Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.09 1976 vs 2004

[Benjamin Grimm]

1976



2004

[seawolf17]

Mr. Met is going to get my vote pretty much every time, especially over whatever 2004 is.

[stevejrogers]

2004 is trying too hard to be a 1980s brochure or prospective cover.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

what's 2004 trying to tell us with "BASEBALL"?

[Benjamin Grimm]

A lot of these later covers suffer from the existence of digital photo editing tools. It allows the cover designer to easily go overboard. I think the "graph paper" idea is pretty creative, but unfortunately it's not executed all that well.

The 1976 Bicentennial cover is one of only two yearbook covers to feature Mr. Met, and both are in the cartoon form. I suppose it's inevitable that the costumed Mr. Met will appear on a cover, most likely during one of the down periods when there aren't any star players for the team to highlight. The other Mr. Met cover has already appeared in this competition. It's the 1963 cover which currently has a healthy lead over 2017 in Round 1.05.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I have Bicentennial Mr. Met in the Final Four in my bracket pool.

[Guest 41Forever]

Not sure the tri-corner hat came out well, but I remember buying that at Shea as a kid, attending with my Grandmother and thinking it was the coolest thing ever!

[Benjamin Grimm]

I kinda like that the blue on Mr. Met looks like it was colored in with a felt-tip marker.

[G-Fafif]

The i-word seems apropos here: the 1976 cover is iconic. There's no doubting what year its from. It could have been cribbed from some kid's banner, and that's a compliment. Plus, you've got that mailing address. It's just so good-spirited...the Spirit of '76!

There are two particularly appealing images within the 2004 grid, both of them unfortunately presented, like all the others, as postage stamps. had they featured either the Shea 40th anniversary patch or Piazza accepting walkoff congratulations (which ended a game I had to leave early), it could have been a contender. Hell, if they had composed the cover with the Leiter pitching picture facing the Piazza swinging picture -- two verticals -- it would have been not only featured your two stars, but it would have echoed the neon figures from the Shea patch. Instead, it comes off as homework hurriedly completed on the bus.

This one will cover the spread and then some on merit. In this battle of election years, the vote is for 1976.

[Edgy MD]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I kinda like that the blue on Mr. Met looks like it was colored in with a felt-tip marker.

There's something charmingly DIY about being about to see the artist's pen strokes.

Of course, before the year was out, the whole organization would become not-so-charmingly DIY.

[G-Fafif]

Edgy MD wrote: Of course, before the year was out, the whole organization would become not-so-charmingly DIY.

My only reticence in voting for 1976 came from knowing there is a page within devoted to Mickey Lolich inside instead of a page devoted to Rusty Staub.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Poor Mickey. It wasn't his fault.
.

[G-Fafif]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Poor Mickey. It wasn't his fault.

It wasn't. Just tough to look at the '76 yearbook this week and think about who's not in there.

I was at a fever pitch the entirety of the 1975 season. Staub-for-Lolich, as soon as it happened, brought everything down a notch in advance of '76. But not Lolich's fault, just as it's not Mr. Bicentennial Met's.

[batmagadanleadoff]

G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Poor Mickey. It wasn't his fault. It wasn't. Just tough to look at the '76 yearbook this week and think about who's not in there. I was at a fever pitch the entirety of the 1975 season. Staub-for-Lolich, as soon as it happened, brought everything down a notch in advance of '76. But not Lolich's fault, just as it's not Mr. Bicentennial Met's.

I didn't think you were taking it out on Mickey. (If you wanna pretend that Staub was a '76 Met, pull out his '76 Topps card. It's my favorite Staub Mets card.) I just felt like sticking up for him, some, because Mets fans of that generation sure do have it in for him. Lolich, in '76 was an extremely solid back of the rotation pitcher for what was baseball's best staff. Those '76 Mets were very competitive and gave us fans many thrills, including Koosman's Cy Young caliber showing and the pleasure of hearing or reading the words Kingman and Maris in the same sentence for much of the season.

I voted for the '76 cover for pretty much the same reasons already stated.

[G-Fafif]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I just felt like sticking up for him, some, because Mets fans of that generation sure do have it in for him. Lolich, in '76 was an extremely solid back of the rotation pitcher for what was baseball's best staff.

I believe I learned the phrase "snakebit" from Bob Murphy that season, because he applied it so often to Lolich's lousy luck, pitching well, not getting run support. He'd be using it for Koosman a year later.

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: A lot of these later covers suffer from the existence of digital photo editing tools. It allows the cover designer to easily go overboard.

Yes. By trying to show more they wind up showing less.

[Zvon]

Waaaaaay too much wasted space on the 2004 YB cover.

[Lefty Specialist]

I was thinking, "A lot of missing pieces, just like the team portrayed in it".

Boy, think what an easy target Mr. Met would have been for the Redcoats in the Revolution. He wouldn't have survived Lexington or Concord with that giant noggin. Despite that, I was in the Spirit of '76.

[Zvon]

Lefty Specialist wrote: I was thinking, "A lot of missing pieces, just like the team portrayed in it". Boy, think what an easy target Mr. Met would have been for the Redcoats in the Revolution. He wouldn't have survived Lexington or Concord with that giant noggin. Despite that, I was in the Spirit of '76.

lol. If I was quick I'd whip up a .gif of him outrunning cannonballs and musket shells.