G-Fafif

Y'know who's gonna beat the Cardinals? These guys: Conforto CF Céspedes LF Cabrera 2B Frazier 3B Bruce RF Gonzalez 1B Rosario SS Nido C Wheeler RHP

Edgy MD wrote: This game may be historic if it's the debut of Matt Harvey, relief pitcher. The 2018 debut. Harvey dipped a toe into his future role last September when Syndergaard was doing his inning-and-out rehab.

cooby wrote: So they must have started around mid April that year? First Mets game ever scheduled: April 10, 1962. First Mets game ever rained out: April 10, 1962. First Mets game ever played: April 11, 1962. First Mets game ever lost: April 11, 1962. First Mets game ever won: April 23, 1962.

Centerfield wrote: G-Fafif wrote: I have to question why the Mets felt compelled to place Zerg and X7 on the cover in 2114. Sure, they proved popular, but at the time Zerg's circuits were loose and X7 hadn't yet hit a single phleg in Mets armor. And made absolutely no mention of Bobby Bonilla finally coming off the payroll. Sore subject for Qzrbyg Wilpon IV.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I see three different 2015 World Series covers. One that features the Mets, one the features the Royals, and one that shows both teams. Maybe the Mets version and the Royals version was the one you'd get at the ballpark, but the mixed version was for collectors who ordered online? Much like SI does regional covers, I guess MLB does the same for this occasion. Come to think of it, they produce a different All-Star program cover for each team for their own ballpark sales and what have you. Seems like pandering.

The '73 NLCS cover is the '73 regular-season cover, except with an orange background. It was green during the summer. Recalling '86 and '88 in that vein, too. Mets programs for the NLDS have been team-produced and variations on what's been sold all year. It gets MLBized in the NLCS.

41Forever wrote: Braves already at this point have claimed the moon. Despite the moon being uninhabited, they team still draws more than they did in Atlanta. Think the Mets will ever figure a way to get Crater Jones out?

It looks like somebody is going through Yearbook Cover Derby withdrawal during this week-long hiatus. Too bad you don't have the images for those two covers. Fortunately, I do have the cover of the 2093 yearbook. It nicely commemorates the 100th anniversary of the much-loved 1993 cover: Interesting fact: "Mercury Mets" originally started out as sort of a gag, but wound up prescient, as we know from the way the 2043 Mets split their schedule between planets.

I have to question why the Mets felt compelled to place Zerg and X7 on the cover in 2114. Sure, they proved popular, but at the time Zerg's circuits were loose and X7 hadn't yet hit a single phleg in Mets armor. The 50th anniversary tribute to the 2018 championship is all askew. I appreciate the commemorative patch, but it was salt and pepper, not Assault & Paprika. Maybe someday the Mets will get their history in order. I'm still deciding on who to vote for. Gonna be tough for either to beat the floating Baby Met from 2062.

Meadow Dressen fans must have felt slighted.

The Mets won their first game ever on this date in 1962, 9-1. The Daily News commemorated the occasion by flashing back to Dick Young's coverage here. He has Jack Lamabe's hometown wrong (it's Farmingdale, not Farmington) and I'm pretty sure he meant to refer to "Beegee Smith," not "Geegee Smith," when he was noting Bobby Gene Smith hitting the first triple in Mets history, but he was on deadline, had no Baseball-Reference and was writing up something that had never happened before. It also hadn't happened that a Mets game (there'd been only nine to date) hadn't been televised, but this one, the inaugural triumph, was radio-only. Dick wasn't pleased: "Somebody goofed." "Break up the Mets!" Joe Ginsberg exclaimed in the clubhouse. George Weiss listened, releasing the backup catcher about a week later. The Mets got the back page, and a triumphant Casey was the front page picture, but the wood, as it were, was EXPECT ROCKET TO HIT MOON. Anything was possible if the Mets could win. On that same day, the Ranger IV Atlas-Agena rocket took off from Cape Canaveral, headed for the dark side of the moon three days later. President Kennedy had already challenged the nation to get a man in such a rocket and get him to the moon before the decade was out, adding, in September of '62, "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Both NASA and the Mets were on the clock for 1969. The Mets have won an additional 4,298 games since. Next win is No. 4,300. And the Mets are still in orbit.

There's a reason the 1995 cover looks like it could generically replace any Mets yearbook cover if you adjusted the year (or any team's yearbook cover if you switched out logos). It was created for the season when the Mets didn't know who would be Mets. Remember, they, like everybody else in MLB (save for the Orioles), was ready to play real games with replacement players. No chance they'd show off Kent, Vizcaino, Brogna, Franco, Bonilla, Saberhagen or any striking brand-name Met. No names, no faces, just the idea that players who wore Mets uniforms would be enough for you, the undiscriminating fan, never mind that they literally picked them up off the street the month before last. When replacement baseball was ruled out of order by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the cover was apparently judged good enough to stick around, even if the likes of Bubba Wagnon weren't. Feh on principle. The 1984 cover is not an artistic triumph (they didn't waste a lot of resources designing that nameplate), but I like the statement it makes. For the first time in some time, they have three legitimate stars on the roster. The reigning Rookie of the Year from whom more is expected soon. The veteran Gold Glove first baseman with the proven lethal bat and plenty of prime left. And the closer who shut down everybody in 1983. It's a throwback to the Heads of '69, in a way, except with chests and shoulders included. Darryl, Keith and Jesse are looking to the future. Little did we know how soon it was about to start. All we had to do was turn the page. 1984 was my first presidential election as a voter and is my final vote in the first round of this tournament. SymMETry, indeed.

From the blink/miss corner of the Mets in Popular Culture: [fimg=400]http://i67.tinypic.com/29yl6dd.jpg[/fimg] And this, which is connected to Faith and Fear's appearance on Madam Secretary: “They’re winning, 7-2, ninth inning. But watch, they will find a way to blow it. This closer is horrible.” “Who are they playing?” “Philly. Remember how you used to hate the Phillies? You went crazy when they traded Dykstra and McDowell for that — what the hell was that guy’s name?” “Juan Samuel.” “Juan Samuel. That was a horrible trade.” —Father (Elliott Gould as Bob Kroll), watching a Mets game on the living room TV, and son (Jemaine Clement as Nate Kroll), coming downstairs for a snack, bonding for an instant over baseball, Humor Me (2017) Also in Humor Me, among the items Nate finds in his father Bob’s storage locker are “ticket stubs from Mets games”. As previously noted, the director of Humor Me and the Madam Secretary episode in which Jason and I appeared, Sam Hoffman, is a Mets fan and Faith and Fear reader who alerted me to the inclusion of the infamous 1989 trade in his script. I watched the movie this weekend. Very warm, very funny, very satisfying. He reports that Clement, from New Zealand, "was a sport to say "Juan Samuel" with an American accent in five different takes."

Why can't they just ship some nice weather to where it's raining?

bmfc1 wrote: A rainout could mean a DH on either May 28, 29 or 30 (perhaps a Memorial Day DH). Called it! Both the game and the makeup: May 28 makeup, day-night, 1 PM and 7 PM. Nicely visionary, bmfc1.

Should they play, today is Cabrera's first time batting cleanup since Opening Day. He's batted leadoff five times, second five times, third four times and fifth four times. Mickey must love this guy.

June 11 is a mutual off day for the teams talked up by the radio guys as the landing spot for a possible makeup game. Mets will be in town in advance of a two-game series.

These Phuckers are on phire and now sit a half-game back of the human without catchers Mets.

The 2007 cover isn't bad for what it is, which is what I seem to say a lot about the decent covers from the later years. Low expectations abound for everything since we expected more out of 1987 -- both the yearbook cover and the standings. This seemed to be the first edition in shall we say modern times where the Mets began shifting definitively away from black as a defining hue, and it helps matters. I like the message that this yearbook is our ticket to Mets action in our season that has come (or, as JCL so memorably put it, come in its pants). The Mets have a collection of standouts entering 2007 and they've collected them here in easily sorted fashion. Interesting to see Willie Randolph is as much a featured player as the players. That wouldn't last. The orange field is a plus. The blue trim complements it well. Effective communication that the Big Three of Beltran, Wright and Reyes are, in fact, a little bigger than the other big names. I'll forgive the inclusion of Gl@v!ne. I rooted for him until I didn't. 1973 holds a huge sentimental advantage. That's the first yearbook I ever bought at Shea Stadium, at my first game there. First thing I did once I handed over my three quarters was study the cover. It is because of this cover that I have had no problem identifying every Met All-Star from every Met year. When I started being able to tick them off, from Ashburn to Conforto, I'd mentally pause at Kranepool in 1965 and think of this cover. I'd had no idea Eddie had been an All-Star just like Seaver and Harrelson and Mays. But he was. It's right there in an ornate frame. I knew about Rusty with the Expos if not the Astros. I was aware of Fregosi's credentials. Grote? Not sure if that was new information from this. Whatever I didn't know before July 11, 1973, I knew forever after. That All-Star stuff stuck with me. It also made me wonder how we were languishing in last place despite the presence of eleven All-Stars past and present. Mostly past, I suppose (especially Fregosi, who was on his way to Texas that very day). But still, pretty impressive. You make an All-Star team, it gets remembered. You're as suitable for framing as the full-color team picture within. The red background? I don't get that at all, but it's what they used and I never had cause to question it when I was a ten or until I was fifty-five. But I don't question it much. 1973's is a starry, starry presentation that set my yearbook expectations sky high. They haven't come down since, sentimentally or otherwise.

Interesting that Bautista was sent back to Binghamton. You'd figure a little MLB time would get him Vegas.

Corey's back, Gerson's down.

2015 is a pretty smooth cover. Perhaps inspired by Hollywood Squares or The Brady Bunch. It was actually well thought out for a contemporary iteration. The corners and the center players are in blue jerseys, the top and side middle Mets are in pinstripes. They could have had fun with the tic-tac-toe nature of the design but didn't want to be too silly, apparently. That's what's missing from this decade's output, most of which hasn't been atrocious. Other than 2017's subtle but smart "we've got each other's backs" motif, there's no trace of whimsy, no playfulness, no "isn't baseball the most?" David and Curtis smiling at the bottom of the staircase the Mets were ready to start ascending in 2014 was pleasant in an obligatory sort of way. The 2012 and 2013 historical pastiches were treats as treasure hunts, but little about it popped. The 2015 team turned out to be more fun than a barrel of Mackeys (if not Mookies). Their yearbook could have been an emblem of the fun to come. Instead, it just looks handsome and then sits politely. C'mon 2015, show us your personality. It's dying to come out. You want whimsical? You want Willard. He's the most! Mullin's Mets had the most fans in town and the fans had the most fun in baseball. 1965's cover feels of its time artistically and timeless in terms of baseball like it oughta be. A crowd. A kid. A Fair next door, even. You gaze at this and I ask you: is there anyplace you'd want to be more than SHEA STADIUM NEW YORK? Is there anything you'd rather put down FIFTY CENTS for than YEAR BOOK 1965? The googly-eyed "OO" alone is worth the eight bits. (Save a couple of bucks for Beatles '65 -- turn it on while you flip through and you'll feel fine.) Other than 1962, 1965 seems to be the year from which I don't have any yearbook, revised, reprinted or otherwise. If I came across it, I think I'd swoon. Or SWOON.

Carlos Torres called up by Nats. Double traitor.

seawolf17 wrote: Damn, Greg. That's fantastic work! Thanks. Yearbook fever has its benefits.

Except for Kid mysteriously pictured in Spring Training garb, the 1988 cover is a worthy successor to the 1972 cover, featuring the main guys doing their thing. The covers hadn't done much with players playing in the interim, and though it would grow stale as a concept, I think it works here. Sadly, it is not a worthy successor to the 1987 cover in that it should've featured two consecutively won World Series trophies. That regret hung over me when I purchased this edition 31 years ago. Not that it still does. Prior to this tournament, I never saw the revised 1991 edition. It may be, all things considered, the weirdest entrant in our field of 64. First off, they had a classy cover to start 1991 and they didn't make any stunning personnel moves to necessitate wiping it away. Second, it didn't take long for Hubie to show his age and Coleman to show his ass. Third, all this serves to do is remind us who was no longer playing the outfield for the Mets, as this duo essentially replaced one superstar in Darryl Strawberry. Or attempted to. The pile of bags is a clever enough touch for a player whose sole skill was stealing bases (a skill not on display nearly as much as it had been in his previous location), but, seriously, even early in his tenure, who the fuck wants to look at Vince Coleman? Poor Hubie. I've always been sorry he was sent away just as things were getting good and was brought back just as things were getting awful. All-Star status in Montreal notwithstanding, he deserved better. That said, he's not somebody I ever considered synonymous with slugging, so the bit with him and three bats is a reach. I might take Biligual Bonilla over 1991 revised. I'll definitely take 1988.