G-Fafif

Edgy DC wrote: Though that's a hard claim to make, it certainly wasn't good. I'd choose it over Mr. 3000 for instance. You'd be disapponted to hear, Yancy, that 61* is pretty good. "Mr. 3000" was dreadful (the Brewers played three home series against the Astros in September, for example), but it was garden-variety dreadful. "For Love of the Game" was overwrought Yankee-loving crap that got just about everything wrong. Costner driving to Yankee Stadium even though he's that day's pitcher for Detroit (and isn't from New York)? The scared rookie being sent up for his first at-bat as the potential last out in a perfect game? The frigging inability of the witless screenwriter to have the bartender at JFK who hates the Yankees not utter four simple words: "I'm a Mets fan"? Lakeland, Fla. being portrayed as a beachside paradise? The mere idea that a ballplayer needs to give his thumbs-up on a trade at the end of September? Geez I hate that movie more than a thousand "Slugger's Wife"s. (Good soundtrack, though.)

="Johnny Dickshot"]Healy and Munson both appeared in scenes wearing their hats backwards -- the time-honored movie trick of indicating they were catchers. In "For Love of the Game," Catcher John C. Reilly did not wear his Tigers cap backwards but he did wear it away from the ballpark, which is considered a major faux pas. During the replacement player gig in '95, a couple of Yankee temps went to a Fort Lauderdale mall rocking their team-approved headgear and Buck Showalter's coaches went nuts...you just don't do that! Reilly could have worn a fruit basket on his head. "For Love of the Game" was quite possibly the worst baseball movie ever.

Healy is listed as a consulting producer or something showbizzy. Glad Fran is gettin' paid for being Fran. Painting the visitors' clubhouse at Al Lang orange and blue was a nice touch (though it could have been red and white for the Cardinals, come to think of it). Book is pretty good. Yankees are not really the focus of it. Jonathan Mahler devoted a segment of it to the Seaver trade, which is the most resonant reason to remember the summer of '77 (ladies and gentlemen, Queens grew quiet). The more buffoonish they make Big Stein, the better. When I first heard of the .44 Caliber Killer at 14, I thought it was an overwrought nickname the News pinned on Jackson. I wasn't paying attention.

Gwreck wrote: Didn't Pedro Feliciano get it done in the 9th with everything on the line, too? And Joe Smith in the 12th? If they don't get it done there, Beltran doesn't even have a chance. P.S. Before the 14th, Carlos didn't exactly have a great game, either. He's failed to get it done in the 6th, 8th, 11th, and 13th. You're absolutely correct about all of that. Yet in 5, 10, 20 years should I be so lucky, I won't find myself retelling the story of that great night in Houston when Pedro Feliciano retired Lance Berkman. A few times a season, one owes it to oneself to get lost in the moment. For what it's worth, Willie Mays went 0-for-3 with two walks in the first game of the 1954 World Series, the one in which he made the catch I thought of Saturday night after Beltran made his. Retroactively, I'd find a way to give Mays the six points in the Knickerbocker Player of the Game voting. (And the other four to Dusty Rhodes.)

Edgy DC wrote: A fine tribute to Mrs. Fafif. Thus my recurring chants of "MVP!" when she walks into the room.

metirish wrote: Very varied voting for the 17 inning game,specifically for Beltran. I gave Beltran my first "6" of the year. Since I refuse to slice and dice any thinner than a half-point, I realized that would leave a lot of deserving Mets dry and I felt a little bad about that (especially considering the bonuses the players get based on our support). But dang it, I reasoned, if making the play of the year (of several years) in the fourteenth inning with everything on the line AND driving in the winning run isn't overwhelming Player of the Game stuff, then what is? Spreading the credit around because it takes a village to win an epic ballgame is a valid impulse. But I have the feeling if we had been running this exercise for the Giants on October 3, 1951, we'd have given Bobby Thomson no more than 2.5 points for his world-heard shot because how can you overlook Sal Maglie and Whitey Lockman and we have to give a point to Larry Jansen for holding the Dodgers in the ninth. (We'd also be all "WHOA! WHAT IS THAT MACHINE? A COMPUTER? WHAT'S THAT?")

My interest in the 2007 All-Star Game is higher in anticipation of it than it will be while it is taking place. It's one of those events that I get excited about until it's actually going on, but I usually stick with it, albeit with not a little flipping (the remote, not the bird, save for when Jeter is being endlessly and nauseatingly sucked up to). I was one of those kids who lived for the introductions and the insertion of the token Met and I guess I still am at heart. If the fans as a whole are thoughtful enough to put three of our boys in the lineup, I sure as hell will be there to cheer them on.

Yancy Street Gang wrote: For a few years in the 1960's there were two. I'm not aware of the exact reasons why they decided to do that, nor why they decided to abandon the idea so quickly. 1959-1962 had two each to beef up the pension pool. It began to lose its luster so they scaled back.

Edgy DC wrote: We'll get our vactions in without worrying about missing ball. This is at odds with just about every summer vacation plan of mine revolving around visiting a major league ballpark.

Reyes 1 Beltran 1 Newhan 1 Alomar 1 Sele 1 Schoeneweis 0.5 Gotay 0.5

Box: http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270708118

Beltran 6 Wright 3 Gotay 0.5 Sele 0.5

Easley 0.5

The "don't go, it's only encouraging them" argument is a familiar one. Allegedly the Maras in the late '70s would never fix the football Giants because the same 77,691 would show up at the Meadowlands regardless of record. Some tickets were burned, a plane flew a disagreeable message (15 YEARS OF LOUSY FOOTBALL -- WE'VE HAD ENOUGH) and a handoff turned into a calamity if not necessarily in that order. But Giants fans kept going. And the team got better. The Maras didn't like losing any more than their fans did. The Phillies have drawn very well since Citizens Bank opened. The novelty has not worn off and the Phillies have been competitive if not ultimately successful these past few seasons. It's a pretty good business model, on the field and off. Had the Phillies won three of four, would the attendance be hailed by this columnist as the fuel allowing the team to make such great progress, so let's keep going? I'm not tuned into the Philies' front office, but I'm assuming its trying to build and maintain a winner. To suggest you, the Phillies fan, are making them too phat and happy with coming up short by spending your entertainment dollar with them seems rather ludicrous. The CBP novelty will wear off eventually anyway.

Great fixing. Rick Peterson couldn't have done it better or faster.

Maine 4 Castro 2.5 Delgado 2 Ledee 1.5

How much looking up of David Wright can one fan base do in one season? Not that UMDB shouldn't be the fast 'n' first source for all Met biography, but after a while, wouldn't everybody who needs to know something about David Wright have gleaned it already? He's kind of a mass-market paperback open book.

I positively loved Gary Carter's defensive explanation that while the Mets hugged each other as part of their continual celebrations, that he and Ray Knight were as manly as they come. Oh to live in a world where publishers are sure there's an audience for the thoughts of every single Met.

But do you slice its selection process as finely as Keith Law does?

Jay Bell's Mets career is one of the few in my sentient lifetime that I almost always forget occurred, even if it took place just four years ago. He didn't do enough for it to be memorable (a la Mike Hampton) and did too much for it to be trivial (like maybe Jeff Duncan). It's just, "Oh yeah, Jay Bell was a Met, wasn't he?" Kind of like Willie Randolph's playing tenure would be if a) Willie hadn't mentioned being a Mets fan as a kid which always made me forgive his resume while he was building it, he hadn't hung around the NY baseball scene for the next dozen years and c) he hadn't become Willie Randolph, Mets manager. If there's a question that would require me to name nine Mets who did something specific, chances are Jay Bell would be my elusive ninth if in fact such a question exists.

If Mets Guy in Michigan is outcrying, that's critical enough mass for me. (ITA that Maine was screwed.) Metirish, thanks for posting Keith Law's observations, which are very well considered and articulated. Except I can't understand how some baseball fans, like him apparently, don't tune in the All-Star Game. I can see tuning out after a few minutes, but it's still an unmatched occasion on the calendar. In Law's case, I can't see making such wonderful pro and con arguments, being that knowledgeable on the subject and then saying "I don't really care enough to watch." Reminds me of an astronomy professor in college who didn't think it was worth pausing class for ten minutes to watch a space shuttle launch when those were really big news (and she was carrying a radio into class to listen to the preflight countdown...and we were in Florida where it was even bigger news because Cape Canaveral was right across the state). The ASG can get boring fast. I can see giving up on it. I can see not cancelling plans to watch it. But it's the All-Star Game. Hard to ignore altogether.

Now to turn rationalizer/apologist: If the show in question was on Babe Ruth or Duke Snider, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been able to tell if they were using the right year's footage over a given anecdote. Perhaps '68 was what was available and they figured young Seaver in an All-Star setting was representative enough even if the first thing I thought when I heard "Anaheim" and saw a Mets home uniform was "hey, that's the Astrodome." I'd mention it to somebody, except the folks who produce "Mets Weekly" are with a separate company while the Seaver interview was an SNY thing and I don't know those guys (though I suppose there's always the "Dear Sirs" option.) Gwreck: Glad you saw my cameo. I think I'm on again this week when the subject turns to a less-loved late '80s Mets second baseman. (FYI, still doing some writing/consulting for the show; will alert anybody interested when those segments come to light.) Edgy: "The anal-retentive chef" was one of my all-time favorite bits. Come to think of it, I probably hadn't used that phrase since the loss of Phil Hartman. You're right, though. We shouldn't brush off inaccuracy by blaming ourselves for noticing it.

Wright 3 Lo Duca 2 Green 1 Gotay 0.5

Box: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270704127

Castro 1.5