Mets Red Pill vs Blue Pill: Win Game One of the 2000 or 2015 World Series?

The last two trips to the World Series for the New York Mets ended with a single win in the best of seven. Each included a loss in Game One in what was a winnable match to start the series.

You have a choice to make. Do you take the red pill and the Mets win Game One of the 2000 World Series or swallow the blue and win the opener of the 2015 World Series? Your answer may be generational, but instead of trying to tie your decision to how old you were at the time, consider which would have benefitted them more.

The case to take the red pill and a Mets win against the Yankees

Beating the New York Yankees and ending their dynasty would have been something Mets fans would've bragged about for decades. There isn't a team others wanted to take down more during that era. So, strictly looking at the opponent, the red pill is tempting.

Before grabbing the red pill, we do need to consider how likely the Mets could have continued to play well and win games. The Yankees were the superior ball club in 2000. Would taking momentum in the first game have been enough?

It's easy to point at one moment from the game. Knotted up at 0-0 in the top of the sixth, Todd Zeile came just shy of hitting a two-run home run. Unfortunately, coming shy of a dinger had some terrible consequences. Mets outfielder Timo Perez was gunned down at home trying to score from first base on the double. The out ended the inning and gave the Yankees their chance to take the lead the next inning beginning with a single by Jose Vizcaino to get the rally started.

The Mets had ample opportunities to win what would be a 12-inning affair with a final score of 4-3 in favor of the other New York team. The Mets dropped the next game as well before finally earning their lone victory in Game Three. What if things had gone differently? What if you took the red pill and they won the first game?

The case to take the blue pill and a Mets win against the Royals

The more recent Mets World Series trip took place in 2015 versus the Kansas City Royals. Less expected, a similar twist in Game One took away leverage from the Mets and handed it to the Royals.

Mets fans had some flashbacks in this one. More extra innings, 14 this time, is what it took for a winner to be declared. The Mets took a 4-3 lead in the top of the eighth. The score held until there was one out in the bottom of the ninth when closer Jeurys Familiar tried to quick pitch against Alex Gordon. One swing and the score was tied at 4.

The Mets let multiple games get away from them in this series. Blowing leads was the big story. Errors by the infield, both on the score sheet and in the mental game, cost them. Would a Game One victory have helped change the narrative enough?

The blue pill might seem safer because of how much weaker the 2015 Royals were compared to the mighty 2000 Yankees. However, for the sake of owning the Big Apple, the red pill is impossibly tempting. It’s not as if the Yankees pummeled the Mets into submission.

Grab a glass of water. The time to take your medicine has arrived. Which pill do you accept?