". The early sections of the rivalry are the foundation for the current one, so yes, the incidents there are fewer and further between. Bunning's game came first, then the poking of the hornet's nest by Tug McGraw, the brawls of the 80s, and then the realignments that led to the strengthening of the rivalry when the Pirates left the division (the major points of the early sections). I don't appreciate the implication that the article is "padded", because I, not "fans", did write a lot of this material. And though I am a fan, I do pride myself on making this an encyclopedia first. — KV5 • Talk • 21:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Regarding Bunning's game, William A. Cook goes so far as to call even the Mets fans of 1964 partisan". What? This doesn't make any sense. According to dictionary.com, partisan means to be "an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance". So aren't all fans of every team partisan? So I don't understand what you mean when you say that Cook "goes so far as to call....", because that suggests that calling fans partisan is an extreme statement, which it obviously isn't. To the contrary, it's a perfect description of what fans actually are and should be, namely, strong, emotionally involved supporters of their team. Besides, the way you phrased it mischaracterizes what Cook actually wrote. He says on page 92, "From the seventh inning on the usually partisan Mets fans were behind were behind Bunning as he blitzed along in the 91-degree heat". So Cook describes the Mets as typically being partisan, and doesn't seem to see that as a bad thing, but on this particular night they were rooting for Bunning. So, does that sound like the Mets or their fans hate the Phillies in particular? They may want to beat Philadelphia when they two teams play but that doesn't necessitate hatred, and especially not hatred to the degree necessary to form a genuine rivalry. The Mets fans don't seem to particularly dislike the Phillies. Can you imagine a crowd of Yankee fans cheering on a Boston pitcher who was decimating New York? That would be inconceivable, even if history was on the line. So for Mets fan to cheer a Phillie pitcher when their teams are competing doesn't suggest a rivalry, it actually suggests that the two teams are on fairly good terms, or at least neutral.

"The early sections of the rivalry are the foundation for the current one, so yes, the incidents there are fewer and further between. Bunning's game came first, then the poking of the hornet's nest by Tug McGraw, the brawls of the 80s, and then the realignments that led to the strengthening of the rivalry when the Pirates left the division (the major points of the early sections)." I disagree. Those sections don't support any rivalry at all. The McGraw section suggests that McGraw was personally bitter towards the Mets, a team he had played so hard for. But nothing says that that this trade created tension between the Mets and Phillies as a whole. That's an inference that isn't actually stated.

Likewise, the 1986 riots don't suggest anything about a deeper rivalry. Davey Johnson's comments weren't about hating the Phillies or inciting them; he was simply saying that it would be good to win against the only team that had a statistical chance to catch them. The rioting by Mets fans is not stated to be because of their hatred of the Phillies, but rather anxiety over the possibility of not clinching. Nothing in this article suggests that the Phillies or Mets hated each other more after these riots. The Phillies playing spoiler in 1987 isn't stated to have brought joy to the Phillies, they just simply were the team that derailed the Mets. Mets pitcher Mike Schmidt specifically gave the Phillies credit for breaking up a New York no-hitter. The 1988 season says nothing about any particular rivalry. Even the riot in 1989 has nothing to do with the rivalry. The source used to explain the fight, the New York Times, calls the riot "bizarre", and never states it occurred due to bad blood between the two teams. It just states the two men involved didn't like each other. Likewise, the 1990 riot is never stated to have occurred because of hatred between the two teams.

The page does say that the Pirates move out of the division solidified the rivalry between the Phillies and Mets, but it's an unfounded claim. The source used as evidence never suggests that now the rivalry will become more intense. It's particularly odd when you consider the fact that the Braves would enter the division and dominate everyone, which would necessitate that focus be upon them.

"I don't appreciate the implication that the article is "padded", because I, not "fans", did write a lot of this material. And though I am a fan, I do pride myself on making this an encyclopedia first." In my experience fans write about their teams on Wikipedia and tend to think that the team they personally dislike is a big rivalry. It's a natural reaction, and that's what I'm assuming. I'm not saying that you in particular are letting bias cloud your judgment, but I am saying that it happens a lot with these types of articles. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement that the article is padded and filled with revisionist history. You have to demonstrate from the sources how all these things mentioned above occurred specifically because of hatred between the two clubs. As thing stand now there's a lot of original research going on as well as assumptions throughout the article that a deep rivalry exists (see all the stuff I wrote above). Ultimahero (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So now we go from claiming a recentism focus to turning all of the hard work on this article into original research. That's just great. If you have a problem, then call for a GA reassessment. From what I've seen, this is just a pattern of a long line of complaints without fixing. So I'll leave it at that. — KV5 • Talk • 11:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

???? This is an attempt to fix it. I wasn't originally trying to take things this direction, but they just naturally evolved into this. Besides, we hadn't finished our discussion yet, so why would I start changing things before we had reached consensus? But, fine. That's exactly what I'll do.Ultimahero (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing naturally evolved. The discussion has completely shifted focus away from the original topic. Like I said: a pattern of a long line of complaints without fixing. — KV5 • Talk • 18:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've requested peer review as well as that the page be regraded on the quality scale.Ultimahero (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Do what you gotta do. I have more important work to do building an encyclopedia that trying to argue with you about tearing it down. — KV5 • Talk • 21:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tearing it down? If I feel that the article is full of original research and am trying to remove that, then I'm tearing the article down? You may not agree with my conclusion but it's unfair to say that I'm "tearing it down". It's addition by subtraction.Ultimahero (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And you may not care to believe that there is any other conclusion but yours, but I believe that you are tearing down and you are as entitled to your opinions as I am to mine. You do as you please; I'm done with this discussion. Yet another article I have to walk away from because of closed-mindedness. — KV5 • Talk • 21:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming incredibly bad faith. I'm not being close minded. I'm more than happy to discuss and listen. That's why I came here to talk before making sweeping changes. If you think I'm not being fair then tell me specifically why that is. You saw the edits I just made to the 2009-2010 seasons. Were they fair? If not please tell me why. But don't withhold critiques of the article while calling me close-minded.Ultimahero (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello KV5, we briefly corresponded regarding the Phillies-Pirates rivalry. I have similar but somewhat different concerns as Ultimahero, which I was expressing on Talk:New York Mets. User:SNIyer12 suggested that I contact you for some reason, and this seemed to be the most appropriate place and time to do it.

I also have fear Wikipedia:Recentism with respect to the Mets-Phillies rivalry article. While I believe you are correct that the rivalry is something that has truly developed in recent years, my fear is that on several other pages there have been sentences suggesting that these two teams have always been primary rivals. I found and removed such sentences, for instance, from Mets-Braves rivalry, because really the Phillies had nothing to do with the rivalry between the Mets and Braves between approximately 98-01. I see this article has a GA assessment, and frankly deserves it because it's in better shape than many rivalry articles. But I'm worried that this recent rivalry, because it has gotten press in the past few years, is being blown out of historical proportion when Mets-Phillies has never been this heated in the past, and I have seen no pre-2006 citations standing for the assertion that Mets-Phillies were always "primary rivals." Thanks. TempDog123 (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with you that a rivalry can exist even if one team is playing terribly. A more accurate analogy might have been to say that the Red Sox had infamous franchise setbacks and couldn't win a World Series for 86 years, during which time the Yankees were perpetual champions. Regardless, even during such time before the Red Sox finally won again in 2004, that was considered the preeminent baseball rivalry. I would also add that such a rivalry with clear historical significance stands in stark contrast to Mets-Phillies who, despite being in the same division, cannot be said to have historically competed to the same extent. TempDog123 (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the Phillies and Mets have not "historically competed to the same extent" as the Yankees and the Red Sox for many reasons, not the least of which is that the Mets have only been around since the 1960s. That said, there are no claims that the Phillies and the Mets were "primary rivals", now or prior to 2006, so I don't really understand your concern in the first paragraph. — KV5 • Talk • 11:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"there are no claims that the Phillies and the Mets were 'primary rivals', now or prior to 2006." Correction. Perhaps there are no claims in this article that they are primary rivals, but there have been in several other articles. I objected to such language and removed it, and was told to come to this talk page because it was a GA article and therefore should control the language in other articles such as New York Mets. It would appear that you believe such language is both unwarranted and not based on anything properly referenced in this article, so I suppose we're in agreement.TempDog123 (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, we are. Whoever has been making claims about "primary rivalries" without sources is in violation of WP:NOR and should be told about it. But considering that this talk page relates to this article, I assumed that this is the location to which you referred. — KV5 • Talk • 21:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I'm not saying that rivalries automatically cease to exist if teams aren't playing well. All I was trying to say was that sometimes two teams might have a couple of competitive seasons but then one fades away and the rivalry can effectively die. So teams playing well and consistently being competitive can help determine whether or not a true rivalry exists or if these two teams just happened to be hot at the same time.

I do think the article focuses too much on recent events. If the rivalry has gotten more intense these past few years then more info on those years is required but i don't think we need a game by game recap of each season. A couple summaries would suffice.Ultimahero (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In trimming, a ton of non-neutral and non-encyclopedic language, such as "looked as though they would make this year into another exciting playoff race" and "finished a disappointing fourth". MOS:DASH needs to be followed and is not. — KV5 • Talk • 21:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Then help trim it. Don't just sit there and complain.Ultimahero (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Forbes Source

I don't think the source from Forbes, "In Depth: Baseball's Most Intense Rivalry", should be utilized because it's not a good source. There are multiple problems with it.

1. Forbes - Forbes is a magazine that specializes in finance and wealth. It's not a sports magazine and thus does not employ sports journalists. This would be like ESPN attempting to write article on "The most influential billionaires". It's simply outside of their element of expertise. Now this doesn't automatically disqualify them, but as an encyclopedia the sources we use should reflect expertise on a particular subject.

2. The author, Matt Woolsey - I don't know anything about the guy, but as far I can tell he doesn't have any training in sports journalism specifically. That would suggest that he writes as a fan and has no more credibility to speak on sports issues than I would. (If he isn't paid to cover games then we have no way of knowing if he even watches a particular sport or team on a regular basis.) I glanced through the archives of the articles he written and, of the hundreds available, I saw only five other that were sports related (not counting financial lists such as highest paid athletes.) Of those five, only one was about baseball, and that was about Fantasy Baseball. (http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/23/underrated-baseball-players-lifestyle-sports-fantasy-baseball.html) Furthermore, in that article he doesn't claim to be an authority on the subject and repeatedly appeals to those whom he considers to be so. Thus, I see no reason to take this man and consider his work to be anything more than what an average fan could come up with.

3. Factual errors - This source provides a subjective list of the ten "most intense" rivalries in the MLB. I only focused on the Mets-Phillies ranking, as that's what this article is about, and I noticed several factual errors. First, Woolsey states that the two teams have finished within 5 games of each other 8 times in their histories. However, I went through and counted season by season and I count at least twelve. (1968, 1975, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2008.) That's no small issue; adding those four uncounted seasons results in a 50% increase of data. Second, Woolsey states that the Mets and Phillies have finished 1/2 in the division 3 times. However, I count at least 4 times they have done so: 1986, 2006, 2007, and 2008. How can this article be considered good if it makes the most fundamental errors? There are five separate seasons omitted from Woolsey's count, and that's just in this one match-up. How many other errors exists in the other nine ranked rivals?

4. Usefulness - The article doesn't define what it means by "intense". Is this an all-time ranking, or just a ranking of which teams are currently engaged in fierce rivalries? This is an important issue but it's never defined. Also, the numbers Woolsey uses don't make sense. For example, he counts the number of times the teams finished within 5 games of each other and cites that of evidence of a good rivalry. However, he doesn't seem to distinguish between seasons where both teams did well and both teams performed horribly. For the Mets-Phillies, 1992 season where the teams finished last and next-to-last in the NL East is counted and given just as much weight as the 2007 season where they finished 1st and second. How does this make any sense?

Thus I see no reason to view this source as having any weight for Wikipedia and would request that we remove it.Ultimahero (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Since no one objected I will remove the source.Ultimahero (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

William Shea

This section seems to be the product of original research. The article seems to imply that the the Phillies wanted to capitalize on the lack of a NL team in New York, possibly by moving closer. Then, when Shea stepped in a new NL team was created that occupied NY. So the implication would seem to be that the Phillies ownership were bitter at Shea and the Mets for getting in their way. However, this is never stated in the article so it's unclear how this impacted the supposed rivalry. There are no quotes saying that the Phillies were mad afterwards. So trying to connect this to the rivalry seems to be original research.I've blocked it out (not deleted it) just like the racism section until sources can prove this.Ultimahero (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree to have the section removed. William Shea had contacted the Phillies, but they turned down his suggestion about moving to New York. It had no impact on the rivalry. – SNIyer12, (talk), 13:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Regional Proximity

This section is also the product of original research. It suggests that past Phillies matchups between them and the Dodgers, Giants or Yankees impacted the rivalry with the Mets. However, there are no sources to back this up. (There is a source, The Playoff and Word Series Index, which confirms that the teams played each other, but no source that confirms a rivalry grew from those matchups.) It's a unsubstantiated assertion. Further, the article attempts to imply that rivalries from other sports (Eagles/Giants or Rangers/Flyers) somehow has an impact on this MLB matchup. However, there are once again no sources that back that claim up. It just a baseless assertion. Without competent sources this section should not remain. I've blocked it out (not deleted it) just like the racism section until sources can prove this.Ultimahero (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

On the regional proximity, both the Mets and the Phillies have fans in New Jersey, there's proximity between the two cities, and the natural rivalry. In 2004, there was an article in The Star-Ledger about what team Mets fans are able to rile up. One source: "METS CAN'T EVEN PICK A GOOD FIGHT", April 4, 2004, by David Waldstein. Sports section, page 9. A player on the Mets who grew up a Mets fan said in the article about rivalries in other sports: "You've got the proximity, a natural rivalry between the cities, and there are fans of both clubs in Jersey." It was also made evident during the press conference announcing the 2012 NHL Winter Classic, as it's a showdown between the New York Rangers and the Philadelphia Flyers. – SNIyer12, (talk), 13:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How about some links, please?Ultimahero (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm searching for some links. – SNIyer12, (talk), 13:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Phillies matchups between them and the Dodgers, Giants, or Yankees did not have an impact on the rivalry with the Mets. Many links I found also make evident that the other New York–Philadelphia showdowns in other sports have an impact on the matchup. I've seen that the fans from both cities dislike each other. They also say that be it be Mets–Phillies, Giants–Eagles, or Rangers–Flyers, showdowns between New York and Philadelphia teams are often very intense, hard hitting affairs. – SNIyer12, (talk), 16:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mets–Phillies rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081103104223/http://www.nypost.com/seven/10312008/sports/mets/rollins_takes_shot_at_mets_136236.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/10312008/sports/mets/rollins_takes_shot_at_mets_136236.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)